FW: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
Philip Benjamin
everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
[Philip Benjamin]
“ ……. in American history … “ ? In what American history? The history that is deliberately NOT taught by WAMP-the-Ingrate? Under the pretext of “church-state-separation”? American history began with and for most part of known records remained as PURITAN HISTORY (which is essentially Church History). The change came with the dominance of Marxist, socialist, fascist pagan tyranny of the WAMP-the-Ingrate, primarily in the 60’s and onwards accentuated by the recent collapse of the Marxism in the Soviets and subsequent infiltration by hardcore Marxists into the Western acade-media.
The Non-sovereign Federation of the Sovereign States is NOT an atheistic, humanistic, libertarian or Marxist-socialist or fascist or pagan IDEA!! It is a contribution from and to a “generation” of >98.8% Protestants, <1% Roman Catholics and < 0.2% Jews, whom the Koran will identify as the “people of the Book”. In the 1700’s the one and only largely accepted AUTHORITY for human affairs in the American Colonies was that Book. The Constitution and the general ethos it represented was a product of the historical and historic “Two Great Awakenings” First led by the prodigious Jonathan Edwards the founder of Princeton U and the Second by the President of Yale U, for which the pagan Marxist Stalin had to “unconsciously” coin the term “American Exceptionalism” and which Nordic pagan Hitler “In 1940, Thought America Was Just "Beauty Queens, Millionaires, Stupid Records And Hollywood" (https://www.businessinsider.com/in-1940-hitler-thought-america-was-just-beauty-queens-millionaires-stupid-records-and-hollywood-2012-5).
Definition: WAMP = Western Acade-Media Pagan (ism), a parody of WASP.
Philip Benjamin PhD MSc MA
Nonconformist to Marxist socialist fascist pagan globalism.
From:
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 4:25 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
Apparently. Neither of my libertarian friends ever supported Trump. One is an anarcho-libertarian lawyer who's big on all personal freedom including drugs, abortion, prostitution, anti-war,... The other,
the Republican, is in favor of open borders (but not citizenship) eliminating all regulation of doctors and medical treatment and considers taxes only justified for foreign defense. He was a political activist who helped get California to adopt a non-partisan
citizens committee for redistricting. I did some mathematical analysis supporting him.
Brent
On 6/29/2022 11:55 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:46 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbrent > wrote:
> Really? I know a couple of libertarians, including a guy who used to be chairman of the Republican Libertarian Caucus, they're 100% for abortion as an individual right.
Sadly that has not been my experience, I know many who called them selves "libertarians" that are Trump supporters despite the fact that Trump is the most anti-libertarian president in American history, don't ask me why. But maybe you just hang around a better class of libertarians than I do.
John K Clark
Rosemary Rock-Evans
I never thought I would see a day when there was
" the recent collapse of Marxism in the Soviets, and subsequent infiltration by hardcore Marxists into the Western acade-media".
America turns communist via academia. Russia turns Orthodox Christian because the only person in Russia who really wanted Marxism was a German academic.
Do people in america really want to be communists?
It will be an interesting experiment, although best not to follow the Chinese form of communism as they murdered all their academics.
I sit here in the UK unable to comprehend. America, which is now communist, is bombing Russia which is actually Orthodox Christian and calls their murdered tsar Saint Nicholas because they regard him as a martyr.
Meanwhile the Native American Indians sit patiently watching said academics discuss the history of what was actually their country, until a group of foreigners came and took it from them.
The world has gone mad
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52643170B3F9B5BFA83A87F4A8BA9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Roland Cichowski
Rosie, Perhaps it is because God does work in mysterious ways. I to wish I could understand what they are up to. just have to trust it all has a purpose.
Roland.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/7656241c.52e1.181b5b886ab.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
If man decides to log all the trees, the trees have thousands of years to regrow. But man hasn't. If he carries out nuclear tests, and fallout covers the planet, it is man that will die [rather horribly it seems], but there are life forms that seem unaffected by fallout.
