Original post: KCh
Aww...so you don't want to go back and forth in bed with me? Drat!
To experience, or 'imagine', nothing is one goal of all Yoga and Magick. To be free of the constant murmur of the mind and think of only that which one Wills, which in turn leads to a further experience not prudent to discuss here.
I think I'm fried on the occult now
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Tyrione/Taireon
Imagine being the Observer on a beam of Light traveling to approach Its own Limit. As you approach this Limit you have a sort of step function that hides a Veil. on One side you compress into a single Infinitely small Point. On the other side of the Veil you are Infinite Space. If you could be the Veil you would be what? (Note: The Veil is Dimenionless, just a State Change)
[QUOTE=Specktackular]A crucial difference is that I can't really imagine nothing. I can clearly imagine the lack of anything else.
On a related note, I clearly remember when I was about 5 or 6 my mother and brother told me in a car ride that if I was conceived just a few minutes later, I might not be the same person at all. It boggled my mind to think that I hadn't always existed. I remember saying, "I can't imagine not ever being alive before" and they answered (although unaware of the double-meaning) "That's because you've always been alive. You haven't been dead, so how could remember not being alive?" Funny thoughts...[/QUOTE]
Imagine being the Observer on a beam of Light traveling to approach Its own Limit. As you approach this Limit you have a sort of step function that hides a Veil. on One side you compress into a single Infinitely small Point. On the other side of the Veil you are Infinite Space. If you could be the Veil you would be what? (Note: The Veil is Dimenionless, just a State Change)
[QUOTE=Specktackular]A crucial difference is that I can't really imagine nothing. I can clearly imagine the lack of anything else.
On a related note, I clearly remember when I was about 5 or 6 my mother and brother told me in a car ride that if I was conceived just a few minutes later, I might not be the same person at all. It boggled my mind to think that I hadn't always existed. I remember saying, "I can't imagine not ever being alive before" and they answered (although unaware of the double-meaning) "That's because you've always been alive. You haven't been dead, so how could remember not being alive?" Funny thoughts...[/QUOTE]
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[quote=""Tyrione/Taireon
""]I guess you don't know much about Mathematical Set Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, Tensor Calculus, Quantum Mechanics, so on and so forth. Vector Field analysis along with Non-linear Algebra is really good at explaining the necessity of the Null Set as well as Partial Differential Equations.
[/quote]
Ok,
Using Mathematical Set Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, Tensor Calculus, Quantum Mechanics, so on and so forth, can you explain how to get something from nothing?
Start from 0, not the near-zero Big Bang starting point..
This is what we're talking about. Not null sets (empty sets) used for mathematical calculations.
Make 0 become 1 using nothing but 0.
I've recently been reading Brian Green's books on Superstring Theory, but I'll yank out this old Stephen Hawking quote I found at http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/cause.htm#5 . He's not cutting edge anymore, but it addresses the point:
A universe without a beginning.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
A similar sphericity or circularity might result if the universe had enough mass to be closed - that is, to recollapse on itself in a "big crunch," which in turn might be followed by another "big bang." In that case the end of one cycle would be the cause of the beginning of the next.
But, that is not something coming from nothing... that is something that always has been. And that is hardly addressing the idea of a conscious universe, anyway.
[quote=""Tyrione/Taireon
""]I guess you don't know much about Mathematical Set Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, Tensor Calculus, Quantum Mechanics, so on and so forth. Vector Field analysis along with Non-linear Algebra is really good at explaining the necessity of the Null Set as well as Partial Differential Equations.
[/quote]
Ok,
Using Mathematical Set Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, Tensor Calculus, Quantum Mechanics, so on and so forth, can you explain how to get something from nothing?
Start from 0, not the near-zero Big Bang starting point..
This is what we're talking about. Not null sets (empty sets) used for mathematical calculations.
Make 0 become 1 using nothing but 0.
