| Author |
Message |
   
Pureharmony
Member
Post Number: 102
Registered: 08-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:27 am: | 
|
Gica, I think you are referring to my song, called "It Was A UFO".
(Sorry moderators.) We can continue this conversation in the Non-FIGU area,if you like, Gica. 
*pureharmony*
|
Anonymous
Member
Post Number: 31
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 03:15 pm: |
|
It is a shame that we don't use this section of the forum for ongoing discussions. I would very much like to see this happen here instead of posting sporadic comments as we tend to do. I used to attend a meeting where all of us present would discuss a particular subject - it could be anything dealing with human existence - and allow for our opinions to develop as the discussion grew. We could do this here. It would be such a wonderful thing to experience among us if we can communicate in such a way that allows for our ideas and thoughts to grow while discussing a subject. I don't mean, to say one's bit and that's it, but rather to share one's opinion, to give our reason why we have it, and to ask the right questions why others think differently; but ultimately to arrive at some understanding in an ongoing fashion. It might be useful to have someone acting as organizer, in order to move the conversation along, so that we don't fall back. Perhaps one of the moderators could take on this role while also contributing?
Just an idea.
Hi Anonymous,
I think the closest thing that can be offered at this time is perhaps one of the chat rooms which are offered on many sites. This would also require a moderator present throughtout the discussion, whereas on this forum time is limited as to how much time any of the moderators could devote to such an endeavor. Good idea nevertheless!
Moderator |
Anonymous
Member
Post Number: 35
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 01:08 am: |
|
Posted by Jacob and agreed by James in the section Plejaren women bi-sexual? – “The male is the representation of the positive, creative principle and therefore outgoing/repulsive… The female is the representation of the negative, creative principle and therefore ingoing/attractive.“
Positive Female and Negative Male
A magnet has two poles: a north-seeking pole and a south-seeking pole. As with the Earth’s poles, the north repels and the south attracts: flux lines exit from the north seeking to re-enter through the south. From this we can reason that the north-seeking pole is equal to the negative principle and the south-seeking pole is equal to the positive principle. This is true even when we consider it from the perspective of our daily lives: what we attract (accept) we gain, and that must be said to be positive, while what we repel (reject) we lose, and that must be said to be negative. In principle attraction is positive and repelling is negative. The only time they appear to contradict this is when they come in to play in a human being, who will reason that it is not always positive to attract, since one can attract something that is harmful. This of course is true. But if we are to advocate that the natural laws of Creation apply to all life and existence, then we must agree that the laws that apply to a polarity existing outside humans also applies to a polarity existing inside humans. Otherwise we are saying that there is one law for the Earth and another law for humans. If we are to accept that the male exerts his creative force, therefore, then we must also accept that he represents the negative end of the polarity existing within humans, since it is this end that exerts (repels) according to magnetism.
Having said that, a human being represents both positive and negative principles, and as such unites them, making them one. Because he is a man does not mean that he represents only the negative principle. Though there are opposites, in truth every polarity meets within a union. Such a union is a human being. Therefore, it is for a man and a woman to think of themselves as such, and not as male and female, or feminine and masculine.
Furthermore, it must not be understood that the positive and negative principles of the polarity existing within humans have the same meaning as that which we understand to be positive and negative, such as when we say that someone has a negative attitude. This is not how it is to be understood. The positive and negative principles of a polarity have a mutual relationship. They are both creative forces and compliment each other without conflict. So it is within a human, and must be understood this way, rather than divorced from each other.
JEC |
Phaethonsfire
Member
Post Number: 7
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 02:07 pm: |
|
The unity of Spirtual evolution.
From the first expansion and following condensation of material worlds, until the amplitude of the Universe, Creation will create in countless amounts NewSpirit, which seed new and old suitable homeworlds to live on and to evolve.
Every NewSpirit, every single one is identical to each other, yet absolutely unique at the same time.
They are all part of Creation, created with the exact same capabilities and desire to reach perfection, and to reunite with Creation.
So what makes NewSpiritforms unique? This is because Creation itself also complies to its laws of space and time and that every Spiritform has its own time of creation (birth), so NO Spiritform not in this Universe or in Dern is identical, all Spiritforms differ in time(birthtime) and space (dimension/ homeworld)
All Spiritforms have their own complete unique evolutionary path which is not repeated in any place in any time, in any Universe, if it would be the case that their would be absolute twins then this would be a total violation of the Law of Logic and Creation would not even exist nor every other Creation, only the absolute void of nothingness.
Every Spiritform goes its own path of evolution, completely unique compared to all other evolutionary Spiritforms, this has a twosided purpose for Creation.
The goal:
1. To reach perfection in Spirit and to unify with Creation as a creational energyblock reaching the level of Universal consicousness.