Ultimately our actions eventually affect us, because Nature seems to be designed as a self regulating system that preserves itself.
The irony is that where one man acts in his own self interest for money, another man is doing exactly the same thing, and their actions only serve to wipe each other out.
I think we need to start working with Nature and find ways of curbing this profligate almost criminal overuse and waste of resources we have absolutely no need of.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/7656241c.52e1.181b5b886ab.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/4a5d2ebe-396a-37c2-5412-57c87772351c%40gmail.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Paganism with un-awakened consciousness in diverse forms rules about 90% of the globe including today’s Europe and America—atheism, humanism, animism, polytheism, pantheism, cabalism, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Satanism, Statism, Collective Capitalism, Neo-Liberalism, anti-individualism, New Age, Identity Politics, etc. One has to cut off from reality not to mention paganism in describing the present state of human minds.
Philip Benjamin
From:
everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 1:46 PM
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: spudboy100
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 1:24 PM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> WAMP-the-Ingrate did not and could not exist in the 1700’s! Today’s WAMP-the-Ingrate will certainly have New York and California (two lawless BIG Marxist mostly pagan [...]
Wow you're doing better, you were able to write 28 whole words before you felt obligated to use the word "pagan"! It would be science-fiction to imagine you could ever write an entire post without using it but pretty soon you may be able to write an entire sentence without using "pagan", but I'm curious, does that word have any meeting for you other than someone who believes in a very slightly different type of religious idiocy than the type of religious idiocy you believe in? And by the way, if you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you who or what "WAMP-the-Ingrate" is.
John K Clark
Rosemary Rock-Evans
- Sarcasm - Wow you're doing better, you were able to write 28 whole words before you felt obligated [sic] to use the word "pagan"!
- Abuse - but pretty soon you may be able to write an entire sentence without using "pagan",
- Insult - It would be science-fiction to imagine you could ever write an entire post without using it
- Condescension - but I'm curious, does that word have any meeting [sic] for you other than someone who believes in a very slightly different type of religious idiocy than the type of religious idiocy you believe in?
- Arrogance/Ignorance And by the way, if you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you who or what "WAMP-the-Ingrate" is.
This is a WAMP! An arrogant, dismissive, condescending, abusive individual who uses sarcasm as a form of argument, as well as insult and abuse. And yet is unable to spell or use grammatically correct English!!
"Obligated"
means "require or compel (someone) to undertake a legal or moral
duty". I think he may mean obliged and he has mis-spelt meeting because
I suspect he means 'meaning'.
I can even add extra characteristics - they shout louder than you to get their point heard, they rarely listen, or even if they appear to be listening, they ignore what has been said completely or choose to misinterpret it. If any opinion is expressed contrary to their own they either pretend they haven't heard or have the person banned [from facebook, from youtube, from forums ....... ] and they do all this without ever bothering to even look for what was really said [And by the way, if you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you who or what "WAMP-the-Ingrate" is]
Crumbs, do I know this person!!!! This is a WAMP!!!!!
You keep going Philip, your opinion is equal to anyone else's and considering you have never done any of these things - insult, abuse, etc - I think you can claim a great number of house points over those that do.
And by your persistence we now have a really good example [Mr Clark] of what a WAMP does and is!!
------ Original Message ------
From: "Philip Benjamin" <medin...@hotmail.com>
To: "general...@googlegroups.com" <general...@googlegroups.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB526481FF50EBFB41883C133AA8829%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Philip Benjamin
John Clark]
“´.... Give me an example of something, anything, that is NOT pagan…. “.
[Philip Benjamin]
This is a reasonable question, though the problem was defined for over over 20 years wherever that was allowed, though the WAMP (often Marxists) despotically forbids.
