ahH!~ i god it !!!!!!!!!!
for the longest time i couldnt figure out the core of why this note, why it existing.. what the fuckkk am i trying to say here,
and its that Darwin tried to push the whole idea of "process without purpose" and that we r moved beyond these by the eschaton showing us otherwise (those of us who were awake through it or awakened by it~souled hue_mans) hence the lingering post darwinian notion i began this note upon.
so u can probably ignore most of this note now..
there is purpose and meaning in being, there is a beyond the threshold there is more there is process for reason. etc.
for the longest time i couldnt figure out the core of why this note, why it existing.. what the fuckkk am i trying to say here,
and its that Darwin tried to push the whole idea of "process without purpose" and that we r moved beyond these by the eschaton showing us otherwise (those of us who were awake through it or awakened by it~souled hue_mans) hence the lingering post darwinian notion i began this note upon.
so u can probably ignore most of this note now..
there is purpose and meaning in being, there is a beyond the threshold there is more there is process for reason. etc.
Use the force... Spirit is expressed in each breath ... each universal breath of plank time moment
force this body to love if it doesnt want to.
i am changed.
so i try to force it to love more.
soul has to express now into biologica
Reply: hueh?
the body has the rigid brain conections built, the chemistry in place; from previous hurt.
so to love more does not surface from the surface of biologica body.
its a more buddhic body of soul psychosematical Will to love more that must change the biology.
hence ~bruce liptons 'biology of perception'. spirit >soulmind>bodybiologica .get it.
i am changed.
so i try to force it to love more.
soul has to express now into biologica
Reply: hueh?
the body has the rigid brain conections built, the chemistry in place; from previous hurt.
so to love more does not surface from the surface of biologica body.
its a more buddhic body of soul psychosematical Will to love more that must change the biology.
hence ~bruce liptons 'biology of perception'. spirit >soulmind>bodybiologica .get it.
|
Post Darwinian post Newtonian life (ideologically proverbial meme meaning speakingly- from victim to master of the matrix )
looking a causality rather than effect. post being entropically heridatirally and genetically victim, to master of the matrix.
2012. -genesis singularis.
this note is not dissing darwin or the general theory like this>
Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
after 4 billion years life finally crawls out of the corporeal cage.
11 September 1993 (Terence McKenna) [FULL]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaB5gg9t1xQ&feature=relmfu
Bruce lipton Phd. the biology of perception
I have come to realize this notes connection with the concept of "genesis singularis" and its ties to the change times so > http://www.consciousazine.com/gs--genesis-singularis-cheartange-times.html which is basically about taking control of our destiny, crawling out of the corporeal cage and the exteriorization of the soul. This move from reaction to creation- from victim of biology to master of the matrix.
And it appears this is centrally what Terrence McKenna talks about in his some 1000 youtube videos (these are scattered throughout consciousazine)
Heres one
Terence Mckenna - How Evolution Occurs
an i believe we didnt even touch on the future tonight
The future is bound to be psychedelic because the future belongs to the mind, and we are just beginning to push the buttons on the mind.. and once we take a serious engineering approach to this we're going to discover you know the plasticity the mutability the eternality of the mind and i believe release it from the monkey, my vision of the final human future (the 2012 mathematical time wave zero) is, is what history (this small 15,00-25,000 years from farm to 2012) is about in engineering terms is an effort to exteriorize the soul and interiorize the body, so that the exterior soul exists as a ah superconducting lens of translinguistic matter generated out of the forehead of each of us at a critical juncture our psychedelic barmistfa as it were .. and then from that point on your are eternal and somewhere in the solid state matrix of the translinguistic lens that you have become, your body image exists as a holographic wave transform an you are at play in the fields of the lord you live in asylum.. well thats it .. (ends lecture/talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUfyMZ5uZL0&feature=related
Terence McKenna - Final Earthbound Interview
anyway onto post newtonianism a bit..
http://www.sevenpillarshouse.org/article/a_physics_of_peace
"Let us begin with classical or Newtonian physics, which unfortunately continues to dominate our modern worldview. Newton envisioned the universe as built from independently or inherently existent point particles. He understood separate entities as existing in their own right and only secondarily do entities come together to build arbitrary complex structures. Figure 1 (left) illustrates this classical view of entities regardless of whether they are atomic particles or human beings. In the diagram, the entities are substantial things with the solidity of iron posts. The posts’ relationships to each other are noted by dashed lines because in the classical view these relationships are less real and less substantial than the posts themselves. If classical particles could speak they would say something like, “My independent existence is primary. My relationships to other objects are secondary.” Quantum mechanics is undeniably the best theory in the history of science. Despite that, its findings are much less influential than they should be for shaping our modern worldview. However, during the last several decades, quantum mechanics has revealed that the relationships between quantum entities are often more important, even more real, than is their isolated existence as distinct, separate entities.
Figure 2 (right) illustrates the quantum mechanical view. Here the objects are represented with dashed lines and the connecting lines are solid. This illustrates that the relationships are more fundamental than the objects are alone in isolation. In fact, an object’s existence depends directly upon its relationship to other objects. If quantum particles could speak they would say, “I exist in a well-defined way because of my relationship to other particles. I have no independent existence.”
Physicists rarely discuss how physics shapes our worldview and influences our culture. A notable exception is the late David Bohm, internationally known for his important contributions on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Bohm writes:
It is proposed that the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (race, nation, family, profession, etc.), which are now preventing mankind from working together for the common good, and indeed, even for survival, have one of the key factors of their origin in a kind of thought that treats things as inherently divided, disconnected, and “broken up” into yet smaller constituent parts. Each part is considered to be essentially independent and self-existent."
etc have a look.
by Benjamin BoomerangBoi Couwenberg on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 10:13am
groups associated with this note:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/213698191992869/
New Age/ Forward Diversification/Enlightenment and Abundance for ALL
http://www.facebook.com/groups/149189848493068/
Brain / Neuroscience / Cognitive / Psychological / Mind
http://www.facebook.com/groups/234447209921777/
Meditation posting group.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/189687707748703/
Next level shit... Hi tech / inventions_prototypes posting group
http://www.facebook.com/groups/242436945774716/
Ascension house of light group
"...notions of what today passes for tolerably good mental health will be superseded. They may be written off as mood-congruent cognitive pathologies characteristic of the old DNA regime. For dismally low standards of well-being - or rather ill-being - are typical of emotional primitives from the Darwinian Age. By contrast, life in the new reproductive era is destined to get incomparably richer as we rewrite our own genetic code. Ultimately, the re-creation of any of today's state-spectrum of malaise-ridden waking and dreaming consciousness may be outlawed as cruel and immoral. Or perhaps once the exquisite alternatives to Darwinian life have been explored, a regression to earlier forms of consciousness will be discounted as simply inconceivable..." Depressive behavior involves the passive submission to a prolonged or uncontrollable stress. that stress is from the fiat monetary system.
http://www.youtube.com/user/in5d#p/u/57/AanQ2mY2jjc >KYMATICA - FULL LENGTH MOVIE - Expand Your Consciousness
WE ARE LITERALLY A ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPRESSION OF OUR HIGHEST COGNITIVE FUNCTION.
http://www.whatismetaphysics.com/wherephysicsandmetaphysicsmerge.html
Materialism, which is the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena brought about the separation between science and spirit. Since, under this way of thinking, physical well-being and worldly possessions became the greatest good and had the highest value in life. The world was thought of as a machine, and there was no need for God or metaphysics / spirituality.