I've recently been reading Brian Green's books on Superstring Theory, but I'll yank out this old Stephen Hawking quote I found at http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/cause.htm#5 . He's not cutting edge anymore, but it addresses the point:
A universe without a beginning.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
A similar sphericity or circularity might result if the universe had enough mass to be closed - that is, to recollapse on itself in a "big crunch," which in turn might be followed by another "big bang." In that case the end of one cycle would be the cause of the beginning of the next.
But, that is not something coming from nothing... that is something that always has been. And that is hardly addressing the idea of a conscious universe, anyway.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=KCh]Aww...so you don't want to go back and forth in bed with me? Drat!
To experience, or 'imagine', nothing is one goal of all Yoga and Magick. To be free of the constant murmur of the mind and think of only that which one Wills, which in turn leads to a further experience not prudent to discuss here.[/QUOTE]
And in those states we have Jhanas, which have been described as something. I have experienced the 6th Jhana, I believe, though it is hard to be entirely sure. It was like nothingness, but it wasn't nothing.
[QUOTE=KCh]Aww...so you don't want to go back and forth in bed with me? Drat!
To experience, or 'imagine', nothing is one goal of all Yoga and Magick. To be free of the constant murmur of the mind and think of only that which one Wills, which in turn leads to a further experience not prudent to discuss here.[/QUOTE]
And in those states we have Jhanas, which have been described as something. I have experienced the 6th Jhana, I believe, though it is hard to be entirely sure. It was like nothingness, but it wasn't nothing.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: DevilsDelight
actually, i've been having the same considerations about a lot of the contemporary magickal theories people are slinging around, using fancy titles to make reguritated material sound like some thing new and wonderful...
i see it as just becoming jaded, after a point of discovery there's not much left that's interesting to YOU!
maybe it just comes to a point where a person has accumulated enough knowledge for their personal spirituality from books that could be considered grandparents to many of the books people get now concerning the occult...i go online and by older books that i may have lost, have been read to destroyed spines, and occasionally a new author will catch my attention, but it's rare that i find any one who is willing to write books on my particular interests that will help enhance what i already know...*shrugs*
i guess it's like music and fashion...all the creative concepts have been used up by the predecesors, so new fads can only hope to put a new spin on something that's already out..i hear the eighties style of dress is coming back...everything's retro now...there's nothing new.
actually, i've been having the same considerations about a lot of the contemporary magickal theories people are slinging around, using fancy titles to make reguritated material sound like some thing new and wonderful...
i see it as just becoming jaded, after a point of discovery there's not much left that's interesting to YOU!
maybe it just comes to a point where a person has accumulated enough knowledge for their personal spirituality from books that could be considered grandparents to many of the books people get now concerning the occult...i go online and by older books that i may have lost, have been read to destroyed spines, and occasionally a new author will catch my attention, but it's rare that i find any one who is willing to write books on my particular interests that will help enhance what i already know...*shrugs*
i guess it's like music and fashion...all the creative concepts have been used up by the predecesors, so new fads can only hope to put a new spin on something that's already out..i hear the eighties style of dress is coming back...everything's retro now...there's nothing new.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Tyrione/Taireon
What does Zero describe, in the first place? As the limit approaches zero from either the left or the right you slip into Infinity.
Zero mathematically 1x10^-n (n->infinity)/0 results in?
It builds upon that relationship of 2=0.
Take ourselves. If we are 1 out of an infinite number of individuals, that exist due to our division from Unity, than when we compare ourselves against Infinity we have 1/Infinity which then results in Zero. So in order for us to start from Zero we must start from the point of Infinity thus from Divinity and the entire Universe.
Zero allows us to finitely classify the Infinite Universe which is non-rational (Complex Number Set) in scope to make it rational (Real Number Set) since we can only symbolically determine complex variables when dealing with Absolutes via the convenient letter i.
So my conception of Zero and the Infinite are a necessity for us to Exist, not to mention Limit Theory reassures us that if it did not exist Calculus would fail.