2. The perfection of the Spirit and its wisdom, love, knowledge and power, the perfection of the 'piece of Creation itself' (external) - Creation Evolution / Macrocosmos; the reason why Creation has created the Spirit
The path:
1. The path taken by the Spirit to reach perfection is unique, and the Spirit has its own unique being that is developed by following that unique path.
2. Creation learns from this unique path, because there is no other Spiritform like it that has an identical path, this path is unique yet one with Creation.
So Creation evolves from both the path that is taken by each Spiritform and at the same time the goal that is reached namly Spiritual perfection.
This same unique evolutionary path applies also to Creation and all other Creations in Absolute Absolutum.
Why is this so? The can be explained according to the Law of Logic.
Logic is infinity in space and time and holds space and time in itself.
Logic is together with Love the purest Spiritual Energy.
Logic is the always uniquely unfolding principle that always stays absolutely true to itself, yet it has no limits whatsoever to unfold in in endless ways.
The Law of Logic doesnt originate from Creation, it originates from the Absolute Absolutum, the absolute secret of all.
The current material Universe is the first creation and expression of absolute logic, in a endless ongoing fashion.
The Earth human has to understand that his/her path is unique, its path was never before existant and will never come again, so because of this uniqueness he has to realise that he cant judge others on their path, because that is their own path, there actions will be measured against the Laws of Creation and be validated as compliant or non-compliant and he has to respect their absolute freedom given by the Laws to Creation to fullfill in accordance with the Laws and directives their Spiritual evolution.
So know that you have the absolute freedom given in the Laws by Creation to be what you want to be and to fullfill Creations desire to become perfect and one with Creation.
I hope I have made myself clear, English is not my native language (I am Dutch) and I find it often difficult to express myself clearly in this language.
Saloome,
Jacob |
Anonymous
Member
Post Number: 58
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 03:02 pm: |
|
I would like to talk a bit about polarity according to what I have come to understand of it. Although I have already posted a brief message on this forum in regards to this subject, at the time I had left out an important piece of information that has been the basis of my understanding of polarity for almost ten years now. I would therefore like to take up my argument again and explain a little more of what I know, or think I know. It may be that I have got it wrong, in which case I hope to be corrected.
When I began thinking about the law of polarity in my early twenties I was intrigued by its existence in human nature and struck upon an idea that compelled me to compile two lists: one showing all the human characteristics that can be said to be ‘positive’ and the other showing all the human characteristics that can be said to be ‘negative’. By these lists I had hoped to find a connection between all positive characteristics and another connection between all negative characteristics. My thinking was based on the association that was apparent between the polarities ‘day’ and ‘night’, ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ and ‘white’ and ‘black’. I thought that if there exists an association between these, there must exist an association between all other polarities. For me this was a way of understanding my basic nature as a man, and as a human being. Even to this day I still say that the understanding of polarities is the very bottom, and therefore the foundation, of true knowledge. It is not, as some people may think, the entire structure of true knowledge, whereby they live their lives in the understanding that they have a two-sided nature. The law of polarity, when studied carefully, always leads one to the knowledge of a unity. But seeing as we are all in agreement with that, there is no point expressing my views on it. Rather I would like to say something on the association I think there exists between one positive characteristic and another, and one negative characteristic and another, with which we are not in agreement, because where it has been said on this forum that the male represents the positive principle and the female the negative principle, my analysis of the law of polarity shows otherwise.
Starting with the most obvious polarities I could think of, I then listed them under the headings ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’, thinking to myself that no two poles of the same polarity can both be positive; but that one must be positive and the other negative. However, this is not to say that the positive pole has a more favourable influence than the negative pole. Let me stress here before it is raised by others that in categorizing those characteristics that I claim to be positive does not mean that those characteristics that I claim to be negative have an unfavourable influence. This is the common understanding of positive and negative, which stems from our desire to see things as black and white: something that has been encouraged by religion for centuries, and which has since affected our psyche ‘negatively’. But it is a wrong understanding because, although there are two extremes, to separate them will cause an imbalance. Imagine a pair of scales, for example. If more weight is put on one scale than it is on another it will cause the scale to lean to one side. This is no different to focusing our efforts and attention on living our lives according to what we are made to think is ‘good’ and ‘right’ as distinct from ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’, or to what we have come to conclude is good and right for ourselves but is in fact reckless, irresponsible or degenerate. But if the same amount of weight is put on both scales, a balance will be maintained that will not cause the scale to lean to either side. And this is the same as if we were to understand the significance the polarity of positive and negative has in our lives and implementing it. Creating this balance can only be achieved by recognizing a polarity as a unity, and by recognizing the naturalness of both poles in human nature as something that needs to be expressed equally. Too much ‘good’, therefore, can be just as negative as too much ‘bad’, while some ‘bad’ can be just as positive as some ‘good’.
