Do we live in the matrix?

[3bob]

Songtsan, Ramp that up to the mostly invisible to us "heavenly" realms and forms or processes of consumption are still taking place just with a different and non-malice feeling that is opposite to that which Taomeow is bringing up as derangement.   Also at the last crossroads - so to speak - only the, "Supreme Being is the eater of death" to give a paraphrased excerpt from an Upanishad.

Edited December 12, 2015 by 3bob

[Taomeow]

Well then, what about parasites? Read the book 'Parasite Rex' - I don't agree that we are anthromorphisizing these patterns. There ain't no free. There is always another organism trying to take from you,, infest you,, use you in some way, whether its the flies that gather around a horses eyes ( drinking their 'eye juice').

 

http://boingboing.net/2009/04/01/ant-slaves-murderous.html

 

So the ant slavery is not a far fetched empirical observation, its been known for decades. And parasites, as well as related viruses, bacteria, etc. Could be likened to slavery. And there are other animals that 'farm' plants and other materials. Is agriculture slavery? What about between different plants? Black Wallnut trees basically kill off most vegetation around themselves. Its not just tooth and nail out here, its root and stem, pseudopod and spore....the lines between parasitism and symbiosis is often blurred.

 

Slavery is when the species enslaved degrades into a pale ghost of its natural self and/or disappears.  If it's going on for hundreds of millions of years (as is the case with ants) without destroying the host species, it's not slavery, it's symbiosis.  Just like you are symbiotic with all the bacteria in your gut -- 1,5 pound of them -- they take something from you, but they also give plenty in return.  You can be sterilized of them with antibiotics and they won't take from you -- but then you will be quite unhappy because it's a give and take, and once they don't take, they don't give and you have to learn to live without vitamin K (they make it) and it means any number of blood disorders -- to say nothing of a screwed up digestion, assimilation, elimination and so on.  

 

Yes, I repeat -- we interpret symbiotic relationships as parasitic invasions because we anthropomorphise.   No parasite in its right mind will invade the host species to extinction, they are not suicidal.  We are.  That's why we ascribe our sentiments to parasitic animals.  But they aren't idiots even on the viral level of intelligence.  Why do you think the flu virus does not mutate to be 100% lethal?  It could -- easily.  It won't -- it's not suicidal.  However, lab-created, man-made viruses, weaponized ones, are like that.  We are not interested in their survival when we create our killer machines.  The natural ones are, however.  

 

The Black Plague, incidentally, was a man-made ecological event.  The outcome of the witch hunts which the inquisition extended to cats -- burning at the stake, alongside witches, nearly all of Europe's tens of millions of cats.  Bad idea for an agricultural society storing grains for their staple food, which rats are so interested in.  Instead of a few rats making it to those storage facilities, the rest being kept at bay by cats, you get hundreds of millions.  At this rate of infestation it's only a matter of time before the one rat infested with plague-carrying fleas gives them to his every rodent brother.  And then we have cramped city living so an epidemic can't be contained, and malnutrition (exterminating cats was followed by famines due in part to same rat activity) -- and weakened, unprotected, immune-compromised hosts start dying by the million.  Nature does not work this way.  It's us who can turn a parasite, normally an adversity with some benefits to it too (e.g. cancer cells are what underlies the mechanism of development of new traits -- i.e. our cherished ability to evolve in response to a changing environment) into a speciecidal disaster.  

 

No, I don't agree at all that slavery is part of nature.  Think again...     

[3bob]

Taomeow,  As for the "deranged" is that where you put the blame or do you always hold to the idea that Tao allows for and in a way powers the deranged through "bad luck" (and the related points you made in post 56) and thus the root blame could be traced back to Tao?  (even though "that which is against Tao will soon cease to be" even if that "soon" takes millions of years to transpire and in the meantime might result in the malicious destruction the physical universe along with all of its manifest life forms?) 

Edited December 13, 2015 by 3bob

[Taomeow]

3bob, you keep making me think..  so you have to face/read the consequences! 

 

Let me try to unravel it via the "simple and easy" steps.