Then in the early 20th century, scientist like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and other founders of quantum theory proved that it was not a material world at all. Many of the founders of quantum even had an interest in spiritual matters. They discovered that the physical universe is essentially non-physical. It seems to arise from a field that is even more subtle than energy, a field that seems to be more like intelligence or consciousness than matter.
www.wireheading.com/ -- this goes with the title and gos into detail about the next paragraph throughout the big article with hyperlinked words. Within a few centuries, it will be technically if not ideologically feasible to abolish suffering of any kind. If we wish to do so, then genetic engineering and nanotechnology can be used to banish unpleasant modes of consciousness from the living world. In their place, gradients of life-long, genetically pre-programmed well-being may animate our descendants instead. Millennia if not centuries hence, the world's last aversive experience may even be a precisely dateable event: perhaps a minor pain in an obscure marine invertebrate.
http://hedweb.com/hedab.htm
THE HEDONISTIC IMPERATIVEi think this an the above link are talking along the same lines.
(this below is really bad :/ theres something in it but i have not effectivly brung the argument, so i wouldnt even read it yet if i were u, basically saying looking deeper at things- the central message, and look neunomically spiritually causaly)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe6mRYL93v0&feature=related
Terence McKenna DMT (1:13 min mark to 1:18 min mark is relevant to this note post darwinian post newtonian life)
http://www.endalldisease.com/terence-mckenna-evolving-times/
Terence McKenna – Evolving Times
commentary;
dont even read the below haha .. just listen to what terrence says just fater the 11 minute mark instead, thats what i was meaning.
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRoL2BHdEp4&feature=related
Terence McKenna - The World and its Double
ben W: Yeah
I loved this vid... Found connections to his ideas slightly altering darwins
theory of evolution and the explosion of the human mind...
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg darwin was a person who looked at effect, i never follow people
or barely listen to people looking at effect, i will follow peoples work who
look at casuality. fuck darwin and we head really into post darwinian era in
some sense, also why i made a note titled Post darwinian era.
im going to
use our comments here in that note to
Ben Williams
anyone who has had a psychadelic would
realise its mind expanding potential... imagine that on a species over the
course of thousands or whatever years.. and its easy to see how that quantum
leap in the human brain happened... Of course mod...ern
patriarchal society wants to supress this idea, the idea that mushrooms was the
catalyst for the human mind explosion... cause they dont want people mass taking
psychadelics and waking up and not participating in this bullshit
anymore..
Ben Williams
na im not up to speed with all of the scientific terms, i dont understand it like a
scientist im sure. i just understood it as darwin just goes off genetic
mutation...but didnt go into chemicals taken by a species that creates
advantages in...
the biology of a species...kinda thing...lol...yeah i still understand it as the
survival of the fittest, but not from a random genetic mutation but rather an
unintentionally induced mutation...
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg ohyehp, yeh as far as i know your right and darwins scope is
such as that, the genetic mutation, i forgot about that, yeh i dont think he
went into anything like this, the chemicals an causalities of specific
evolutionary occurances such as this video with the hominid brain expansion
specification, yeh it was a broad theory with the auspices of general
evolution.. in my opinion genetic mutation i'll still classify as
theorization/looking at effect, i wana know what caused
stuff.
but hey u can say genetic mutation causes evolution cant you..
iv really gone away from true causality which is always 'spiritual' reality where the power IS.
This is where this conversation comes into this note, moving beyond physical sensed effect and thinking or better KNOWing causality
Ben Williams like u mean what caused that genetic mutation? Didnt darwin say it was random? Im
thinking random mutations would still happen... but they arent all random...then
again, maybe none of them are random and happen due to some reason we cant yet
see?? i dont know, interesting subject but!
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg
This is where this conversation comes into the note, moving beyond physical sensed
effect and thinking or better KNOWing causality, it wasnt good for me to say
this imply which one could have taken from what i said that this type of stuff
is true causality or ultimate causality. :S
no i mean what causes
evolution, thats why iv stuffed up in this conversation because the use of this
causality meaning. causality for evolution would be the the ultimate causality
here, or the reason the monkeys took the psilocybin, asin the spiritual realm
reason, or god reason, answer might be something like because the monkeys had to
evolve according to the lighted pathway or way.
the spiritual ultimate
causality is usually pretty easy to see if your smart, but im not so smart,
walter russels the secret of light shows you what i mean, now thats noting
causality of the whole universe.
i really shouldnt have started,
because i used a word that to me has a deeper meaning for a shallow effect
meaning, saying cause.. so i really stuffed up personally.
but yeh genetic mutation is a effect which leads to evolution, i dont feel comfortable
calling it a cause.
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg (refering to your last comment ben) see random is not a cause. :S that proves my point actually reckon, he was clearly looking at effect and knew not of cause. yehp its all random, thats why its so perfectly ordered. CRINGE. when your left in unknowing you havnt found cause yet.
but i stuffed up here mixing up the meanings of cause, how its preverbially more used and how it really should be used. soztryna do two things at once in my mentality :S. but now you get ultimate cause and what i meant overall, but then i said and used cause as per the psilocybin being the cause of hominid evolution.
but now you get what i meant overal with ultimate cause ( i hope lol-read walter russel the secret of light) and what i meant overall, but then i said and used cause as per the psilocybin being the cause of hominid evolution. and how i dont say darwin looked at cause, and indeed a lot of science today.
Ben Williams im
not sure i get you.
Ben
NewAccount Couwenberg ino because like i said i mixxed meanings. of the word cause.
and was tryna do two things at once in my mind which can not work :P
i was started talking about cause of the hominid evolution that terrence is while
i was also implying a deeper meaning, of actual causality which is alwasy
spiritual say of evolution in general or why the hominids evolved, i wouldnt say
ultimatly because they ate mushrooms, id say because it was time to evolve and
psilocybin was the tool used at that evolutionary step., and then look at the cyclical time frame, why was it time, how does this event horizen fit into larger cyclical time..
Yo darwon was fine not dissing him he brought what he brought which has added and is benficial and good, however we can look at it different in a more knowing fashion, what is the fittest, always the body strength? no clearly not mind evolutions, how did that occur, why, whats the event fit with, the cause etc
2012. -genesis singularis.
this note is not dissing darwin or the general theory like this>
Forbidden Science - Shattering the Myths of Darwin's Theory of Evolution
after 4 billion years life finally crawls out of the corporeal cage.
11 September 1993 (Terence McKenna) [FULL]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaB5gg9t1xQ&feature=relmfu
Bruce lipton Phd. the biology of perception
I have come to realize this notes connection with the concept of "genesis singularis" and its ties to the change times so > http://www.consciousazine.com/gs--genesis-singularis-cheartange-times.html which is basically about taking control of our destiny, crawling out of the corporeal cage and the exteriorization of the soul. This move from reaction to creation- from victim of biology to master of the matrix.
And it appears this is centrally what Terrence McKenna talks about in his some 1000 youtube videos (these are scattered throughout consciousazine)
Heres one
Terence Mckenna - How Evolution Occurs
an i believe we didnt even touch on the future tonight
The future is bound to be psychedelic because the future belongs to the mind, and we are just beginning to push the buttons on the mind.. and once we take a serious engineering approach to this we're going to discover you know the plasticity the mutability the eternality of the mind and i believe release it from the monkey, my vision of the final human future (the 2012 mathematical time wave zero) is, is what history (this small 15,00-25,000 years from farm to 2012) is about in engineering terms is an effort to exteriorize the soul and interiorize the body, so that the exterior soul exists as a ah superconducting lens of translinguistic matter generated out of the forehead of each of us at a critical juncture our psychedelic barmistfa as it were .. and then from that point on your are eternal and somewhere in the solid state matrix of the translinguistic lens that you have become, your body image exists as a holographic wave transform an you are at play in the fields of the lord you live in asylum.. well thats it .. (ends lecture/talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUfyMZ5uZL0&feature=related
Terence McKenna - Final Earthbound Interview
anyway onto post newtonianism a bit..
http://www.sevenpillarshouse.org/article/a_physics_of_peace
"Let us begin with classical or Newtonian physics, which unfortunately continues to dominate our modern worldview. Newton envisioned the universe as built from independently or inherently existent point particles. He understood separate entities as existing in their own right and only secondarily do entities come together to build arbitrary complex structures. Figure 1 (left) illustrates this classical view of entities regardless of whether they are atomic particles or human beings. In the diagram, the entities are substantial things with the solidity of iron posts. The posts’ relationships to each other are noted by dashed lines because in the classical view these relationships are less real and less substantial than the posts themselves. If classical particles could speak they would say something like, “My independent existence is primary. My relationships to other objects are secondary.” Quantum mechanics is undeniably the best theory in the history of science. Despite that, its findings are much less influential than they should be for shaping our modern worldview. However, during the last several decades, quantum mechanics has revealed that the relationships between quantum entities are often more important, even more real, than is their isolated existence as distinct, separate entities.
