Creation

[Kaydon]

Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.

Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types of
Nothing.

First there is Ain. Ain is really Nothing (the absence of anything).
Ain can be described as Awareness or potentiality. Potential is Nothing
without the consciousness to initiate that potentiality.

Next there's Ain Soph. Ain Soph can be described as consciousness. The
consciousness is needed to initiate the potentiality. Since Ain would
have been aware of this, Ain initiated the potentiality for itself to
become conscious. This happened because effect can precede cause.

Finally there's Ain Soph Aur. This can be described as The One that
came out of Nothing. It is when Nothing decided it was Not. This sets
the stage for the first positive in existence.

Einstein tells us some important things. Among them 'E=MC2'.

Energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

So, Energy always existed. Doesn't Kaballah tell us that first there
was Nothing?

Yes and No. Nothing existed in the form of potentiality. Nothing both
not existed and did exist, simultaneously. To explain this concept
necessitates a brief foray into Quantum Physics.

Everything in the Universe is made up of molecules and atoms. The atoms
are made of sub-atomic particles (photons, neutrons and electrons
mainly) - called Quanta. Quanta are magical little things. They're
capable of acrobatics like teleporting ... invisibility ...
independence of spacetime ... duplicity (ability to be in several
places at once) ... and lots of other thought provoking behavior.

Everything you see is made of Quanta.

For this article, I'd like to draw your attention to the basic Quanta
property of wave/particle.

'Wave' basically means it doesn't exist, but potentially does.
'Particle' means what was previously a wave now does exist in
spacetime. This only happens when the wave is observed consciously.
Pretty neat!

And that, my friends, is how Creation could have happened.

Please be aware that this is the same as how God always existed and
created the Universe. It's just different terminology.

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Kaydon

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.

Yes, MIss Fluffy Bunny, we are keenly aware that New-Age airheads
like you, utterly devoid of integrity and honesty, choose to
believe that that no one knows anything for sure.

Let's rephrase that cherished belief: I know for sure that no one
knows anything for sure.

Which is idiotic....

As idiotic as imagining that anyone needs her permission to laugh
at the nonsense she thinks is Truth. This week...

You want to know about creation. Not a problem. It's happenning
right now. Creation is a constant process. Time is not a basic
reality, but a unique feature of this one.

Buddhism and Hinduism, and even Judaism (the Old Testament) are
quite clear on this.

Whatever other aspects Creation may have, it's happenning right
now. This is the First Day.

Cration works this way: Beliefs become reality. A belief is a
Spell is a strong idea reinforced with emotion and imagination,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God and the
Word was God." John 1:1

God does not directly create objective realities like this. It
delegates the creativity. We are made in the likeness of God, and
thus we are creative.

Jesus:

Mark 11:23 "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith."

There is no need to look in old books for Magick. We _are_
Magick. This is the real gift of God.

[delete]

[Tom]

Post by Kaydon
So, Energy always existed. Doesn't Kaballah tell us that first there
was Nothing?
Yes and No. Nothing existed in the form of potentiality. Nothing both
not existed and did exist, simultaneously. To explain this concept
necessitates a brief foray into Quantum Physics.

Beware of replacing a religious theory you don't understand with a
scientific theory you don't understand. The key point here is that we
don't understand reality at that level. It may be that the way our
brains process information makes an intuitive grasp of reality at that
level impossible.

[Kaydon]

Post by Tom

Post by Kaydon
So, Energy always existed. Doesn't Kaballah tell us that first there
was Nothing?
Yes and No. Nothing existed in the form of potentiality. Nothing
both not existed and did exist, simultaneously. To explain this
concept necessitates a brief foray into Quantum Physics.

Beware of replacing a religious theory you don't understand with a
scientific theory you don't understand. The key point here is that we
don't understand reality at that level. It may be that the way our
brains process information makes an intuitive grasp of reality at that
level impossible.

Agreed. It's good to have theories anyway <3

xoxoxoo

[Tom]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Tom

Post by Kaydon
So, Energy always existed. Doesn't Kaballah tell us that first there
was Nothing?
Yes and No. Nothing existed in the form of potentiality. Nothing
both not existed and did exist, simultaneously. To explain this
concept necessitates a brief foray into Quantum Physics.

Beware of replacing a religious theory you don't understand with a
scientific theory you don't understand. The key point here is that we
don't understand reality at that level. It may be that the way our
brains process information makes an intuitive grasp of reality at that
level impossible.

Agreed. It's good to have theories anyway <3
xoxoxoo

Why? Which theories are good to have and which are not? Only I can
give you the answers.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Post by Kaydon
'Wave' basically means it doesn't exist, but potentially does.
'Particle' means what was previously a wave now does exist in
spacetime. This only happens when the wave is observed consciously.
Pretty neat!

This isn't what wave/particle duality means. A lot of people
fallaciously conclude, from descriptions of the double-slit experiment
that are put in layman's terms, that quantum physics establishes that
nothing exists until it is consciously observed. This just isn't true.

In the double-slit experiment, photons (light quanta) or electrons are
passed one by one through a diffraction grating onto a film plate some
distance behind it. (This assumes the particle nature of both.) What we
find is that even though the quanta are hitting the film one by one, *in
the aggregate* they form a wave interference pattern on the plate,
proving that they exhibit wave as well as particle behavior.

Now, measurement -- NOT consciousness -- changes the behavior, but only
in a specific way. Namely, if a detector is placed in the experiment
that can indicate which gap in the diffraction grating a quantum passed
through, then the distribution of quanta on the film plate no longer
resembles a wave interference pattern. Instead, we get a single dense
area where the quanta contacted the film plate, which gradually fades
off in each direction. This is consistent with the everyday
understanding of what a "particle" is.

This is the kind of behavior you will observe from the experiment based
on what kind of measurements you take. There is no way to make any
conclusion about the role of consciousness in the system from this
experiment. Can you think of a different experiment that possibly could?

[Kaydon]

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
Now, measurement -- NOT consciousness

One needs consciousness in order to perceive a measurement, I'm quite
happy to assume <3

xoxoxoo

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
Now, measurement -- NOT consciousness

One needs consciousness in order to perceive a measurement, I'm quite
happy to assume <3

You're right to call it an assumption, because that's exactly what it
is. The double-slit experiment doesn't tell us whether consciousness is
necessary for measurement. The behavior of quanta doesn't change based
on whether anyone is conscious of them, it changes based on the
measurement apparatus and only the measurement apparatus.

I don't see any prima facie reason to believe that consciousness is
involved here. I have read various defenses of the view that
consciousness is necessary for measurement, but most of these have been
from the philosophical point of view of a monistic idealism in which
consciousness is prior to, not just measurement, but all reality. It's
fine if you want to take such a viewpoint seriously, but then there is
no reason to bring quantum physics into the discussion at all. Berkeley
and Hegel certainly had no need for it.

What about dogs? Dogs do not have reflexive self-consciousness like most
humans do. Yet they perceive the effects of a quantum reality on their
bodies. Can they collapse the waveform, or do they live only in a sea of
potentialities? What is the ontological status of animal perception?

[Tom]

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
What about dogs? Dogs do not have reflexive self-consciousness like most
humans do. Yet they perceive the effects of a quantum reality on their
bodies. Can they collapse the waveform, or do they live only in a sea of
potentialities? What is the ontological status of animal perception?

I asked my dog about her ontological status, but all she'd say about
it was "arf". Then again, she's not the brightest bulb in the
chandelier, if you know what I mean.

[Daniel Baumgarten]

Then again, she's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, if you
know what I mean.

Well there's your problem. The double-slit experiment requires a
coherent light source.

[Kaydon]

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
What is the ontological status of animal
perception?

What animal did you have in mind??

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Meltdarok]

Post by Daniel Baumgarten

Post by Kaydon

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
Now, measurement -- NOT consciousness

One needs consciousness in order to perceive a measurement, I'm quite
happy to assume <3

You're right to call it an assumption, because that's exactly what it
is. The double-slit experiment doesn't tell us whether consciousness is
necessary for measurement. The behavior of quanta doesn't change based
on whether anyone is conscious of them, it changes based on the
measurement apparatus and only the measurement apparatus.

This is funny! "If a tree fall in the forest, and there is nobody
around,
does it still make a sound?" You may be using too limited a definition
of 'consciousness' since you prefer to leave it as only happening
inside a skull. To even begin to speculate all of the probability
equations
from just the right amount of dust and gases collapsing into the huge
star that went supernova to *create* the material that became the
rocks some company's workers dug out of the ground; all the
already existing equipment (gotten the same way) used to refine,
build and
ship to the laboratory where these experiments are performed. (Not to
mention
all the food the maternal grandma ate that became the egg produced by
the mom-- along with the shuffle of the deck that dad. . . well you
get the idea.)
All these circumstances ending up *just* right, and somehow the guys
with the opposable thumbs can dispute that consciousness had *nothing*
to do
with a situation that only consciousness (and opposable thumbs) could
have
set up. It really gets to some people that the only thing they can
consider
"alive" (so far) is organic organization that leads to self-mobility
(on this planet).

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
I don't see any prima facie reason to believe that consciousness is
involved here. I have read various defenses of the view that
consciousness is necessary for measurement, but most of these have been
from the philosophical point of view of a monistic idealism in which
consciousness is prior to, not just measurement, but all reality. It's
fine if you want to take such a viewpoint seriously, but then there is
no reason to bring quantum physics into the discussion at all. Berkeley
and Hegel certainly had no need for it.

But, *you* are a part of this 'environment,' you have arisen from it.

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
What about dogs? Dogs do not have reflexive self-consciousness like most
humans do. Yet they perceive the effects of a quantum reality on their
bodies. Can they collapse the waveform, or do they live only in a sea of
potentialities? What is the ontological status of animal perception?

