Metaphysics
Edmond Wollmann
the Multiverse because of infinite dimensions as well) is the
expression of ideas. All things within the Multiverse are made of
light-living light. This light expresses itself in vibrational
frequencies. All expression therefore is like infinite radio stations,
the one you have your dial set to is the one you "receive". There is
no one truth, and no one station. Whatever you believe, reflects your
vibrational frequency, hence your radio station. The horoscope is a
mirror of vibrational frequency. It does not cause anything, it
reflects the radio station that your dial is tuned to because its your
station! There are no "shoulds" that make up the "proper" station.
There are only three absolutes within this Multiverse;
1) that you exist along with "All That Is"
2) the all is one and the one is all (holographic)
3) what you create or put out is what you get back
The horoscope is likened to a mirror. It provides you an accurate
reflection so that if you don't prefer the way your hair looks for
example you can see this and change it (your vibrational frequency).
BUT THE MIRROR CAUSES NOTHING.
What we see is the reflection of ourselves through the mirror of mind
matter. It is not a case of mind over matter, because mind and matter
are the same thing manifesting in different ways. You create your
reality 100% even when you use 90% of that creativity to create the
illusion that you only have the other 10%. Remember however, that we
have unconscious beliefs as well, and the majority of our reality
creation comes through unconscious creation. Physical reality is an
agreed upon "reality" created by the collective.
The horoscope is a reflection of this unconscious and our individual
place within it.
So whether you are aware of it or not you do create your reality 100%,
and when you believe it you will see it, because it is believing is
seeing not the other way around. The horoscope provides a very fine
mirror of these beliefs-conscious and unconscious-to allow them to
become conscious, redefined, and recreated. YOU are still the point of
power through which this creation comes at any moment.
DOUBT IS A 100% TRUST IN A REALITY THAT YOU DON'T PREFER!
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Cujo
news:de874437.0309...@posting.google.com:
> For those so inclined and interested. [slap!]
Nobody has shown any interest, fuckhole. Stop trolling for more support,
you fail every time you try that tactic, cretin.
--
So what, spinics were defeated 7 years ago, and THAT did no good
either, they still say the same thing. - Edmo the Defeated.
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann.
Kali
@posting.google.com>, posted 25 Sep 2003 16:06:24 -0700,
Edmond Wollmann says...
:For those so inclined and interested. The universe (more appropriately
:the Multiverse because of infinite dimensions as well)
Ed shares what he has learned from the Multiverse
Multiversity!
is the
:expression of ideas. All things within the Multiverse are made of
:light-living light.
Bobdammit, Eddy, what are you smoking?
[Wow, man]
:DOUBT IS A 100% TRUST IN A REALITY THAT YOU DON'T PREFER!
Projection duly noted.
--
Edmo Grasps Reality:
You can challenge it all you want, you
will lose, I wont care and we will come
back to where we started: You trying to
tell me your views are more valid than
mine, which I will reject anyway.
<3F5F55...@earthlink.net>
Jim Phillips
> For those so inclined and interested.
That would be "no one".
snip of drek no one is interested in.
--
Jim Phillips, jphillip at bcpl dot net
"By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom." G. W.
Bush during a primary debate (the bottom 60% got 14.7% of his tax cuts)
Mr. 4X
news:de874437.0309...@posting.google.com:
> For those so inclined and interested. The universe (more appropriately
> the Multiverse because of infinite dimensions as well) isSLAP!
This parallel universe stuff is just a theory that Wollkook is apparently
obsessed with.
^8_8^
"Mr. 4X" <rando...@tkse.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9402EB...@195.228.240.20...
It's not a theory. This sounded more like an alternative model taking
various philosophical ideas about what the world and mind really is taken
into consideration. Correct me where i'm missing something.
El Duderino
> "Mr. 4X" <rando...@tkse.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9402EB...@195.228.240.20...
> > Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) wrote in message
> > news:de874437.0309...@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > For those so inclined and interested. The universe (more appropriately
> > > the Multiverse because of infinite dimensions as well) isSLAP!
> >
> > This parallel universe stuff is just a theory that Wollkook is apparently
> > obsessed with.