 

1.  Tao is perfect until she moves.  Tao in stillness is absolutely balanced.  She does not consist of "nothing" unlike the "absolutes" of some other paradigms though, rather she consists of a "nothing-everything" that wuji is, no things and the potential for all things. 

 

No fun until this potential manifests.  To allow for this boring uneventful perfection to "do something," tao, as some classics put it, "has a bead."  Other classics talk about a spontaneous clap of thunder arising in the third (Spring, beginning, Conception) trigram.  Of course the "bead" is not material, but I'm able to perceive it, it's an inherent property of nonbeing to form a center of "being," a "virtue" of stillness to engender movement, in a certain "spot-moment" whose potential to "be" and "move" is stronger than at any other non-place and non-time.  It's something that can be discerned from the diagrams better than words, and perceived best in stillness meditations.  The diagram of the Earlier Heaven has an immaterial yet somehow existent "imaginary point" where all the balanced forces intersect -- and then perhaps a reaction occurs between the third trigram and that point that results in an asymmetrical "spark" flying between existence and nonexistence...  Existence begins. 

 

2. Once it begins, the balance is disturbed, things are propelled into motion.  They have no choice at first where and how to move -- yang floats up, yin sinks down.  The world separates into duality under the pull of these simple forces of heavier-lighter, lighter-darker.  Tao has given birth to Two.

 

3. Two gives birth to Three, and that's where it gets interesting.  Free will kicks in.  This Three comes to be when one yin, one yang pick up an extra yin or an extra yang.  Or two yin, two yang pick up an extra yin or an extra yang.  Still uneventful if they observe the symmetry, say one yin-yang binary pair picks up one yang, another picks up one yin.  They behave until there's eight of them.  And then -- then choices become possible.

 

4.  Choices kick in -- go left or right, or across, forward or back, not just up and down.  You have two yin one yang, you start sinking -- you hit a three yang Tian trigram, connect to it, and you start floating up!  Now you can decide you might want to drop the "ballast," one yin, and go back to heaven!  Some trigrams get this idea in their head...  They start striving for "purity."  Or something else happens that is a mistake of judgment.  

 

5. Mistakes of judgment are the price to pay for free will. 

 

6. If you want a perfect world, be prepared to be part of a machine.  Tao does not like being a machine.  She prefers to be alive.  To be alive means to have choices, freedom, creativity...  a soul.  The price to pay for these goodies is the ability to make wrong choices, freedom to go out of control, creativity that might breed monsters.  

 

7. Can tao be "blamed" for this?  No.  Can those who make mistakes be blamed?  No -- if they correct them and don't persevere in their deviation.  (Mistakes can be corrected with free will, not just made.)  And yes -- if they won't correct their mistakes, if they keep going away from the Way farther and farther.  If they persevere in being monsters and morons.  

 

8.  In going away from the Way, there's a point of no return.  Tao will never have a problem starting from scratch, being uncreated and eternal.  But everything she creates that turns against her...  when she starts from scratch, that's what she scratches off.   Clean slate.  Tao can never be harmed.  Tao can never harm.  But she does give her creations the ability to harm themselves and others if they so choose -- and the ability to figure it out.  If they can't figure it out, she loses interest in them...  whereupon she loses them.

Us. 

Edited December 13, 2015 by Taomeow

[3bob]

(some edits made in italics to clarify earlier post)

 

lots to ponder there Taomeow,   I'll touch on a couple for now:  in #8  "In going away from the Way there's a point of no return"  ...well if we agree that everything and everyone is within "The One" (even though such contains permutations within it) then such an everything and everyone can not be gained or lost by the One, meaning the One does not become greater or lesser than what it is;  along with the idea of the One returning to Tao per completed "fourfold cosmic cycles" which includes everything and everyone within it (again as put forth in the idea that the One is not able to gain or loose anything or anyone that would make it lesser or greater) thus if we agree on those points there is ultimately a "return" for everything and everyone.  (meaning no loss of them since going independent of the One to something other than The One - which is contained under the Tao is not possible)

 

In #1:  "it's an inherent property of non-being to form a center of being".