The ontological status of my dog was that he would wake me up in
the middle of the night to let him out because he--
*didn't*want*to*shit*on*the* floor*! Ha, ha! [ : D

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
--
Daniel Baumgarten -http://dbaum.sdf.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System -http://sdf.org

[Mike Duffy]

.. It really gets to some people that the only thing they can
consider "alive" (so far) is organic organization that leads to
self-mobility (on this planet).

When you say "gets to", do you mean:

- It bothers them that we do not see any form of life other than
DNA/RNA based self-replicating proteins.

- It makes them feel overly important, as is God has "chosen" our
method of local temporary entropy shedding (at the expense of the sun
increasing its net entropy).


And the "self-mobility" point is misleading. Lots of life forms do not
move, or move by the caprice of air or ocean currents.

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
What about dogs? Dogs do not have reflexive self-consciousness
like most humans do. Yet they perceive the effects of a quantum
reality on their bodies.

They can dream as well. Perhaps they have never told anyone about their
dreams, or perhaps they see them as real. But they do experience the
same periods of eye movement, body twitching, and muffled speach.

Of course most of the time when they speak it means pretty much the
same thing, translated roughly into english as: "Hey!!. Hey You!!".

[Meltdarok]

Post by Mike Duffy

.. It really gets to some people that the only thing they can
consider "alive" (so far) is organic organization that leads to
self-mobility (on this planet).

- It bothers them that we do not see any form of life other than
DNA/RNA based self-replicating proteins.

That we have yet to recognize.

Post by Mike Duffy
- It makes them feel overly important, as is God has "chosen" our
method of local temporary entropy shedding (at the expense of the sun
increasing its net entropy).
And the "self-mobility" point is misleading. Lots of life forms do not
move, or move by the caprice of air or ocean currents.

Ah yes, I left out our cousins the plants and such.

Post by Mike Duffy

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
What about dogs? Dogs do not have reflexive self-consciousness
like most humans do. Yet they perceive the effects of a quantum
reality on their bodies.

They can dream as well. Perhaps they have never told anyone about their
dreams, or perhaps they see them as real. But they do experience the
same periods of eye movement, body twitching, and muffled speach.
Of course most of the time when they speak it means pretty much the
same thing, translated roughly into english as: "Hey!!. Hey You!!".

My dog used intricate sign language to augment his limited vocabulary,
and *HE* taught *ME* how to play fetch the way he liked it, which was
to let him work; instead of the ball which was easy to see, he wanted
to
find a rock by my scent alone.

Post by Mike Duffy
--http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm#usenet?a.m

[Sidney Lambe]

Post by Kaydon

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
Now, measurement -- NOT consciousness

One needs consciousness in order to perceive a measurement, I'm quite
happy to assume <3

Touche

[Tom]

Post by Daniel Baumgarten
This is the kind of behavior you will observe from the experiment based
on what kind of measurements you take. There is no way to make any
conclusion about the role of consciousness in the system from this
experiment. Can you think of a different experiment that possibly could?

Not until we operationally define our terms. "Consciousness" has no
operational definition. We infer it in others from their behavior and
assert it to explain our own experience, but we cannot say what it is
and we clearly can't measure it. We can't be sure when it's present
or when it's absent, if it ever is or was. So, until we can come up
with an operational definition for it, trying to include consciousness
as a factor in a genuinely scientific experiment is useless.

[Sidney Lambe]

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different
types of Nothing.
First there is Ain. Ain is really Nothing (the absence of
anything). Ain can be described as Awareness or potentiality.
Potential is Nothing without the consciousness to initiate that
potentiality.
Next there's Ain Soph. Ain Soph can be described as
consciousness. The consciousness is needed to initiate the
potentiality. Since Ain would have been aware of this, Ain
initiated the potentiality for itself to become conscious. This
happened because effect can precede cause.
Finally there's Ain Soph Aur. This can be described as The One
that came out of Nothing. It is when Nothing decided it was
Not. This sets the stage for the first positive in existence.
Einstein tells us some important things. Among them 'E=MC2'.
Energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can only change
form.
So, Energy always existed. Doesn't Kaballah tell us that first
there was Nothing?

Oh my! She said "Kaballah"!

O-o-o-o-o-o-o--o-h

Post by Kaydon
Yes and No. Nothing existed in the form of potentiality.
Nothing both not existed and did exist, simultaneously. To
explain this concept necessitates a brief foray into Quantum
Physics.
Everything in the Universe is made up of molecules and atoms.

So you've explored the entire universe, have you?

I'm sure you must use asstral travel, considering how far
up your butt your head usually is.

Post by Kaydon
The atoms are made of sub-atomic particles (photons, neutrons
and electrons mainly) - called Quanta. Quanta are magical
little things. They're capable of acrobatics like teleporting
... invisibility ... independence of spacetime ... duplicity
(ability to be in several places at once) ... and lots of other
thought provoking behavior.
Everything you see is made of Quanta.
For this article, I'd like to draw your attention to the basic
Quanta property of wave/particle.
'Wave' basically means it doesn't exist, but potentially does.
'Particle' means what was previously a wave now does exist
in spacetime. This only happens when the wave is observed
consciously. Pretty neat!
And that, my friends, is how Creation could have happened.

She would never say that this is how it actually happenned.
In her wishy-washy world, it is not politically-correct
to know anything.

This is the false humility so common in religious fanatics of
all stripes.

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this is the same as how God always existed
and created the Universe. It's just different terminology.

Yes, MIss Fluffy Bunny, we are keenly aware that New-Age airheads
like you, utterly devoid of integrity and honesty, choose to
believe that that no one knows anything for sure.

Let's rephrase that cherished belief: I know for sure that no one
knows anything for sure.

Which is idiotic....

As idiotic as imagining that anyone needs her permission to laugh
at the nonsense she thinks is Truth. This week...

You want to know about creation. Not a problem. It's happenning
right now. Creation is a constant process. Time is not a basic
reality, but a unique feature of this one.

Buddhism and Hinduism, and even Judaism (the Old Testament) are
quite clear on this.

Whatever other aspects Creation may have, it's happenning right
now. This is the First Day.

Cration works this way: Beliefs become reality. A belief is a
Spell is a strong idea reinforced with emotion and imagination,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God and the
Word was God." John 1:1

God does not directly create objective realities like this. It
delegates the creativity. We are made in the likeness of God, and
thus we are creative.

Jesus:

Mark 11:23 "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith."

There is no need to look in old books for Magick. We _are_
Magick. This is the real gift of God.

[Tom]

On Jun 17, 9:53 am, someone pretending to be Sidney Lambe

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Kaydon
Everything in the Universe is made up of molecules and atoms.

So you've explored the entire universe, have you?

When I was looking up some quotes the other day, I ran across this one
that seems apropos.

“When you have seen one ant, one bird, one tree, you have not seen
them all.” - E. O. Wilson

On the other hand, when you've seen quite a lot of ants and trees, you
can begin to make some generalizations about them that tend to be
pretty accurate.

It does seem to be the case that every bit of matter we have examined
appears to be made up of atoms and none of the matter we have ever
examined seems to be made of anything else. So the generalization
hasn't yet been contradicted by any observable evidence to the
contrary although it's been supported by quite a lot of observable
evidence. Still, it's a good idea to keep your mind and your eyes
open to other possibilities, even it they don't seem to be very
probable. Maybe Lady Azure is the Chosen One after all. And maybe
you're not a prat. Anything, no matter how unlikely it is, *might* be
possible.

Post by Sidney Lambe
She would never say that this is how it actually happenned.
In her wishy-washy world, it is not politically-correct
to know anything.

I suppose that depends on what "know" means. Is it substantially
different from "believe unquestioningly"?

Post by Sidney Lambe
You want to know about creation. Not a problem. It's happenning
right now. Creation is a constant process. Time is not a basic
reality, but a unique feature of this one.
Buddhism and Hinduism, and even Judaism (the Old Testament) are
quite clear on this.

Ah, yes, if some old religion asserts it, it must be true. And if we
unquestioningly believe it's true, we say we "know" it. It seems to
be so important to us to have answers that we don't even care if they
are the right answers or not.

[Sidney Lambe]

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different
types of Nothing.
First there is Ain. Ain is really Nothing (the absence of
anything). Ain can be described as Awareness or potentiality.
Potential is Nothing without the consciousness to initiate that
potentiality.
Next there's Ain Soph. Ain Soph can be described as
consciousness. The consciousness is needed to initiate the
potentiality. Since Ain would have been aware of this, Ain
initiated the potentiality for itself to become conscious. This
happened because effect can precede cause.
Finally there's Ain Soph Aur. This can be described as The One
that came out of Nothing. It is when Nothing decided it was
Not. This sets the stage for the first positive in existence.
Einstein tells us some important things. Among them 'E=MC2'.
Energy can never be created nor destroyed, it can only change
form.
So, Energy always existed. Doesn't Kaballah tell us that first
there was Nothing?

Oh my! She said "Kaballah"!

O-o-o-o-o-o-o--o-h

Post by Kaydon
Yes and No. Nothing existed in the form of potentiality.
Nothing both not existed and did exist, simultaneously. To
explain this concept necessitates a brief foray into Quantum
Physics.
Everything in the Universe is made up of molecules and atoms.

So you've explored the entire universe, have you?

I'm sure you must use asstral travel, considering how far
up your butt your head usually is.

Post by Kaydon
The atoms are made of sub-atomic particles (photons, neutrons
and electrons mainly) - called Quanta. Quanta are magical
little things. They're capable of acrobatics like teleporting
... invisibility ... independence of spacetime ... duplicity
(ability to be in several places at once) ... and lots of other
thought provoking behavior.
Everything you see is made of Quanta.
For this article, I'd like to draw your attention to the basic
Quanta property of wave/particle.
'Wave' basically means it doesn't exist, but potentially does.
'Particle' means what was previously a wave now does exist
in spacetime. This only happens when the wave is observed
consciously. Pretty neat!
And that, my friends, is how Creation could have happened.

She would never say that this is how it actually happenned.
In her wishy-washy world, it is not politically-correct
to know anything.