WAMP is generally speaking a self-description, if anybody wants to join, most welcome!! The name “John” meaning ”Jah (YHWH) is gracious” is not of pagan origin, that does not necessarily mean that anybody with that name is not a Gaia centered conformist. Pagan comes from Pan-Gaia-n, i.e. earth centered, earth worshippers, by extension the doctrinaire environmentalists and the pseudo-climatologists.
A “transformed consciousness” is what the Prophet describes as: “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh”. Ezekiel 36:26. Earth-centeredness is unavoidable for all earthlings, “none good” (Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:12; Luke 18:19) even in an “awakened consciousness”, or Augustinian transformation (“Two Great Awakenings for example”). Rabbi Saul of Tarsus put it this way expressing his great frustration after transformation on the Damascus road: Romans 7:24. “ O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death”?
Only the products (Marxists) of WAMP-the-Ingrate can claim to be “good”!! For science today Ezekiel’s “new heart” or the “inner man” of the Apostles refers to the “dark matter body” with its chemistry vis-à-ˈvis its “light matter twin” cocreated at conception.
Philip Benjamin
Notes:
Jeremiah 17:9.“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
Romans chs. 1—3. Total corruption of mankindMark 7: 21. “For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:”
Ezekiel 36:26. “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh”.
From:
everyth...@googlegroups.com
everyth...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 8:58 AM
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 9:38 AM Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paganism with un-awakened consciousness in diverse forms rules about 90% of the globe including today’s Europe and America—atheism, humanism, animism, polytheism, pantheism, cabalism, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Satanism, Statism, Collective Capitalism, Neo-Liberalism, anti-individualism, New Age, Identity Politics, etc. One has to cut off from reality not to mention paganism in describing the present state of human minds.
“Is Christianity paganism, if not why not, and if it is then give me an example of something, anything, that is NOT pagan. Saying everything is pagan is equivalent to saying nothing is pagan because meaning needs contrast” John Clark.
.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
You know Philip I think it is rather difficult not to love the earth, but it is possible to love the earth and trust the God who created it and will destroy it.
There is one writer who seemed to sum up this form of duality – Olaf Stapledon, a science fiction writer and University lecturer: Two related quotes
Olaf Stapledon – Star Maker
I ….seemed …. to be confronted with the source and the goal of all finite things.
I did not,
of course, sensuously perceive the infinite spirit.... but ..I was given a more
inward perception. I felt the immediate presence of the Star Maker. Latterly,
as I have said, I had already been powerfully seized by a sense of the veiled
presence of some being other than myself ….. but now the veil trembled and grew
half transparent to the mental vision.
The source and goal of all, the Star Maker, was obscurely revealed to me as a being, ...other than my conscious self, objective to my vision, yet as in the depth of my own nature. It seemed to me that I now saw the Star Maker in two aspects, as the spirit's particular creative mode that had given rise to me, ... and also, most dreadfully, as something incomparably greater than creativity, namely as the eternally achieved perfection of the absolute spirit.
The fictitious deities of all races in all worlds once more crowded themselves upon me, symbols of majesty and tenderness, of ruthless power, of blind creativity and of all seeing wisdom. And though their images were but the fantasies of created minds, it seemed to me that one and all did indeed embody some true features of the Star Maker's impact.
...........................................
For I had been confronted not by welcoming and kindly love but by a very different spirit. And at once I knew that the Star Maker had not made me to be his bride nor yet his treasured child, but for some other end. It seemed to me that he gazed down on me from the height of his divinity with the aloof though passionate attention of an artist judging his finished work, calmly rejoicing in its achievement, but recognising at last the irrevocable flaws in its initial conception and already lusting for fresh creation.
Suddenly it was clear to me that virtue in the Creator is not the same as virtue in the Creation. For the Creator if he should love his creation would be loving only a part of himself, but the creation praising the creator praises an infinity beyond himself. The virtue of the creation was to love and to worship. The virtue of the Creator was to create and to be infinite, the unrealisable and incomprehensible goal of worshipping creatures.
It is enough to have been created, to have embodied for a moment the infinite and tumultuously creative spirit …. to have been the rough sketch for some perfected creation.