That's a biggy which is hard for me to get a handle on... I relate more to the quote below:

 

"Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal:

First and foremost is Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun - the First Principal.
He has no beginning and no end. (*thus no beginning or end via non-being) He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth.

 

*my insert

 

Thus Being beyond non-being and being as commonly spoken of or concieved of -  and further meaning that Being as the "First Principal" does not come from non-being   (Btw, I have no problem if someone wants to change the He to a She since gender as we know it is really moot at that point)

 

In #2-5 I think I agree along all those lines.

 

In #6-7 not so sure and pending complications, variables and relativity

 

Thanks for your time and posts

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

next day continuation : some rhetorical like questions or points:

 

In #6: Does Tao have a soul that makes mistakes or is she the Soul/Spirit Itself without fail? (a potential complication - yes?)  Regarding the laws of the I-Ching you have studied - do they not have mechanical like variables that can range from both exquisite order to difficult "bad luck" disorder?  If so who or what falls under those laws, is it not all things and beings within or under the One and on to the Ten Thousand thus leaving only "Tao to follow its own ways" * free of those laws.  (*per the end of chapter 25 of the T.T.C.)  As for the "monsters" they do not and can not come into play until well after "The Three" in a going away sense from those three laws....and if we agree that that is the case then there is not equality under the laws of the I-Ching per-se but relativity per position related to points of permutation that range from great order and law (of The One) to lesser order and lawlessness.  So indeed prices are paid "to be far" and also "to return" but then the books are balanced so to speak.

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by 3bob

[Taomeow]

I may have omitted one step -- Tao gives birth to One.  Tao and "One" are a mother-child relationsh, not one and the same.  "One" is where all futher things manifest come from and originate, but "One" itself is a manifestation, not the source.  So any unification back to the source will of necessity have to absorb this oneness.  The only way it can be done is by reverting to wuji, which is nonbeing, tao-in-stillness, and the only way being can come is from nonbeing. 

 

"Being comes from nonbeing" -- Laozi -- but the opposite is also true, and not "once" but "always" -- "nonbeing reverts back to being."  It is an eternal pulse with no beginning or end, this part is true, but within this pulse, any "being" has a beginning, middle, and end.  A new "being" may come from nonbeing once it ends, but all things manifest are finite, only the unmanifest is infinite, the source of all being and nonbeing, all potentials -- far exceeding what has "already" manifested as "being" and will "in the long run" manifest as being.  Potentials exist within nonbeing and are not equal to manifestations.  Nonbeing is always infinitely greater, and its pull on all "being" is irresistible -- return!  As is its push on all "being" -- begin, go play! 

 

This is the unified tao-in-stillness/tao-in-motion which is the mother of all things.  Not one half of her, not either half of her.  Both are tao, and neither is the whole tao.  The whole tao is a being-nobeing pulse of stillness-motion.  The mantra of taoism is, "the way of tao is motion and the pattern of this motion is return."  Being returns to nonbeing.  Nonbeing reverts to being.

 

Oh, and Yuanshi Tianzun (Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal) is not tao -- he is one of the gods of taoism's polytheistic pantheon, in charge of his domain but by no means equal to "mother of all things" -- he is one of her sons.  

 

So, for our practical purposes:   to a classical taoist, "being" is big enough to be concerned with, it is worthy of our full participation, full awareness, full assessment, and full enjoyment.  Being is there to be savored.  Being that turns into suffering is not the right kind.  Suffering is thought of as mustard to your beef, wasabi to your sushi -- not the main dish.  Suffering is there to teach one's Hun compassion, its role is to awaken the sense of oneness of all beings, it's a strong medicine that must cure one possible way to deviate from the Way too far -- going into a state of "bu ren," non-human, i.e. not identifying with other humans (and live beings in general), going numb, losing parts of awareness (of self and others, which is the same thing.) 

 

However, a medicine and nourishment are not the same.  Tao never intends to feed her offspring nothing but medicine -- most of what she provides is nourishment.  "The Great Mother's breast" -- Laozi again.  Yet some of her offspring just won't take the medicine, while others force-feed it to someone else, while still others mistake it for nourishment, while still others spit it out in disgust and lose all appetite for life.  Those are the "no return" departures from the Way I was talking about.  