Figure 2 (right) illustrates the quantum mechanical view. Here the objects are represented with dashed lines and the connecting lines are solid. This illustrates that the relationships are more fundamental than the objects are alone in isolation. In fact, an object’s existence depends directly upon its relationship to other objects. If quantum particles could speak they would say, “I exist in a well-defined way because of my relationship to other particles. I have no independent existence.”
Physicists rarely discuss how physics shapes our worldview and influences our culture. A notable exception is the late David Bohm, internationally known for his important contributions on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Bohm writes:
It is proposed that the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (race, nation, family, profession, etc.), which are now preventing mankind from working together for the common good, and indeed, even for survival, have one of the key factors of their origin in a kind of thought that treats things as inherently divided, disconnected, and “broken up” into yet smaller constituent parts. Each part is considered to be essentially independent and self-existent."
etc have a look.
by Benjamin BoomerangBoi Couwenberg on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at 10:13am
groups associated with this note:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/213698191992869/
New Age/ Forward Diversification/Enlightenment and Abundance for ALL
http://www.facebook.com/groups/149189848493068/
Brain / Neuroscience / Cognitive / Psychological / Mind
http://www.facebook.com/groups/234447209921777/
Meditation posting group.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/189687707748703/
Next level shit... Hi tech / inventions_prototypes posting group
http://www.facebook.com/groups/242436945774716/
Ascension house of light group
"...notions of what today passes for tolerably good mental health will be superseded. They may be written off as mood-congruent cognitive pathologies characteristic of the old DNA regime. For dismally low standards of well-being - or rather ill-being - are typical of emotional primitives from the Darwinian Age. By contrast, life in the new reproductive era is destined to get incomparably richer as we rewrite our own genetic code. Ultimately, the re-creation of any of today's state-spectrum of malaise-ridden waking and dreaming consciousness may be outlawed as cruel and immoral. Or perhaps once the exquisite alternatives to Darwinian life have been explored, a regression to earlier forms of consciousness will be discounted as simply inconceivable..." Depressive behavior involves the passive submission to a prolonged or uncontrollable stress. that stress is from the fiat monetary system.
http://www.youtube.com/user/in5d#p/u/57/AanQ2mY2jjc >KYMATICA - FULL LENGTH MOVIE - Expand Your Consciousness
WE ARE LITERALLY A ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPRESSION OF OUR HIGHEST COGNITIVE FUNCTION.
http://www.whatismetaphysics.com/wherephysicsandmetaphysicsmerge.html
Materialism, which is the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena brought about the separation between science and spirit. Since, under this way of thinking, physical well-being and worldly possessions became the greatest good and had the highest value in life. The world was thought of as a machine, and there was no need for God or metaphysics / spirituality.
Then in the early 20th century, scientist like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and other founders of quantum theory proved that it was not a material world at all. Many of the founders of quantum even had an interest in spiritual matters. They discovered that the physical universe is essentially non-physical. It seems to arise from a field that is even more subtle than energy, a field that seems to be more like intelligence or consciousness than matter.
www.wireheading.com/ -- this goes with the title and gos into detail about the next paragraph throughout the big article with hyperlinked words. Within a few centuries, it will be technically if not ideologically feasible to abolish suffering of any kind. If we wish to do so, then genetic engineering and nanotechnology can be used to banish unpleasant modes of consciousness from the living world. In their place, gradients of life-long, genetically pre-programmed well-being may animate our descendants instead. Millennia if not centuries hence, the world's last aversive experience may even be a precisely dateable event: perhaps a minor pain in an obscure marine invertebrate.
http://hedweb.com/hedab.htm
THE HEDONISTIC IMPERATIVEi think this an the above link are talking along the same lines.
(this below is really bad :/ theres something in it but i have not effectivly brung the argument, so i wouldnt even read it yet if i were u, basically saying looking deeper at things- the central message, and look neunomically spiritually causaly)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe6mRYL93v0&feature=related
Terence McKenna DMT (1:13 min mark to 1:18 min mark is relevant to this note post darwinian post newtonian life)
http://www.endalldisease.com/terence-mckenna-evolving-times/
Terence McKenna – Evolving Times
commentary;
dont even read the below haha .. just listen to what terrence says just fater the 11 minute mark instead, thats what i was meaning.
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRoL2BHdEp4&feature=related
Terence McKenna - The World and its Double
ben W: Yeah
I loved this vid... Found connections to his ideas slightly altering darwins
theory of evolution and the explosion of the human mind...
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg darwin was a person who looked at effect, i never follow people
or barely listen to people looking at effect, i will follow peoples work who
look at casuality. fuck darwin and we head really into post darwinian era in
some sense, also why i made a note titled Post darwinian era.
im going to
use our comments here in that note to
Ben Williams
anyone who has had a psychadelic would
realise its mind expanding potential... imagine that on a species over the
course of thousands or whatever years.. and its easy to see how that quantum
leap in the human brain happened... Of course mod...ern
patriarchal society wants to supress this idea, the idea that mushrooms was the
catalyst for the human mind explosion... cause they dont want people mass taking
psychadelics and waking up and not participating in this bullshit
anymore..
Ben Williams
na im not up to speed with all of the scientific terms, i dont understand it like a
scientist im sure. i just understood it as darwin just goes off genetic
mutation...but didnt go into chemicals taken by a species that creates
advantages in...
the biology of a species...kinda thing...lol...yeah i still understand it as the
survival of the fittest, but not from a random genetic mutation but rather an
unintentionally induced mutation...
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg ohyehp, yeh as far as i know your right and darwins scope is
such as that, the genetic mutation, i forgot about that, yeh i dont think he
went into anything like this, the chemicals an causalities of specific
evolutionary occurances such as this video with the hominid brain expansion
specification, yeh it was a broad theory with the auspices of general
evolution.. in my opinion genetic mutation i'll still classify as
theorization/looking at effect, i wana know what caused
stuff.
but hey u can say genetic mutation causes evolution cant you..
iv really gone away from true causality which is always 'spiritual' reality where the power IS.
This is where this conversation comes into this note, moving beyond physical sensed effect and thinking or better KNOWing causality
Ben Williams like u mean what caused that genetic mutation? Didnt darwin say it was random? Im
thinking random mutations would still happen... but they arent all random...then
again, maybe none of them are random and happen due to some reason we cant yet
see?? i dont know, interesting subject but!
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg
This is where this conversation comes into the note, moving beyond physical sensed
effect and thinking or better KNOWing causality, it wasnt good for me to say
this imply which one could have taken from what i said that this type of stuff
is true causality or ultimate causality. :S
no i mean what causes
evolution, thats why iv stuffed up in this conversation because the use of this
causality meaning. causality for evolution would be the the ultimate causality
here, or the reason the monkeys took the psilocybin, asin the spiritual realm
reason, or god reason, answer might be something like because the monkeys had to
evolve according to the lighted pathway or way.
the spiritual ultimate
causality is usually pretty easy to see if your smart, but im not so smart,
walter russels the secret of light shows you what i mean, now thats noting
causality of the whole universe.
i really shouldnt have started,
because i used a word that to me has a deeper meaning for a shallow effect
meaning, saying cause.. so i really stuffed up personally.
but yeh genetic mutation is a effect which leads to evolution, i dont feel comfortable
calling it a cause.