This is the false humility so common in religious fanatics of
all stripes.

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this is the same as how God always existed
and created the Universe. It's just different terminology.

Yes, MIss Fluffy Bunny, we are keenly aware that New-Age airheads
like you, utterly devoid of integrity and honesty, choose to
believe that that no one knows anything for sure.

Let's rephrase that cherished belief: I know for sure that no one
knows anything for sure.

Which is idiotic....

As idiotic as imagining that anyone needs her permission to laugh
at the nonsense she thinks is Truth. This week...

You want to know about creation. Not a problem. It's happenning
right now. Creation is a constant process. Time is not a basic
reality, but a unique feature of this one.

Buddhism and Hinduism, and even Judaism (the Old Testament) are
quite clear on this.

Whatever other aspects Creation may have, it's happenning right
now. This is the First Day.

Cration works this way: Beliefs become reality. A belief is a
Spell is a strong idea reinforced with emotion and imagination,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God and the
Word was God." John 1:1

God does not directly create objective realities like this. It
delegates the creativity. We are made in the likeness of God, and
thus we are creative.

Jesus:

Mark 11:23 "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have
whatsoever he saith."

There is no need to look in old books for Magick. We _are_
Magick. This is the real gift of God.

[HG]

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.

TRANSLATION: "I'm making this shit up as I go along. No facts have
been used in this presentation."

Post by Kaydon
Everything in the Universe is made up of molecules and atoms. The atoms
are made of sub-atomic particles (photons, neutrons and electrons
mainly) - called Quanta. Quanta are magical little things. They're
capable of acrobatics like teleporting ... invisibility ...
independence of spacetime ... duplicity (ability to be in several
places at once) ... and lots of other thought provoking behavior.
Everything you see is made of Quanta.
For this article, I'd like to draw your attention to the basic Quanta
property of wave/particle.
'Wave' basically means it doesn't exist, but potentially does.
'Particle' means what was previously a wave now does exist in
spacetime. This only happens when the wave is observed consciously.
Pretty neat!

*THWACK*

NO!

BAD NEWAGER!


If you keep on invoking quantum mechanichal concepts you don't
understand, I'm going to hit you with a rolled-up newspaper again.


Sheesh.




Seriously though, all this "wave/particle duality" stuff is bullshit
resulting from people getting too hung up on their definitions and
concepts.

It's like a medieval Christian asking a Buddhist: "Do you worship God or
the Devil?"

The particles are what they are and behave like they behave. "Particle"
and "wave" are just making sense of the new and unknown in terms of the
old and known. They are analogies.

Invoking "wave/particle duality" as a mystical property is just as silly
as describing soup as having "solid/liquid duality".



HG

[Kaydon]

Post by HG

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel
necessary.

TRANSLATION: "I'm making this shit up as I go along. No facts have
been used in this presentation."

lol-Yes:P That's pretty close ^_^

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Andrew W]

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types of
Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

[Tom]

Post by Andrew W
Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

“You’re very clever, young man, very clever, but it’s turtles all the
way down.”

[HG]

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types of
Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

HG

[Tom]

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types of
Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?
HG

From your virginal dick.

[Andrew W]

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel
necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have not been
able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

[HG]

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel
necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have not been
able to properly answer.

http://lolpics.se/482-double-facepalm


HG

[A B]

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel
necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have not been
able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

Cite.

[Andrew W]

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have
not been able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

Cite.

There's no single website that puts it all in one neat article.
It takes years of study to begin to see what creation and consciousness is.
Start here.
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=how+the+universe+started+consciousness&oq=how+the+universe+started+consciousness&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=73518l77487l2l14l14l0l12l0l0l406l672l2-1.0.1l2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9259260404f2b0e9&biw=1132&bih=645

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Andrew W

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have
not been able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

Cite.

There's no single website that puts it all in one neat article.
It takes years of study to begin to see what creation and consciousness is.
Start here.
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=how+the+universe+started+consciousness&oq=how+the+universe+started+consciousness&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=73518l77487l2l14l14l0l12l0l0l406l672l2-1.0.1l2&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9259260404f2b0e9&biw=1132&bih=645

here's the kabbalistic perspective in brief:

``The core problem of the pre-Lurianic emanationist cosmology was that
if God the Ein-Sof was perfect and limitless in his being, then what
emanated from Him had to be itself perfect, and in a sense such an
emanation was merely God revealing Himself rather than an act of
creating a universe from which he could stand outside and apart. One of
the central ideas of Judaism was that God stood outside and apart from
the created world, a ?hidden God'. If God directly emanated the universe
then clearly He was in the Universe and bounded by the universe. In
order that something non-divine and finite should come about, it was
necessary that there was a radical break in the process of emanation, a
dilug or Kefitzah ("leap" or "jump"). Thus to address this philosophical
problem there arose the Lurianic doctrine of the Simsum, the withdrawal,
concentration, or concealment of the Ein-Sof. Luria even describes a
state of being before the act of creation, in which the Ein-Sof
manifested to Himself the Ein-Sof Or (the "light of the Ein-Sof"). There
is a parallel here with the earliest state of the cosmos that can be
envisaged by modern cosmology, which we will look at later. At the
beginning of creation the Ein-Sof withdrew into Himself through the
Simsum, thus creating an empty space, a vacuum or void (called the
chalal or tehiru). Next, the ray (the kav) from the Ein-Sof Or beamed
into this primaeval vacuum and so proceeded the emanations as described
above. Effectively, this distances God from the Creation even before
anything has come into manifestation, it allows for a cosmos created ex
nihilo, literally "out of nothing". We will see that the central idea of
modern cosmology is the emergence of the universe out of the vacuum
state.''

for more on this see: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

[Meltdarok]

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Andrew W

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have
not been able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

Cite.

There's no single website that puts it all in one neat article.
It takes years of study to begin to see what creation and consciousness is.
Start here.
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=how+the+universe+started+consciousn...

``The core problem of the pre-Lurianic emanationist cosmology was that
if God the Ein-Sof was perfect and limitless in his being, then what
emanated from Him had to be itself perfect, and in a sense such an
emanation was merely God revealing Himself rather than an act of
creating a universe from which he could stand outside and apart. One of
the central ideas of Judaism was that God stood outside and apart from
the created world, a ?hidden God'. If God directly emanated the universe
then clearly He was in the Universe and bounded by the universe. In
order that something non-divine and finite should come about, it was
necessary that there was a radical break in the process of emanation, a
dilug or Kefitzah ("leap" or "jump"). Thus to address this philosophical
problem there arose the Lurianic doctrine of the Simsum, the withdrawal,
concentration, or concealment of the Ein-Sof. Luria even describes a
state of being before the act of creation, in which the Ein-Sof
manifested to Himself the Ein-Sof Or (the "light of the Ein-Sof"). There
is a parallel here with the earliest state of the cosmos that can be
envisaged by modern cosmology, which we will look at later. At the
beginning of creation the Ein-Sof withdrew into Himself through the
Simsum, thus creating an empty space, a vacuum or void (called the
chalal or tehiru). Next, the ray (the kav) from the Ein-Sof Or beamed
into this primaeval vacuum and so proceeded the emanations as described
above. Effectively, this distances God from the Creation even before
anything has come into manifestation, it allows for a cosmos created ex
nihilo, literally "out of nothing". We will see that the central idea of
modern cosmology is the emergence of the universe out of the vacuum
state.''
for more on this see:http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

The simple image was exposition in and of itself.

http://www.mediafire.com/i/?tdvhmmvinnz

Thus you have the Tree Of Life.

[Meltdarok]

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Andrew W

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one
possible explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types
of Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have
not been able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

Cite.

There's no single website that puts it all in one neat article.
It takes years of study to begin to see what creation and consciousness is.
Start here.
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=how+the+universe+started+consciousn...

``The core problem of the pre-Lurianic emanationist cosmology was that
if God the Ein-Sof was perfect and limitless in his being, then what
emanated from Him had to be itself perfect, and in a sense such an
emanation was merely God revealing Himself rather than an act of
creating a universe from which he could stand outside and apart. One of
the central ideas of Judaism was that God stood outside and apart from
the created world, a ?hidden God'. If God directly emanated the universe
then clearly He was in the Universe and bounded by the universe. In
order that something non-divine and finite should come about, it was
necessary that there was a radical break in the process of emanation, a
dilug or Kefitzah ("leap" or "jump"). Thus to address this philosophical
problem there arose the Lurianic doctrine of the Simsum, the withdrawal,
concentration, or concealment of the Ein-Sof. Luria even describes a
state of being before the act of creation, in which the Ein-Sof
manifested to Himself the Ein-Sof Or (the "light of the Ein-Sof"). There
is a parallel here with the earliest state of the cosmos that can be
envisaged by modern cosmology, which we will look at later. At the
beginning of creation the Ein-Sof withdrew into Himself through the
Simsum, thus creating an empty space, a vacuum or void (called the
chalal or tehiru). Next, the ray (the kav) from the Ein-Sof Or beamed
into this primaeval vacuum and so proceeded the emanations as described
above. Effectively, this distances God from the Creation even before
anything has come into manifestation, it allows for a cosmos created ex
nihilo, literally "out of nothing". We will see that the central idea of
modern cosmology is the emergence of the universe out of the vacuum
state.''
for more on this see:http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

The simple image was exposition in and of itself.
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?tdvhmmvinnz
Thus you have the Tree Of Life.