Edited December 13, 2015 by Taomeow

[3bob]

Hello Taomeow,

 

From the dictionary: Non-Being  "the state of not being; nonexistence."

 

The above definition is the common one and I think it can cause some misunderstandings,  If it was defined as no-thing (with a hyphen) which is not nothing that would sit differently with me but the general definition does not allude to that....

 

Anyway and from your fine post:   "Tao gives birth to One.  Tao and "One" are a mother-child relationship, not one and the same.  "One" is where all further things manifest come from and originate, but "One" itself is a manifestation, not the source.  So any unification back to the source will of necessity have to absorb this oneness.  The only way it can be done is by reverting to wuji, which is nonbeing, tao-in-stillness, and the only way being can come is from nonbeing." By Taomeow

 

I agree with the underlined text above if the implied meaning of no-thing is not nothing  (?) for then I've also stated or said something similar to what I think you have.  I also realize that the T.T.C. talks about non-being or "Nothing" (for instance in Chapter 43) but I question that terms meaning as it is generally interpreted since and again I replace the words Nothing or non-being and their general connotations with 'no-thing' that hopefully alludes to and is heard as "Mystery" - if someone reads that compared to "nothing" which does not allude to Mystery to me.  Admittedly I'm not a member of any Taoist school or it's training so I will not match up in those ways and terms as far as I know....

 

Thanks again for the - lot to ponder-  posts and I will be commenting more on your most recent one as time permits.

  Bob

Edited December 14, 2015 by 3bob

[3bob]

....continued:  as for the :

 

"First and foremost is Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun - the First Principal.

He has no beginning and no end. (*thus no beginning or end via non-being) He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth".

 

I'm taking the quote above at face value without knowing hardly anything about the different schools of Taoism. (and the possible infighting or differences that may exist or be taking place?)  Anyway if the quote is taken at face value as it reads above then there is no indication saying that the "First Principle" is a child of Tao manifested in time and space with a - beginning and an end -  (via non-being)  Do you see what I mean although with yourself following a different school?

[Songtsan]

I still see slavery, or 'slavery-like' conditions in nature, but of course I should clarify that my definitions of 'nature' and 'slavery' are somewhat different than the norm. 'Nature' is often defined as anything that exists, except for mankind related things, which I think makes no sense at all. I personally think thaat anything that exists in the multiverse is natural, from cybernetic implants to spaceships, regardless of how they come about. But that's just me. As far as slavery, which is often defined as someone or something as being under the domination of someone or something else, it also includes psychological domination, i.e. trickery, fear etc.

 

For example, there is a certain species of bird that lays its eggs in a different species of birds nest. The other species of bird then raises the former's young, often to the detriment of the latters progeny as well (they get kicked out of nest and die). This might not be a textbook definition of slavery, but to me its slavery. Any kind of unequal, and unasked for exchange is like slavery. But it happens in nature, and so is natural. Deceit,stealing, power exchange, domination/submission is natural, simply because it exists.

[HoldorFold]

Edited December 14, 2015 by HoldorFold

[Taomeow]

....continued:  as for the :

 

"First and foremost is Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun - the First Principal.

He has no beginning and no end. (*thus no beginning or end via non-being) He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth".

 

I'm taking the quote above at face value without knowing hardly anything about the different schools of Taoism. (and the possible infighting or differences that may exist or be taking place?)  Anyway if the quote is taken at face value as it reads above then there is no indication saying that the "First Principle" is a child of Tao manifested in time and space with a - beginning and an end -  (via non-being)  Do you see what I mean although with yourself following a different school?

 

I see what you mean.  Yes, it does sound as though they're talking about a particular force that, um...  trumps tao.  

 

There's parts of taoism, mercifully surviving and available today as they were thousands of years ago, which constitute its arts, sciences and practices.  You can replicate the path of their creators today -- you don't take anyone's word for what's true, you learn the steps and dance the magic dance of Emperor Yu and you are Emperor Yu if you've mastered it, and know exactly what he knew -- and what no book knows. 