Oh yeah because its all so simple isnt it mate? Yeah, the Universe is
like a big space that just goes on for a bit.
A parallel universe theory is just as likely to be correct as any
other! Its no more theoretical than other Universe theories (Universe
expansion etc). There's no harm in exploring the possibilities.
THE BIG BANG IS JUST A THEORY. ALL of this stuff is theoretical.
Louis
"El Duderino" <ChrisM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:de749e9e.03092...@posting.google.com...
Snail
> 1) that you exist along with "All That Is"
> 2) the all is one and the one is all (holographic)
> 3) what you create or put out is what you get back
What evidence are you basing these claims on?
I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
every and anything you said.
Snail
Edmond Wollmann
So you cannot see that:
YOU exist along with ALL THAT IS?
That the all is one and the one is all?
The only statement above that begs any question is the 3rd one, but
there is ample evidence that when you go to work you get paid (what
you put out is what you get back) or that when are of service to
others that you are served.
"Like the church, like a cop, like my mother. You want me to be
truthful-sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though and I need
your approval." Joni Mitchell
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturianone/
Edmond Wollmann
> >>What evidence are you basing these claims on?
Everything is the result of belief--including the belief that math and
science is the "ultimate" or "truest" belief system.
> >>I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
> >>every and anything you said.
> > Exactly
> Belief isn't evidence.
> Snail
Evidence is a belief with significant manifestation in the physical
world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct we call science
is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself. Beliefs determine what
we will see and find in experimentation.
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression
that it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is
too abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a
'hard science' point of view."
"Science you see, proceeds by a very fundemental assumption of the way
things are or must be...For this assumption, like its cloudy
predecessors of the century before, seems to be signaling not only the
end of a century but the end of science as we know it. That assumption
is that there exists, "out there", a real, objective reality."
Amit Goswami "The Self Aware Universe"
"You can always claim that everything you percieve is real because
there exists a larger system which collapses when you see into reality
by 'measuring' or 'observing' it." Paul Davies "Reality and Modern
Science"
"Science will be the formalized creation of a process. One of the
methodologies for viewing the self. One of the methodologies for
recognizing the vibrational patterns of energy that are differentiated
out of the unbroken wholeness."
Bashar "The New Metaphysics"
"A centrally relevant change in the descriptive order required by
quantum theory is thus the dropping of the notion of analysis of the
world into relatively autonomous parts, separately existant but in
interaction. Rather, the primary emphasis is now on UNDIVIDED
WHOLENESS, in which the observing instrument is not separated from
what is observed." David Bohm "Wholeness and The Implicate Order"
"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on observations,
not theories... I have never come across anyone who carries this
profession into practice...Observation is not sufficient...theory has
an important share in determining belief."
Arthur Eddington (astronomer)
"She blinded me with science!"
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Cujo
> Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:<P00eb.632667$Ho3.121726@sccrnsc03>...
>
>> > 1) that you exist along with "All That Is"
>> > 2) the all is one and the one is all (holographic)
>> > 3) what you create or put out is what you get back
>
>> What evidence are you basing these claims on?
>> I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied
>> to every and anything you said.
>
>> Snail
>
> So you cannot see that:
> YOU exist along with ALL THAT IS?
Nope. Cite evidence to prove such a statement that doesn't involve some
person simply writing it.
> That the all is one and the one is all?
Everyone should shudder at the thought of having *anything* to do with a
kook like you, Edmo.
ATTN: Newbies!
Please investigate the Wollmann sites contained in my headers before you
swallow this nitwit's alleged logic.
> The only statement above that begs any question is the 3rd one, but
> there is ample evidence that when you go to work you get paid (what
> you put out is what you get back) or that when are of service to
> others that you are served.
That explains why you live in a shithole and can't get any clients,
people to buy your crappy book or any diplomas (even from pathetic
diploma mills such as Kepler Kollege of Kooks), plagiarist.
> "Like the church, like a cop, like my mother. You want me to be
> truthful-sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though and I need
> your approval." Joni Mitchell
"Geez, ya throw out Joni Mitchell's work and manage to garble that too.