P.S.
I colored the Sephirot myself.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <5607ce28-043b-4d48-9550-9418bcc197c4
@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Dennes De Mennes
``The core problem of the pre-Lurianic emanationist cosmology was that
if God the Ein-Sof was perfect and limitless in his being, then what
emanated from Him had to be itself perfect, and in a sense such an
emanation was merely God revealing Himself rather than an act of
creating a universe from which he could stand outside and apart. One of
the central ideas of Judaism was that God stood outside and apart from
the created world, a ?hidden God'. If God directly emanated the universe
then clearly He was in the Universe and bounded by the universe. In
order that something non-divine and finite should come about, it was
necessary that there was a radical break in the process of emanation, a
dilug or Kefitzah ("leap" or "jump"). Thus to address this philosophical
problem there arose the Lurianic doctrine of the Simsum, the withdrawal,
concentration, or concealment of the Ein-Sof. Luria even describes a
state of being before the act of creation, in which the Ein-Sof
manifested to Himself the Ein-Sof Or (the "light of the Ein-Sof"). There
is a parallel here with the earliest state of the cosmos that can be
envisaged by modern cosmology, which we will look at later. At the
beginning of creation the Ein-Sof withdrew into Himself through the
Simsum, thus creating an empty space, a vacuum or void (called the
chalal or tehiru). Next, the ray (the kav) from the Ein-Sof Or beamed
into this primaeval vacuum and so proceeded the emanations as described
above. Effectively, this distances God from the Creation even before
anything has come into manifestation, it allows for a cosmos created ex
nihilo, literally "out of nothing". We will see that the central idea of
modern cosmology is the emergence of the universe out of the vacuum
state.''
for more on this see:http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

The simple image was exposition in and of itself.
http://www.mediafire.com/i/?tdvhmmvinnz
Thus you have the Tree Of Life.

``Kabbalah studies the world we can?t feel. A Kabbalist first senses
this world, and then takes on the cognition of it. Those who don?t feel
the Upper World think that Kabbalah studies something abstract and
detached from reality. But it?s the opposite: Kabbalah describes only a
real, attainable reality''

http://www.laitman.com/2010/03/the-essence-of-the-science-of-kabbalah-a-
synopsis/

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes
In article <5607ce28-043b-4d48-9550-9418bcc197c4
@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by Dennes De Mennes
``The core problem of the pre-Lurianic emanationist
cosmology was that if God the Ein-Sof was perfect and
limitless in his being, then what emanated from Him had to
be itself perfect, and in a sense such an emanation was
merely God revealing Himself rather than an act of creating
a universe from which he could stand outside and apart.
One of the central ideas of Judaism was that God stood
outside and apart from the created world, a ?hidden God'.
If God directly emanated the universe then clearly He was
in the Universe and bounded by the universe. In order that
something non-divine and finite should come about, it was
necessary that there was a radical break in the process of
emanation, a dilug or Kefitzah ("leap" or "jump"). Thus to
address this philosophical problem there arose the Lurianic
doctrine of the Simsum, the withdrawal, concentration, or
concealment of the Ein-Sof. Luria even describes a state
of being before the act of creation, in which the Ein-Sof
manifested to Himself the Ein-Sof Or (the "light of the
Ein-Sof"). There is a parallel here with the earliest state
of the cosmos that can be envisaged by modern cosmology,
which we will look at later. At the beginning of creation
the Ein-Sof withdrew into Himself through the Simsum, thus
creating an empty space, a vacuum or void (called the
chalal or tehiru). Next, the ray (the kav) from the Ein-Sof
Or beamed into this primaeval vacuum and so proceeded the
emanations as described above. Effectively, this distances
God from the Creation even before anything has come into
manifestation, it allows for a cosmos created ex nihilo,
literally "out of nothing". We will see that the central
idea of modern cosmology is the emergence of the universe
out of the vacuum state.''
for more on this

Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to be
real magicians. This is boring.

May as well consult Harry Potter.

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes
see:http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

There is no need to rely on guesswork based on second-hand
(at best) information.

Look within and Know. This is as natural as dreaming.

God is the gestalt consciousness that creates, is, and is more
than everything that exists.

But that creativity, practically speaking, is very indirect. We
create the world we experience with the native creativity that is
the gift of God.

Beliefs are Spells.

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to be
real magicians. This is boring.

every human is a real magician. magick is just the art of life. if
you're alive, you're doing magick. only thing that varies is the type of
magick. most people practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Post by Sidney Lambe
May as well consult Harry Potter.

i don't know anything about that, but i'm sure that there's an audience
for that and that it provides a certain amount of illumination for them.
one may even find gems of wisdom in literature that the author didn't
even intend or may not even be aware of him/herself.

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Dennes De Mennes
see:http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html

There is no need to rely on guesswork based on second-hand
(at best) information.

right. direct connection to the creator is the only true path.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Look within and Know. This is as natural as dreaming.

easier said than done.

Post by Sidney Lambe
God is the gestalt consciousness that creates, is, and is more
than everything that exists.

everything that exists IS god. god does not exist without a creation.

Post by Sidney Lambe
But that creativity, practically speaking, is very indirect. We
create the world we experience with the native creativity that is
the gift of God.

our divorced state from the light creates the illusion we call reality
which is not reality but what is known kabbalistically as bondage in the
land of egypt. pharaoh or our ego is the ruler of this false domain...

Post by Sidney Lambe
Beliefs are Spells.

belief is all we have when darkness is all we see.

octi

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to be
real magicians. This is boring.

every human is a real magician. magick is just the art of life.
if you're alive, you're doing magick .

Quite true.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
only thing that varies is the type of magick. most people
practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Very wrong. There is only one kind of magick. It can be used for
good or ill. All existence is Blessed. Any apparent evil is
only ignorance.

Most of the apparent evil in the world is done by people who
believe in evil, _beacuse_ they believe in evil. Much of this
damage is done by people supposedly fighting evil.

Ultimately, the false concept of evil is just a scapegoat.
A copout.

[delete]

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to be
real magicians. This is boring.

every human is a real magician. magick is just the art of life.
if you're alive, you're doing magick .

Quite true.

Post by Dennes De Mennes
only thing that varies is the type of magick. most people
practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Very wrong. There is only one kind of magick. It can be used for
good or ill. All existence is Blessed. Any apparent evil is
only ignorance.
Most of the apparent evil in the world is done by people who
believe in evil, _beacuse_ they believe in evil. Much of this
damage is done by people supposedly fighting evil.
Ultimately, the false concept of evil is just a scapegoat.
A copout.
[delete]

don't recall having used the word evil...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to
be real magicians. This is boring.

every human is a real magician. magick is just the art of .
life if you're alive, you're doing magick .

Quite true.

only thing that varies is the type of magick. most people
practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Very wrong. There is only one kind of magick. It can be used
for good or ill. All existence is Blessed. Any apparent evil
is only ignorance.
Most of the apparent evil in the world is done by people who
believe in evil, _beacuse_ they believe in evil. Much of this
damage is done by people supposedly fighting evil.
Ultimately, the false concept of evil is just a scapegoat. A
copout.
[delete]

don't recall having used the word evil...

True. You used a synonym: "black".

Just to save you the trouble of another wasted post, I _do_
realize that you didn't use the words "end of sentence", but
rather resorted to the '.' (period), which is universally
accepted as meaning just that.

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to
be real magicians. This is boring.

every human is a real magician. magick is just the art of .
life if you're alive, you're doing magick .

Quite true.

only thing that varies is the type of magick. most people
practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Very wrong. There is only one kind of magick. It can be used
for good or ill. All existence is Blessed. Any apparent evil
is only ignorance.
Most of the apparent evil in the world is done by people who
believe in evil, _beacuse_ they believe in evil. Much of this
damage is done by people supposedly fighting evil.
Ultimately, the false concept of evil is just a scapegoat. A
copout.
[delete]

don't recall having used the word evil...

True. You used a synonym: "black".

my definition of black is not evil, as you presume.

Post by Sidney Lambe
Just to save you the trouble of another wasted post, I _do_
realize that you didn't use the words "end of sentence", but
rather resorted to the '.' (period), which is universally
accepted as meaning just that.

whatever...

[Sidney Lambe]

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to
be real magicians. This is boring.

every human is a real magician. magick is just the art of .
life if you're alive, you're doing magick .

Quite true.

only thing that varies is the type of magick. most people
practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Very wrong. There is only one kind of magick. It can be used
for good or ill. All existence is Blessed. Any apparent evil
is only ignorance.
Most of the apparent evil in the world is done by people who
believe in evil, _beacuse_ they believe in evil. Much of this
damage is done by people supposedly fighting evil.
Ultimately, the false concept of evil is just a scapegoat. A
copout.
[delete]

don't recall having used the word evil...

True. You used a synonym: "black".

my definition of black is not evil, as you presume.

Oh great. Another neo-pagan psuedo-magician who thinks that
talking in circles makes him look mysterious and powerful.

One gets used to childish crap like this. The superstitious and
romantic nonsense they call 'magick' couldn't make a bird fly,
so they all try to make up for this wee lack with a line of
pseudo-esoteric bullshit a mile long.

[delete]

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Dennes De Mennes
my definition of black is not evil, as you presume.

Oh great. Another neo-pagan psuedo-magician who thinks that
talking in circles makes him look mysterious and powerful.

great, another skeptic throwing labels around thinking it makes him seem
empirical and scientific... you've been studying tom, have you...

Post by Sidney Lambe
One gets used to childish crap like this. The superstitious and
romantic nonsense they call 'magick' couldn't make a bird fly,
so they all try to make up for this wee lack with a line of
pseudo-esoteric bullshit a mile long.

if you don't like the programming, change the channel...

[Sidney Lambe]

On talk.religion.course-miracle, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Dennes De Mennes
my definition of black is not evil, as you presume.

Oh great. Another neo-pagan psuedo-magician who thinks that
talking in circles makes him look mysterious and powerful.

great, another skeptic throwing labels around thinking it makes
him seem empirical and scientific... you've been studying tom,
have you...

Post by Sidney Lambe
One gets used to childish crap like this. The superstitious
and romantic nonsense they call 'magick' couldn't make a bird
fly, so they all try to make up for this wee lack with a line
of pseudo-esoteric bullshit a mile long.

if you don't like the programming, change the channel...

I don't like the programming and I'm not going to change the
channel.

What are you going to do about it, Mighty Mage?

