The empirical life continually confirms to us, that "passing the same
path, but in both opposite directions, always is the source of two
different sets of knowledge which mutually complement each other". For
example, if we stand on the top of a mountain, while our eyes catch
images (light) arriving from the bottom of it, then our view is
different than when we stand on the bottom of this mountain while our
eyes catch the view (light) arriving from the top of it. But only the
thorough watch in both these directions provides us with a full
understanding of the entire situation with that mountain. Similarly,
if we look at the landscape through one end of a telescope or
binoculars, then whatever we see is to differ drastically from what we
are to find out when looking at the same landscape through the
opposite end of the same telescope or binoculars. But only combining
together our findings from both these directions of looking, provides
us with a full and balanced knowledge of work of these instruments.
The same happens even if we e.g. just walk or drive "to", and then
"from" a place - our road in both directions also provides us with a
different knowledge, in spite that it is passing through exactly the
same trajectory (e.g. the road "from" always subjectively "feels" as
"shorter" and as if we pass it "faster" than the road "to", also
during the road "from" we capture additional details of the "other
side" which we missed during the road "to"). To summarise the above,
if one wants to gain a full and balanced knowledge about consequences
of a given "path", then it is necessary to experience this path in
both directions.

In spite of these empirical findings that "only travelling in both
directions provides us with the full and balanced knowledge", in every
matter people insist on going in only one direction. As an example of
that insisting, let us consider the "road to God". In medieval times,
the religion looked at everything by "starting from God and
extrapolating this onto the surrounding reality", while it "burned on
stake" every person which tried to accumulate an atheistic knowledge.
In turn present-day "atheistic science" does opposite, namely "looks
at everything starting from the surrounding reality and extrapolating
this onto God", while it "burns on the stake" everyone who (like my
"totaliztic science") tries to show the world from the prospective of
God. Unfortunately, due to limiting its investigations to just this
one approach, the science to-date arrives to the erroneous conclusion
that "God does NOT exist". However, the empiric experience reveals to
us, that in order to gain the "complete and balanced knowledge" it is
necessary to learn about the surrounding reality (and about God), by
passing the "road to knowledge" in both these directions, i.e. by
"placing ourselves in the situation of God and extrapolating our
analyses at the surrounding reality" as well as by "atheistic
researching the reality which surrounds us and extrapolation our
findings onto God". In this way, these two approaches mutually are to
check and to complement each other. In order to realise here the
benefits open for us due to such "two-directional" approach, let us
briefly compare accomplishments of the monopole of the "atheistic
orthodox science" to-date - means present official human science which
"researches only the surrounding reality while the results tries to
extrapolate onto God", with the rich competitiveness of the newly born
"totaliztic science" - means the new science which is based on the
philosophy of totalizm, and which "analyses everything after placing
itself in the position of God and extrapolating God's prospective onto
the surrounding reality".

As I am documenting this with countless evidence in a whole range of
totaliztic publications, for example in item #B1 from the web page
named "changelings.htm", or in subsection H10 from volume 4 of my
newest monograph [1/5], such "world ruled by God" that results from
research of the "totaliztic science" must drastically differ from the
"world without God" that stems from the research of the "atheistic
orthodox science". For example, in the "world without God" finding
"bones of dinosaurs" must mean that dinosaurs in fact lived on the
Earth. In turn in the "world governed by God" finding "bones of
dinosaurs" means only that God has some superior goal in showing these
bones to people - as this is described in items #A1 and #E1 of the web
page named "evolution.htm". Thus God could "create" these "bones of
dinosaurs" in the same way as He created people and created animals -
in spite that dinosaurs did NOT need to live on the Earth. In a
similar way in the "world without God" there is no place for
"morality" nor "dreams", nor even for the "higher feelings" like love,
pity, sorrow, etc. In other words, in order the humanity accomplished
the balanced picture of the universe, reality must be simultaneously
researched and interpreted by two competitive sciences, namely by the
to-date "atheistic orthodox science" and by the "totaliztic science"
which is just being established by the philosophy of totalizm. In turn
results of both these sciences should be taught simultaneously in
schools and officially disseminated amongst people. This is because
without such a parallel learning from both these "roads to knowledge",
the picture of the universe is highly "biased", deviated, and poor.

As I already explained it at the beginning of this item, the
competitive approach of the new "totaliztic science" is NOT entirely
new in every its aspect. After all, it represents the approach to
research which by past philosophers was called "a priori" - means
"from cause to effect". In a highly limited edition it was practiced
in past by religions, while in the ancient times it was even used by
Jewish scholars - who preserve the essence of it until today in the
form of "kabala". But the "totaliztic science" introduces several new
(highly creative) components to this old approach. For example, it
states that the use in scientific research exclusively one approach,
i.e. the use exclusively either "a priori" approach, or exclusively "a
posteriori" approach (i.e. the one which climbs "from effect to cause"
- means the one which is exclusively used by present "atheistic
orthodox science") is a serious epistemological error which leads to
deviations in the human knowledge. This is because, in order the
knowledge is complete and balanced, it is necessary to use both these
approaches simultaneously. In other words, ‘in vital interest of the
humanity lies the establishing and running on the Earth as many as two
competitive sciences simultaneously, i.e. the continuation of to-date
"atheistic orthodox science" with its exclusively "a posteriori"
approach to research, and the simultaneous establishing and running a
new "totaliztic science" which would be based on the Concept of
Dipolar Gravity and on the formal scientific proof for the existence
of God - thus which would scientifically develop the "a priori"
approach to the same research - as this "a priori" approach is
represented and illustrated already now in my newest monograph [1/5]’.
Of course, many more such new and highly creative elements were
introduced to the "totaliztic science" - only that their full
description (and illustration on examples) requires rather voluminous
publication, such as my newest monograph [1/5].

