|
|
Post by Frater G on Dec 15, 2009 22:27:53 GMT -5
It's a well known and perplexing actuality that elementary quantum particles can indeed exist "in two different places depending on the observer's point of perspective". That's the gravity of the matter. There is a fine line between physics and metaphysics, and very often the two converge giving rise to the quandary which particle and theoretical physicists have found very hard to reconcile without compromising their professional status by appearing to have lost the scientific plot. However, it appears that as we progress into the 21st century, the distance between the medieval-thinking mainstream religions and physics/metaphysics is becoming wider, (with the construction and understanding of the results of experiments undertaken in the LHC, Fermi etc), that the "witchcraft" of particle physics is finally being allowed to progress. Even so, there is a tremendous amount of infantile concern about the safely of quantum physics which is rather amusing, because the worst that can happen is death(s) and THAT will happen to everyone willy-nilly. They can't make a black hole in the lab and if they did it might be a good thing, because IMO it is long overdue just desserts. Shunt the politicians, lawyers and priests off first. ;D ;D (....oh, and land developers and estate agents too). Just imagine the space that would be freed-up! Take a few fancy cars off the road and clear some air space. Sublime thought! BANKERS and Insurance fools too. whew!  Anyway that is a personal and belated rant. I think it is merely a matter of letting your mind slip between the two: physics and metaphysics. "Where does self reflection reside?" and "What makes up first matter?" I think that first matter comes first  that maybe being the particle of consciousness which in turn might be the "God Particle" or at least it definitely becomes something of the sort when the ability to reflect is manifested. Reality is perceived as an individual experience -- rather like the unique variations in the perceptions of the 5 common senses. I seem to understand that the single eye can see itself by inversion or not looking. (I recall something of this in the teachings of Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan, but I can't remember where or in which book). Suffice to say that it is perfectly logical to look without seeing and to see without looking. This is a rather individual notion of understanding quantum -- that by seeing with the empty eye, reality becomes evident. Actuality/reality is therefore discerned as an individual experience. "Does light exist without the confirmation of reflection?" Light IS with the existence of sophistication of the entity which perceives or needs light for subsistence and survival. I don't know. I think the fine line between the two is recent. Today's scientists are free to be open minded which is the only path toward discovery of the natural world. Technology's fast track is a factor as well. Philosophy is an art wrapped in language and language defines the mystic's message. Quantum physics is observed as a reflection. It needs new language. Our sense of self is veiled by what we believe is the function of our anatomy. Don Juan had another description of anatomy...of sight. The book you refer to I think is A Separate Reality. I believe Carlos called the perception, the second attention. By the way you could toss into the black hole the kiosks that harbor dishonest cell phone reps. Just a quick further thought before I forget.  I wonder where one goes during meditation. Certainly the absolute experience of naught occurs, and being a very devoted follower of particle physics and the sublimity of nothingness, it did cross my mind that this might be a state of Helonism. In the Craft there are many things that one cannot discuss away from the confines of the Lodge, and old is Freemasonry, with centuries of antiquated ritual and form which are kind of being understood and verbalised only now, so the word Helonism might have encapsulated nothingness. Any thoughts? It could mean that. Why not? If a poet states it so...it is that meaning. "To cleanse the pallet so an old taste is washed away gives to untainted naked flavor you could say." ;D Haha as I am writing this the Science Channel has Dr. Michio Kaku speaking about quantum teleportation.  |
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Dec 18, 2009 18:47:44 GMT -5
They can't make a black hole in the lab and if they did it might be a good thing, because IMO it is long overdue just desserts. Shunt the politicians, lawyers and priests off first. (....oh, and land developers and estate agents too). Just imagine the space that would be freed-up! Take a few fancy cars off the road and clear some air space. Sublime thought! BANKERS and Insurance fools too. whew! Elijah...I noticed you capitalized the word "bankers"...you must find these individuals particularly distasteful...  All jest aside...having read the very intelligent thoughts expressed here...I am getting the personal inspiration that "helonism" for me is representative of an extreme transformation...reality, being that which is perceived on an individual level, can be transformed by the observer at any given time...or perhaps, better said, when the "time is right"...yet each transformation affects the whole does it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Dec 18, 2009 21:05:03 GMT -5