Professor Stapledon was much admired in his day and Brian Aldiss called his 1937 SF classic StarMaker "the most wonderful novel I have ever read". This quote may say it all “Stapledon was hostile to religious institutions, but not to religious yearnings”.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB5264B3A4512383338D6F1DB0A8849%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Olaf Stapledon]
” The fictitious deities of all races in all worlds once more crowded themselves upon me,…”
[Philip Benjamin]
This is off the thread here. However, I will try to retain the thought. Prof Olaf is fundamentally wrong here and logically inconsistent. How can fictitious deities really do anything at all? Human life ( for that matter any life) is more than a bunch of fundamental particles. That is why even unreal and fictitious deities occupy human minds! How could any race or individual intrinsically come up with any fictitious notions of a friendly or hostile deity? Why can’t any mind be absolutely blank of any such thinking? He looks like endorsing one of those Israeli/Jewish women of Jeremiah’s days who said: ” As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil”.
The word pagan got into Queen’s English not by the KJV, instead heathen is used by KJV for anything outside the domain of Adonai (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural). See Joshua 24:2. Even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor had one of those deities.They were all heathen/pagan. Regeneration from old heathenism to new-creation in Adonai is what Apostolic or Augustinian transformation is all about. Like it or not, That, not Prof. Olaf Stapledon, is what distinguished the nonconformist West in general from the rest of the world which conformed to various deities of various races, peoples and nations—including Jungian sorceries, occultism of Monk Rasputin, Madame Blavatsky etc.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
You know Philip I think it is rather difficult not to love the earth, but it is possible to love the earth and trust the God who created it and will destroy it. …. There is one writer who seemed to sum up this form of duality – Olaf Stapledon, a science fiction writer and University lecturer: Two related quotes …… The fictitious deities of all races in all worlds once more crowded themselves upon me, symbols of majesty and tenderness, of ruthless power, of blind creativity and of all seeing wisdom. And though their images were but the fantasies of created minds, it seemed to me that one and all did indeed embody some true features of the Star Maker's impact. ...........................................
Suddenly it was clear to me that virtue in the Creator is not the same as virtue in the Creation. For the Creator if he should love his creation would be loving only a part of himself, but the creation praising the creator praises an infinity beyond himself. The virtue of the creation was to love and to worship. The virtue of the Creator was to create and to be infinite, the unrealisable and incomprehensible goal of worshipping creatures. …….. It is enough to have been created, to have embodied for a moment the infinite and tumultuously creative spirit …. to have been the rough sketch for some perfected creation.
Professor Stapledon was much admired in his day …. “Stapledon was hostile to religious institutions, but not to religious yearnings”.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
" How can fictitious deities really do anything at all?"
But they do, because what we believe in we become. Belief is the most important thing we have, it creates civilisations, buildings, behaviour, art, food, literature, plays, music, poems, ethics, morals ............. Take away a man's house and car and he will be upset for a while. But take away his beliefs and you destroy him.
Imposing belief systems is as destructive as waging war on them. You kill their spirit.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB5264775FBB7C38F3512AC8A1A8879%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Roland Cichowski
Dear Philip I am intrigued by
your post but I find it
difficult to follow your approach.
Rosie sent you a post to, which you have responded but it seems to me that you can never have understood the meaning of the post. It is as if Rosie’s effort embodied in the message went past you and you noticed just a whistling sound as it sped by and it is this to which you have replied.
This quote seems to be central to your response:
[Olaf Stapledon] ” The fictitious deities of all races in all worlds once more crowded themselves upon me,…”
[Roland]: It prompted you to make the following statements:
[Philip Benjamin] How can fictitious deities really do anything at all?...
[Philip Benjamin] …How could any race or individual intrinsically come up with any fictitious notions of a friendly or hostile deity? Why can’t any mind be absolutely blank of any such thinking?...