Ben NewAccount Couwenberg (refering to your last comment ben) see random is not a cause. :S that proves my point actually reckon, he was clearly looking at effect and knew not of cause. yehp its all random, thats why its so perfectly ordered. CRINGE. when your left in unknowing you havnt found cause yet.
but i stuffed up here mixing up the meanings of cause, how its preverbially more used and how it really should be used. soztryna do two things at once in my mentality :S. but now you get ultimate cause and what i meant overall, but then i said and used cause as per the psilocybin being the cause of hominid evolution.
but now you get what i meant overal with ultimate cause ( i hope lol-read walter russel the secret of light) and what i meant overall, but then i said and used cause as per the psilocybin being the cause of hominid evolution. and how i dont say darwin looked at cause, and indeed a lot of science today.
Ben Williams im
not sure i get you.
Ben
NewAccount Couwenberg ino because like i said i mixxed meanings. of the word cause.
and was tryna do two things at once in my mind which can not work :P
i was started talking about cause of the hominid evolution that terrence is while
i was also implying a deeper meaning, of actual causality which is alwasy
spiritual say of evolution in general or why the hominids evolved, i wouldnt say
ultimatly because they ate mushrooms, id say because it was time to evolve and
psilocybin was the tool used at that evolutionary step., and then look at the cyclical time frame, why was it time, how does this event horizen fit into larger cyclical time..
Yo darwon was fine not dissing him he brought what he brought which has added and is benficial and good, however we can look at it different in a more knowing fashion, what is the fittest, always the body strength? no clearly not mind evolutions, how did that occur, why, whats the event fit with, the cause etc
Skylin Thompson
Beyond Darwin: DNA and a World Made of Language
by Skylin Thompson on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 2:33pm ·Proponents of Darwinism tend to dismiss Intelligent Design as an unscientific theory at the first, but is this justified? If we come upon a pebble and a wristwatch, can we not apply the scientific method to deduce what was formed by a mind and what by the weather? What would be a rational basis for judging weather life is designed or only a byproduct of physical interactions? What if we found that the characteristics of all living creatures are underwritten in code?
DNA is composed of nucleotides each containing a phosphate group and a sugar, forming the sides of the double helix, and one of 4 nitrogen bases: adenine, guanine, thymine, or cytosine (A,G,T,C) bonded to another specific nitrogen base forming the rungs (A bonds with T, G bonds with C and vice versa). The sixty-four possible combinations of three consecutive base pairs form syntactical units called codons, each of which programs the formation of one of twenty amino acids or a ‘stop’ marker. Sequences of amino acids form proteins, which are in turn the primary building blocks of cells. Strands of DNA are millions of codons long and are packaged together in chromosomes. DNA has all the qualities of a language: alphabet, syntax, information, and meaning. How can a language arise without a communicator?
Neo-Darwinism holds that the first self-replicating life came together out of the chance arrangement of molecular components in a “primordial soup.” In light of the vast complexity of cellular life it should be realized that chance formation is statistically impossible. Proteins contain up to a few hundred amino acids, so the chance of a random arrangement of amino acids producing, say, a hundred amino acid protein would be one in 20^100 or about 10^-130. Mathematicians define an event with a probability of less than 10^-50 as impossible. Meanwhile, cells contain about 200,000 different proteins arranged in the structures of chromosomes, mitochondria, the nucleolus, the cell wall and much more, functioning in harmony as a veritable factory. Even trying to imagine a simpler organism from which cells as we know them could have evolved we are faced with such complications as that DNA programs the formation of proteins and proteins are required to reproduce DNA. The basic mechanism of self-reproduction then is what Michael Behe called irreducibly complex, a system like an engine in which its constituent parts are useless without the whole. The DNA code and the original proteins would have had to form by chance at the same time or the structure wouldn’t have been able to replicate. According to the math of zoologist Harold Coffin we’re now talking about a probabilities in the realm of 10^-340,000,000.
The formation of new DNA codes for the unique features of different species though a long series of random mutations presents the same problem. Furthermore, in order to endure by the law of natural selection, each mutation of the DNA sequence occasionally producing a different amino acid code, hopefully producing a different protein, somehow producing a different structure within a cell must result in a new trait that better favors the organism for survival and reproduction; else the anomaly would simply die off. Even assuming a disruption of the genetic code could ever produce a useful new trait, we would have to imagine a complete gradient of viable transitional species between each different kind of organism. For this evolutionists beg evidence from the fossil record.
While a panoply of transitional fossil forms is often claimed, experts in the field testify otherwise. Curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago observes:
“[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to attempt to explain and rationalize the differences… Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of the fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one. Well, we are now 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution it still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition then we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data points were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic” **
Stephen J Gould states, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” **
Evolutionary timelines are based on dubious dating techniques. Carbon dating has an upper limit of about 60,000 years as which point all measurable quantities of C14 will have decayed, so the dates in the millions of years evolutionists talk about are usually radioisotope dates of the rocks surrounding fossils. Scientists celebrate the precision of the decay rates, but there are other critical issues. Original C14 concentrations are estimated by the fact that organisms accumulate an amount of C14 during their lifetimes proportional to atmospheric concentration, but how do scientists presume to know the original ratio of parent and daughter elements in ancient rocks? Several volcanic rocks have been isotope dated, many of which were known to have formed during eruptions that took place within the last few centuries. Dates range between several hundred thousand and a few billion years. Scientists can explain that, they now realize that when rock exceeds a certain heat index, some elements escape into the atmosphere, skewing results. Therefore, radioisotope dates that suggest a 4.5 billion year old earth presume that at no point in those rocks’ history did they approach volcanic temperatures, including at formation. Evolutions laud the consistency of multiple dating methods, but other scientists reveal that radiometric dating produces all sorts of dates, and the tendency of specialists is to publish the dates that agree with their theories and explain away or ignore the rest. Rock strata are also dated by evolutionary theory, sets of fossils that are presumed to belong to a certain biological age. The rocks are often later used for evidence of evolutionary timelines in a troubling display of circular logic. Polystrate fossils mock geologic timelines such as tree fossils which extend through supposedly millions of years of accumulated sediment. Quantities of C14 have been found in dinosaur bones proving they could be no older than 60,000 years or so, not millions.
The search for transitional species in human evolution that began with Darwin has revealed a tendency for outright scientific fraud. Piltdown man discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson became a textbook example of a “missing link” for over 40 years until re-analysis of the fossils proved they were an amalgamation of a chemically-aged human skull and an orangutan’s jawbone with filed teeth. The discovery of a single tooth in 1920 in Nebraska was thought to belong to a human ancestor and inspired widely published drawings of primitive looking ape-men. The specimen was later proven to be a pig’s tooth. Eugene Dubois’s 1891 Java man was interpreted by some of his colleagues as of a species of gibbon contemporary to modern humans, at which point its discoverer withheld it from further inspection while it gained prevalence as evolutionary proof anyway. Lyall Watson points out in Science Digest: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so sparse that there are still more scientists then specimens. The remarkable fact that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare in a single coffin.” ** The evidence that hasn’t been proven to be outright forgery is surrounded in controversy.
In addition to raising skepticism for evolution’s conclusions, it’s time to ask: what on earth is going on in the name of science here? The raise of Darwinism has followed an intellectual trend for denouncing religious faith in favor of the epistemology of rational science. Darwin had hoped to help overturn the doctrine of special creation, and evolution has proven useful as a foundation for scientific atheism. Darwinism has had important implications for social politics as well, providing a basis for replacing the moral teachings of religion with the “natural law” of brutal competition. Contrary to the protocol of seeking naturalistic explanations for observable phenomenon, theories like human descent from primates were formed as contradictions to scriptural teaching. Evidence was sought retrospectively and has proven hard to find. While scientific insights are adapted into anti-Creation dogma, the real indications of experimental biology are obscured.