Cut and paste passages from the Kaballah to me and hope I get
scared? Burn some incense and chant to some being that doesn't even
exist? Show me your Society of the Golden Dawn Magick Decoder
Ring?

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On talk.religion.course-miracle, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Dennes De Mennes
my definition of black is not evil, as you presume.

Oh great. Another neo-pagan psuedo-magician who thinks that
talking in circles makes him look mysterious and powerful.

great, another skeptic throwing labels around thinking it makes
him seem empirical and scientific... you've been studying tom,
have you...

Post by Sidney Lambe
One gets used to childish crap like this. The superstitious
and romantic nonsense they call 'magick' couldn't make a bird
fly, so they all try to make up for this wee lack with a line
of pseudo-esoteric bullshit a mile long.

if you don't like the programming, change the channel...

I don't like the programming and I'm not going to change the
channel.
What are you going to do about it, Mighty Mage?
Cut and paste passages from the Kaballah to me and hope I get
scared? Burn some incense and chant to some being that doesn't even
exist? Show me your Society of the Golden Dawn Magick Decoder
Ring?

how about i just keep posting whatever i want, and you just keep
bitching about it... works for me...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes
<***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]


Typcal neo-pagan psuedo-magician: he thinks I am going to play
sophomric word games with him from now until the end of the
world.

I've got 10K U.S., in used twenties, that says he can't do
anything that a 10-year-old with 10 minutes of
creative visutalization training can't do.

And no, mere words don't anything.

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes
[delete]
Typcal neo-pagan psuedo-magician: he thinks I am going to play
sophomric word games with him from now until the end of the
world.
I've got 10K U.S., in used twenties, that says he can't do
anything that a 10-year-old with 10 minutes of
creative visutalization training can't do.
And no, mere words don't anything.

why play with me when you can play with yourself pretty well...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

You are boring.

Yes, I can call up a reply with a deleted body so I don't have
to read your chidlish blatherings.

Good thing for me that you don't know any magick.

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
[delete]
You are boring.
Yes, I can call up a reply with a deleted body so I don't have
to read your chidlish blatherings.
Good thing for me that you don't know any magick.

i see, you can read my mind now, no need to read actual content...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

So what's he doing? Cursing me to supposed super-beingss that
don't even exist?

(My bitch filter allows me to reply to a blank article, so
I don't have to suffer through the chidlish insults of
trolls and magickal fakes...)

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
[delete]
So what's he doing? Cursing me to supposed super-beingss that
don't even exist?
(My bitch filter allows me to reply to a blank article, so
I don't have to suffer through the chidlish insults of
trolls and magickal fakes...)

oh, so you can't read my mind and are now asking others what it is that
i'm writing... you're a real genius, aren't you...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

These pseudo-mages are all windbags who expect people to accept
cleverness with words as a substitute for their rather awkward
lack of magickal abilities (according to their silly ideas of
what magick is).

I've been through this nonsense with a hundred clueless punks
like this fellow.

I eat them alive, slowly and deliberately, and they are too busy
playing the role to even notice.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <***@3f8s2dcr5.net>,
***@alt.religion.wicca says...
[delete]

what? can't hear you...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

This fellow is truly slow.

Let me try again: I use my bitch filter with you, phony magician.
That means that when I hit "reply" your article is deleted
before I see it.

I gag obnoxious little boys like you.

Because you don't know anything worth knowing and you couldn't
harm me if your life depended on it.

And you are boring.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <***@3f8s2dcr5.net>,
***@alt.religion.wicca says...
[delete]

what, legion?

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

I heard this fellow talking about the supposed elements of
magick: earth/Air/Fire/Water/(Aether-Spirit) and knew that he
was clueless. That interpretation of some ancient symbols comes
from people who didn't believe that magick existed. You can't
understand how something works if you don't believe it even
exists!

The actually elements of Magick are
Ideation/Emotion/Imagination/Intent/Desire

A spell is a belief (idea-emtion-imagination) wrapped in intent
and desire.

This jerk is in my bitch filter. When I hit "reply" it comes
up with the body deleted.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <***@3f8s2dcr5.net>,
***@alt.religion.wicca says...

[delete]

nobody's listening to you, troll...

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes <***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

The poor thing never thought to ask the authors of the books
and websites he parrots from to demonsstrate the alleged
effectiveness of what they called "magick".

[Dennes De Mennes]

Post by Sidney Lambe
[delete]
The poor thing never thought to ask the authors of the books
and websites he parrots from to demonsstrate the alleged
effectiveness of what they called "magick".

uh... crowley is dead?

[Sidney Lambe]

On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes
<***@netscape.net> wrote:
[delete]

The thing about fake magicians like this clown, is that all they
have is words to spin illusions with, and they get real bent out
of shape when someone won't play their silly "I've read a more
nysterious book than you have" game.

[Tom]

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Oh great. Another neo-pagan psuedo-magician who thinks that
talking in circles makes him look mysterious and powerful.

great, another skeptic throwing labels around thinking it makes him seem
empirical and scientific... you've been studying tom, have you...

He's not a skeptic or a believer. He's just a troll. He forges other
people's e-mail and Usenet addresses from the x-privat.com server.
Check the full headers. You're partly right, though. He has in fact
been studying me in the hope of being able to imitate my style
convincingly, but so far he's failed quite miserably at it. The best
he's been able to manage is to cut and paste stuff I've actually
written. At the moment, he's imitating Sidney Lambe fairly well. He
hasn't tried to pretend that Sidney is a pedophile in several days,
since people pointed out to him that it's a dead giveaway.

[Dennes De Mennes]

In article <2ff5f2fc-0e2b-4dca-89ae-b007a29a6930
@h38g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...

Post by Tom

Post by Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe
Oh great. Another neo-pagan psuedo-magician who thinks that
talking in circles makes him look mysterious and powerful.

great, another skeptic throwing labels around thinking it makes him seem
empirical and scientific... you've been studying tom, have you...

He's not a skeptic or a believer. He's just a troll. He forges other
people's e-mail and Usenet addresses from the x-privat.com server.
Check the full headers. You're partly right, though. He has in fact
been studying me in the hope of being able to imitate my style
convincingly, but so far he's failed quite miserably at it. The best
he's been able to manage is to cut and paste stuff I've actually
written. At the moment, he's imitating Sidney Lambe fairly well. He
hasn't tried to pretend that Sidney is a pedophile in several days,
since people pointed out to him that it's a dead giveaway.

thanks for pointing out he may not be the real sidney lambe... that's
pretty low if true--i'll check the header but i'm not sure if i can
decipher that sort of thing... it's all good... i trust you...

also, i meant no harm -- he lacks your grace and sense of humor... i was
just seeing how you'd react, and you dit it in a cool, collected manner.

[ren]

He's not a skeptic or a believer.  He's just a troll.  He forges other
people's e-mail and Usenet addresses from the x-privat.com server.
Check the full headers.  You're partly right, though.  He has in fact
been studying me in the hope of being able to imitate my style
convincingly, but so far he's failed quite miserably at it.  The best
he's been able to manage is to cut and paste stuff I've actually
written.  At the moment, he's imitating Sidney Lambe fairly well.  He
hasn't tried to pretend that Sidney is a pedophile in several days,
since people pointed out to him that it's a dead giveaway.

Anyone can go to the x-privat.com web interface and create an account
with his information and post to USENET.

Sidney Lambe is legion. He was Bruce Burhans but now he is legion.

[HG]

Post by ren

He's not a skeptic or a believer.  He's just a troll.  He forges other
people's e-mail and Usenet addresses from the x-privat.com server.
Check the full headers.  You're partly right, though.  He has in fact
been studying me in the hope of being able to imitate my style
convincingly, but so far he's failed quite miserably at it.  The best
he's been able to manage is to cut and paste stuff I've actually
written.  At the moment, he's imitating Sidney Lambe fairly well.  He
hasn't tried to pretend that Sidney is a pedophile in several days,
since people pointed out to him that it's a dead giveaway.

Anyone can go to the x-privat.com web interface and create an account
with his information and post to USENET.
Sidney Lambe is legion. He was Bruce Burhans but now he is legion.

You're just exaggerating Sid's importance, because he's the only person
in the world who has taken you seriously.


HG

[Tom]

He's not a skeptic or a believer.  He's just a troll.  He forges other
people's e-mail and Usenet addresses from the x-privat.org server.
Check the full headers.  You're partly right, though.  He has in fact
been studying me in the hope of being able to imitate my style
convincingly, but so far he's failed quite miserably at it.  The best
he's been able to manage is to cut and paste stuff I've actually
written.  At the moment, he's imitating Sidney Lambe fairly well.  He
hasn't tried to pretend that Sidney is a pedophile in several days,
since people pointed out to him that it's a dead giveaway.

Anyone can go to the x-privat.org web interface and create an account
with his information and post to USENET.

But few people do. It's a very obscure, poorly administered site. In
addition, few people post to alt.magick regularly and even fewer
attempt to forge posts from other regular contributors. Therefore the
probability that more than one person goes to x-privat.org to forge
posts from various regular contributors to alt.magick is absurdly
small. It is reasonable to conclude that any forged post originating
from x-privat.org is the work of a single individual using more than
one account there. Here are the two he uses most commonly:

X-Authenticated-User: $$i1x1l_eugnb9cl$bayv

X-Authenticated-User: $$gwb280vy_w$wjxejkkrb5b1k

However, none of that really matters in the bigger picture. Forgery,
no matter who does it or from where, is trolling. It's essentially
dishonest. Because of the consistently dishonest behavior originating
at that one particular site, anybody posting from x-privat.org will be
subject to a legitimate suspicion of Usenet post forgery. Anyone who
isn't slug-brained stupid and wishes to avoid being regarded as a
forger and a troll will not post to alt.magick from x-privat.org at
all. The whole site has lost any credibility.