[Roland]: I find it difficult
how you could desire that minds should
be blank of any such thinking it seems like you desire that we
should not want
to think about anything that might present a problem of some
sort. As to why we
have these thoughts, I’d like to venture the following
possibilities.
The human consciousness is a very creative entity. To be conscious of anything it has to in effect symbolise whatever it is that it is conscious of. To understand this you need to comprehend what it is that the symbols created in Olaf’s mind are representing. You are objecting it seems to the type of symbols but these symbols are simply representing something which Olaf’s consciousness had become aware of.
The main offending statement seems to be:
[Olaf Stapledon] : “The fictitious deities of all races in all worlds once more crowded themselves upon me, symbols of majesty and tenderness, of ruthless power, of blind creativity and of all seeing wisdom. And though their images were but the fantasies of created minds, it seemed to me that one and all did indeed embody some true features of the Star Maker's impact.”
[Roland]: I’ve emboldened the most relevant key words. (Fictitious unreal deities) (symbols of ….) (…but fantasies of created minds) (…embody features of the star makers Impact). I’ve not had the pleasure of reading the book but I’m going to order it. It looks to me like the star maker is some sort of symbol for a creative god and it is the impact of the outputs that have issued from the star makers created minds; (their outputs) that is important. In other words it is the effect that these fictitious deities had upon the subjects mind when they, as he puts it, crowded in upon them.
When you ask: “Why can’t any mind be absolutely blank of any such thinking?... I would suggest that it is because our minds; our consciousness, operates by means of such symbols and we cannot think without using them. To understand properly what others are saying and therefore possibly correct and enhance our own ideas we really need to seek out what it is behind the symbolisations that others are using. It’s possible they are symbolising the same or something very similar to what is behind our own symbols. It is the intent behind the word symbols that are used that matters.
For instance; the symbols, fictitious deities and fantasises of created minds and especially Star Maker, may well be symbols for what you mean by, YHWH (singular).
Before you object please consider this statement from the bible which I presume you adhere to:
In Genesis it says. …Then the lord god said,”…behold the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil….
I presume you would recognise the phrase, ‘lord god’ symbolises the same thing as, YHWH (singular). So then I would ask, how the lord god is discussing the problem with what he recognises as deities like him when he says, BECOME LIKE ONE OF US.
So, whatever the thing is that is being symbolised by the words, lord god or YHWH (singular) it seems to be the very same thing. So, when Olaf tries to bring to consciousness possibly the very same concept using words like, ‘fictitious deities’ or ‘Star Maker’ he may well be, attempting to symbolise the very same thing you are. If you understood this you might not be so critical of him. In his own creative way he is trying to bring to light, through a story, the very same thing that you would like to enlighten us with. If one other human being was to intuit what the ‘YHWH (singular)’ was, through this story it would be no bad thing.
It is perhaps obvious that one of the ways to make sense of these biblical texts is to understand that they reflect a long tradition of developing human consciousness that is gradually moving from a condition of recognising many fictitious deities to something more profound that is symbolised with words like the ‘one true god’ or YHWH (singular).
It seems obvious that the present deity you refer to as YHWH (singular) could, at least originally, be but one of many. When he refers to others using the words like ‘us’, which essentially, means there are others like him. It sort of gives the game away don’t you think? Put this together with statements elsewhere like, I am the one true god and demands like, thou shalt have no other gods before me. All speak of a deity that knows full well that there are others like him. He would seem to be one of many deities but one that demands that we ignore all the others. So, he can become the one and only true god that is worshipped by his creations. Or perhaps, just maybe it is our consciousness that will eventually merge with the one true consciousness of God; the created returning to its creator.
[Britannica]: As Judaism became a universal religion rather than merely a local religion the more common Hebrew noun Elohim… …tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s god over others.
This tends to be one view of the development of the word symbols used for god but I feel it is undermined by the above statements in genesis which definitely have god conversing with others there is no suggestion that these other gods are the gods of another nation or people they are compatriots of YHWH who therefore it would seem cannot be a singular god, YHWH.