It's "Like a church, like a cop, like *A* mother" May not seem like that
big of a deal, but you can see why I was hesitant to have you get your
clammy hands on my work."
Lili showing good sense in Message-ID:
<19990817175222...@ng-cb1.aol.com>
Poor Ed still can't get the quote right after 4 years. Then he wonders
why using himself as an editor and a fact checker for his own piece of
shit book was a stupid and kooky idea.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann.
"So what does that make you? A stalker who stalks an asshole for 7
years now trying to convince others how bad he is?" - Ed the asshole.
Cujo
> Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:<rY7eb.633552$YN5.477254@sccrnsc01>...
>> >>What evidence are you basing these claims on?
>
>> > Belief
>
> Everything is the result of belief--including the belief that math and
> science is the "ultimate" or "truest" belief system.
Really? Plan on repealing the laws of physics anytime soon, idiot?
>> >>I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be
>> >>applied to every and anything you said.
>
>> > Exactly
>
>> Belief isn't evidence.
>
>> Snail
>
> Evidence is a belief with significant manifestation in the physical
> world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct we call science
> is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself. Beliefs determine what
Only if you're not open to criticism, peer review and willing to admit
you were wrong. On these 3 points you're actually a success.
[screedfest snipped]
Wollmann's Law cited. Eddieeeeee loses again.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/cujcert.jpg
Fanatic Legion # 555-PLNTY
Rank: Colonel Motto: "ABUNDANCE!"
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann.
"I've got news for you, I am not your normal delusional imbecile"
- Ed confirms what everyone already knew.
Snail
> world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct we call science
> is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself.
No, evidence is something which supports a belief or hypothosis.
>Beliefs determine what
> we will see and find in experimentation.
Let me rephrase my original question: How did you obtain that
opinion/knowlege?
> "All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression
> that it is good and other approaches are bad.
> It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
> science just is...
> Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
> better than others.
> Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
> appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
> in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
> failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
> theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
> in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
> some more scientific theories.
> Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is
> too abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a
> 'hard science' point of view."
Yes but you must have SOME reason for believing it. You can't just make a
bunch of claims without any sort of "I know this because" and expect them
to be accepted.
Snail
Snail
> The only statement above that begs any question is the 3rd one, but
> there is ample evidence that when you go to work you get paid (what
> you put out is what you get back) or that when are of service to
> others that you are served.
Bullshit. I could go to work and get screwed over. Obviously one tries to
establish a contract to be sure that they will get paid for their work. If
it was some universal rule that "what you put out is what you get back"
there would be no need for such contracts. Where is the ample evidence that
when you are of service to others you are served?
Snail
el...@no.spam
Edmond Wollmann <Azim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>YOU exist along with ALL THAT IS?
>That the all is one and the one is all?
Your argument is nothing but a tautology. It's not very
compelling.
el...@no.spam
>Evidence is a belief with significant manifestation in the
>physical world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct
>we call science is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself.
>Beliefs determine what we will see and find in experimentation.
Science produces results; your astrobabble does not.
Ilya Shambat
Cujo
@posting.google.com:
> Do you have integrity, Cujo?
Sure do! I've never failed once to confess the truth whenever I'm caught
trespassing on private property after being told not to come back, stealing
computer resources and whacking off in front of coeds. Of course I never
did any of that so I couldn't confess truthfully.
You managed to do all that in one shot and still try to lie about it. You
even whined to the paper that reported it.
Go back to your medications, jerkoff.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"Be careful though, your kookshit about how I am this and that will
reveal who the real kook is." - Edmo in PKB mode.
el...@no.spam
Ilya Shambat <ni...@aol.com> wrote:
>Do you have integrity, Cujo?
Well, he doesn't spank his monkey in libraries.
Ilya Shambat
On the other hand he, like you, spends his free time posturing about
how ethical he is in comparison to someone else.
That doesn't show much of integrity. Or sense.
Cujo
> el...@no.spam () wrote in message
> news:<10649835...@localhost.localdomain>...
>> In article <10f1d777.03093...@posting.google.com>,
>> Ilya Shambat <ni...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Do you have integrity, Cujo?