Regarding Hawkings quotes: This surrounds his very foundation of Black Holes, which of late has proven to be false and Stephen has had to come forth and augment his theories.
In response to Hawkings inference to the term, "Be" in and of itself demands a Conscience and thus part of Being.
What is ironic is the notion he is willing to deny Divinity but the very foundations upon which Science assumptions/presumptions abound upon indeterminate phenomenon that are reproducible without being informed of the 'Why.' This has to do with the notion of Beyond Reason.
[QUOTE=Specktackular]Ok,
Using Mathematical Set Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, Tensor Calculus, Quantum Mechanics, so on and so forth, can you explain how to get something from nothing?
Start from 0, not the near-zero Big Bang starting point..
This is what we're talking about. Not null sets (empty sets) used for mathematical calculations.
Make 0 become 1 using nothing but 0.
I've recently been reading Brian Green's books on Superstring Theory, but I'll yank out this old Stephen Hawking quote I found at http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/cause.htm#5 . He's not cutting edge anymore, but it addresses the point:
A universe without a beginning.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
A similar sphericity or circularity might result if the universe had enough mass to be closed - that is, to recollapse on itself in a "big crunch," which in turn might be followed by another "big bang." In that case the end of one cycle would be the cause of the beginning of the next.
But, that is not something coming from nothing... that is something that always has been. And that is hardly addressing the idea of a conscious universe, anyway.[/QUOTE]
What does Zero describe, in the first place? As the limit approaches zero from either the left or the right you slip into Infinity.
Zero mathematically 1x10^-n (n->infinity)/0 results in?
It builds upon that relationship of 2=0.
Take ourselves. If we are 1 out of an infinite number of individuals, that exist due to our division from Unity, than when we compare ourselves against Infinity we have 1/Infinity which then results in Zero. So in order for us to start from Zero we must start from the point of Infinity thus from Divinity and the entire Universe.
Zero allows us to finitely classify the Infinite Universe which is non-rational (Complex Number Set) in scope to make it rational (Real Number Set) since we can only symbolically determine complex variables when dealing with Absolutes via the convenient letter i.
So my conception of Zero and the Infinite are a necessity for us to Exist, not to mention Limit Theory reassures us that if it did not exist Calculus would fail.
Regarding Hawkings quotes: This surrounds his very foundation of Black Holes, which of late has proven to be false and Stephen has had to come forth and augment his theories.
In response to Hawkings inference to the term, "Be" in and of itself demands a Conscience and thus part of Being.
What is ironic is the notion he is willing to deny Divinity but the very foundations upon which Science assumptions/presumptions abound upon indeterminate phenomenon that are reproducible without being informed of the 'Why.' This has to do with the notion of Beyond Reason.
[QUOTE=Specktackular]Ok,
Using Mathematical Set Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Graph Theory, Tensor Calculus, Quantum Mechanics, so on and so forth, can you explain how to get something from nothing?
Start from 0, not the near-zero Big Bang starting point..
This is what we're talking about. Not null sets (empty sets) used for mathematical calculations.
Make 0 become 1 using nothing but 0.
I've recently been reading Brian Green's books on Superstring Theory, but I'll yank out this old Stephen Hawking quote I found at http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/cause.htm#5 . He's not cutting edge anymore, but it addresses the point:
A universe without a beginning.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:
The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
A similar sphericity or circularity might result if the universe had enough mass to be closed - that is, to recollapse on itself in a "big crunch," which in turn might be followed by another "big bang." In that case the end of one cycle would be the cause of the beginning of the next.
But, that is not something coming from nothing... that is something that always has been. And that is hardly addressing the idea of a conscious universe, anyway.[/QUOTE]
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=Tyrione/Taireon]What does Zero describe, in the first place? As the limit approaches zero from either the left or the right you slip into Infinity.
Zero mathematically 1x10^-n (n->infinity)/0 results in?
It builds upon that relationship of 2=0.