So, starting with the most obvious polarities I began to work my way down the lists in the belief that all positive characteristics follow or precede each other in the same way as 1 is followed by 2 or 5 is preceded by 6, and vice versa with the negative characteristics. Some characteristics, however, don’t immediately appear to be positive or negative. But I have classified them as such because they follow the preceding characteristic. An example of this would be the characteristic ‘strength’, which I have put down as being negative to weakness. Clearly this seems backward at first glance. But although strength can be used positively, here it is to be understood as an extreme, in that there is no influence coming from its opposite to moderate it in degree. ‘Strength’ in this sense is pure brute strength, which follows ‘body’ because it is physical. ‘Weakness’ must therefore be said to be positive to ‘strength’ because it follows that the mind (consciousness), as an extreme, has no physical condition. For this reason it is weak in comparison to ‘body’, and so hasn’t the potential to be physically destructive but consciously constructive. Thus, ‘mind’ (consciousness) must be said to be positive to ‘body’.
What must be remembered is that what is positive and negative are extremes, and so in order to understand them as such one must not think of them as being influenced by their opposite, although in reality they are an extreme of each other and therefore one and the same thing: like ‘black’ is an extreme of ‘white’, and ‘white’ of ‘black’, between which there is a gradation where white eventually becomes black and black eventually becomes white. As long as we know this we are not in danger of misleading ourselves. But to understand ‘black’ as ‘black’ and ‘white’ as ‘white’ I ask you to cast aside this knowledge and just think of them as extremes in themselves and not of each other, since this is the only way you can understand why some less obvious characteristics, like ‘weakness’, is classified here as being positive when otherwise we would think of it as being negative.
In truth, it is not positive or negative; none of them are. They are just influences. But we classify them as such to help us understand, and as primitive or relevant to our evolution as this may be, I believe that such classification is valid and logical, and always consistent.
Here is what I have found:
I am interested in knowing what anyone has to say about this.
JEC
|
Anonymous
Member
Post Number: 59
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Here it is again, uploaded this time. |
Phaethonsfire
Member
Post Number: 89
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 04:53 am: |
|
Logic and Illogic
I want to talk about a certain topic in human evolution, which is very basic, yet very deep into the spiritual evolution of mankind.
Evolution in the material realm is based on both logic and illogic, which embrace each other in order to learn and evolve, this will only change when the human race reaches the levels of Horalft (Plejaren high counsel) and after that the pure spirit realm of Arahat Athersata, in which the evolution will go on by logic creating logic, which is way beyond the scope of this post.
I am discussing here the so-called thought-process, which is the basic process of the whole concept of reasoning and thinking, the whole thinking process is much more complex since its composed out of thought-processes that can be executed in parallel and/or in sequence (the conclusion of one or multiple thought-processes are the premises of a new thought-process and/or new thought-processes, this in endless repetition.
So when many thought-processes are working in parallel, it is very well possible that some thought-processes are logical and some thought-processes are illogical.
The logical thought-processes will remain the same; the illogical thought-processes will terminate themselves over time due to their illogical nature.
Filtering out and cleaning up these illogical thought-processes is only possible when the person is attentive and objective, and does not have any mental barrier or preconception that hinders the neutralization of illogical thought-processes.
It's also given in logic that the conclusion of logical thought-processes can be premises for new thought-processes and/or can form new logical-systems which can be used to process premises in a logical fashion to new logical conclusions.
Logic, when defined by human measures is 'reasoning'
This means that the starting point are the premises, which are processed in a specify order after which a conclusion follows.
You will see that when either the premises and/or the thoughtproces are faulty or untruthful, the outcome, the conclusion will be illogical as well.
1. Premise
Reasoning
2. Conclusion
1. Premise
What is a premise?
An premise is an piece of information obtained by observation of an phenomenon, or information that is obtained by other sources, like information gathered from people, books, writings, etc.
You can see here that an un-objective observation provides for false information (false premises) which never can be used to be processed logically, so if your observation is tainted by preconceptions, opinions, believes, lack of interest and lack of concentration and influenced by the impatient material consciousness (random thoughts and feelings) or by means of external causes like physical phenomena such as an Fata morgana, then you are bound to come to an illogical conclusion.
The biggest culprit of all is the lack of time the material consciousness directs towards an objective observation, which would lead to an truthful observation of the phenomena, more time to observe in an objective manner would mean that over time, more and more details appear in the observation of the phenomenon.
Compare this to looking at a painting like the Night watch of Rembrandt, if you look a few seconds to it, you will miss a lot of detail in the painting, its colors, it dimensions, etc. if you give yourself the time and have the patience to look properly you will notice a lot more details which translate to a lot more information to process. Time is the key in logic.
2. Conclusion by reasoning
Reasoning is the process that is has several factors in it.
Its dependant on whether the premises are truthful or untruthful, and whether the premises are computed in their specific order and by the means of the correct logical process.