>>
>> Well, he doesn't spank his monkey in libraries.
>
> On the other hand he, like you, spends his free time posturing about
> how ethical he is in comparison to someone else.
I did? PPOSTFU, jerkoff.
> That doesn't show much of integrity. Or sense.
Evasion of logic noted, handjob-boi.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"I have defined it 100 times and lost my account at AOL for doing so"
and "I have lost no accounts for spamming." - Edmo trying to have it
both ways.
el...@no.spam
Ilya Shambat <ni...@aol.com> wrote:
>On the other hand he, like you, spends his free time posturing
>about how ethical he is in comparison to someone else.
How does it feel to be un-burdened by integrity, Ilya?
Forgotten Angel
rarely see anything positive online. I've ventured in many Ng's and Dg's
and some are better than others but for the most part it seems to be
what level of envy, hate and just plain nastiness is present w/alot of
posts.If you are different or a newbie look out,and if you are such a
simp;eton to believe in God then your doomed for critisim.Lol @ google
and ppl's past mistakes, whatever they maybe. My son would call them
"haters". I think that
anything you spend hard earned money on should be enjoyable (silly me
for such a pollyanna outlook). I have enjoyed some of the ppl and their
post, one of them being Ilya. I dont know if the person is male or
female (doesnt matter), atleast he brings some poetry and kindness to
posts. I'm assuming from post in here that he is Ed W. as well (doesnt
matter),whatever he has done in his past is really his business. Peter
Turk posts some lovely poems, thank you.
Anyway, I know I dont make a difference(to the web, but I do to my
children and my lil world),especially cause I'm over 30, I'm supposedly
part of a invisible, unviable comodity in some ppls views..lol (I'm glad
that I know who I am or I could really feel bad about myself). I hope
that our world gets gentlier, more empathetic, for the sake of our
children, enviroment and survival! Thank
you for your time, Good Luck to all! ForgottenAngel
Gander
Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) writes:
> Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message news:<rY7eb.633552$YN5.477254@sccrnsc01>...
>> >>What evidence are you basing these claims on?
>
>> > Belief
>
> Everything is the result of belief--including the belief that math and
> science is the "ultimate" or "truest" belief system.
but math *is* the truest (but not ultimate) belief-system
among us human beings! it is so because it makes absolutely
no assumptions and isn't proving anything except for itself...
>
>> >>I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
>> >>every and anything you said.
>
>> > Exactly
>
>> Belief isn't evidence.
>
>> Snail
>
> Evidence is a belief with significant manifestation in the physical
that still doesn't turn every belief with significant manifestation
into evidence! metaphysics might conclude that many unidirectional
relationships are really bi-directional, but certainly not all of them!
> world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct we call science
> is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself. Beliefs determine what
> we will see and find in experimentation.
no, the frequency of the dial you spoke about determines what
we will see and find in experimentation, beliefs merely determine
what we will *notice* in experimentation...
--
Better send the eMails to netscape.net, as to
evade useless burthening of my provider's /dev/null...
before complaining because of my rudeness, read
http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9702387/en/adl/liar-faq.txt
and killfile me...
P
Gander
>
>> > 1) that you exist along with "All That Is"
>> > 2) the all is one and the one is all (holographic)
>> > 3) what you create or put out is what you get back
>
>> What evidence are you basing these claims on?
>> I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
>> every and anything you said.
>
>> Snail
>
> So you cannot see that:
> YOU exist along with ALL THAT IS?
no. nor do I believe such a silly thing!
what makes you so sure that I exist?
> That the all is one and the one is all?
I can see that the all (that is) is one,
but that's merely because of "all that
is" being a belief in my mind...
however, I cannot see why the one (whatever
that might be) is all. if I where The One,
then I would see no reason why I should be
all that is. if some higher being would be
the one that is "all that is", then I would
see no reason why "all that is" should actually
be connected in any way for it to function
as an independant being instead of this being
being merely a shamanistic belief of the human...