Take ourselves. If we are 1 out of an infinite number of individuals, that exist due to our division from Unity, than when we compare ourselves against Infinity we have 1/Infinity which then results in Zero. So in order for us to start from Zero we must start from the point of Infinity thus from Divinity and the entire Universe.
Zero allows us to finitely classify the Infinite Universe which is non-rational (Complex Number Set) in scope to make it rational (Real Number Set) since we can only symbolically determine complex variables when dealing with Absolutes via the convenient letter i.
[/QUOTE]
In 1x10^-n (n->infinity)/0 , you are describing the point of zero in an infinite set of numbers, which includes infinity, which is something -- actually, everything.
The same goes for this statement of yours:
" If we are 1 out of an infinite number of individuals, that exist due to our division from Unity, than when we compare ourselves against Infinity we have 1/Infinity which then results in Zero. So in order for us to start from Zero we must start from the point of Infinity thus from Divinity and the entire Universe."
You even said so yourself: you are "starting from the point of infinitity and the entire universe." You are NOT starting from zero. Zero is a null set within infinity. That's the difference right there.
And once again, you say:
"Zero allows us to finitely classify the Infinite Universe which is non-rational (Complex Number Set) in scope to make it rational (Real Number Set) since we can only symbolically determine complex variables when dealing with Absolutes via the convenient letter i."
You are not describing something ultimately coming from nothing, you are describing a null set within everything.
[QUOTE=Tyrione/Taireon]What does Zero describe, in the first place? As the limit approaches zero from either the left or the right you slip into Infinity.
Zero mathematically 1x10^-n (n->infinity)/0 results in?
It builds upon that relationship of 2=0.
Take ourselves. If we are 1 out of an infinite number of individuals, that exist due to our division from Unity, than when we compare ourselves against Infinity we have 1/Infinity which then results in Zero. So in order for us to start from Zero we must start from the point of Infinity thus from Divinity and the entire Universe.
Zero allows us to finitely classify the Infinite Universe which is non-rational (Complex Number Set) in scope to make it rational (Real Number Set) since we can only symbolically determine complex variables when dealing with Absolutes via the convenient letter i.
[/QUOTE]
In 1x10^-n (n->infinity)/0 , you are describing the point of zero in an infinite set of numbers, which includes infinity, which is something -- actually, everything.
The same goes for this statement of yours:
" If we are 1 out of an infinite number of individuals, that exist due to our division from Unity, than when we compare ourselves against Infinity we have 1/Infinity which then results in Zero. So in order for us to start from Zero we must start from the point of Infinity thus from Divinity and the entire Universe."
You even said so yourself: you are "starting from the point of infinitity and the entire universe." You are NOT starting from zero. Zero is a null set within infinity. That's the difference right there.
And once again, you say:
"Zero allows us to finitely classify the Infinite Universe which is non-rational (Complex Number Set) in scope to make it rational (Real Number Set) since we can only symbolically determine complex variables when dealing with Absolutes via the convenient letter i."
You are not describing something ultimately coming from nothing, you are describing a null set within everything.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: KCh
I believe Crowley speaks of the spherical nature of the universe somewhere in 8 lectures. He says about the same thing as Hawkings does, with minor differences and a sense of humor. I find it funny sometimes when science comes out with a 'new' theory that has been stated by the mystery religions for ages.
From Magick without Tears, The 0=2 Equation:
"It is not merely easy, it is natural, not merely natural, but inevitable, for anyone who has experienced "Samadhi" (this word conveniently groups the higher types of vision) to regard normal life as "illusion" by comparison with this state in which all problems are resolved, all doubts driven out, all limitations abolished. But even beyond Atmadarshana comes the experience called Shivadarshana, in which this Atman (or Brahman), this limit-destroying Universe, is itself abolished and annihilated. It is commonplace to say that no words can describe this final destruction. Such is the fact; and there is nothing one can do about it but put it down boldly as I have done above."