A helon, might in that respect, be a particle of thought or perception which is a precursor to an eventual more material actuality. I like it. Somewhat noetic. |
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Dec 18, 2009 21:12:36 GMT -5
G wrote: So what is real reality? Intention or reflection? Is it not what we "believe" it to be? Perhaps if viewed from a philisophical angle... If we're speaking strictly scientific...it could not be limited to one thing...for it is made up of all things...and it's existence is based upon the reflective...   "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real? |
|
|
|
Post by elijah on Dec 19, 2009 3:09:28 GMT -5
Morningstar Bankers haven't exactly endeared themselves lately. Just look at the world-wide trend help themselves to investors funds and award massive bonuses to the hoods at the top of the banking ladder. ~~~~~~~ I am just reading an article in the August 2009 New Scientist entitled : "Do you believe in miracles?" The opening paragraphs reads: These days most people think it unscientific to believe in "miracles", and irreligious not to believe in them. But would the occurrence of miracles really violate the principles of science?Elijah said: There is a fine line between physics and metaphysics, and very often the two converge giving rise to the quandary which particle and theoretical physicists have found very hard to reconcile without compromising their professional status by appearing to have lost the scientific plot. G said: I think the fine line between the two is recent. Elijah: No so. Humans are still and will continue to squabble over this paradox, whilst Creationists will forever lock horns with Evolutionists, and battles are fought in the name of god until there is a realisation that it is all for NOTHING. ;D New Scientist: Belief in miracles need not be inconsistent with and acceptance of science.G wrote: So what is real reality? Intention or reflection? Is it not what we "believe" it to be? Perhaps if viewed from a philisophical angle... If we're speaking strictly scientific...it could not be limited to one thing...for it is made up of all things...and it's existence is based upon the reflective... Real reality is no thing at all. It is perception and understanding of the perception. I know that personal intent affects overall results. The practice of meditation is the method to channel all intent into the right and correct mindset. The more one vanishes into pure awareness within meditation, the harder it is to tear yourself away from that condition, and on reflection that state is no thing but a state of existence where there exists nothing but whatever your mind has become, be it Strange, Charmed or a Helon elementary particle. From what I understand, the so-called God particle is found within that state of total meditation. Practitioners of a meditation, whatever their spiritual alignment is, be it Sufi, Buddhist, Christian etc all experience the same sublimity of existence and ecstasy if you want to call it that. To attach a human emotion to a indescribable state is rather mundane  But as we are all part of no thing, and yet part of the same thing, to wit: Buddha, or a Christ. it is up to the individual to begin to behave like a Christ-ed Buddha. That's just an observation. Anyway, my purpose of writing this is really to further expound my considered opinions concerning whether what I believe in is really real. I do. Because I believe in the magnificent reality of how nothing being a quantum particle of thought form can create a reality. Like a an invention. These inventors all believed that they could do something : a light bulb, a telephone, a phonograph, a vaccine, all stated with a thought form which was unreal and progressively became a reality. A Miracle. Belief in their reality! To paraphrase New Scientist: Belief in accepted science is consistent with miracles. So it would be for everything. A prayer is a thought form. Sending loving thoughts. Wishful thinking. Hope. All these are reality based on human perception and need for physical satisfaction. They always talk about the powers of positive thinking. The trick is self belief and self knowledge, I think. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Dec 20, 2009 9:21:02 GMT -5
To attach a human emotion to a indescribable state is rather mundane I disagree with this statement. I see nothing "mundane" about human emotion...and emotion/indescribable state are often one and the same. If, as you have stated, "we are all part of no-thing and yet all part of the same thing"...this reflects the connectiveness aspect of spirituality/higher consciousness...our emotions, albeit human (and that is not always a bad thing by the way) are reflective of that which we are connected to...all coming from and reflecting back to the same source, if you will. This "sublimity of existence" you describe that is found in a state of total meditation...the "ecstasy" that many have felt...is this not the "emotion" we feel on a deep instrisic level resulting from the meditative connection to the eternal (for want of a better word...for again it is indescribable). "As above/so below". I have just had a VERY strong deja vu here. Human emotion allows us to feel love, for example. Please describe love for me...and not the paperback version...the deepest form...can you describe that fully - in an adequate way? Or can it be that what we humans feel is often indescrible...perhaps because the emotion is connected to that which we cannot fully explain...