>
> The only statement above that begs any question is the 3rd one, but
> there is ample evidence that when you go to work you get paid (what
> you put out is what you get back) or that when are of service to
> others that you are served.
both are ideas of the human society and not natural processes.
natural is "what you create is out there" along with "what you
put out or give to others they will have available for spending
and productivity", no guarrantee that anybody will actually
give to you the fruits of their hard work, nor that any living
being will actually profit from them...
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <de874437.03093...@posting.google.com>,
> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) writes:
> > Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message news:<P00eb.632667$Ho3.121726@sccrnsc03>...
> >> > 1) that you exist along with "All That Is"
> >> > 2) the all is one and the one is all (holographic)
> >> > 3) what you create or put out is what you get back
> >> What evidence are you basing these claims on?
> >> I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
> >> every and anything you said.
> >> Snail
> > So you cannot see that:
> > YOU exist along with ALL THAT IS?
> no. nor do I believe such a silly thing!
You do not believe that you EXIST along WITH ALL THAT IS?
> what makes you so sure that I exist?
Irrelelvant, if YOU know you exist, why would you say below that you
can see the ALL is one, but you CANNOT see that you exist along with
it??
> > That the all is one and the one is all?
> I can see that the all (that is) is one,
> but that's merely because of "all that
> is" being a belief in my mind...
? Then if it is a belief in your mind, why can you not believe that
you are one that reflects the ALL?
> however, I cannot see why the one (whatever
> that might be) is all. if I where The One,
Because whatever is created within the all, and the all being one,
must reflect an aspect of that all, and therefore BE the
all--regardless of how small a part of the all it may be.
> then I would see no reason why I should be
> all that is. if some higher being would be
> the one that is "all that is", then I would
No one said that, I said "the all is one and the one all.." Therefore,
you assume that the ALL THAT IS must be some separate aspect from the
you you are--which is not possible and I did not say. YOU, as one of
the all within the all, are one the ways the ALL THAT IS has of
expressing itself, WITHIN the creation that it is.
> see no reason why "all that is" should actually
> be connected in any way for it to function
> as an independant being instead of this being
> being merely a shamanistic belief of the human...
I never said that either.
> > The only statement above that begs any question is the 3rd one, but
> > there is ample evidence that when you go to work you get paid (what
> > you put out is what you get back) or that when are of service to
> > others that you are served.
> both are ideas of the human society and not natural processes.
How can anything which happens within nature, not be natural?
> natural is "what you create is out there" along with "what you
> put out or give to others they will have available for spending
> and productivity", no guarrantee that anybody will actually
> give to you the fruits of their hard work, nor that any living
> being will actually profit from them...
The difference between us and animals is that we co-create the
environment CONSCIOUSLY, and therefore can make CONSCIOUS COMMANDMENT
choices in the creating and our experience of it.
"Look at the birds of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap,
nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you
not of more value than they?" Matthew 6:26
Gander
Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) writes:
> pio...@unet.univie.ac.at (Gander) wrote in message news:<bljc9q$c2$1...@gander.coarse.univie.ac.at>...
>> In article <de874437.03093...@posting.google.com>,
>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) writes:
>> > Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message news:<P00eb.632667$Ho3.121726@sccrnsc03>...
>
>> >> > 1) that you exist along with "All That Is"
>> >> > 2) the all is one and the one is all (holographic)
>> >> > 3) what you create or put out is what you get back
>
>> >> What evidence are you basing these claims on?
>> >> I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
>> >> every and anything you said.
>
>> >> Snail
>
>> > So you cannot see that:
>> > YOU exist along with ALL THAT IS?
>
>> no. nor do I believe such a silly thing!
>
> You do not believe that you EXIST along WITH ALL THAT IS?
yes, I do not believe the phrase "along with" is accurate!
>
>> what makes you so sure that I exist?
>
> Irrelelvant, if YOU know you exist, why would you say below that you
> can see the ALL is one, but you CANNOT see that you exist along with
> it??
it isn't irrelevant, you said you believe to exist along with
all that is, I am part of your all that is, therefore I'm asking
why you believe I would exist. a simple question!