What can genetic science tell us? While macroevolution is no more observable in the fossil record then in real time, species certainly exhibit an assortment of traits. Heredity accounts for many variations, dominant and recessive characteristics which express diversity through generations. The modern science of epigenetics shows how conditions in an organism’s life can result in activation or deactivation of certain sections of the genes that can be passed on to progeny as such, overturning the long held notion that environmental input can’t directly affect inheritance. Darwin’s original observations included finches on different islands which appeared to be best suited to their unique environments. Researchers in Daphne observed a medium sized species of finch adapting a smaller beak for utility with smaller seeds within just 20 years, with most of the change taking place in a single generation, when a larger finch arrived to the island and began dominating their previous food source. Epigenetics model how a changing diet can induce such a genetic change, but through innate functions of the existing gene code, not through mutation into another species. The phenomenon was certainly not facilitated by random changes leaving a lucky few mutants among millions of dead birds over millions of years.
Advances in the study of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) have led to the capacity for genetic engineering. HGT is the process by which genes can be passed from living organism to living organism without parentage. Apparently, HGT is the primary means of genetic change among bacteria and even large animals can assimilate DNA from micro-organisms and food they eat. The assumption that genes are influenced only by ancestry and mutations is no longer tenable and the evolutionary tree rendered more doubtful still. For example, new bacteria arriving in an environment containing heavy metals are able to uptake the codes for resistance from the existing population of bacteria that already had them, as with the finches, achieving a coordinated genetic change seeming to bypass even natural selection. Peter Gogarten observed that some bacteria can mutate quickly to be able to consume different foods when their normal foods aren’t available and that beneficial mutations occur more frequently then neutral mutations, suggesting to him not random but ‘directed mutation.’ Despite these discoveries, evolution is still generally taught as a function of chance and natural selection, probably because such discoveries as Gogarten’s beg for evolutionists the uncomfortable question: directed how, or by whom? With respect to epigenetics and HGT the answer would appear to be through intelligent communication between organisms on the DNA level.
Even the most imaginative theory of evolution offers little explanation for the sudden emergence of modern humans with agriculture, domestication, written language, and assorted technology. No more so does it present a reasonable scenario for the origin of life on earth. Because of the lack of evidence for a precursor to complex DNA-based life Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner for the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, proposed a theory of ‘directed panspermia:’ the notion that the seeds of life were transmitted to earth deliberately from space.
Evolution as a worldview certainly owes a lot of its appeal to the feeling that rational inquiry is a better basis for understanding origins than two sparse chapters in Genesis. Yet surely Darwinists are as presumptuous as Biblical literalists when they disregard millennia of human history documenting relationships with a god or gods. Are we existentially bereft materialists now prepared to dismiss the experience of most of our ancestors and contemporaries as deluded mythology? World traditions are replete with creation stories, almost always unfolding from the actions of higher beings. The Jewish Kabala includes the Sefir Yezirah meaning ‘Book of Formation’ that describes how God made all things using the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The text insists that with understanding of this language one can also create. Jewish rabbis in late antiquity were reported to be able to create small animals and homunculi (animated clay men without speech).
Hebrew letters are of three kinds. There are three ‘mother letters,’ seven ‘double letters,’ and twelve ‘simple letters.’ The 22 expressions of DNA codons are also of three types, three punctuations, seven non-punctuating hydrophobic amino acids, and twelve hydrophilic amino acids. The 22 Hebrew letters are mirrored in the 22 major arcana of the tarot, and another ancient divinatory tool, the I-Ching, Chinese ‘book of changes,’ bares an equally striking resemblance to the genetic code. Like the 64 combinations of 4 types of nucleotides in DNA codons, the 64 hexagrams of the I-Ching are built from triplets of all possible combinations of the 4 forces old yin, young yin, old yang, and young yang. Base pairs bond with two or three hydrogen atoms. Hexagrams are constructed by generations of the numbers two and three, and the list of similarities goes on.
Did ancient cultures understanding DNA? Jeremy Narby shows that the archetype of the cosmic serpent can be found in cultures around the world. Shamans, for example, describe a serpent made of light that communicates telepathically with them in three dimensional images. He finds that many of the objects of their perception are just as biologists describe cellular life. Francis Crick, mentioned earlier, is said to have first visualized DNA’s double helix shape while on LSD. Geneticist Kary Mullis also made his Nobel Prize winning discovery with the help of LSD. Teams of molecular biologists have been brought to the amazon to do ayahuasca ceremonies and almost invariably have revelations about their science. An important part of shamanic work is communicating with plants in order to learn their medicinal properties, which plant shamans do through the language of the light serpent. The akashic record, a universal data bank that contains all history and human experience, was first described in the Samkhya school of Hindu thought. New age philosophy suggests that DNA is our connection thereto. The akashic records are described as a library that can be accessed in astral space to gain information and connection to one’s higher self.
We have a lot to learn from other cultures regarding the fabric of reality. Certainly genetic science has helped bring us closer to understanding the nature and origin of life, but Darwinism has clouded our view with an atheistic bias. The sooner we recognize the DNA code as a divine language the sooner we can hope to fathom its grandeur.
**re-quoted from “Tornedo in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism” by James Perloff
by Skylin Thompson on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 2:33pm ·Proponents of Darwinism tend to dismiss Intelligent Design as an unscientific theory at the first, but is this justified? If we come upon a pebble and a wristwatch, can we not apply the scientific method to deduce what was formed by a mind and what by the weather? What would be a rational basis for judging weather life is designed or only a byproduct of physical interactions? What if we found that the characteristics of all living creatures are underwritten in code?
DNA is composed of nucleotides each containing a phosphate group and a sugar, forming the sides of the double helix, and one of 4 nitrogen bases: adenine, guanine, thymine, or cytosine (A,G,T,C) bonded to another specific nitrogen base forming the rungs (A bonds with T, G bonds with C and vice versa). The sixty-four possible combinations of three consecutive base pairs form syntactical units called codons, each of which programs the formation of one of twenty amino acids or a ‘stop’ marker. Sequences of amino acids form proteins, which are in turn the primary building blocks of cells. Strands of DNA are millions of codons long and are packaged together in chromosomes. DNA has all the qualities of a language: alphabet, syntax, information, and meaning. How can a language arise without a communicator?
Neo-Darwinism holds that the first self-replicating life came together out of the chance arrangement of molecular components in a “primordial soup.” In light of the vast complexity of cellular life it should be realized that chance formation is statistically impossible. Proteins contain up to a few hundred amino acids, so the chance of a random arrangement of amino acids producing, say, a hundred amino acid protein would be one in 20^100 or about 10^-130. Mathematicians define an event with a probability of less than 10^-50 as impossible. Meanwhile, cells contain about 200,000 different proteins arranged in the structures of chromosomes, mitochondria, the nucleolus, the cell wall and much more, functioning in harmony as a veritable factory. Even trying to imagine a simpler organism from which cells as we know them could have evolved we are faced with such complications as that DNA programs the formation of proteins and proteins are required to reproduce DNA. The basic mechanism of self-reproduction then is what Michael Behe called irreducibly complex, a system like an engine in which its constituent parts are useless without the whole. The DNA code and the original proteins would have had to form by chance at the same time or the structure wouldn’t have been able to replicate. According to the math of zoologist Harold Coffin we’re now talking about a probabilities in the realm of 10^-340,000,000.