If you will to read how Crowley devised something from nothing look up this chapter in Magick without Tears. To make the explaination shorter than I should, when we write 0 we should really write it 0 with index 0. Dividing you should come up with a clash of the infintely great and small, that is 0 and infinity.
I believe Crowley speaks of the spherical nature of the universe somewhere in 8 lectures. He says about the same thing as Hawkings does, with minor differences and a sense of humor. I find it funny sometimes when science comes out with a 'new' theory that has been stated by the mystery religions for ages.
From Magick without Tears, The 0=2 Equation:
"It is not merely easy, it is natural, not merely natural, but inevitable, for anyone who has experienced "Samadhi" (this word conveniently groups the higher types of vision) to regard normal life as "illusion" by comparison with this state in which all problems are resolved, all doubts driven out, all limitations abolished. But even beyond Atmadarshana comes the experience called Shivadarshana, in which this Atman (or Brahman), this limit-destroying Universe, is itself abolished and annihilated. It is commonplace to say that no words can describe this final destruction. Such is the fact; and there is nothing one can do about it but put it down boldly as I have done above."
If you will to read how Crowley devised something from nothing look up this chapter in Magick without Tears. To make the explaination shorter than I should, when we write 0 we should really write it 0 with index 0. Dividing you should come up with a clash of the infintely great and small, that is 0 and infinity.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
I think it's very interesting that the occult "nonsense" material is always ahead of science. I really doubt magick will ever be given credit at any time within the scientific community.
I think it's very interesting that the occult "nonsense" material is always ahead of science. I really doubt magick will ever be given credit at any time within the scientific community.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: SatsUrn
Now, as for ME being "presumtuous"... I was only "PRESUMING" where you were coming from based on previous comments of yours in this thread as well as others. And I presumed correctly. This does not make me presumptuous, it just makes me logical. Pardon me for not expecting you to say "Jesus is lord!" :lol: No hard feelings (I mean that).
LOL I keep getting the feeling that a lot of people here actually think Yaw and Jesus are gods and are trying to use the occult to lore anyone including me into that kind of self defeating paradigm. I was studying for the clergy so I know all the tricks or most of them anyway that are used to enslave people, my main reason for going back to my Occult roots, which I should never have abandoned in the first place.
Now, as for ME being "presumtuous"... I was only "PRESUMING" where you were coming from based on previous comments of yours in this thread as well as others. And I presumed correctly. This does not make me presumptuous, it just makes me logical. Pardon me for not expecting you to say "Jesus is lord!" :lol: No hard feelings (I mean that).
LOL I keep getting the feeling that a lot of people here actually think Yaw and Jesus are gods and are trying to use the occult to lore anyone including me into that kind of self defeating paradigm. I was studying for the clergy so I know all the tricks or most of them anyway that are used to enslave people, my main reason for going back to my Occult roots, which I should never have abandoned in the first place.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Frater Manjet
[QUOTE=SatsUrn]Now, as for ME being "presumtuous"... I was only "PRESUMING" where you were coming from based on previous comments of yours in this thread as well as others. And I presumed correctly. This does not make me presumptuous, it just makes me logical. Pardon me for not expecting you to say "Jesus is lord!" :lol: No hard feelings (I mean that).
LOL I keep getting the feeling that a lot of people here actually think Yaw and Jesus are gods and are trying to use the occult to lore anyone including me into that kind of self defeating paradigm. I was studying for the clergy so I know all the tricks or most of them anyway that are used to enslave people, my main reason for going back to my Occult roots, which I should never have abandoned in the first place.[/QUOTE]SatsUrn who are you talking to? ... and for that matter what are you talking about. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
[QUOTE=SatsUrn]Now, as for ME being "presumtuous"... I was only "PRESUMING" where you were coming from based on previous comments of yours in this thread as well as others. And I presumed correctly. This does not make me presumptuous, it just makes me logical. Pardon me for not expecting you to say "Jesus is lord!" :lol: No hard feelings (I mean that).