I do not believe that I exist outside of my imagination,
I do not believe that all that is exists within my
imagination, I do not believe that I exist from the
POV of other people, I do not believe that other people
would exist from my POV, I do not believe that I am
merged with all that is, I do not believe that all
that is is one outside of me (i.e. only inside of me
"all that is" is one since there it doesn't exist).
>
>> > That the all is one and the one is all?
>
>> I can see that the all (that is) is one,
>> but that's merely because of "all that
>> is" being a belief in my mind...
>
> ? Then if it is a belief in your mind, why can you not believe that
> you are one that reflects the ALL?
how could I reflect something which doesn't really exist,
except as a figment of my mind? why do you think that
the "all that is" which happens to be located in my
mind would in any way match the "one that is" located
in your mind? I do believe that a reflection of some
part of all that is *exists* within me, but I do not
believe that this reflection does match the "all that
is" which is a figment of my mind, nor that it would
actually be in connection with the "all that is" outside
of me -- at least not until I die.
>
>> however, I cannot see why the one (whatever
>> that might be) is all. if I where The One,
>
> Because whatever is created within the all, and the all being one,
> must reflect an aspect of that all, and therefore BE the
> all--regardless of how small a part of the all it may be.
not so when the all being one in my mind doesn'T match the
all that is which exists outside of me! as I said, I do not
believe that the reflection of the all that is which exists
within me is one with all that is, nor that it would match
my mind's representation of all that is.
however, I agree with you that anything which does encapsulate
itself away from all that is still contains part of it, and
that part of all that is gets reflected onto the inside of
that object (partly) because of that fact. but since I do
not believe that all that is would be one or even part of me...
>
>> then I would see no reason why I should be
>> all that is. if some higher being would be
>> the one that is "all that is", then I would
>
> No one said that, I said "the all is one and the one all.." Therefore,
> you assume that the ALL THAT IS must be some separate aspect from the
> you you are--which is not possible and I did not say. YOU, as one of
> the all within the all, are one the ways the ALL THAT IS has of
> expressing itself, WITHIN the creation that it is.
here *you* are assuming I would have assumed that "all that is"
must be some seperate aspect, while I was merely guessing what
you mean with "one" in this second point, and trying to figure
out if the "one that is all" is also the "one" in "all is one",
and the same for the word "all". my first try was to assume that
with "one" you would have meant myself, since I do believe that
I am all that *exists* from my POV, and I came to the conclusion
that just because from my POV I would be all that *exists* doesn't
mean that I really am all that is (of which I am just a small part
and certainly not neccessarily a seperate aspect of it). since
this attempt failed I tried to assume that "The One" would actually
be some kind of higher being which is composed of all that is in
the way the human is composed of cells, which again does not
neccessarily mean I would be some seperate aspect from that being.
>
>> see no reason why "all that is" should actually
>> be connected in any way for it to function
>> as an independant being instead of this being
>> being merely a shamanistic belief of the human...
>
> I never said that either.
of course, I was just guessing of what you could have meant.
in my assumption you could have meant "the One" as some higher
being composed of all that is I came to the conclusion that
this being would need some part of it which is not contained
within "all that is" for it to act independantly from its
parts (for example the human does function independantly
from its parts because of laws of physics concerning magnetism,
electricity, gravitation, and so on, all that not being
contained within the human as a part but merely as a reflection).
so I concluded that any such being would be a being only because
the human made it so through his beliefs, and only within his
beliefs. thereby you couldn't have meant that kind of "The One"
either. somehow forgot to ask you: what is "The One"? I really
am out of ideas of what you could have meant. what am I missing?
>
>> > The only statement above that begs any question is the 3rd one, but
>> > there is ample evidence that when you go to work you get paid (what
>> > you put out is what you get back) or that when are of service to
>> > others that you are served.
>
>> both are ideas of the human society and not natural processes.
>
> How can anything which happens within nature, not be natural?
it doesn'T happen in nature! what does happen in nature is:
>
>> natural is "what you create is out there" along with "what you
>> put out or give to others they will have available for spending
>> and productivity", no guarrantee that anybody will actually
and there is a big difference, in that the guarrantee that anybody
will give to you the fruits of their hard work, or that some living
being would profit from them and thereby indirectly you will get
back what you put out, such a guarrantee only exists in your own
imagination and nowhere else, even less in nature!