Perhaps you can explain why you insist on blanking out word symbols other than YHWH (singular) when you refer to the god of Augustine. You also say this sort of thing, which I find difficult:
[Philip Benjamin]: Regeneration from old heathenism to new-creation in Adonai is what Apostolic or Augustinian transformation is all about. Like it or not, That, not Prof. Olaf Stapledon, is what distinguished the nonconformist West in general from the rest of the world… which conformed to various deities of various races, peoples and nations—including Jungian sorceries, occultism of Monk Rasputin, Madame Blavatsky etc.
[Roland]: I’ve long been meaning to ask why you think the transformation began with Augustine? Surely it began with Jesus.
Also if Augustine brought about a transformation in Western thinking surely some of the results of that transformation are, Jungian thinking, Marxism, Blavatsky, Olaf and so on. I wonder if there was no regeneration caused by Augustine if they would have even come into existence. They could all be regarded as a part of the enlightenment in Western thinking. Forgive me but you seem to cherry pick from the results of the Augustinian regeneration as you put it.
Marxism in particular could be said to have its roots in the teachings of Jesus and the early church there is some evidence in the bible. The story of the man who did not give up all his wealth to his church community who I think died as a result. This was followed by his wife being punished as well for her part in holding some of it back. Sounds like communism to me and if not that it is typical of many modern cults. It is not only this but the whole ethos in the bible of sharing; loving one another; the lily’s in the fields needing nothing but their golden raiment; and the birds and their nests to rest their heads and so on. All is provided by the lord, sort of thing. All these concepts have filtered into the minds of Europeans for close on 2000 years; you would expect it to affect their thinking.
Given this I would have thought that you would have been in favour of Marxism. The fact that Marx’s ideas were corrupted and still are being corrupted in China is not the point. It is difficult to perceive how Marx’s theories could not have been influenced by the Christianised western culture he grew up in.
Would love to hear some explanations.
Regards Roland.
P.S thanks for the Olaf Stapleton tip Rosie I am a bit of a sci-fi fan but I seem to have missed that one.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB5264775FBB7C38F3512AC8A1A8879%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Cathy Reason
[Roland]:.<< I’ve not had the pleasure of reading the book but I’m going to
order it. >>
You may find it takes a bit of determination to get through the first few
chapters. It's worth sticking with it though, because the book is like a
sort of mythological prose poem for modern-day cosmology, with all sorts of
Stapledonian inventiveness thrown in. There are no actual characters, and
no actual story. Everything is told from a completely detached viewpoint,
which you could almost say is divine in itself. Think of it as like a
modern day Book of Genesis.
Happy reading,
Cathy
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
All evidences seem to indicate tis is a human problem, no animals areagitated over fictitious deities. None of the rplies address the real human problem. The brains of most animals are not all that different from humans’. You may sft the problem to neural patterns etc., but that does not answer the question, why? What, nor even how, is not the subject here. Existence is antecedent to experience. Awakened experience follows awakened existence. That is how Augustine, a pagan, hedonist scholar in Platonism became an exegete of Theology ( centered around Adonai of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles)!
Rosemary Rock-Evans
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB526429FC17AA1E906C0C1509A8869%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:28 PM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
[Rosemary]
“Dark energy”
[Philip Benjamin]
Another deity? Fictitious/ Real? Why not “Light Energy”. Gravity? Dark energy is some kind of repulsive gravity oimagined (fabricated?) by some physicists and astronomers to justify Big Bang. Somehow the word energy has become mystical or magical !
Philip Benjamin
Rosemary Rock-Evans
Are you OK? Aren't you the same Dr Benjamin who wrote "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit?: Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry & Your Invisible Doppelganger Paperback – 22 Feb. 2013
by Philip P Benjamin PhD MS "
Spirit is the animating principle that determines what matter needs to support it.
Some Spirit then becomes 'matter' [using its template] and it is either capable of being perceived by our 5 senses or not perceived.