 

Then there's parts, picked up later along the way from other traditions, that are beliefs, statements of faith, and declarations.  These are easily discerned as propagations of hierarchical Indo-European paradigms, with a father figure on top, an obligatory male that has to trump and/or appropriate any and all "mother" forces.  Some have the Three Pure Ones presided over by Yuanshi Tianzun, while others place the deified aspect of Laozi above all and transform tao into him.   I am not very familiar with these aspects of religious taoism (though I am with its other aspects, empirical ones -- e.g. I accept and venerate quite a few deities of personal significance to me, some of them former mortals who became gods via cultivation.  I seek wisdom and guidance from the Eight Immortals and the God of War and the God of Literature and the Goddess of Mercy, to name a few.  And Emperor Yu and Fuxi.  And, of course, Xi Wangmu, the Queen Mother of the West.)  I don't feel like arguing with its precepts, it's just that they are not far enough from what I departed from when I departed from Indo-European cognitive pathways to tackle those big issues by altogether different methods.

 

Taoism that is a science-art-practice can operate without "names," though it can often be aided by diagrams -- Hetu, Luoshu, bagua, I Ching, wuji, taiji tu, etc..  Diagrams in their turn become meaningful via practices.  Practices in their turn become meaningful via contemplation, meditation, integration.  The net result is, I don't need to believe in anything as a prerequisite for having an opinion. 

 

Opinions that arise in this manner can't be erased by a paragraph from a competing text, because they are not rooted in a text, a statement of faith, a declaration, a belief system.  And what they are rooted in is not easy to unravel to the same extent it wasn't easy to acquire. 

Edited December 14, 2015 by Taomeow

[3bob]

agreed that opinions based on experience are not easy to come by like the opinions based on concepts are. (which can be a dime a dozen)

 

another term I'd use instead of non-being is non-thing... with  non-thing not meaning nothing.

 

it doesn't seem like Taoism gets into the nihilistic problems that interpretations of Buddhism sometimes do and that is partly where I'm coming from and relate better to a term like Mystery as a pointer.

[voidisyinyang]

I exposed the Actual Matrix Plan that we live in - 15 years ago.

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix43.htm

 

it has been spread around in the interwebs

 

So I just read through this thread.

 

First of all statistics and probability assume a symmetric mathematics which goes against Taoism - as does chaos math which still is based on symmetric logistic equations.

 

Secondly - the whole tribal slavery discussion should defer to the original human culture, the Bushmen, which last separated from modern humans 125,000 years ago. Their whole culture is based on the spiritual training of the males and the culture is very peaceful - and egalitarian (despite modern male anthropologists trying to show otherwise).

 

So obviously we have to "reverse engineer" ourselves out of the Matrix which I trace back to - archaeology wise - around 10,000 BCE with an accelerating destructive trajectory.

 

I call this the "Strong Misanthropic Principle" in my blogbook - the link below.

Edited December 14, 2015 by conspirachi

[Nungali]

Mhe ....   people always leave out the Australians ..... 

 

I dont see how 'Bushmen' can be called the 'original human culture' ... thats a very narrow view.   It is one of the oldest  but not the original .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_people

[voidisyinyang]

World's most ancient race traced in DNA study

That's the UK Guardian headline referring to the Khoisan. the other two tribes that are also the "oldest" split off from the Khoisan at least 35,000 years ago while the Khoisan split off from the rest of human at least 90,000 years ago but more likely 125,000 years ago.

 

So the other two tribes are the Sandawe and the Hadza, both are "click" languages based on the Khoisan langauge - the Sandawe culture is also very similar to the Khoisan - they have the same full moon menstrual trance dance spiritual training - which is proven to exist before human language developed!

 

http://conspirachi.blogspot.com/2014/11/revisiting-tantra-in-light-of-sandawe.html

 

It depends on what DNA evidence you go by - if it's matrilineal dna then the Sandawe are older I think whereas if it's patrilineal then the Bushmen are older. Regardless they are the same culture only the SAndawe lived in the forest.