>> give to you the fruits of their hard work, nor that any living
>> being will actually profit from them...
>
> The difference between us and animals is that we co-create the
> environment CONSCIOUSLY, and therefore can make CONSCIOUS COMMANDMENT
> choices in the creating and our experience of it.
sorry, I just do not believe that animals would be unable to
co-create the environment consciously, and I do not believe
the human would be any better at making "conscious commandment
choices in the creating and its experience of it", than animals!
Edmond Wollmann
> In article <de874437.03093...@posting.google.com>,
> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) writes:
> > Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message news:<rY7eb.633552$YN5.477254@sccrnsc01>...
> >> >>What evidence are you basing these claims on?
> >> > Belief
> > Everything is the result of belief--including the belief that math and
> > science is the "ultimate" or "truest" belief system.
> but math *is* the truest (but not ultimate) belief-system
> among us human beings! it is so because it makes absolutely
> no assumptions and isn't proving anything except for itself...
It "proves" nothing, except that there are constructs that we can create
that explain phenomena, some more accurately in different ways than
others.
> >> >>I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
> >> >>every and anything you said.
> >> > Exactly
> >> Belief isn't evidence.
> >> Snail
> > Evidence is a belief with significant manifestation in the physical
> that still doesn't turn every belief with significant manifestation
> into evidence! metaphysics might conclude that many unidirectional
No, it turns it into reality. Evidence is simply that which can be
confirmed as physically/mechanically operational--that's it.
> relationships are really bi-directional, but certainly not all of them!
> > world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct we call science
> > is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself. Beliefs determine what
> > we will see and find in experimentation.
> no, the frequency of the dial you spoke about determines what
> we will see and find in experimentation, beliefs merely determine
> what we will *notice* in experimentation...
Nope, beliefs determine the THEORY, which then determines what we look
for--all "evidence" found is then that which reinforces the particular
reality that the observer who creates the experiement "believes" is the
"truth" about the matter. All systems of belief have their own
reinforcing logic in that way.
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 2003 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Articles http://www.astroconsulting.com/FAQs/info.htm
Artworks http://www.e-wollmann.com/TOC.htm
Gander
Edmond Wollmann <arctur...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Gander wrote:
>
>> In article <de874437.03093...@posting.google.com>,
>> Azim...@yahoo.com (Edmond Wollmann) writes:
>> > Snail <gcar...@NOSPAMindiana.edu> wrote in message news:<rY7eb.633552$YN5.477254@sccrnsc01>...
>> >> >>What evidence are you basing these claims on?
>
>> >> > Belief
>
>> > Everything is the result of belief--including the belief that math and
>> > science is the "ultimate" or "truest" belief system.
>
>> but math *is* the truest (but not ultimate) belief-system
>> among us human beings! it is so because it makes absolutely
>> no assumptions and isn't proving anything except for itself...
>
> It "proves" nothing, except that there are constructs that we can create
> that explain phenomena, some more accurately in different ways than
> others.
yes, that's what I said, except that the phenomena explained
by maths are IMHO mathematical phenomena only existing in the
scientist's mind and nowhere else...
>
>> >> >>I didn't quote your entire piece, but that question could be applied to
>> >> >>every and anything you said.
>
>> >> > Exactly
>
>> >> Belief isn't evidence.
>
>> >> Snail
>
>> > Evidence is a belief with significant manifestation in the physical
>
>> that still doesn't turn every belief with significant manifestation
>> into evidence! metaphysics might conclude that many unidirectional
>
> No, it turns it into reality. Evidence is simply that which can be
> confirmed as physically/mechanically operational--that's it.
but there's no reality, only "evidence"! however, I agree that
evidence is that which can be confirmed by others...
>
>> relationships are really bi-directional, but certainly not all of them!
>
>> > world. You have a dogmatic belief that the construct we call science
>> > is "THE" truth, but you are deluding yourself. Beliefs determine what
>> > we will see and find in experimentation.