Example:
To obtain the end result 7; by means of the biggest number (4) followed by the smallest number (3)
1. 4 + 3 = 7: It can very well be that the number 4 has to be used first and after that the number 3 to be add up to reach 7 (LOGICAL)
2. 3 + 4 = 7: The result is the same as above, but the logical order of the premises are incorrect, this is similar to several chemical processes, in which chemicals need to be mixed in a specific order to obtain the end product, when mixed in the incorrect order, it can explode, or do nothing, etc. (ILLOGICAL)
3. 4 / 3 = 1.3: The premises are used in their correct order but are computed with the wrong logical process (division, subtraction, multiplication and addition are in themselves logical systems) but the used logical process of division is inappropriate here. (ILLOGICAL)
4. 3 + 3 = 6: You see here that one of the two premises are incorrect, so even when the second premise (3) is at its right place and the correct logical systems of addition is used, the end result is incorrect.
5. 5 + 2 = 7: All premises are incorrect, even though the logical process of addition is correct, and the end result is 7, this is an illogical end result since both premises aren’t compliant to reality. (ILLOGICAL)
6. 5 + 1 = 6: All premises are incorrect, even though the logical process of addition is correct; the end result is 6, which isn’t correct. (ILLOGICAL)
7. 5 - 1 = 4: All premises are incorrect, the inappropriate logical system of subtraction is used and the end result is incorrect. (ILLOGICAL)
You see that all parts of an thought process need to be truthful / logical and that only truthful premises, in their correct linear-chronological order, computed with the correct logical system will result in an logical and truthful end result, this and only this results into Logic.
Regardless what part of your thought process is illogical, it will sooner of later reveal its true illogical nature.
With this you will see that every part of your thinking, every single process, and the whole collective of thought-processes require objective observations, attention, and above all TIME.
Don't think that you will be able to have perfect logical thoughts because your material consciousness is the limiting factor in this.
Making mistakes, e.g. making illogical thoughts are a part of Nature and evolution, and as long as mistakes are made from true ignorance and not out of acting against better knowledge, then you will always be without fault in this.
This post is partly based on the FIGU book 'Einführung in die Meditation' and my own thoughts.
Jakobjn
Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
|
Phaethonsfire
Moderator
Post Number: 331
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 10:48 am: |
|
Normally Nature produces more females then males for several reasons:
1. One male can fertilize more females at once
2. Females bond better then males do, build better and deeper friendships and are more able to provide a good foundation for families and communities.
In the case of a normally populated planet, not all males marry, and neither do all females, so that many men and women choose to remain single.
Its absolutely NOT against the laws of Nature to be in a one-man one-woman relationship, that is both the choice of the male and the female, how ever the male can decide to have more then one female partner if his material, mental and spiritual evolution allows.
His material/economical situation is a important factor in this too, he should be able to be a supportive factor.
The situation you mention is abstract and doesnt happen, there will be always single people and there will be always monogamous marriages (one man/one woman) and polygamous marriages ranging from 2 to 7 wives.
The sexual part of Polygamous marriages is just a relative small fraction since behind this whole concept, there is a much bigger thought behind all of this.
A polygamous marriage is the building block of the community/tribe/village, the offspring of each wive is 50% related to each other, and according to the laws of Nature, it should be prevented that people stemming from the same polygamous family should refrain from marriage until the 7th generation.
Generation/Genetic Similarity(%)
1st-50%
2st-25%
3rd-12.5%
4th-6.25%
5th-3.125%
6th-1.5625%
7th-0.78125%
This rule also makes sure that only a relatively few polygamous marriages exist and that the genepool is really strong and 'clean' since little to no genetic degradation occurs due to interbreeding bloodrelatives.
This is also the reason why it should be illegal that nephews and nieces should marry and have kids.
I hope this helps
Jakobjn
Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
|
Cpl
Member
Post Number: 13
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 06:07 pm: |
|
Hi Phaethonsfire,
So I presume the polygamus Plejarans that visited us are a significant minority on their home planet. Logistically, perhaps then, most marriages are monagamous, and there are enough single men to, on average, almost equal the number of single women plus women in polygamous marriages taking into account that there are slightly more women than men?
Thanks,
cpl |
Jacob
Moderator
Post Number: 451
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 02:16 pm: |
|
Note: The following posts are merely the thoughts of the author, when it is referred to the spiritual teachings, it will be explicitly noted in a blue font color.
Logic:
The meaning of the word Logic stems from the old-Greek word Logos, which means Creative Power / Power of the Creation; logic is the consistence of all things in the whole of existence.
Logic and Love:
Love contains/holds within a logicality (discourse), in other words: logicality lies in love, because love has a cause and an effect.
Love is created from causal factors, from what logicality results (depending on the love form and love’s intensity).
Besides love, that which is spiritual and consciousness-related also has a certain logical development = logicality.
Logic brings a certain effect from a cause, and this effect is cause for the next effect, etc.