The formation of new DNA codes for the unique features of different species though a long series of random mutations presents the same problem. Furthermore, in order to endure by the law of natural selection, each mutation of the DNA sequence occasionally producing a different amino acid code, hopefully producing a different protein, somehow producing a different structure within a cell must result in a new trait that better favors the organism for survival and reproduction; else the anomaly would simply die off. Even assuming a disruption of the genetic code could ever produce a useful new trait, we would have to imagine a complete gradient of viable transitional species between each different kind of organism. For this evolutionists beg evidence from the fossil record.
While a panoply of transitional fossil forms is often claimed, experts in the field testify otherwise. Curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago observes:
“[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to attempt to explain and rationalize the differences… Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of the fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one. Well, we are now 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution it still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition then we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data points were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic” **
Stephen J Gould states, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” **
Evolutionary timelines are based on dubious dating techniques. Carbon dating has an upper limit of about 60,000 years as which point all measurable quantities of C14 will have decayed, so the dates in the millions of years evolutionists talk about are usually radioisotope dates of the rocks surrounding fossils. Scientists celebrate the precision of the decay rates, but there are other critical issues. Original C14 concentrations are estimated by the fact that organisms accumulate an amount of C14 during their lifetimes proportional to atmospheric concentration, but how do scientists presume to know the original ratio of parent and daughter elements in ancient rocks? Several volcanic rocks have been isotope dated, many of which were known to have formed during eruptions that took place within the last few centuries. Dates range between several hundred thousand and a few billion years. Scientists can explain that, they now realize that when rock exceeds a certain heat index, some elements escape into the atmosphere, skewing results. Therefore, radioisotope dates that suggest a 4.5 billion year old earth presume that at no point in those rocks’ history did they approach volcanic temperatures, including at formation. Evolutions laud the consistency of multiple dating methods, but other scientists reveal that radiometric dating produces all sorts of dates, and the tendency of specialists is to publish the dates that agree with their theories and explain away or ignore the rest. Rock strata are also dated by evolutionary theory, sets of fossils that are presumed to belong to a certain biological age. The rocks are often later used for evidence of evolutionary timelines in a troubling display of circular logic. Polystrate fossils mock geologic timelines such as tree fossils which extend through supposedly millions of years of accumulated sediment. Quantities of C14 have been found in dinosaur bones proving they could be no older than 60,000 years or so, not millions.
The search for transitional species in human evolution that began with Darwin has revealed a tendency for outright scientific fraud. Piltdown man discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson became a textbook example of a “missing link” for over 40 years until re-analysis of the fossils proved they were an amalgamation of a chemically-aged human skull and an orangutan’s jawbone with filed teeth. The discovery of a single tooth in 1920 in Nebraska was thought to belong to a human ancestor and inspired widely published drawings of primitive looking ape-men. The specimen was later proven to be a pig’s tooth. Eugene Dubois’s 1891 Java man was interpreted by some of his colleagues as of a species of gibbon contemporary to modern humans, at which point its discoverer withheld it from further inspection while it gained prevalence as evolutionary proof anyway. Lyall Watson points out in Science Digest: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so sparse that there are still more scientists then specimens. The remarkable fact that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare in a single coffin.” ** The evidence that hasn’t been proven to be outright forgery is surrounded in controversy.
In addition to raising skepticism for evolution’s conclusions, it’s time to ask: what on earth is going on in the name of science here? The raise of Darwinism has followed an intellectual trend for denouncing religious faith in favor of the epistemology of rational science. Darwin had hoped to help overturn the doctrine of special creation, and evolution has proven useful as a foundation for scientific atheism. Darwinism has had important implications for social politics as well, providing a basis for replacing the moral teachings of religion with the “natural law” of brutal competition. Contrary to the protocol of seeking naturalistic explanations for observable phenomenon, theories like human descent from primates were formed as contradictions to scriptural teaching. Evidence was sought retrospectively and has proven hard to find. While scientific insights are adapted into anti-Creation dogma, the real indications of experimental biology are obscured.
What can genetic science tell us? While macroevolution is no more observable in the fossil record then in real time, species certainly exhibit an assortment of traits. Heredity accounts for many variations, dominant and recessive characteristics which express diversity through generations. The modern science of epigenetics shows how conditions in an organism’s life can result in activation or deactivation of certain sections of the genes that can be passed on to progeny as such, overturning the long held notion that environmental input can’t directly affect inheritance. Darwin’s original observations included finches on different islands which appeared to be best suited to their unique environments. Researchers in Daphne observed a medium sized species of finch adapting a smaller beak for utility with smaller seeds within just 20 years, with most of the change taking place in a single generation, when a larger finch arrived to the island and began dominating their previous food source. Epigenetics model how a changing diet can induce such a genetic change, but through innate functions of the existing gene code, not through mutation into another species. The phenomenon was certainly not facilitated by random changes leaving a lucky few mutants among millions of dead birds over millions of years.
Advances in the study of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) have led to the capacity for genetic engineering. HGT is the process by which genes can be passed from living organism to living organism without parentage. Apparently, HGT is the primary means of genetic change among bacteria and even large animals can assimilate DNA from micro-organisms and food they eat. The assumption that genes are influenced only by ancestry and mutations is no longer tenable and the evolutionary tree rendered more doubtful still. For example, new bacteria arriving in an environment containing heavy metals are able to uptake the codes for resistance from the existing population of bacteria that already had them, as with the finches, achieving a coordinated genetic change seeming to bypass even natural selection. Peter Gogarten observed that some bacteria can mutate quickly to be able to consume different foods when their normal foods aren’t available and that beneficial mutations occur more frequently then neutral mutations, suggesting to him not random but ‘directed mutation.’ Despite these discoveries, evolution is still generally taught as a function of chance and natural selection, probably because such discoveries as Gogarten’s beg for evolutionists the uncomfortable question: directed how, or by whom? With respect to epigenetics and HGT the answer would appear to be through intelligent communication between organisms on the DNA level.
Even the most imaginative theory of evolution offers little explanation for the sudden emergence of modern humans with agriculture, domestication, written language, and assorted technology. No more so does it present a reasonable scenario for the origin of life on earth. Because of the lack of evidence for a precursor to complex DNA-based life Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner for the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, proposed a theory of ‘directed panspermia:’ the notion that the seeds of life were transmitted to earth deliberately from space.
Evolution as a worldview certainly owes a lot of its appeal to the feeling that rational inquiry is a better basis for understanding origins than two sparse chapters in Genesis. Yet surely Darwinists are as presumptuous as Biblical literalists when they disregard millennia of human history documenting relationships with a god or gods. Are we existentially bereft materialists now prepared to dismiss the experience of most of our ancestors and contemporaries as deluded mythology? World traditions are replete with creation stories, almost always unfolding from the actions of higher beings. The Jewish Kabala includes the Sefir Yezirah meaning ‘Book of Formation’ that describes how God made all things using the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The text insists that with understanding of this language one can also create. Jewish rabbis in late antiquity were reported to be able to create small animals and homunculi (animated clay men without speech).
Hebrew letters are of three kinds. There are three ‘mother letters,’ seven ‘double letters,’ and twelve ‘simple letters.’ The 22 expressions of DNA codons are also of three types, three punctuations, seven non-punctuating hydrophobic amino acids, and twelve hydrophilic amino acids. The 22 Hebrew letters are mirrored in the 22 major arcana of the tarot, and another ancient divinatory tool, the I-Ching, Chinese ‘book of changes,’ bares an equally striking resemblance to the genetic code. Like the 64 combinations of 4 types of nucleotides in DNA codons, the 64 hexagrams of the I-Ching are built from triplets of all possible combinations of the 4 forces old yin, young yin, old yang, and young yang. Base pairs bond with two or three hydrogen atoms. Hexagrams are constructed by generations of the numbers two and three, and the list of similarities goes on.