 

http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/12/dwindling-african-tribe-may-have-been-most-populous-group-planet

 

The sources for that wiki link you gave are from 2009, as is that UK Guardian headline I posted.

 

But this last link is from 2014.

 

Researchers have thought that the Khoisan inherited their genetic diversity from a large ancestral population, an idea supported by a single Khoisan genome published in 2012. But scientists couldn’t rule out that the variation in Khoisan DNA arose from more recent interbreeding with other diverse Africans.

In the new study, published online today in Nature Communications, biochemist Stephan Schuster of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and colleagues sequenced the complete genomes of five Khoisan hunter-gatherers from Namibia and compared them with the DNA from 1462 genomes of people from around the world. Schuster’s team found that two of the Khoisan, members of the Ju/’hoansi population in Namibia, inherited their DNA only from Khoisan ancestors in the northern Kalahari region and showed no sign of interbreeding with non-Khoisan speakers. These two Ju/’hoansi genomes preserve ancient diversity inherited entirely from their direct ancestors, the authors say.

 

So this proves that not only are the Khoisan the most diverse, the oldest human DNA but were the most populous in Africa and so their original culture is the true human culture.

 

The tens of thousands of tribal cultures that spread around the world originated out of the Khoisan Bushmen from before the Toba supervolcano explosion 70,000 years ago.

 

The key here is the Khoisan rely on gibberish for their spiritual training - not much philosophy or language - the training is music-based and not word-based. It's from BEFORE human language had crystallized. haha.

Edited December 15, 2015 by conspirachi

[Taomeow]

One thing that does not survive for longer than 15-30 years:

our "modern scientific evidence."  The paradigm changes with this rapidity.  And yet every time we are offered something new, it is offered as the final word.  Except the next final word is not far off.

 

A recent study seems to have shown that the Sphinx is 800,000 years old, based on erosion patterns carefully studied with  modern equipment and the standard currently accepted methods and interpretations.

 

http://www.ancient-code.com/who-built-the-great-sphinx-of-egypt-800000-years-ago-a-look-inside-pre-pharaonic-egypt/

 

Too radical to make the news -- too many paradigms would have to be reconsidered. 

 

Yet if a new paradigm is concocted, then it will perhaps be upgraded to what other studies suggest -- 2,5 million years old (or else not congruent with the current view of the historic pattern of the climate of Sahara!  Our science has no trouble being of two minds about the same events -- specialization to the rescue, let's compartmentalize our knowledge so an "Egyptologist" does not have to be bothered by a "Geologist," and Bob's your uncle.)

 

History as dispensed to the masses is a matrix creation in its own right. 

 

And when we're talking the oldest people on earth, what do we do about Mu, and its antecedent Atlantis, and all that jazz?  Who exactly told us to ignore evidence as myth, and why?..  What do they have to show to prove a negative statement, something impossible to prove to begin with?..  Someone chose to presume -- or to suppress -- that's all the proof they need.  Just hit "delete" and history is gone.  That's how the Matrix works, no?  What about hundreds of thousands of painstakingly destroyed libraries, including all the greatest ones of antiquity?..  WHY?..

Edited December 15, 2015 by Taomeow

[noonespecial]

No, because math and equations are just descriptors. 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by noonespecial

[voidisyinyang]

No, because math and equations are just descriptors. 

 

 

 

The problem is David Bohm wasn't using the actual de Broglie pilot wave model - he still relied on Schrodinger which is not relativistic.

 

I go into this on my blogbook.

 

There is no "pure" math - and my math research was vetted by two math professors, one said my math was good, another that I should submit it for publication. It was rejected without comment since I was exposing math as based on "pre-established deep disharmony" to quote the other math professor.

 

More details on my blogbook.

 

But yet - de Broglie did figure out the secret - I have a very detailed analysis of de Broglie's quantum relativity model on the blogbook. He didn't quite understand what he had discovered by luckily his results have been verified recently. Of course all the pieces have not been put together by science - since quantum physics is the dialectic opposite extreme of actual alchemy practice a la nonwestern music theory.