Sadly, the monopole of "atheistic orthodox science" is surely going to
disallow for a long tome to come, both - the official establishing and
financing of the "totaliztic science", as well as the official
dissemination of findings of that "totaliztic science". After all, the
"atheistic orthodox science", similarly like every other monopolistic
institution, gains significant financial benefits and complacent life
due to its "monopole on knowledge" - which benefits it does NOT want
to share voluntarily with anyone, while which complacent life it does
NOT want to loose by creating a competition. Thus, for a long time to
come the totaliztic researchers, similarly like the author of this
post, will be forced to research the universe as "unemployed
scientists" - thus experiencing another manifestation of the "curse of
inventors" described in item #B4.4 of the web page named
"mozajski_uk.htm". Because of this obstructing the free and official
disclosure of the findings of the "totaliztic science", to balance own
knowledge every person should try to learn these findings in his or
her private capacity. After all, when starting from the point of view
that God exists, and being aware of the method of God described in
item #A2.2 above, rapidly the world around us begins to look
differently. For example, everything that surrounds us begins to be
just a kind of "hologram" formed by God to accomplish His superior
goals - e.g. to inspire people for creative searches and to improve
"morality". Thus, for example looking at "skeletons of dinosaurs" we
start to know that these skeletons do NOT mean at all that dinosaurs
actually lived on the Earth - but only mean that God wishes to inspire
human creative searchers by "fabricating" them. Similarly, e.g. the so-
called "red shift of lights from stars" and "expansion of the
universe", do NOT certify at all for the "big bang", but certify for
the high complexity and refinement of the laws of nature which God
encoded into the software of the universe - as this is explained in
item #D2 of the web page named "dipolar_gravity.htm". In turn, when we
realise all these, our lives again become enriched with the deep sense
of purpose and ...

read more »

The empirical life continually confirms to us, that "passing the same
path, but in both opposite directions, always is the source of two
different sets of knowledge which mutually complement each other". For
example, if we stand on the top of a mountain, while our eyes catch
images (light) arriving from the bottom of it, then our view is
different than when we stand on the bottom of this mountain while our
eyes catch the view (light) arriving from the top of it. But only the
thorough watch in both these directions provides us with a full
understanding of the entire situation with that mountain. Similarly,
if we look at the landscape through one end of a telescope or
binoculars, then whatever we see is to differ drastically from what we
are to find out when looking at the same landscape through the
opposite end of the same telescope or binoculars. But only combining
together our findings from both these directions of looking, provides
us with a full and balanced knowledge of work of these instruments.
The same happens even if we e.g. just walk or drive "to", and then
"from" a place - our road in both directions also provides us with a
different knowledge, in spite that it is passing through exactly the
same trajectory (e.g. the road "from" always subjectively "feels" as
"shorter" and as if we pass it "faster" than the road "to", also
during the road "from" we capture additional details of the "other
side" which we missed during the road "to"). To summarise the above,
if one wants to gain a full and balanced knowledge about consequences
of a given "path", then it is necessary to experience this path in
both directions.

In spite of these empirical findings that "only travelling in both
directions provides us with the full and balanced knowledge", in every
matter people insist on going in only one direction. As an example of
that insisting, let us consider the "road to God". In medieval times,
the religion looked at everything by "starting from God and
extrapolating this onto the surrounding reality", while it "burned on
stake" every person which tried to accumulate an atheistic knowledge.
In turn present-day "atheistic science" does opposite, namely "looks
at everything starting from the surrounding reality and extrapolating
this onto God", while it "burns on the stake" everyone who (like my
"totaliztic science") tries to show the world from the prospective of
God. Unfortunately, due to limiting its investigations to just this
one approach, the science to-date arrives to the erroneous conclusion
that "God does NOT exist". However, the empiric experience reveals to
us, that in order to gain the "complete and balanced knowledge" it is
necessary to learn about the surrounding reality (and about God), by
passing the "road to knowledge" in both these directions, i.e. by
"placing ourselves in the situation of God and extrapolating our
analyses at the surrounding reality" as well as by "atheistic
researching the reality which surrounds us and extrapolation our
findings onto God". In this way, these two approaches mutually are to
check and to complement each other. In order to realise here the
benefits open for us due to such "two-directional" approach, let us
briefly compare accomplishments of the monopole of the "atheistic
orthodox science" to-date - means present official human science which
"researches only the surrounding reality while the results tries to
extrapolate onto God", with the rich competitiveness of the newly born
"totaliztic science" - means the new science which is based on the
philosophy of totalizm, and which "analyses everything after placing
itself in the position of God and extrapolating God's prospective onto
the surrounding reality".