Did ancient cultures understanding DNA? Jeremy Narby shows that the archetype of the cosmic serpent can be found in cultures around the world. Shamans, for example, describe a serpent made of light that communicates telepathically with them in three dimensional images. He finds that many of the objects of their perception are just as biologists describe cellular life. Francis Crick, mentioned earlier, is said to have first visualized DNA’s double helix shape while on LSD. Geneticist Kary Mullis also made his Nobel Prize winning discovery with the help of LSD. Teams of molecular biologists have been brought to the amazon to do ayahuasca ceremonies and almost invariably have revelations about their science. An important part of shamanic work is communicating with plants in order to learn their medicinal properties, which plant shamans do through the language of the light serpent. The akashic record, a universal data bank that contains all history and human experience, was first described in the Samkhya school of Hindu thought. New age philosophy suggests that DNA is our connection thereto. The akashic records are described as a library that can be accessed in astral space to gain information and connection to one’s higher self.
We have a lot to learn from other cultures regarding the fabric of reality. Certainly genetic science has helped bring us closer to understanding the nature and origin of life, but Darwinism has clouded our view with an atheistic bias. The sooner we recognize the DNA code as a divine language the sooner we can hope to fathom its grandeur.
**re-quoted from “Tornedo in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism” by James Perloff
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist. If you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic"
Ben Couwenberg yea iv always laughed at social science students and psychological students at uni, but even before university i did laugh because they study like ahh whats a good analogy the entrail ends of causality -effect and then they maintain that without incorporating the larger such as celestial occurrences or psychedelics (for two instances) that they have some cause figured out, an u pay lots i hear? i wouldnt know ..because i listen to the celestial s and take psychedelics.
Psychiatry: An Industry Of Death 1/10
Psychiatry's main methods are those of conversation or rhetoric, repression, and religion. To the extent that psychiatry presents these problems as "medical diseases," its methods as "medical treatments," and its clients – especially involuntary – as medically ill patients, it embodies a lie and therefore constitutes a fundamental threat to freedom and dignity. Psychiatry, supported by the State through various Mental Health Acts, has become a modern secular state religion according to Szasz. It is a vastly elaborate social control system, using both brute force and subtle indoctrination, which disguises itself under the claims of scientificity. The notion that biological psychiatry is a real science or a genuine branch of medicine has been challenged by other critics as well, such as Michel Foucault in Madness and Civilization (1961), and Erving Goffman in Asylums (1961).
Separation of psychiatry and the state: State government by enforcing the use of shock therapy has abused Psychiatry with impunity.[14] If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviors that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state," designating someone as "insane" or as a "drug addict".
In Ceremonial Chemistry (1973), he argued that the same persecution which has targeted witches, Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals now targets "drug addicts" and "insane" people. ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
Terrence McKennas work is apt here.
Psychiatry: An Industry Of Death 1/10
Psychiatry's main methods are those of conversation or rhetoric, repression, and religion. To the extent that psychiatry presents these problems as "medical diseases," its methods as "medical treatments," and its clients – especially involuntary – as medically ill patients, it embodies a lie and therefore constitutes a fundamental threat to freedom and dignity. Psychiatry, supported by the State through various Mental Health Acts, has become a modern secular state religion according to Szasz. It is a vastly elaborate social control system, using both brute force and subtle indoctrination, which disguises itself under the claims of scientificity. The notion that biological psychiatry is a real science or a genuine branch of medicine has been challenged by other critics as well, such as Michel Foucault in Madness and Civilization (1961), and Erving Goffman in Asylums (1961).
Separation of psychiatry and the state: State government by enforcing the use of shock therapy has abused Psychiatry with impunity.[14] If we accept that "mental illness" is a euphemism for behaviors that are disapproved of, then the state has no right to force psychiatric "treatment" on these individuals. Similarly, the state should not be able to interfere in mental health practices between consenting adults (for example, by legally controlling the supply of psychotropic drugs or psychiatric medication). The medicalization of government produces a "therapeutic state," designating someone as "insane" or as a "drug addict".
In Ceremonial Chemistry (1973), he argued that the same persecution which has targeted witches, Jews, Gypsies or homosexuals now targets "drug addicts" and "insane" people. ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
Terrence McKennas work is apt here.
Newton and Einstein overthrown?
Using extensive recent data, GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN presents the correct interpretation of Kepler’s third law.
Pari Spolter has successfully attacked and destroyed Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation along with the gravitational constant and thrown Einstein and his pseudoscientific hypothetical equations on the junk heap of philosophical fraud.
What Pari has discovered is that her equation for the gravitational force of the sun Fs = a.A is identical to the 390-year-old Kepler’s Third Law, which is r3/t2or "The square of the orbital periods of planets is directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axis of the orbits."
What Pari has done is to formulate the equation of the least squares line of regression of the mean orbital velocity of each planet around the sun versus the mean distance of that planet to the sun which she states as Fs = a.A, or 'the gravitation force of the sun is equal to the acceleration times the area' of each planet. And the gravitational force of the sun turns out to be 4.16449 ± 0.00032 x 1020 m s-2 m2.
She proves her equation by taking the 'acceleration' or the square of the mean orbital velocity of each planet and multiplying it by the mean distance (semimajor axis of revolution) of that planet. And the result is always the same: 4.1645 x 1020 m s-2 m2; the gravitational force of the sun.
She further proves her equation by calculating Fs = a.A from the orbit of each artificial satellite orbiting the sun including the Luna 1, Pioneer 5, 6, and 7, Ranger 5, Mariner 2, 5, 6, and 7 and Mars 4. And the result is always the same: 4.16 x 1020 m s-2 m2; the gravitational force of the sun.
What Pari does then is to compute the gravitational force of the sun using Newton’s force laws (either the Second Law or the Universal Law) with the mass of each planet given in the tables of the astronomical books.
The gravitation force of the sun, calculated from Newton's equations, F = ma or F = GMm/r^2,is not constant and varies from 4.16 x 1023 kg m s-2 for Jupiter to 5.69 x 1016 kg m s-2 for Pluto; and 16.76 kg m s-2 for Mars 4 to 0.33 kg m s-2 for Pioneer 7.
Thus, if we accept Newton’s force laws, we have to assume that the sun doles out a specific amount of its attractive force depending on the particular body that orbits it.
Pari states in 'Gravitational Force of the Sun' (pg. 138) "...convincing experiments (pg. 138-143), with increasing degree of precision, have shown that the gravitational force is independent of the mass or nature of the attracted body."
Pari supports her proof for the constant gravitational force of the sun and her proof that there is no basis for Newton's assumption that the gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter by addressing a number of issues of which the following are only a part, in "Gravitational Force of the Sun":
Missing mass
Titius-Bode Distance Law
Direction of Movement, Radius of inversion
Eccentricity
Inertia
As to the 'missing mass' problem Pari states, (pg. 112) "...there is no basis for Newton's assumption that the gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter" and cites numerous passages throughout Principia where Newton equates the magnitude of the gravitational force with the quantity or density of matter.
In addressing the Titius-Bode 'Distance Law, Pari plots the mean distance of the planets from the sun, r, versus the sequential numbers, n, on semi-logarithmic paper together with the least square line of regression. >From the result of her equation she concludes "the distance law is an integral part of gravitation; i.e., gravitation is quantized."
She addresses the radius of inversion and concludes, "like the distance law...is an integral part of gravitation."
For the question of eccentricity, Pari proves the increment of the force at perihelion is, in all cases, equal to the negative of the increment at aphelion and the increment is due to the sum of perturbations in the direction of the line of apsides. She states that the sum of the forces at perihelion and at aphelion divided by two is the gravitational force of the Sun.
She concludes that the eccentricity is, simply, the ratio of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun.
In addressing inertia Pari accepts the classical definition: Inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion.
Pari points out that simple laboratory experiments can be performed to determine the density of matter necessary, in a given volume of a sphere that is turning by an electric motor at a given setting, to produce various degrees of retardation of angular velocity.