LOL I keep getting the feeling that a lot of people here actually think Yaw and Jesus are gods and are trying to use the occult to lore anyone including me into that kind of self defeating paradigm. I was studying for the clergy so I know all the tricks or most of them anyway that are used to enslave people, my main reason for going back to my Occult roots, which I should never have abandoned in the first place.[/QUOTE]SatsUrn who are you talking to? ... and for that matter what are you talking about. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: She Demon Wolf
SatsUrn sweetheart, you're only enslaving yourself with you paranoid blatherings and completely nonsensical topic hijacks. People are getting rather irritated with you and your utterly random spoutings that generally have no relevance to the topic. Do us all a favour and read, then make sure you understand the topic before you post, and when you do post, make sure it's relevant.
SatsUrn sweetheart, you're only enslaving yourself with you paranoid blatherings and completely nonsensical topic hijacks. People are getting rather irritated with you and your utterly random spoutings that generally have no relevance to the topic. Do us all a favour and read, then make sure you understand the topic before you post, and when you do post, make sure it's relevant.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: cpmg_101
SatsUrn
How is your post relevant to the quote?
cpmg_101
SatsUrn
How is your post relevant to the quote?
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: SatsUrn
[QUOTE=She Demon Wolf]SatsUrn sweetheart, you're only enslaving yourself with you paranoid blatherings and completely nonsensical topic hijacks. People are getting rather irritated with you and your utterly random spoutings that generally have no relevance to the topic. Do us all a favour and read, then make sure you understand the topic before you post, and when you do post, make sure it's relevant.[/QUOTE]
I caught myself writing an in-depth reply to you! I have said my peace here, I agree with the original poster, END OF STORY!
[QUOTE=She Demon Wolf]SatsUrn sweetheart, you're only enslaving yourself with you paranoid blatherings and completely nonsensical topic hijacks. People are getting rather irritated with you and your utterly random spoutings that generally have no relevance to the topic. Do us all a favour and read, then make sure you understand the topic before you post, and when you do post, make sure it's relevant.[/QUOTE]
I caught myself writing an in-depth reply to you! I have said my peace here, I agree with the original poster, END OF STORY!
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Frater Manjet
We now return to our original discussion.....
We now return to our original discussion.....
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: cpmg_101
Specktackular
I have to disagree. There are numerous cases in which science has discovered compelling evidence which supports OOBE, meditation, PK, and many other such subjects. In fact, the government even decided to hold all information regarding Radionics when it was first invented. I suspected that science already has some prove to magick, but the government doesn't want it to be spread around.
cpmg_101
Specktackular
I have to disagree. There are numerous cases in which science has discovered compelling evidence which supports OOBE, meditation, PK, and many other such subjects. In fact, the government even decided to hold all information regarding Radionics when it was first invented. I suspected that science already has some prove to magick, but the government doesn't want it to be spread around.
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Specktackular
I have to disagree. There are numerous cases in which science has discovered compelling evidence which supports OOBE, meditation, PK, and many other such subjects. In fact, the government even decided to hold all information regarding Radionics when it was first invented. I suspected that science already has some prove to magick, but the government doesn't want it to be spread around.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
And what exactly are you disagreeing about? I happen to be a firm believer in OOBE, meditation, PK and many other such subjects. I am aware of government research regarding PSI. What does this have to do with anything?
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Specktackular
I have to disagree. There are numerous cases in which science has discovered compelling evidence which supports OOBE, meditation, PK, and many other such subjects. In fact, the government even decided to hold all information regarding Radionics when it was first invented. I suspected that science already has some prove to magick, but the government doesn't want it to be spread around.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
And what exactly are you disagreeing about? I happen to be a firm believer in OOBE, meditation, PK and many other such subjects. I am aware of government research regarding PSI. What does this have to do with anything?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: babyalien
[QUOTE=KCh]I'm upset? Now now, don't be spying on me! Time to check my crystal ball again just to be sure your not watching me.