Common Earth human teachings about Logic:
The common Earth human interpretation of the word Logos means: ‘what is spoken’ or ‘thought’ or ‘reason’. Normally logic is studied as a part of philosophy, the Greek word (philo-sophia) which means "love of wisdom") the other parts of the philosophy by Earth human customs are:
1. Epistemology
2. Metaphysics
3. Ethics
4. Aesthetics
5. Logic
When logic is described in its currently taught form, then we can discriminate into at least seven main forms of reasoning / logic:
1. Syllogistic logic
2. Predicate logic
3. Modal logic
4. Deduction and reasoning
5. Mathematical logic
6. Philosophical logic
7. Logic and computation
Syllogistic logic:
The syllogistic logic is mainly based on the body of work Organon of Aristotle, which included interpretation, prior analytics and posterior analytics.
The prior analytics (Latin: Analytica Priora) introduces the syllogistic method, argues for its correctness, and discusses inductive inference. The Posterior Analytics (Latin: Analytica Posteriora) discusses correct reasoning in general.
The syllogism is an inference in which one proposition / conclusion follows of necessity from the premise.
A proposition may be universal or particular, and it may be affirmative or negative. Thus there are just four kinds of propositions:
1. A-type: universal and affirmative or ("All people are mortal")
2. I-type: Particular and affirmative ("Some people are philosophers")
3. E-type: Universal and negative ("No philosophers are rich")
4. O-type: Particular and negative ("Some people are not philosophers")
When we take the syllogistic method apart starting with the prior analytics then we can see that the analysis of the judgments into propositions consisting of two terms that are related by one of a fixed number of relations, and the expression of inferences by means of syllogisms that consisted of two propositions sharing a common term as premise, and a conclusion which was a proposition involving the two unrelated terms from the premises.
Example of a deductive syllogism:
An argument is this: A group of propositions (statements, or assertions) in which one proposition provides support or grounds for the truth of another proposition which is claimed to follow from it, or be inferred (implied) by it. A classic example of one form of argument:
1st Proposition: A) All humans are mortal. (Major premise)
2nd Proposition: B) Socrates was a human. (Minor premise)
Therefore:
3rd Proposition: C) Socrates was mortal (Conclusion)
A problem with this line of reasoning is that when two propositions share a common premise that they could be subject to the problem of multiple generality, which is explained in the following example:
For example, it is directly clear that if:
One cat is feared by every mouse, then it follows logically that:
All mice are afraid of at least one cat.
However, it is not possible to express this inference in Aristotle's system, because the manner we should represent the first term in Aristotelian subject-predicate form, ensures that our predicate will be "X is feared by every mouse", which places the "every" out of reach of the syllogisms available in the theory.
Another problem with syllogistic logic is that it’s based on premises that are assumed as being absolutely known, and presumably can’t be interpreted otherwise, this leaves no room for any undetermined factors, when unknown factors / premises are included in the discourse, the conclusion will be undetermined or even contradictive.
It’s absolutely required to know ever aspect of a given object in order to be able to come to a correct conclusion about that object. When the description is incomplete or flawed the conclusion is flawed as well.
Syllogistic logic relies strongly on EXACT premises; however in practice the premises in real life are usually just approximations, not absolutely exact definitions.
Example:
An apple is not exactly an apple, even when it’s the same fruit; it’s not the exact same shape as any other apple out there.
ILLOGICAL:
All jonagold are apples.
All golden delicious are apples. Therefore all jonagold are golden delicious.
This is an absurd conclusion.
With these examples it is proven that the material intellect and its faulty thinking is unable to get to the core of things.
The truly logical way to study any given object is to start by its effect(s), not by its cause(s), when one analyzes the effects of a cause, one has to study all aspects of a given effect in reverse towards it cause, only when all aspects of a given effect are studied, one can determine the cause(s).
The word ‘Universe’ is a generic term for the reality in which we live, however the Universe includes an incomprehensible amount of aspects, which need to be studied carefully and individually to understand them and the relationships between those aspects.
There is just one way to understand reality and that is by starting by its basic principles, one can never understand reality when one starts studying it in its essence.
It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that matter and energy are related and interchangeable, and that matter and energy have an influence on the fabric of space/time seen in phenomena like black holes.
If you join this following experiment of the mind then you will realize that regardless in which direction an object propagates with relativistic speeds that the space/time fabric is influenced by an effect called the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, which causes space and time to change, even up to a point where space and time collapse into each other forming hyperspace.
Concluding one ends up in a reality where neither space nor time exists as we know it and where an ‘infinite’ (according to the special and general relativity theory) energy exists, this resembles remarkably the BEING of the Creation itself, as described in the spirit lessons.
With these thoughts one can think that the BEING of the Creation exists beyond a reasonable doubt.
The reasons why:
1. Space and its assumed 3 dimensions X, Y, Z are nullified in hyperspace, so no geometrical material object of any kind can exist since there is no geometrical space to exist in.