[voidisyinyang]

One thing that does not survive for longer than 15-30 years:

our "modern scientific evidence."  The paradigm changes with this rapidity.  And yet every time we are offered something new, it is offered as the final word.  Except the next final word is not far off.

 

A recent study seems to have shown that the Sphinx is 800,000 years old, based on erosion patterns carefully studied with  modern equipment and the standard currently accepted methods and interpretations.

 

http://www.ancient-code.com/who-built-the-great-sphinx-of-egypt-800000-years-ago-a-look-inside-pre-pharaonic-egypt/

 

Too radical to make the news -- too many paradigms would have to be reconsidered. 

 

Yet if a new paradigm is concocted, then it will perhaps be upgraded to what other studies suggest -- 2,5 million years old (or else not congruent with the current view of the historic pattern of the climate of Sahara!  Our science has no trouble being of two minds about the same events -- specialization to the rescue, let's compartmentalize our knowledge so an "Egyptologist" does not have to be bothered by a "Geologist," and Bob's your uncle.)

 

History as dispensed to the masses is a matrix creation in its own right. 

 

And when we're talking the oldest people on earth, what do we do about Mu, and its antecedent Atlantis, and all that jazz?  Who exactly told us to ignore evidence as myth, and why?..  What do they have to show to prove a negative statement, something impossible to prove to begin with?..  Someone chose to presume -- or to suppress -- that's all the proof they need.  Just hit "delete" and history is gone.  That's how the Matrix works, no?  What about hundreds of thousands of painstakingly destroyed libraries, including all the greatest ones of antiquity?..  WHY?..

 

First of all you should read "The Stargate Conspiracy" by prince and picknett  the "alternative" egyptology scene is not so innocent.

 

Secondly then read "Christ in Egypt" by D.M. Murdock - I just read the book. She exposes in great detail how christianity is actually based on Egyptian religion.

 

third - all that limestone casing on the pyramids required deforestation - and that had already caused an ecological crisis from the first agriculture in West Asia - around 9,000 BCE - and the first migration of white people to Europe - white since the lack of vitamin D in the wheat diet is the cause of white skin. My blog book and blog have all the details - "alchemy of rainbow heart music - how paranormal sonofusion subverts the Matrix."

 

So as for Schoch's geological dating of the pyramids - I read his book and sure it's controversial - there is debate about his interpretation.

 

that latest study the article references doesn't seem to "hold water."

 

Alchemy actually came out of Ethiopia and from there it originated out of the Bushmen culture - the oldest Bushmen tribes in that area - the Sandawe were from Ethiopia originally but they got "moved" to Tanzania.

 

If you study Bushmen spirituality - they have all the alchemical skills - it was the male masters who would go off alone to perfect their yang shen transformation physical bodies and immortality that scared the rest of the tribe. That started the alchemical tradition.

 

So this obsession with Egypt that ignores the Bushmen is actually racist - and that's what the "Stargate Conspiracy" book goes into in great detail. The CIA-Freemasons control the New Age scene.

[noonespecial]

The problem is David Bohm wasn't using the actual de Broglie pilot wave model - he still relied on Schrodinger which is not relativistic.

 

I go into this on my blogbook.

 

There is no "pure" math - and my math research was vetted by two math professors, one said my math was good, another that I should submit it for publication. It was rejected without comment since I was exposing math as based on "pre-established deep disharmony" to quote the other math professor.

 

More details on my blogbook.

 

But yet - de Broglie did figure out the secret - I have a very detailed analysis of de Broglie's quantum relativity model on the blogbook. He didn't quite understand what he had discovered by luckily his results have been verified recently. Of course all the pieces have not been put together by science - since quantum physics is the dialectic opposite extreme of actual alchemy practice a la nonwestern music theory.

 

The reason I posted that Bohm video, is because something he says about 4 minutes into the interview. 

[voidisyinyang]

The reason I posted that Bohm video, is because something he says about 4 minutes into the interview. 

 

Bohm did not get to the "rotten root" of time-frequency uncertainty as de Broglie did.

 

Sure Bohm was a good reformist but he didn't break through to the foundation.