|
|
|
|
Post by Frater G on Dec 20, 2009 11:44:43 GMT -5
Morningstar Bankers haven't exactly endeared themselves lately. Just look at the world-wide trend help themselves to investors funds and award massive bonuses to the hoods at the top of the banking ladder. ~~~~~~~ I am just reading an article in the August 2009 New Scientist entitled : "Do you believe in miracles?" The opening paragraphs reads: These days most people think it unscientific to believe in "miracles", and irreligious not to believe in them. But would the occurrence of miracles really violate the principles of science?Elijah said: There is a fine line between physics and metaphysics, and very often the two converge giving rise to the quandary which particle and theoretical physicists have found very hard to reconcile without compromising their professional status by appearing to have lost the scientific plot. G said: I think the fine line between the two is recent. Elijah: No so. Humans are still and will continue to squabble over this paradox, whilst Creationists will forever lock horns with Evolutionists, and battles are fought in the name of god until there is a realisation that it is all for NOTHING. ;D New Scientist: Belief in miracles need not be inconsistent with and acceptance of science.G wrote: So what is real reality? Intention or reflection? Is it not what we "believe" it to be? Perhaps if viewed from a philisophical angle... If we're speaking strictly scientific...it could not be limited to one thing...for it is made up of all things...and it's existence is based upon the reflective... Real reality is no thing at all. It is perception and understanding of the perception. I know that personal intent affects overall results. The practice of meditation is the method to channel all intent into the right and correct mindset. The more one vanishes into pure awareness within meditation, the harder it is to tear yourself away from that condition, and on reflection that state is no thing but a state of existence where there exists nothing but whatever your mind has become, be it Strange, Charmed or a Helon elementary particle. From what I understand, the so-called God particle is found within that state of total meditation. Practitioners of a meditation, whatever their spiritual alignment is, be it Sufi, Buddhist, Christian etc all experience the same sublimity of existence and ecstasy if you want to call it that. To attach a human emotion to a indescribable state is rather mundane But as we are all part of no thing, and yet part of the same thing, to wit: Buddha, or a Christ. it is up to the individual to begin to behave like a Christ-ed Buddha. That's just an observation. Anyway, my purpose of writing this is really to further expound my considered opinions concerning whether what I believe in is really real. I do. Because I believe in the magnificent reality of how nothing being a quantum particle of thought form can create a reality. Like a an invention. These inventors all believed that they could do something : a light bulb, a telephone, a phonograph, a vaccine, all stated with a thought form which was unreal and progressively became a reality. A Miracle. Belief in their reality! To paraphrase New Scientist: Belief in accepted science is consistent with miracles. So it would be for everything. A prayer is a thought form. Sending loving thoughts. Wishful thinking. Hope. All these are reality based on human perception and need for physical satisfaction. They always talk about the powers of positive thinking. The trick is self belief and self knowledge, I think. What do you think?  To make it so ~ so mote it be then. ;D What fascinates me is the concept of true creativity and it's origin. 99% I believe of all thought forms are concepts regurgitated from our memory banks. What are memories? Pictures of a sort translated from brain cell chemistry? A recording of pictures (holograms?) rearranged in a multitude of patterns? So where does something, an idea truly not thought of or experienced come from? Could all experiences aside from time, be happening simultaneously and creativity is the stripping of a veil of ignorance? We're organic tuning forks. Could there be information received in an antenna like manner? That would be Gnostic right? Clairvoyance would be holograms connected to the single point of no time and received by DNA first matter linkage. We are the body of the the divinity...antenna wired intrinsically. Could there be a link between clairvoyance and intent? |
|
|
|
Post by Frater G on Dec 20, 2009 11:48:36 GMT -5
To attach a human emotion to a indescribable state is rather mundane I disagree with this statement. I see nothing "mundane" about human emotion...and emotion/indescribable state are often one and the same. If, as you have stated, "we are all part of no-thing and yet all part of the same thing"...this reflects the connectiveness aspect of spirituality/higher consciousness...our emotions, albeit human (and that is not always a bad thing by the way) are reflective of that which we are connected to...all coming from and reflecting back to the same source, if you will. This "sublimity of existence" you describe that is found in a state of total meditation...the "ecstasy" that many have felt...is this not the "emotion" we feel on a deep instrisic level resulting from the meditative connection to the eternal (for want of a better word...for again it is indescribable). "As above/so below". I have just had a VERY strong deja vu here. Human emotion allows us to feel love, for example. Please describe love for me...and not the paperback version...the deepest form...can you describe that fully - in an adequate way? Or can it be that what we humans feel is often indescrible...perhaps because the emotion is connected to that which we cannot fully explain... I think love is the absolute surrender or giving of oneself to all that is. There are different levels of course. The most mature form is the love of humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by elijah on Dec 20, 2009 15:03:39 GMT -5