2. Time is nullified to a standstill which means that the law of creation and annihilation (To become and Wither away) does not apply, something material can’t be created in timelessness, let alone exist.
3. In hyperspace only energy can exist which has no geometrical shape and has no boundaries in existence when it comes to space and time, the existence of energy in hyperspace is endless.
4. The factual truth is that even in hyperspace there DOES exist a space and time, but those space and time structures are embedded in such enormous values that even the smallest values are beyond any comprehension. Proof for this statement is in the fact that the Universe DOES have a shape, and that is only possible when an encompassing space/time structure is present, if there was no space and time of any kind outside of this Universe then it would be impossible for a Universe to have a shape or even to exist.
5. Energy is directly related to information, which means that energy is an information carrier, information can’t exist without energy, vibrations, frequencies, impulses, longitudinal and transversal waves all carry information AND energy. Every vibration can be quantized and sampled; every sample has its own unique value, which can be used to recreate an identical waveform. There is a direct link between the amount of information and the frequency of a vibration, the higher the frequency, the more information it can contain. Proof is that gamma radiation contains a lot more energy then radiowaves because it has a much higher frequency.
6. Information is a property of intelligence; there can’t be information, without an intelligence to generate information. Intelligence is capable of generating information and brings structure to that information.
7. Intelligence on its turn can only exist in a consciousness, because only a consciousness has the ability to interact with itself or surrounding reality.
The conclusion would be that the energy which exists in hyperspace is for human standards infinite and does not underlie the laws of space and time and creation and annihilation (To become and Wither away), it will exist eternally, also if energy contains information and if information is based on intelligence of some sort then one can assume safely that this same intelligence is a part of a consciousness that equals the intelligence in every way.
Space and time are meaningless in the BEING of the Creation, which leads to the assumption that the intelligence and consciousness of the Creation itself have no limits in each and every part of the Universe itself. The end conclusion is that the Universe exists of a part that underlies space/time/matter and a part that is hyperspace/energy; both are integral parts of the same Universe. The existence of the Creation is an endless EXISTENCE in nullspace/nulltime (hyperspace) in Universal Consciousness, Universal intelligence and absolute logic.
Salome,
Jacob
"If you measure the size of your Ego to the size of your knowledge or what you assume you know, then you should always try to remember that your ignorance is infinitely larger, then any knowledge you have."
|
Sonik_01
Member
Post Number: 82
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 08:25 am: |
|
Hi All,
What are the elements of logic?
I learned from one of Jacob's above posts that logic needs both a premise and a conclusion. In order for the mind to reason through to the right conclusion in the correct sequence, what elements are needed to arrive at the proper destination??
I gather that one needs patience, first off, in order to observe the external or internal phenomena without a rush and appreciate it properly, without distortions. So I gather patience is one of the first elements of logic.
Another element of logic would be a wide understanding of things, such as science and nature, so in order not to get caught up in superstitions and tall tales about things. So I gather knowledge would be another element of logic, not superstitions.
What other elements make up or are needed in a logical thinking process, and why? |
Kiril
Member
Post Number: 103
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 02, 2006 - 02:59 am: |
|
Hey Sonik,
the study of logic is apart of the science of Epistemology - that basic science which grants man the power to gain Knowledge. I suggest that your studies, therefore, begin there - and with a revised question, "How do I know it?"
(You will notice that you have inferred this implicity with your third paragraph, "So I gather knowledge would be another...." - although the paragraph itself is incoherent)
To this end I suggest the following oustanding book, as an introduction to the field, written by Ayn Rand: "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"
More specifically on the topic of logic, after you finish IOE, I suggest the following titles:
H.W.B. Joseph. "An Introduction to Logic"
Lionel Ruby. "Logic: An Introduction"
I hope you will understand the nature of my answer - that to explain the REAL elements of logic, and to do it porperly, requires a certain amount of understanding on your behalf, which you have shown you lack - and time that I don't posses
As a final note I would say that the advice Mr.Meier has given you is SPOT ON - congratulations on deciding to to persue it!!
Regards,
Kiril |
Sonik_01
Member
Post Number: 83
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, September 02, 2006 - 02:48 pm: |
|
Kiril,
You make it sound like I'm stupid, but I'm not as dumb as you think, and it is okay to address me as an equal, if you don't mind.
Academics is not what I'm talking about here. Theories and academics is not what I'm interested in. I'm talking about real-life, practical, everyday natural logic, stemming from spiritual-creational laws. If I wanted to be extremely well-versed in academic logic, I would study a book on it. If I wanted to study the true spiritual teachings, I would pick up a book by Billy, but unfortunately, I can't read German, so that's why I'm starting a discussion on logic, to learn more from people who know more, and to help those who know less. There are a lot of materialistically-minded people who have PhD's and everything, but have not one ounce of logic in their thinking. Becoming like them is not my goal. My goal is the discussion of true spiritual logic, from the Creational point of view, taking into account our responsabilities and things of that nature. That being said, what do people think would be some elements of the true spiritual logic, and why?? |
Kiril
Member
Post Number: 104
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 12:59 am: |
|
Sonik,
I don't think your "stupid". I'm sorry you have interpreted my post that way. My intentions could not be further divorced from such a conclusion!