How in world did I come off as presumptuous? Your funny. Trying to throw me off by changing the subject! Clever! I like you!
Now will you answer me or not?[/QUOTE]
I have no crystal ball, are your ok?
[QUOTE=KCh]I'm upset? Now now, don't be spying on me! Time to check my crystal ball again just to be sure your not watching me.
How in world did I come off as presumptuous? Your funny. Trying to throw me off by changing the subject! Clever! I like you!
Now will you answer me or not?[/QUOTE]
I have no crystal ball, are your ok?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: babyalien
I can do tk asleep,
I can do tk asleep,
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: cpmg_101
Specktackular
You said that there will never be scientific evidence to back up the occult.
cpmg_101
Specktackular
You said that there will never be scientific evidence to back up the occult.
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Specktackular
You said that there will never be scientific evidence to back up the occult.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that?
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Specktackular
You said that there will never be scientific evidence to back up the occult.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
Where did I say that?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: cpmg_101
[QUOTE=Specktackular]I think it's very interesting that the occult "nonsense" material is always ahead of science. I really doubt magick will ever be given credit at any time within the scientific community.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you did not exactly said that, but it's kind of suggested here.
cpmg_101
[QUOTE=Specktackular]I think it's very interesting that the occult "nonsense" material is always ahead of science. I really doubt magick will ever be given credit at any time within the scientific community.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you did not exactly said that, but it's kind of suggested here.
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Okay, so you did not exactly said that, but it's kind of suggested here.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
No, you misunderstood. I used quotation marks, see? That means I don't think the occult is nonsense, but that others refer to it that way. When people use quotation marks correctly, it means the opposite of what they're saying.
You can learn all about this and other grammatical syntax here: http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/085.html
And I will just pull up the section relevant in this case:
Quotation Marks Are Not for Emphasis
The next error that seems to be ubiquitous is the idea that quotation marks are to be used to emphasize words. Theyâ??re not. In fact, quotation marks are used (1) to indicate that words are being quoted, or often (2) they are used to indicate that a word is being used ironically, or even with opposite meaning.
So, let us examine what I said again: I think it's very interesting that the occult "nonsense" material is always ahead of science. I really doubt magick will ever be given credit at any time within the scientific community.
What this means is that some people, perhaps scientists, refer to occult material as "nonsense," but I don't believe it is nonsense.
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Okay, so you did not exactly said that, but it's kind of suggested here.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
No, you misunderstood. I used quotation marks, see? That means I don't think the occult is nonsense, but that others refer to it that way. When people use quotation marks correctly, it means the opposite of what they're saying.
You can learn all about this and other grammatical syntax here: http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/085.html
And I will just pull up the section relevant in this case:
Quotation Marks Are Not for Emphasis
The next error that seems to be ubiquitous is the idea that quotation marks are to be used to emphasize words. Theyâ??re not. In fact, quotation marks are used (1) to indicate that words are being quoted, or often (2) they are used to indicate that a word is being used ironically, or even with opposite meaning.
So, let us examine what I said again: I think it's very interesting that the occult "nonsense" material is always ahead of science. I really doubt magick will ever be given credit at any time within the scientific community.
What this means is that some people, perhaps scientists, refer to occult material as "nonsense," but I don't believe it is nonsense.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: cpmg_101
I was focusing on your last sentence. The one that says magick won't be given credit by science?
cpmg_101
I was focusing on your last sentence. The one that says magick won't be given credit by science?
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
I think I'm fried on the occult now
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]I was focusing on your last sentence. The one that says magick won't be given credit by science?
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
And that does not indicate that that there will never be scientific evidence to back up the occult.
There already is plenty of evidence, but the scientific community by and large rejects it quite harshly.
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]I was focusing on your last sentence. The one that says magick won't be given credit by science?
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
And that does not indicate that that there will never be scientific evidence to back up the occult.
There already is plenty of evidence, but the scientific community by and large rejects it quite harshly.