If we can perceive it then that is the world we think exists - our 'reality' - light matter if you prefer. If we cannot perceive it then it remains 'dark' - dark in essence to us humans, but as you said earlier, quite possibly capable of being perceived by dogs or gifted humans.
It seems that some Spirit [all of which is dark to us] is essentially "out of time" - free of perceptions, but all 'light matter' bodies are "in time" because they have perceptions.
If you wish to find deities of any kind, they are out of time
rosie
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB5264657998723746070BD4B3A8899%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Roland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/000701d895f8%246eca7660%244001a8c0%40SN029744320482.
Roland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB526429FC17AA1E906C0C1509A8869%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
No, dark energy is not a precursor to dark matter. No such causality is claimed by any science. Matter has mass, energy with mass is not heard of in any science, so far. Dar energy is pure invention of dark minds (unawkened consciousness) to justify the Big Bang which none observed. No ears, no bang heard!! Dark Matter is the missing mass of Fritz Zwicky established as a measurable/observable difference between optical and gravitational determinations of rotating galaxies and confirmed by Veera Rubin by measurements of rotational speeds. Mixing the dark energy with dark matter is unnecessary. My book is primarily about possible dark matter chemistry, neither dark matter perse nor dark energy.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/43f2dabb.16844.181f6b049e5.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Roland]
“But what do you think about the possibility that existence and experience are co dependent? Neither can exist without the other, I think.”
[Philip Benjamin]
It is a logical contradiction “to be” and “not be” at the same time in the same frame of reference. It is also against the law of causality. Existences is the cause of the effect experience. The names John, Liz, Joe, Mary etc. are the effects not causes of an Augustinian transformation of a multitude of individual consciousness in an entire continent, which was effected through the instrumentality of Romans 13: 13-14 (https://www.midwestaugustinians.org/conversion-of-st-augustine}.
Rabbi Saul of Tarsus will take it all the way to Genesis 1: 1-2 in 2 Corinthians 4: 6.
Philip Benajamin
From: general...@googlegroups.com <general...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Roland
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 8:09 AM
To: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
I agree with you Philip in that 'why' is the most important question. To many thinkers waste time on how. Why comes first.
Philip: Existence is antecedent to experience.
Possibly. But what do you think about the possibility that existence and experience are co dependent? Neither can exist without the other, I think.
All the best, Roland.
On Wed, 13 July 2022, 3:33 am Philip Benjamin, <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Philip Benjamin]
All evidences seem to indicate tis is a human problem, no animals areagitated over fictitious deities. None of the rplies address the real human problem. The brains of most animals are not all that different from humans’. You may sft the problem to neural patterns etc., but that does not answer the question, why? What, nor even how, is not the subject here. Existence is antecedent to experience. Awakened experience follows awakened existence. That is how Augustine, a pagan, hedonist scholar in Platonism became an exegete of Theology ( centered around Adonai of the Patriarchs, Prophets and the Apostles)!
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 3:11 PM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
" How can fictitious deities really do anything at all?"
But they do, because what we believe in we become. Belief is the most important thing we have, it creates civilisations, buildings, behaviour, art, food, literature, plays, music, poems, ethics, morals ............. Take away a man's house and car and he will be upset for a while. But take away his beliefs and you destroy him.
Imposing belief systems is as destructive as waging war on them. You kill their spirit.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Philip Benjamin" <medin...@hotmail.com>
To: "general...@googlegroups.com" <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 11 Jul, 22 At 20:28
Subject: RE: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
Shaikh Ahmad Ahsa’I – Jawami al-kalim [translated by Henry Corbin and Nancy Pearson]
The world of the barzakh, intermediate between the present world and the saeculum venturium is the mundus archetypus, the autonomous world of forms and images; it is the world intermediate between the world of the Malakut and the visible, material world. The term Hurqalya is used to designate the heavens of this intermediate world, together with all the heavenly bodies they contain…………….