"If I wanted to study the true spiritual teachings, I would pick up a book by Billy"
How do you know they are true before you've read and thought about them?
"Because they are based on "...spiritual-creational laws."" - I anticipate you will answer: then what are these laws and how do you know they are true(you would need to be able to read German to begin to prove this).
What do you mean by, "...materialistically-minded people..", considering the following quote from Mr.Meier:
"A spiritual intellect does not exist. Intellect belongs into the material realm and has to do with the consciousness."
I think what is generally meant when Mr.Meier or the Plejarens speak of the material in the context of a human, are thoughts and actions on the level of sensations, that are necessarily short range(in consideration of past and future events)/sighted, un-considered/analysed and therefore irrational - or aspects relating to bodily gratification/sustenance -- And when they speak of the spiritual they refer to the full use of the humans conciousness(employing also his faculty of Reason), employing logic, experimentation, analysis and so-forth.
What I am trying to relate to you, if you haven't already understood, is that you've committed a most dangerous error in your thinking, the exact same error your trying to escape and the same error that all great thinkers and profits have feared(of those who they have educated). Faith.
Lastly if its any consolation prize for you(I say this sarcastically because I disagree strongly with your implied definition of theory) the books I suggested are not accepted, in the majority, by Official Philosophy or Official Science. I know them only because I undertook independent studies in philosophy when I was in secondary school.
Regards,
Kiril |
Sonik_01
Member
Post Number: 84
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Thanks Kiril,
I will study these books then and see what they are about. |
Kiril
Member
Post Number: 106
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 04:44 pm: |
|
Epistemology and Logic is what they are about |
Adam
Member
Post Number: 34
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 09:34 am: |
|
Hi,
Truth and logic go hand in hand. To come to know the truth one must be logical. Vice versa, if a person is logical then they must know some truth.
Logic, as well as truth, is understanding, comprehension, perceptivity and awareness of existence and reality.
Knowledge is an element of logic but to acquire knowledge, first belief is needed.
Doubt, uncertainty and scrutiny are first needed because to know the truth one must also know what is not the truth, or what is false.
Certainty and definitiveness comes with understanding which must be elements of logic.
First and foremost, it is important to use critical thinking and skillful judgment of one’s thoughts using one’s mind and not follow one’s feelings alone. From my experience I see that many people focus on who is talking and doing, rather than what is really being said and done, which is illogical.
Jacob quoted above, "The meaning of the word Logic stems from the old-Greek word Logos, which means Creative Power / Power of the Creation; logic is the consistence of all things in the whole of existence."
Realizing our power as individuals is the most fundamental element of logic I think.
This gaiaguys article made me think more about this topic.
http://www.gaiaguys.net/Meier.puzzlesolution.htm
Regards
Adam |
Hunter
Member
Post Number: 278
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 07:33 pm: |
|
Well said, Adam. When learning logic, it is essential to learn what is not logical - i.e. logical fallacies. Here are a couple of good links that list most all of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies |
Vibka
Member
Post Number: 5
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Hi Guys,
I was asked to post my translation of "Gewaltsame Gewaltlosigkeit" (forcible non-violence) on the DB, and as it is a way of passive logical force, I thought this may be the best place for it. Please keep in mind, that this is a preliminary translation.
Gewaltsame Gewaltlosigkeit – Auszug aus der Broschüre „Philosophie des Lebens“, Seite 6
Forcible non-violence – Extract from the brochure „Philosophy of Life“, page 6
Die Geisteslehre lehnt jede unlogische Gewalt ab und lehrt die "Gewaltsame Gewaltlosigkeit", die sich folgendermassen erklären lässt:
The spirit teaching declines any illogical force and teaches the "forcible non-violence", which can be explained in the following way:
Gewaltsame Gewaltlosigkeit ist der Weg der passiven, logischen Gewalt, denn gewaltsame Gewaltlosigkeit bedeutet mit anderen Worten aktive Gewaltlosigkeit, bei der gewaltsam resp. aktiv die Gewaltlosigkeit geübt und durchgesetzt wird. Forcible non-violence is the way of a passive logical force, because forcible non-violence in other words means active non-violence, with which forcibly and (respectively) actively the non-violence is being practiced and carried out.
Bei der gewaltsamen Gewaltlosigkeit als aktive Gewaltlosigkeit wird gewaltsam resp. aktiv die Gewaltlosigkeit ausgeübt und durchgesetzt. With the forcible non-violence as active non-violence the non-violence is forcibly and (respectively) actively practiced and carried out.