Using accepted orbital mechanics that 'the mean orbital acceleration of the planets decreases with the square of the distance from the sun', Pari then explains how a planet with a given mass would then weigh less in the outer than in the inner system and would therefore offer resistance to its angular velocity.
Further she shows how seasonal variations in Earth's spin ratio may be a change in the weight of the planet. As the Earth's weight is equal to its mass times acceleration and because measurements of the time of the rotation of Earth in terms of the cesium atomic standard show that the Earth spins faster in summer and slower in winter, the Earth would weigh less in summer than it does in winter and offers less resistance to its angular velocity.
Pari points out that the rotational retardation of a planet is proportional to its weight and also to the distribution of matter inside the body and that planets with greater rotational inertia have matter nearer the center.
She concludes that this is why the inner planets Mercury and Venus have no satellites and the outer planets have rings and several satellites.
Pari also dismisses Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, both General and Special in Chapters 2 and 3 of "Gravitational Force of the Sun" and concludes" by noting that Einstein's Theories of Relativity fails to explain:
(1)the rotation of celestial bodies
(2) the orientation of the axis of rotation of the planets
(3) the orbital planes of all planets approximately on the solar equatorial plane (±12?)
(4) the inclination of the plane of the orbit of each planet
(5) the direction of movement of the planets (counterclockwise as viewed from north)
(6) the distance law
(7) the eccentricities
(8) the regression of the nodes
(9) the precession of the equinoxes
(10) the perturbations
You can be sure that deep in the bowels of the Pentagon someone already knows all of this. But we don't.
Pari Spolter has uncovered many truths about our planet, our solar system and universe by deductive reasoning, science and mathematics using recent data.
A few of those truths are:
Inert mass does not cause gravitational attraction
Mass and energy are not one and the same
Although the mass of a body remains constant, its weight increases when accelerated
Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/topic72297-20.html#ixzz2NrXQRYHH (i know fuck this shithouse reference right i will try track some other source down)
seems to be from here>
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter/dp/0963810758
Pari Spolter has successfully attacked and destroyed Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation along with the gravitational constant and thrown Einstein and his pseudoscientific hypothetical equations on the junk heap of philosophical fraud.
What Pari has discovered is that her equation for the gravitational force of the sun Fs = a.A is identical to the 390-year-old Kepler’s Third Law, which is r3/t2or "The square of the orbital periods of planets is directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axis of the orbits."
What Pari has done is to formulate the equation of the least squares line of regression of the mean orbital velocity of each planet around the sun versus the mean distance of that planet to the sun which she states as Fs = a.A, or 'the gravitation force of the sun is equal to the acceleration times the area' of each planet. And the gravitational force of the sun turns out to be 4.16449 ± 0.00032 x 1020 m s-2 m2.
She proves her equation by taking the 'acceleration' or the square of the mean orbital velocity of each planet and multiplying it by the mean distance (semimajor axis of revolution) of that planet. And the result is always the same: 4.1645 x 1020 m s-2 m2; the gravitational force of the sun.
She further proves her equation by calculating Fs = a.A from the orbit of each artificial satellite orbiting the sun including the Luna 1, Pioneer 5, 6, and 7, Ranger 5, Mariner 2, 5, 6, and 7 and Mars 4. And the result is always the same: 4.16 x 1020 m s-2 m2; the gravitational force of the sun.
What Pari does then is to compute the gravitational force of the sun using Newton’s force laws (either the Second Law or the Universal Law) with the mass of each planet given in the tables of the astronomical books.
The gravitation force of the sun, calculated from Newton's equations, F = ma or F = GMm/r^2,is not constant and varies from 4.16 x 1023 kg m s-2 for Jupiter to 5.69 x 1016 kg m s-2 for Pluto; and 16.76 kg m s-2 for Mars 4 to 0.33 kg m s-2 for Pioneer 7.
Thus, if we accept Newton’s force laws, we have to assume that the sun doles out a specific amount of its attractive force depending on the particular body that orbits it.
Pari states in 'Gravitational Force of the Sun' (pg. 138) "...convincing experiments (pg. 138-143), with increasing degree of precision, have shown that the gravitational force is independent of the mass or nature of the attracted body."
Pari supports her proof for the constant gravitational force of the sun and her proof that there is no basis for Newton's assumption that the gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter by addressing a number of issues of which the following are only a part, in "Gravitational Force of the Sun":
Missing mass
Titius-Bode Distance Law
Direction of Movement, Radius of inversion
Eccentricity
Inertia
As to the 'missing mass' problem Pari states, (pg. 112) "...there is no basis for Newton's assumption that the gravitational force is due to and is proportional to the quantity or density of matter" and cites numerous passages throughout Principia where Newton equates the magnitude of the gravitational force with the quantity or density of matter.
In addressing the Titius-Bode 'Distance Law, Pari plots the mean distance of the planets from the sun, r, versus the sequential numbers, n, on semi-logarithmic paper together with the least square line of regression. >From the result of her equation she concludes "the distance law is an integral part of gravitation; i.e., gravitation is quantized."
She addresses the radius of inversion and concludes, "like the distance law...is an integral part of gravitation."
For the question of eccentricity, Pari proves the increment of the force at perihelion is, in all cases, equal to the negative of the increment at aphelion and the increment is due to the sum of perturbations in the direction of the line of apsides. She states that the sum of the forces at perihelion and at aphelion divided by two is the gravitational force of the Sun.
She concludes that the eccentricity is, simply, the ratio of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun.
In addressing inertia Pari accepts the classical definition: Inertia is the tendency of an object to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion.
Pari points out that simple laboratory experiments can be performed to determine the density of matter necessary, in a given volume of a sphere that is turning by an electric motor at a given setting, to produce various degrees of retardation of angular velocity.
Using accepted orbital mechanics that 'the mean orbital acceleration of the planets decreases with the square of the distance from the sun', Pari then explains how a planet with a given mass would then weigh less in the outer than in the inner system and would therefore offer resistance to its angular velocity.
Further she shows how seasonal variations in Earth's spin ratio may be a change in the weight of the planet. As the Earth's weight is equal to its mass times acceleration and because measurements of the time of the rotation of Earth in terms of the cesium atomic standard show that the Earth spins faster in summer and slower in winter, the Earth would weigh less in summer than it does in winter and offers less resistance to its angular velocity.
Pari points out that the rotational retardation of a planet is proportional to its weight and also to the distribution of matter inside the body and that planets with greater rotational inertia have matter nearer the center.
She concludes that this is why the inner planets Mercury and Venus have no satellites and the outer planets have rings and several satellites.
Pari also dismisses Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, both General and Special in Chapters 2 and 3 of "Gravitational Force of the Sun" and concludes" by noting that Einstein's Theories of Relativity fails to explain:
(1)the rotation of celestial bodies
(2) the orientation of the axis of rotation of the planets
(3) the orbital planes of all planets approximately on the solar equatorial plane (±12?)
(4) the inclination of the plane of the orbit of each planet
(5) the direction of movement of the planets (counterclockwise as viewed from north)
(6) the distance law
(7) the eccentricities
(8) the regression of the nodes
(9) the precession of the equinoxes
(10) the perturbations
You can be sure that deep in the bowels of the Pentagon someone already knows all of this. But we don't.
Pari Spolter has uncovered many truths about our planet, our solar system and universe by deductive reasoning, science and mathematics using recent data.
A few of those truths are:
Inert mass does not cause gravitational attraction
Mass and energy are not one and the same
Although the mass of a body remains constant, its weight increases when accelerated
Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/topic72297-20.html#ixzz2NrXQRYHH (i know fuck this shithouse reference right i will try track some other source down)
seems to be from here>
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitational-Force-Sun-Pari-Spolter/dp/0963810758