"To attempt to attach mundane human descriptions to such extraordinary thinking and emotions" might be a better way of describing ecstasy, and now also love. Deja vu, indeed. It sounds as though we are all discussing this topic between just the two of us as usual. Anyways...... Love is throwing stones into the black void of eternity at the end of the time. Love is that field that Rumi speaks of. Love is knowing at first sight. Love is witchcraft. Love is the smoke of ancient art and music. Love is laughter in a sunlit room. Love is wassailing and mistletoe, the cold hard light of Venus, -- love is the shadow of antiquity at midnight. Love is pepper. Love is the memory you forgot at the moment of your birth. Love is no-thing, but is every-thing when you are in love. One is not given to writing much ... it all goes on inside one's head. and heart, .... I suppose, if that is where humans keep the notion of love. However, it might be elsewhere. ;D Who knows |
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Dec 20, 2009 21:09:37 GMT -5
"To attempt to attach mundane human descriptions to such extraordinary thinking and emotions" might be a better way of describing ecstasy, and now also love. Deja vu, indeed. It sounds as though we are all discussing this topic between just the two of us as usual. Anyways...... Love is throwing stones into the black void of eternity at the end of the time. Love is that field that Rumi speaks of. Love is knowing at first sight. Love is witchcraft. Love is the smoke of ancient art and music. Love is laughter in a sunlit room. Love is wassailing and mistletoe, the cold hard light of Venus, -- love is the shadow of antiquity at midnight. Love is pepper. Love is the memory you forgot at the moment of your birth. Love is no-thing, but is every-thing when you are in love. One is not given to writing much ... it all goes on inside one's head. and heart, .... I suppose, if that is where humans keep the notion of love. However, it might be elsewhere. ;D Who knows You, my friend, have the soul of a poet...which can be a bitter sweet thing to carry with you through this which we call time. How eloquent and beautifully you have painted a picture of love...and yet...there is far more...as there always is... Love is eternal in nature...to truly love is to "feel" with the "soul"...to span the gap that lies between us and the devine...it is the purest form of empathy...it is rejuvenative...it is healing...it is the greatest gift we humans can unwrap. It is that which makes us worthy of our own selves. If it is true and unconditional - it brings the purest emotion of joy that can ever be experienced in this "life" we are in. It embraces acceptance on it's highest level...and it makes everything we endure here acceptable. For me, it is the answer to all that ails us. When we love we create something beyond our own selves...we become "alchemists" of the highest level...for we then truly "see" beyond that which is us. To truly understand love takes far more than a lifetime. "Love is the memory you forgot at the moment of your birth" I find this a truly "haunting" statement. So then...it continues...onward and forever... Or so it does seem... |
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Dec 23, 2009 23:15:56 GMT -5
Could there be a link between clairvoyance and intent? I think there has to be. |
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on Dec 23, 2009 23:19:41 GMT -5
"To attempt to attach mundane human descriptions to such extraordinary thinking and emotions" might be a better way of describing ecstasy, and now also love. Mundane is the springboard and the tether. |
|
|
|
Post by helonbenzebulon on May 21, 2010 23:47:14 GMT -5
HELON was one of the three Sons of Zebulon ben Jacob; albeit only Latin, Vulgate and Ancient Texts will show you this; see Genesis 46:14 and Numbers 26:26. You will also find the text in the Latin Vulgate and the Gutenburg. Josephus also wrote of the three sons of Zebulon: Sarad, HELON ans Jalel. The name HELON also appears in numerous: Biblical, Sacred, Ancient, Historical, Antiquarian and Literary Sources. Bradley, S.C. Jesus of Nazareth: A Life. Sherman, French & Company: Boston, USA; pp. v, 486-490. The Poetical Works of N.P. Willis, Author of "Pencillings by the Way." George Routledge & Co., Soho Square: London, 1850; pp. 5-9. Compare with Matthew 8:1-4; Mark 1:40-45, and Luke 5:12-16.As well, the name HELON appears in Escoteric Literature. Mendoza, Harry [Worshipful Master]. The Ensigns of the Twelve Tribes: The Royal Arch Banners. Lewis Masonic: London, 1989; p. 71. "With regard to the twenty-four names given, the Editor of The Pentateuch and Haftorahs pp.568-9 (Dr. J.H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi) points out that: nine contain the Divine Name EL, which means God; three contain the name TZUR, which means Rock, a frequent appellation of God, and in three others SHADDAI occurs, which is usually translated 'Almighty'." "The Lectures on the ensigns tell us the name of the prince who carried each of the 'banners', together with the name of his father." [p. 69]. Herodotus wrote of the HELONIANS [called in Greek and Ukrainian GELONIANS]. In Victor Kachur's Translation from the Old Slavonic Language of The BOOK of VLES [Vles Knyha - Vlesova Kniga - Book of Veles] you will find many references to the HELON. For your information - in case you don't already know this - and noting the illustration above: 1. At the top of the Brickwall is featured the British and Scottish land masses; France and Italy below. 2. Notice where Adam is pointing? 3. Pay particular attention to the Left Arm of the Philosopher - it is not his! Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by vajramukti on May 22, 2010 20:32:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the info, and welcome to the board!
|
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on May 26, 2010 11:52:25 GMT -5
You've provided quite a bit of info/connections to ponder.
Thank you - and welcome.
|
|
that maybe being the particle of consciousness which in turn might be the "God Particle" or at least it definitely becomes something of the sort when the ability to reflect is manifested. 