[Absorbed]

Post by Tom

Post by Tom
He's not a skeptic or a believer. He's just a troll. He forges other
people's e-mail and Usenet addresses from the x-privat.org server.
Check the full headers. You're partly right, though. He has in fact
been studying me in the hope of being able to imitate my style
convincingly, but so far he's failed quite miserably at it. The best
he's been able to manage is to cut and paste stuff I've actually
written. At the moment, he's imitating Sidney Lambe fairly well. He
hasn't tried to pretend that Sidney is a pedophile in several days,
since people pointed out to him that it's a dead giveaway.

Anyone can go to the x-privat.org web interface and create an account
with his information and post to USENET.

But few people do. It's a very obscure, poorly administered site. In
addition, few people post to alt.magick regularly and even fewer
attempt to forge posts from other regular contributors. Therefore the
probability that more than one person goes to x-privat.org to forge
posts from various regular contributors to alt.magick is absurdly
small. It is reasonable to conclude that any forged post originating
from x-privat.org is the work of a single individual using more than
X-Authenticated-User: $$i1x1l_eugnb9cl$bayv
X-Authenticated-User: $$gwb280vy_w$wjxejkkrb5b1k
However, none of that really matters in the bigger picture. Forgery,
no matter who does it or from where, is trolling. It's essentially
dishonest.

Cowardly too.

[M. JL Esq.]

Post by Sidney Lambe
On alt.religion.wicca, Dennes De Mennes

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Dennes De Mennes
only thing that varies is the type of magick. most people
practice black magick. true seekers practice white.

Very wrong. There is only one kind of magick. It can be used
for good or ill. All existence is Blessed. Any apparent evil
is only ignorance.

Which merely demonstrates that sid has not thought this through:)

Ignorance and intelligence are as much relative terms as good and evil.

Use of such terms, especially pejoratively merely demonstrates the
ignorance being commented upon, pejoratively.

As there is no "Truth" there can be no "Good" or "Evil". Only relative
degrees of simplicity and complexity. Neither of which is good or evil
of itself.

If an individual were able to completely destroy all life on earth an
argument can be made for that person being the planetary savior,
messiah, maitreya. Putting the miserable, chaotic, struggling, painful
"Life" out of its misery. Either completely erasing the experience from
the universe or forcing to any hypothetical "spiritual" (preterhuman)
evolution it must inevitably face anyway

Nature red in tooth and claw? Is any ephemeral and passing joy or
beauty worth the unceasing pain of existence? Nature red in tooth and
claw?
--
JL

[dw426]

Post by Sidney Lambe
Metaphysical windbags are scholars of magick pretending to be
real magicians. This is boring.
May as well consult Harry Potter.

So you can tell everyone for the hundredth time that you fucked Emma
Watson?

*BWAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*

[zayton]

Post by Dennes De Mennes
``The core problem of the pre-Lurianic emanationist cosmology was that
if God the Ein-Sof was perfect and limitless in his being, then what
emanated from Him had to be itself perfect, and in a sense such an
emanation was merely God revealing Himself rather than an act of
creating a universe from which he could stand outside and apart. One
of the central ideas of Judaism was that God stood outside and apart
from the created world, a ?hidden God'. If God directly emanated the
universe then clearly He was in the Universe and bounded by the
universe.

But that is not clear at all. It is, in fact, counter-intuitave. It would
make sense that if an unlimited God eminated the universe, then the universe
would be contained and bounded by that God; not the other way around.

[ren]

Post by zayton
But that is not clear at all. It is, in fact, counter-intuitave. It would
make sense that if an unlimited God eminated the universe, then the universe
would be contained and bounded by that God; not the other way around.

Imagine William Shatner saying " I AM
GOD!"

[Tom]

Post by Andrew W

Post by HG
So where did pure consciousness come from?

That's a question that even the ETs whom we're in contact with have not been
able to properly answer.
It is believed that consciousness or awareness always existed in some form.

Many things are believed. Many things are disbelieved. It would be
quite a disaster for anyone who elected to believe everything anybody
told them.

[Sidney Lambe]

Post by Tom
Many things are believed. Many things are disbelieved.

That's ASStounding, do you make this shit up or do you keep a diary of
"Tom's Wunnerful Bullshit"?

[Tom]

Post by Sidney Lambe

Post by Tom
Many things are believed. Many things are disbelieved.

That's ASStounding, do you make this shit up or do you keep a diary of
"Tom's Wunnerful Bullshit"?

You still pissed at me for stealing your 11yo GF, Sid?

[Tom]

On Jun 18, 8:44 am, somone pretending to be Sidney Lambe

Post by Sidney Lambe

Many things are believed.  Many things are disbelieved.

That's ASStounding, do you make this shit up or do you keep a diary of
"Tom's Wunnerful Bullshit"?

Well, if what I said is untrue, then let's just contradict it. Many
things are not believed. Many things are not disbelieved.

Does that seem less ASStounding to you?

[Meltdarok]

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types of
Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That question is actually absurd, as it will go on ad nauseum.
Pure consciousness, the Cause of all causes, the First Cause,
the Prime Infinity, is the living Field within which all existence
takes 'place'. We being cooped up inside these organic
containers have a problem wrapping our puny little brains
around the concept of "that which is always" or, "that which
always is" with our own ephemeral existence.

Post by HG
             HG

[Kaydon]

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one

possible >> explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you
feel necessary.

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different

types of >> Nothing.

Post by Andrew W
Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That question is actually absurd, as it will go on ad nauseum.
Pure consciousness, the Cause of all causes, the First Cause,
the Prime Infinity, is the living Field within which all existence
takes 'place'. We being cooped up inside these organic
containers have a problem wrapping our puny little brains
around the concept of "that which is always" or, "that which
always is" with our own ephemeral existence.

Consciousness is a densifying of awareness, just like matter is a
densification of energy. Without awareness, consciousness cannot be.
There was never not anything, for it to be so would break the laws of
physics. Non-existence cannot exist, nor did it ever. If non-existence
did exist, it wouldn't be non-existent. Non-existent is but a
potentiality that can never be fulfilled.

This post is probably another candidate for a double-facepalm.jpg:P

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Tom]

Post by Meltdarok

Post by HG

Post by Andrew W

Post by Kaydon
Please be aware that this explanation of creation is just one possible
explanation. You are free to agree or disagree as you feel necessary.
Kaballah tells us that existence came out of three different types of
Nothing.

Actually existence came out of pure consciousness, not nothing.
The only thing that comes out of nothing is nothing.

So where did pure consciousness come from?

That question is actually absurd, as it will go on ad nauseum.

Isn't that the point of the question in the first place? To
demonstrate the absurdity of that whole line of thinking? Any answer
to any question about the origin of everything ultimately comes down
to "I don't know."

Post by Meltdarok
Pure consciousness, the Cause of all causes, the First Cause,
the Prime Infinity, is the living Field within which all existence
takes 'place'. We being cooped up inside these organic
containers have a problem wrapping our puny little brains
around the concept of "that which is always" or, "that which
always is" with our own ephemeral existence.

The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

[Meltdarok]

<Snip this>

Post by Tom
The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

So start using it more often then!

[Tom]

Post by Meltdarok
<Snip this>

Post by Tom
The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

So start using it more often then!

Loading Image...

Me.

Call.

[Tom]

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Tom
The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

So start using it more often then!

Whenever I am asked about how the universe came into being, "I don't
know" is exactly what I say every single time. I'm suggesting that
you be honest enough to do the same.

[Meltdarok]

Post by Tom

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Tom
The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

So start using it more often then!

Whenever I am asked about how the universe came into being, "I don't
know" is exactly what I say every single time.  I'm suggesting that
you be honest enough to do the same.

I know you have serious issues with mystics, you can't tell who the
honest
ones are. . . because *you* don't know.

[Tom]

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Tom

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Tom
The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

So start using it more often then!

Whenever I am asked about how the universe came into being, "I don't
know" is exactly what I say every single time.  I'm suggesting that
you be honest enough to do the same.

I know you have serious issues with mystics, you can't tell who the
honest
ones are. . . because *you* don't know.

Neither do they, although they rarely admit it.

When they're banging on about the universe emerging from "pure
consciousness" they really have no idea what they're talking about.
It sounds good, but a close examination reveals that it's utterly
bereft of meaning. The whole point of asserting infinite
consciousness is a desperate grab at personal immortality, in some
form or another. It's an attempt to deny any possibility of oblivion
by interposing one's fantasies.

[Deborah]

Post by Tom

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Tom

Post by Meltdarok

Post by Tom
The answer "I don't know" is a lot shorter and considerably more
honest than this drivel, which, when you bother to unravel it, amounts
to the same thing.

So start using it more often then!

Whenever I am asked about how the universe came into being, "I don't
know" is exactly what I say every single time.  I'm suggesting that
you be honest enough to do the same.

I know you have serious issues with mystics, you can't tell who the
honest
ones are. . . because *you* don't know.

Neither do they, although they rarely admit it.
When they're banging on about the universe emerging from "pure
consciousness" they really have no idea what they're talking about.
It sounds good, but a close examination reveals that it's utterly
bereft of meaning. The whole point of asserting infinite
consciousness is a desperate grab at personal immortality, in some
form or another. It's an attempt to deny any possibility of oblivion
by interposing one's fantasies.

Perhaps you (and just about everybody) has got this ass-backward.
Perhaps infinite consciousness is the only reality, and the ego's
interpretation of our little life on earth is a desperate grab at
individual consciousness? How can you lose what you never had? Our
lconsciousness is part of a greater consciousness as our lives are
part of a geater life. It's as plain as day but we rarely see it this
way. Individual existance is the fantasy we have interposed on
reality. You'd think we were the source of ourselves, or something.

[Tom]

Post by Deborah

Post by Tom
When they're banging on about the universe emerging from "pure
consciousness" they really have no idea what they're talking about.
It sounds good, but a close examination reveals that it's utterly
bereft of meaning.  The whole point of asserting infinite
consciousness is a desperate grab at personal immortality, in some
form or another.  It's an attempt to deny any possibility of oblivion
by interposing one's fantasies.