As I am documenting this with countless evidence in a whole range of
totaliztic publications, for example in item #B1 from the web page
named "changelings.htm", or in subsection H10 from volume 4 of my
newest monograph [1/5], such "world ruled by God" that results from
research of the "totaliztic science" must drastically differ from the
"world without God" that stems from the research of the "atheistic
orthodox science". For example, in the "world without God" finding
"bones of dinosaurs" must mean that dinosaurs in fact lived on the
Earth. In turn in the "world governed by God" finding "bones of
dinosaurs" means only that God has some superior goal in showing these
bones to people - as this is described in items #A1 and #E1 of the web
page named "evolution.htm". Thus God could "create" these "bones of
dinosaurs" in the same way as He created people and created animals -
in spite that dinosaurs did NOT need to live on the Earth. In a
similar way in the "world without God" there is no place for
"morality" nor "dreams", nor even for the "higher feelings" like love,
pity, sorrow, etc. In other words, in order the humanity accomplished
the balanced picture of the universe, reality must be simultaneously
researched and interpreted by two competitive sciences, namely by the
to-date "atheistic orthodox science" and by the "totaliztic science"
which is just being established by the philosophy of totalizm. In turn
results of both these sciences should be taught simultaneously in
schools and officially disseminated amongst people. This is because
without such a parallel learning from both these "roads to knowledge",
the picture of the universe is highly "biased", deviated, and poor.

As I already explained it at the beginning of this item, the
competitive approach of the new "totaliztic science" is NOT entirely
new in every its aspect. After all, it represents the approach to
research which by past philosophers was called "a priori" - means
"from cause to effect". In a highly limited edition it was practiced
in past by religions, while in the ancient times it was even used by
Jewish scholars - who preserve the essence of it until today in the
form of "kabala". But the "totaliztic science" introduces several new
(highly creative) components to this old approach. For example, it
states that the use in scientific research exclusively one approach,
i.e. the use exclusively either "a priori" approach, or exclusively "a
posteriori" approach (i.e. the one which climbs "from effect to cause"
- means the one which is exclusively used by present "atheistic
orthodox science") is a serious epistemological error which leads to
deviations in the human knowledge. This is because, in order the
knowledge is complete and balanced, it is necessary to use both these
approaches simultaneously. In other words, ‘in vital interest of the
humanity lies the establishing and running on the Earth as many as two
competitive sciences simultaneously, i.e. the continuation of to-date
"atheistic orthodox science" with its exclusively "a posteriori"
approach to research, and the simultaneous establishing and running a
new "totaliztic science" which would be based on the Concept of
Dipolar Gravity and on the formal scientific proof for the existence
of God - thus which would scientifically develop the "a priori"
approach to the same research - as this "a priori" approach is
represented and illustrated already now in my newest monograph [1/5]’.
Of course, many more such new and highly creative elements were
introduced to the "totaliztic science" - only that their full
description (and illustration on examples) requires rather voluminous
publication, such as my newest monograph [1/5].

Sadly, the monopole of "atheistic orthodox science" is surely going to
disallow for a long tome to come, both - the official establishing and
financing of the "totaliztic science", as well as the official
dissemination of findings of that "totaliztic science". After all, the
"atheistic orthodox science", similarly like every other monopolistic
institution, gains significant financial benefits and complacent life
due to its "monopole on knowledge" - which benefits it does NOT want
to share voluntarily with anyone, while which complacent life it does
NOT want to loose by creating a competition. Thus, for a long time to
come the totaliztic researchers, similarly like the author of this
post, will be forced to research the universe as "unemployed
scientists" - thus experiencing another manifestation of the "curse of
inventors" described in item #B4.4 of the web page named
"mozajski_uk.htm". Because of this obstructing the free and official
disclosure of the findings of the "totaliztic science", to balance own
knowledge every person should try to learn these findings in his or
her private capacity. After all, when starting from the point of view
that God exists, and being aware of the method of God described in
item #A2.2 above, rapidly the world around us begins to look
differently. For example, everything that surrounds us begins to be
just a kind of "hologram" formed by God to accomplish His superior
goals - e.g. to inspire people for creative searches and to improve
"morality". Thus, for example looking at "skeletons of dinosaurs" we
start to know that these skeletons do NOT mean at all that dinosaurs
actually lived on the Earth - but only mean that God wishes to inspire
human creative searchers by "fabricating" them. Similarly, e.g. the so-
called "red shift of lights from stars" and "expansion of the
universe", do NOT certify at all for the "big bang", but certify for
the high complexity and refinement of the laws of nature which God
encoded into the software of the universe - as this is explained in
item ...

read more »

Dude, don't Bogart that joint.

read more »

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

-

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
            Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel:  http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/