Gewaltsame Gewaltlosigkeit bedeutet aber auch passiver Widerstand, wobei Passivität in diesem Sinn eine Kraft resp. eine Macht oder eben passive Gewalt darstellt, denn Kraft, Macht und Gewalt auch gewaltloser, passiver Form als Widerstand stellt eine Form der Gewaltsamkeit dar, die jedoch in gewaltsamer Gewaltlosigkeit ausgeübt wird. However forcible non-violence also means passive resistance, whereby the passivity in this sense portrays a strength respectively a power or even passive force, because strength, power and force, even in a forceless, passive form as resistance depict a form of force, yet which is being practiced in forcible non-violence.
Dabei jedoch darf diese gewaltlose resp. passive Gewaltsamkeit nicht im Sinne des üblichen erdenmenschlichen Verstehens von negativer Gewalt verstanden werden, sondern nur im Sinne von einem positiven, befriedenden, harmonisierenden, ausgleichenden, erhebenden und ordnungsschaffenden Einsatz in Form von passiv Widerstand bietender Kraft, Macht und Beeinflussung usw. in logischer Weise. At the same time though this forceless respectively passive force must not be understood in the sense of the usual understanding of negative force by the earth human, but only in the sense of a positive, pacifying, harmonizing, balancing, elevating and sorting-out kind of form of a passive resistance, offering strength, power and influence etc in a logic way.
Vorläufige Übersetzung von Wiebke Wallder, Samstag, 22. Dezember 2007 Preliminary translation by Vibka Wallder, Saturday, December 22, 2007
Salome, Wiebke |
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 185
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Vibka: <snip> "I didn't think I had anything useful to contribute earlier."
Well Vibka, that hasn't stopped anyone before. ;-)
Thanks for posting the rest of the passage from, „Philosophie des Lebens“. It seems the key is the correct understanding of the word "forcible" and how it is used here in context. I am just getting into translations for myself and appreciate others sharing their understanding of the German jargon.
Regards
Bob |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 985
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 05:25 am: |
|
Hi Wiebke......
Welcome to the FIGU board!
You did an excellent translation, I must say.
Have come across the mentioned in the past, and your translations reflects
outstandingly.
Keep up the excellent work.
Pleasant Studying....
Edward. |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 421
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 01:34 am: |
|
I am placing this post here because it has to do with a question about the logic of opposites joining to create a hyperunit. Here goes: BEAM states that it is necessary for two units of opposite polarity to join in order to create a hyperunit. I see the logic of this in nature because, for example, a male and a female must normally be joined (or rather their egg and sperm) in order to create a new unit (a child obviously). However I also see in nature that when two opposite polarities are joined that they annihilate each other, like matter and antimatter for example. Any comments? I have some ideas but they are so far limited so I would like your opinions and ideas. I have considered that two exact opposites might cancel each other out because they have nothing new to offer while opposites with differences in content (other than just being opposites) might join to create a higher unit since they do more than just cancel each other out. This idea is born out in nature since normally you don't find two exact opposite electrical charges without them destroying each other but you DO find combinations of three particles which do balance out charge wise but are not identical particles or even mirror opposites. Also, if there are only two mirror image particles which are the basis for everything physical as stated by BEAM (Existing Life in the Universe I believe had a sentence or two about that), then how do they join together in such a way to create the higher forms (such as more complex particles up to the physical atom) without destroying each other first? |
Phi_spiral
Member
Post Number: 200
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 07:27 pm: |
|
"BEAM states that it is necessary for two units of opposite polarity to join in order to create a hyperunit."
This is well worth pondering. I wonder if it may be looked at less in a formulaic sense, i.e. A+B=C, and more as an expression of the dynamics which animates the universe itself. In this case the effect of what polarity causes - movement or vibration. And movement or vibration as the essence of our reality.
Here is an interesting quote from the book, ”The Secret Oral Teachings In Tibetan Buddhist Sects”,
“The tangible world is movement, say the masters, not a collection of moving objects, but movement itself. There are no objects ‘in movements’ it is the movement which constitutes the objects which appear to us: they are nothing but movement.
This movement is continued and infinitely rapid succession of flashes of energy. All objects perceptible to our senses, all phenomena of whatever kind and whatever aspect they may assume, are constituted by a rapid succession of instantaneous events.”
We can liken this “action and rest” language to vibration, represented by the sine wave with the high and low crests being opposite rest periods and everything else in-between as motion. The stimulus for the vibration itself being opposite polarities. And if you think of vibration as being the essence of all things manifest from the subatomic level upward, we may find that both subjective and objective reality become “real” only due to the change or motion occurring between the two states of rest. In other words, it may be useful for us to ponder the possibility that “tangible reality” exists for us only as long as there is movement; and when the movement stops, matter and solid reality become diffuse and disappear.
Regards
Bob |
|