Perhaps you (and just about everybody) has got this ass-backward.
Perhaps infinite consciousness is the only reality, and the ego's
interpretation of our little life on earth is a desperate grab at
individual consciousness?

What is "consciousness"? How do we know when something has
"consciousness" and when it doesn't? If you cannot make any reliable
determination of that, then you don't actually know what you're
talking about.

If everything is conscious all the time, it's just the same as if
nothing is conscious ever. There's no difference. We still don't
know what we're talking about.

Post by Deborah
Our
consciousness is part of a greater consciousness as our lives are
part of a geater life.  It's as plain as day but we rarely see it this
way.

We have the same problem with the word "life" that we have with the
word "consciousness". We don't have a clear definition of when
something has life and when it doesn't. So we don't really know what
we're talking about.

Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that matter
does, not something that infuses or produces matter. It's not a
substance; it's a process. To be conscious, or to be alive, is to act
in a certain way. If there is nothing to act, then there's no action.

The assertion that there is some sort of "pure consciousness" that
animates matter is no different from the assertion that fire is really
an invisible, massless substance called "phlogiston", instead of a
process of exothermic oxidation.

[Robert Scott Martin]

Post by Tom
The assertion that there is some sort of "pure consciousness" that
animates matter is no different from the assertion that fire is really
an invisible, massless substance called "phlogiston", instead of a
process of exothermic oxidation.

One could say that both statements ultimately mistake a verb for a noun.

[Deborah]

Post by Tom

Post by Deborah

Post by Tom
When they're banging on about the universe emerging from "pure
consciousness" they really have no idea what they're talking about.
It sounds good, but a close examination reveals that it's utterly
bereft of meaning.  The whole point of asserting infinite
consciousness is a desperate grab at personal immortality, in some
form or another.  It's an attempt to deny any possibility of oblivion
by interposing one's fantasies.

Perhaps you (and just about everybody) has got this ass-backward.
Perhaps infinite consciousness is the only reality, and the ego's
interpretation of our little life on earth is a desperate grab at
individual consciousness?

What is "consciousness"? How do we know when something has
"consciousness" and when it doesn't? If you cannot make any reliable
determination of that, then you don't actually know what you're
talking about.
If everything is conscious all the time, it's just the same as if
nothing is conscious ever. There's no difference. We still don't
know what we're talking about.

Post by Deborah
Our
consciousness is part of a greater consciousness as our lives are
part of a geater life.  It's as plain as day but we rarely see it this
way.

We have the same problem with the word "life" that we have with the
word "consciousness". We don't have a clear definition of when
something has life and when it doesn't. So we don't really know what
we're talking about.
Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that matter
does, not something that infuses or produces matter. It's not a
substance; it's a process. To be conscious, or to be alive, is to act
in a certain way. If there is nothing to act, then there's no action.

You think matter is the actor? Holy Moly. I don't even know what to
do with that. Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all by
themselves.

Post by Tom
The assertion that there is some sort of "pure consciousness" that
animates matter is no different from the assertion that fire is really
an invisible, massless substance called "phlogiston", instead of a
process of exothermic oxidation.

[Kaydon]

Post by Deborah

Post by Tom
Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that matter
does, not something that infuses or produces matter. It's not a
substance; it's a process. To be conscious, or to be alive, is to
act in a certain way. If there is nothing to act, then there's no
action.

You think matter is the actor? Holy Moly. I don't even know what to
do with that. Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all by
themselves.

There's a very good definition of consciousness in the book
'Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics, and
the Fifth Dimension'. I don't have it to hand right now - the book I
mean:P I'll post an excerpt later. From recollection though, it
basically says that consciousness exists in all things.

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Deborah]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:36:26 +0000 (UTC), "Kaydon"

Post by Kaydon

Post by Deborah

Post by Tom
Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that matter
does, not something that infuses or produces matter. It's not a
substance; it's a process. To be conscious, or to be alive, is to
act in a certain way. If there is nothing to act, then there's no
action.

You think matter is the actor? Holy Moly. I don't even know what to
do with that. Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all by
themselves.

There's a very good definition of consciousness in the book
'Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics, and
the Fifth Dimension'. I don't have it to hand right now - the book I
mean:P I'll post an excerpt later. From recollection though, it
basically says that consciousness exists in all things.
<3
xoxoxoxoo

So are you saying hockey sticks can smash windows all by themselves,
too? I don't think consciousness is IN anything. But I think it is
behind everything. I'm not even sure I'd use the word "consciousness"
for it. Something that is clearly intelligent is seeking expression
through what we call the "evolution of life", and whatever that
something is, I doubt if humanity is its finale.

My point is that we are part of it. We have no existence apart from
it. Much as we would like to presume that we do, for some strange
reason. And if we were ever to get our identity problem straightened
out, the idea of death would become quite meaningless to us.

It's a laughable idea.

[Kaydon]

Post by Deborah
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:36:26 +0000 (UTC), "Kaydon"

Post by Kaydon

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 11:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom

Post by Tom
Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that

matter >> > does, not something that infuses or produces matter.
It's not a >> > substance; it's a process. To be conscious, or to be
alive, is to >> > act in a certain way. If there is nothing to act,
then there's no >> > action.

Post by Kaydon

You think matter is the actor? Holy Moly. I don't even know what

to >> do with that. Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all
by >> themselves.

Post by Kaydon
There's a very good definition of consciousness in the book
'Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics,
and the Fifth Dimension'. I don't have it to hand right now - the
book I mean:P I'll post an excerpt later. From recollection though,
it basically says that consciousness exists in all things.
<3
xoxoxoxoo

So are you saying hockey sticks can smash windows all by themselves,
too? I don't think consciousness is IN anything.

If you want to say that consciousness means 'unable to move', then by
that severely limited definition, you are correct. On a quantum level,
all things have 'consciousness'. I suggest you read the book I cited if
you'd like an understanding of this <3

xoxoxoo

[Tom]

 I don't think consciousness is IN anything.  But I think it is
behind everything.  I'm not even sure I'd use the word "consciousness"
for it.

You don't know what it is. You don't even have a word for it, let
alone a workable definition. But you're sure you know how it works.

 Something that is clearly intelligent is seeking expression
through what we call the "evolution of life", and whatever that
something is, I doubt if humanity is its finale.

You don't know what it is. You don't even have a word for it, let
alone a workable definition. Yet not only are you sure you know how
it works but you're also sure you know what it intends.

It's a laughable idea.

Yup.

[Tom]

Post by Kaydon
There's a very good definition of consciousness in the book
'Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics, and
the Fifth Dimension'. I don't have it to hand right now - the book I
mean:P I'll post an excerpt later. From recollection though, it
basically says that consciousness exists in all things.

That's not a definition. That's an excuse not to define it at all.

But do look it up and quote it. Then we can think about it a bit and
see where it leads us.

[Kaydon]

Post by Tom

Post by Kaydon
There's a very good definition of consciousness in the book
'Transcending the Speed of Light: Consciousness, Quantum Physics,
and the Fifth Dimension'. I don't have it to hand right now - the
book I mean:P I'll post an excerpt later. From recollection though,
it basically says that consciousness exists in all things.

That's not a definition. That's an excuse not to define it at all.
But do look it up and quote it. Then we can think about it a bit and
see where it leads us.

Loading Image...

The whole chapter discusses that whole idea, which is the basis for the
entire book. Quanta fit that definition. I can make some more
screenshots, the ebook prevents copying though.

<3
xoxoxoxoo

[Tom]

Post by Tom
Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that matter
does, not something that infuses or produces matter.  It's not a
substance; it's a process.  To be conscious, or to be alive, is to act
in a certain way. If there is nothing to act, then there's no action.

You think matter is the actor?  Holy Moly.  I don't even know what to
do with that.

Of course you don't. It's not what you want to believe.

 Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all by
themselves.

I'm sure you could convince yourself of it if you wanted to. You've
convinced yourself of lots sillier shit than that.

Lots of things happen all by themselves. Earthquakes. Wind. The
turning of the earth as it orbits the sun. And plenty more. These
things happen without anybody doing anything and despite anything
anyone can do.

How did it all start? I don't know. And neither do you.

[Deborah]

Post by Tom

Post by Tom
Both "life" and "consciousness" make sense as something that matter
does, not something that infuses or produces matter.  It's not a
substance; it's a process.  To be conscious, or to be alive, is to act
in a certain way. If there is nothing to act, then there's no action.

You think matter is the actor?  Holy Moly.  I don't even know what to
do with that.

Of course you don't. It's not what you want to believe.

 Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all by
themselves.

I'm sure you could convince yourself of it if you wanted to. You've
convinced yourself of lots sillier shit than that.
Lots of things happen all by themselves. Earthquakes. Wind. The
turning of the earth as it orbits the sun. And plenty more. These
things happen without anybody doing anything and despite anything
anyone can do.

I am aware of that, but I don't consider mindless objects to be
"actors".

Post by Tom
How did it all start? I don't know. And neither do you.

Obviously. But I can see that it did, and I have at least a partial
picture of its movement. It is definitely intelligent. I would have
liked Darwin to do some research on the sexually deceptive genera
species of orchids in Western Australia. There are several different
species and they have each developed flowers that attract a specific
pollenator by mimicking, both in appearance and scent, the sexual
organs of the female pollenator. I wonder how they got that right.
Accidentally?

Humanity itself. We are obviously intelligent. And we have come from
everything that went before us in this universe. We have evolved
from it and within it. What does that tell you about IT ffs?

C'mon, Tom. You are not a stupid. Sometimes I think your adherence
to Col. Klink's philosophy goes to far. Some things are obvious.

Deborah

[Tom]

Post by Deborah

 Geez I guess hockey sticks can smash windows all by
themselves.

I'm sure you could convince yourself of it if you wanted to.   You've
convinced yourself of lots sillier shit than that.
Lots of things happen all by themselves.  Earthquakes.  Wind.  The
turning of the earth as it orbits the sun.  And plenty more.  These
things happen without anybody doing anything and despite anything
anyone can do.