>
>> no, the frequency of the dial you spoke about determines what
>> we will see and find in experimentation, beliefs merely determine
>> what we will *notice* in experimentation...
>
> Nope, beliefs determine the THEORY, which then determines what we look
> for--all "evidence" found is then that which reinforces the particular
> reality that the observer who creates the experiement "believes" is the
> "truth" about the matter. All systems of belief have their own
> reinforcing logic in that way.
this can't be, or else there would never have been a THEORY in the
first place. beliefs determine your goals, and in relation to those
goals we observe the world, not in relation to some theory! if one
has a theory then he will only notice things which either match or
contradict this theory, and he will fail to notice things which match
some alternate theory, especially when it is constructed diametral
to the person's own theory. the point is that neither beliefs nor
goals can be transmitted through human communication (for the reasons
I mentioned in this paragraph concerning human perception and noticing
things) and thereby no reinforcing logic will work properly when there
is no match in the human frequency-dial. not theories do reinforce
themself, it's the human ignorance of the existence of alternate
positions of this dial which reinforces them! the problem is that
all human beings are trapped in more or less the same position of
this dial, and the few who aren't are either called insane and
excluded by society, or they voluntarily imitate the dial-position
of their role-models (i.e. parents or teachers). in most cases they
all just end up in a huge internal struggle which turns them unable to
act upon their alternate world-view (i.e. the spirits in their head
prevent the person from actually talking to the ghosts he sees crossing
the street and maybe even learning something from them)...
>
> "A final word about science"
> Bem P. Allen
> Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
> 1994 Simon & Schuster
yes, you already said that...
Dr.Romance
> ni...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote in news:10f1d777.0309301832.697bc590
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > Do you have integrity, Cujo?
>
> Sure do! I've never failed once to confess the truth whenever I'm caught
> trespassing on private property after being told not to come back, stealing
> computer resources and whacking off in front of coeds. Of course I never
> did any of that so I couldn't confess truthfully.
>
> You managed to do all that in one shot and still try to lie about it. You
> even whined to the paper that reported it.
>
> Go back to your medications, jerkoff.
Uh,cujo,you ARE THE JEERKOFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
THE ROMANCE ADVISOR
Cujo
news:8f6096cd.0310...@posting.google.com:
Uh, like you are the expert "advisor".
> HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
>
> THE ROMANCE ADVISOR
How ironic. Which hand do you get romantic with? Maybe Ilya and you can
exchange notes or something.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"I am no longer posting and all messages you see are forgeries." - Ed,
still lying after all these years.
Dr.Romance
> jwga...@pei.sympatico.ca (Dr.Romance) wrote in
> news:8f6096cd.0310...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Cujo <cu...@petitmorte.newt> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9406DEBC120EEs...@216.168.3.44>...
> >> ni...@aol.com (Ilya Shambat) wrote in
> >> news:10f1d777.0309301832.697bc590 @posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > Do you have integrity, Cujo?
> >>
> >> Sure do! I've never failed once to confess the truth whenever I'm
> >> caught trespassing on private property after being told not to come
> >> back, stealing computer resources and whacking off in front of coeds.
> >> Of course I never did any of that so I couldn't confess truthfully.
> >>
> >> You managed to do all that in one shot and still try to lie about it.
> >> You even whined to the paper that reported it.
> >>
> >> Go back to your medications, jerkoff.
> >
> >
> > Uh,cujo,you ARE THE JEERKOFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Uh, like you are the expert "advisor".
>
> > HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!
> >
> > THE ROMANCE ADVISOR
>
> How ironic. Which hand do you get romantic with? Maybe Ilya and you can
> exchange notes or something.
screw you,moron...
Cujo
news:8f6096cd.03102...@posting.google.com:
No thanks, but maybe Ilya might want to take you up on that offer. Please
wipe up after and spare us all the details, freak. Thanks.
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Official TruKook(tm) as certified by Ed Wollmann. Meow.
"I am the same intelligent, articulate, amiable, and humble
person anywhere I go:-))" - Ed, proving he's always a dickhead.
Dr.Romance
MORON......................................................
FREAK...............................................................
LOSER/////////////////////////????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOT IT?
Dr.Romance