 

de Broglie did make the break through.

 

Physicsts point out that Bohm actually stole from de Broglie - and so a lot of people use "Bohmian" without realizing that he lost the connection to the foundation that de Broglie had discovered.

 

So then physicists use de Broglie-Bohmian to try to make up for this stealing from de Broglie.

 

But the problem is that de Broglie didn't realize he had discovered noncommutative time-frequency resonance.

 

de Broglie was attacked and censored as a 2009 book proved that I cite and so after Bohm took up de Broglie then de Broglie tried to return to the issue - but by then it was too late.

 

Bohm was trying to use statistics of entropy heat information based on Schrodinger and so de Broglie followed suit - but the problem is statistics still uses symmetric-based math.

 

So yeah I'm sure Bohm says lots of cool things - I've read his book a bit and also the Holographic Principle - he's a good transition back to de Broglie who, luckily, has made a comeback recently. But even then people need to really study de Broglie - the best book on de Broglie is one I cite in my book - by a dude who just died a couple months ago - Bernard d'Espagnat.

 

There's a TON of quantum physics books that are impossible to understand because they don't have a proper analysis of the mystery at the foundation - de Broglie discovered the mystery. He did not solve the mystery.

[Nungali]

Oh no .... ancient Sphinx and  Atlantis and Edgar Cayce again !

 

That Sphinx article relyies on 'maybes' and 'whatifs' and rejects the whole rest of the supportive and interlocked evidence that led to the dating and ideas about the Sphinx. 

 

Lets throw out the backed up logical and interlocked evidence and accept hearsay and modern fairy tales because it goes along with our dreams and belief systems .....

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haloclasty

 

which indicates the instability of the local rock , not any ancient water erosion  from rainfall. 

 

These ideas have been debunked several times .

 

But people just want to believe otherwise . 

Edited December 15, 2015 by Nungali

[Taomeow]

One problem with various "debunkings" is that when you follow the money and find out who has paid the debunkers to debunk, the plot thickens.   In Va Ri Ab Ly.

 

Troy as a reality rather than myth was debunked a hundred times by the special interest hired debunkers -- until someone (Heinrich Schliemann) who was wealthy enough to retire at 36 invested his own money into finding out whether what he "believed in" -- to wit, historic reality behind Homer's "myth" -- was possible to excavate.  Turned out it was.

 

Few places got this lucky, few interpretations could be this straightforward, having the actual ruins and the famous text coming together to attest to their more-than-belief foundation.  Most are stories untold and many are sites of manipulation untold --

 

and to jeer and smirk smugly when orthodoxy's for-profit dispensations are being questioned is the ticket of admittance to the club I don't belong to.  Not because I couldn't gain admission with the same ease as the smug ones if I cared to, but because I'm easily disgusted.

[voidisyinyang]

One problem with various "debunkings" is that when you follow the money and find out who has paid the debunkers to debunk, the plot thickens.   In Va Ri Ab Ly.

 

Troy as a reality rather than myth was debunked a hundred times by the special interest hired debunkers -- until someone (Heinrich Schliemann) who was wealthy enough to retire at 36 invested his own money into finding out whether what he "believed in" -- to wit, historic reality behind Homer's "myth" -- was possible to excavate.  Turned out it was.

 

Few places got this lucky, few interpretations could be this straightforward, having the actual ruins and the famous text coming together to attest to their more-than-belief foundation.  Most are stories untold and many are sites of manipulation untold --

 

and to jeer and smirk smugly when orthodoxy's for-profit dispensations are being questioned is the ticket of admittance to the club I don't belong to.  Not because I couldn't gain admission with the same ease as the smug ones if I cared to, but because I'm easily disgusted.

 

http://ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su96/News&NotesTOC/News-Troy.html

 

saying Greek civilization was a 1000 years older than previously thought is no comparison to 700,000 years older. haha.

[noonespecial]

There's a TON of quantum physics books that are impossible to understand because they don't have a proper analysis of the mystery at the foundation - de Broglie discovered the mystery. He did not solve the mystery.

 

Absolutely. Where exactly is this book of yours? Thanks.