I am aware of that, but I don't consider mindless objects to be
"actors".

Somehow you seem to be asserting that everything is conscious but then
also asserting that some things are not. When did the pure
consciousness of the universe start producing mindless objects? Were
they mindful once but then somehow became mindless? When did that
happen? Is the wind mindful?

Post by Deborah

How did it all start? I don't know.  And neither do you.

Obviously.  But I can see that it did, and I have at least a partial
picture of its movement.  It is definitely intelligent.

Like the hockey stick?

Post by Deborah
 I would have
liked Darwin to do some research on the sexually deceptive genera
species of orchids in Western Australia. There are several different
species and they have each developed flowers that attract a specific
pollenator  by mimicking, both in appearance and scent, the sexual
organs of the female pollenator.  I wonder how they got that right.
Accidentally?  

Sure. We're talking about genetic variations over a very, very long
time. Lots of happy accidents will happen. The ecology will support
what fits into it and will not support what doesn't. So the only
happy accidents you'll see are the ones that fit. All the others, the
vast majority, will rapidly disappear. So, when a limited creature
like we are looks at the ecology and sees only the things that fit,
she tends to think that all those things were shaped that way
deliberately, but that may not be the case at all. Remember that the
hockey sticks are mindless.

Post by Deborah
Humanity itself.  We are obviously intelligent.  And we have come from
everything that went before us in this universe.   We have evolved
from it and within it.  What does that tell you about IT ffs?

What does "intelligent" mean? What is a "mind"? These ideas are very
slippery. When we talk about "mind" and "consciousness" and "life",
we don't really know what we're talking about.

Post by Deborah
C'mon, Tom.  You are not a stupid.  Sometimes I think your adherence
to Col. Klink's philosophy goes to far.  Some things are obvious.

Some obvious things are illusions. The more slippery the conception
of what we're talking about, the more likely we can be fooled by those
illusions. It isn't necessary to have all the answers all the time.
It's quite alright to admit when you don't know something. You don't
have to impose fantasies on ignorance in order to feign wisdom.

[Deborah]

Post by Tom
Somehow you seem to be asserting that everything is conscious

That was Kaydon. What I assert is that there is mind behind it all.
Underlying it all. Expressing itself. We have a momentary glimpse of
it in our lifetimes, (not as outsiders but as part of it). Not nearly
enough to see the whole picture.

I don't have any real reason to doubt that plants have some sort of
awareness, and can respond to their environment in a fashion. What a
plant learns is passed on to the next generation. From a single cell,
life has been striving to evolve. This is obvious.

Octopi are fascinating creatures. They have developed intelligence
quite apart from the development of intelligence in vertabrae and
their "brains" consist of several different organs. They can change
their appearance both in terms of colour and texture, to blend in with
their environment as they move along the ocean floor. That takes both
awareness of themselves and of their environment. They can learn a
maze by heart after one trial so they have excellent memory.

The life that is in all creatures - the same life is in us. It's not
only infinite if number it is also one. I don't know about you, but I
know what life is. I don't know what death is. Funnily enough, nobody
knows what death is.

You'd think we'd question the reality of something nobody knows more
readily that we'd question the reality of something everybody knows -
we are alive. Sometimes a verb is also a noun. What lives can never
die. Obviously that does not describe individuals but who says the
life in us is individuated?

Deborah

[Deborah]

Post by Tom
Sure. We're talking about genetic variations over a very, very long
time. Lots of happy accidents will happen. The ecology will support
what fits into it and will not support what doesn't. So the only
happy accidents you'll see are the ones that fit. All the others, the
vast majority, will rapidly disappear.

What is your evidence for the "vast majority" that rapidly disappear?
The fact that they don't exist? lol.

[727]

In article <***@4ax.com>, bcdeb1
@gmail.com says...

Post by Deborah

Post by Tom
How did it all start? I don't know. And neither do you.

Obviously.

I don't either, but I'll probably get the blame eventually.

Post by Deborah
But I can see that it did, and I have at least a partial picture of
its movement.
It is definitely intelligent.

Such a closed mind you have there.

It certainly has features that can appear to indicate intelligence.

Post by Deborah
I would have liked Darwin to do some research on the sexually
deceptive genera species of orchids in Western Australia.

Have you read "The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised
by insects." by Darwin.

Others have furthered our knowlege considerably, research did not stop
with Darwin.

Post by Deborah
There are several different species and they have each developed
flowers that attract a specific pollenator by mimicking, both in
appearance and scent, the sexual organs of the female pollenator. I
wonder how they got that right. Accidentally?

More likely co-evolution and mimesis (particularly Pouyannian mimicry)
don't you think?

That or the spaghetti monster.

Post by Deborah
Humanity itself. We are obviously intelligent.

Yeah, ok. Would an any self respecting 'intelligent designer' have given
the smarts to us lot? I think not.

Post by Deborah
And we have come from everything that went before us in this universe.
We have evolved from it and within it. What does that tell you about
IT ffs?

IT professionals are all inbred?

AIs're the next evolutionary step? (Do they stop being artificial at the
point of reproduction?)

What do you think?

Post by Deborah
C'mon, Tom. You are not a stupid.

You could do worse than to hold that thought.

---

dccxvii

[Absorbed]

Post by 727

Post by Deborah
I would have liked Darwin to do some research on the sexually
deceptive genera species of orchids in Western Australia.

Have you read "The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised
by insects." by Darwin.
Others have furthered our knowlege considerably, research did not stop
with Darwin.

And even if there hadn't been research done into that particular area,
one or two examples of things a theory doesn't currently explain doesn't
disprove the theory.

A theory's validity is properly determined by gathering all the
available evidence and giving each piece of evidence an appropriate weight.

There are instances where one piece of evidence can override masses of
evidence to the contrary, such as with spy who is temporarily out of out
of character. But in the vast majority of cases, it's by looking at all
the evidence, the broader picture, that the truth is determined.

Bringing up one supposed exception to a theory necessarily doesn't prove
or disprove it.

[Tom]

Post by 727
@gmail.com says...

Post by Deborah
I would have liked Darwin to do some research on the sexually
deceptive genera species of orchids in Western Australia.

Have you read "The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised
by insects." by Darwin.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F800&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Post by 727

Post by Deborah
There are several different species and they have each developed
flowers that attract a specific pollenator  by mimicking, both in
appearance and scent, the sexual organs of the female pollenator.  I
wonder how they got that right. Accidentally?  

More likely co-evolution and mimesis (particularly Pouyannian mimicry)
don't you think?
That or the spaghetti monster.

I see that the Church of the FSM has embraced the Theory of
Intelligent Falling as an alternative to the theory of gravity. They
assert that the FSM is actually pushing us all down with his noodly
appendages. You don't think gravity happens all by itself, do you?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

Think it's just a parody? Nope. Listen to Bill O'Reilly talking to
David Silverman of American Atheist Group:

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion:
tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't
explain that.
SILVERMAN: (incredulously) Tide goes in, tide goes out?
O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr.
Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain
that.

See there? Gravity is not some mindless phenomenon. God does it. We
*know* this because nobody can explain the regularity of the tides to
Mr. O'Reilly.

[727]

In article <6127bbe1-e0d1-458a-87d3-01b475fef964
@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, ***@comcast.net says...

Post by Tom
I see that the Church of the FSM has embraced the Theory of
Intelligent Falling as an alternative to the theory of gravity. They
assert that the FSM is actually pushing us all down with his noodly
appendages. You don't think gravity happens all by itself, do you?

I was talking to my local clergyman (Pasta Orecchiette) and there is
momentum behind a modified Darkon theory.

http://www.lindberglce.com/tech/darkons.htm

The symbology of the Holy Pepper Mill is surely proof enough.

Post by Tom
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-

gravity-with-new-int,1778/

Post by Tom
Think it's just a parody? Nope. Listen to Bill O'Reilly talking to
tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't
explain that.

Good grief.

I use the phrase 'only in America' with more hope than confidence.

---

dccxvii

[Deborah]

Post by 727
@gmail.com says...

Post by Deborah

Post by Tom
How did it all start? I don't know. And neither do you.

Obviously.

I don't either, but I'll probably get the blame eventually.

Post by Deborah
But I can see that it did, and I have at least a partial picture of
its movement.
It is definitely intelligent.

Such a closed mind you have there.
It certainly has features that can appear to indicate intelligence.

Post by Deborah
I would have liked Darwin to do some research on the sexually
deceptive genera species of orchids in Western Australia.

Have you read "The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised
by insects." by Darwin.

No. Is it a paper? Can I find it online?

Post by 727
Others have furthered our knowlege considerably, research did not stop
with Darwin.

I understand that.

Post by 727

Post by Deborah
There are several different species and they have each developed
flowers that attract a specific pollenator by mimicking, both in
appearance and scent, the sexual organs of the female pollenator. I
wonder how they got that right. Accidentally?

More likely co-evolution and mimesis (particularly Pouyannian mimicry)
don't you think?
That or the spaghetti monster.

Post by Deborah
Humanity itself. We are obviously intelligent.

Yeah, ok. Would an any self respecting 'intelligent designer' have given
the smarts to us lot? I think not.

I'm not talking about Intelligent Design, if that is how you're
pegging me. Don't even know much about that school of thought.

Post by 727

Post by Deborah
And we have come from everything that went before us in this universe.
We have evolved from it and within it. What does that tell you about
IT ffs?

IT professionals are all inbred?

Heh.

Post by 727
AIs're the next evolutionary step? (Do they stop being artificial at the
point of reproduction?)
What do you think?

Post by Deborah
C'mon, Tom. You are not a stupid.

You could do worse than to hold that thought.

My problem with Tom is he has no convictions that he will confess to.
And he's proud of it. Holds it up like a badge of honour. It's
dishonest. Or at least, not fully honest.

Deborah