There are verses from the Qur’an like the following ‘Behind them the barzakh until the day when they will be raised up (23:202)……….
Indeed the world of the Malakut is made up of substances and beings separate from matter, while our visible, physical world is made up of material realities. There necessarily has to be an intermediary between the two worlds, a barzakh, that is a world whose state is neither the absolutely subtle state of separate substances, nor the opaque density of the material things of our world. In the absence of such a universe, there would be a leap – a hiatus – in the gradation of being.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/43f2dabb.16844.181f6b049e5.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB5264C4A4019EC1A84F3AD3CBA8899%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Roland Cichowski
Philip thank you for the reply and sorry for the delay in answering.
It is interesting that you use the example of to
be and not to be and point out that it is a logical
contradiction. It does seem so.
You also point out is against the law of causality. Again it would seem so.
I have noticed in the past you have pointed out the function aseity has to play in things.
If I understand this phenomenon correctly then it
does not have a cause it is what it is, self-sufficient, unto
itself. I find it interesting that therefore nothing can be
before this; state of aseity, as it has no cause. However, I
perceive that this does not preclude it causing effects. I
recognise that this quality of aseity is the basis of all of the
creation, which we experience because it is acting as the first
cause. I perceive that in your thinking you seem to be placing
these contradictions somewhere along; what is best described as
a sequence of cause and effect. This will lead to the argument
that you are proposing and of course it does seem correct when
perceived like this.
However, and I find this difficult to describe,
consider that these contradictions are displaying the same
quality as the aseity from which they have originated. It is as
if you take these contradictions down through a sequence of
cause and effect until you reach their original cause. That
original cause is a condition of aseity, I think.
So apparent contradictions like; existence and
experience; to be or not to be; which comes first the chicken or
the egg are all displaying the quality of aseity from which they
originated. They can only be correctly understood as being
perceived of and conceived of in terms of a pairing. They are
together. It is our consciousness, which separates them and then
is forced to consider, which came first or their apparent
contradiction.
When their quality of aseity is considered then it
can be perceived that existence and experience exist together,
hand in hand as it were. This becomes more obvious if you try to
consider how existence could be if there were nothing to
experience it or likewise; how could anything be experienced if
nothing existed. The two qualities are not in contradiction they
are co-dependent upon one another. We are only able to be
conscious of their qualities when they are considered together.
This is what I perceive and I would welcome your
opinion.
All the best Roland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52641073A77832CDBC1A1971A8899%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
All good systems are feedback loops - one gets feedback and adjusts the system [hardware and software] and by doing so learns more about how the system works in practice, all systems can be conceptual in theory, but you often find in practise people do things you hadn't envisioned.
Any system without such a mechanism usually fails early on.x
------ Original Message ------
From: "Roland Cichowski" <rola...@gmail.com>
To: general...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52641073A77832CDBC1A1971A8899%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/382b4fd3-25ac-af08-b238-b8e9403d3512%40gmail.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
Hi, Roland. That is a more rational approach. Only a degree of rationality can be accomplished in such matters. What is more rational? Aseity of dead matter producing life or aseity of LIFE creating dead matter and life forms? Marxists prefer the former. Augustinian civilizations preferred the latter. The difference in outcomes is obvious!
Philip Benjamin
From: general...@googlegroups.com <general...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Roland Cichowski
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:42 AM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/382b4fd3-25ac-af08-b238-b8e9403d3512%40gmail.com.
Roland Cichowski
Dear Rosie,
[Rosie] In support , Roland, - a feedback loop - the ouroboros.
[Roland] Thanks for the support, I am very aware of the symbol of the Ouroboros it is very significant in many ways, and I am not surprised you are aware of it. However, I avoided using it given its Pagan origins etc., I felt to use it might lead Philip away from the main objective of the discussion; the nature of aseity.
[Rosie]All good systems are feedback loops - one gets feedback and adjusts the system [hardware and software] and by doing so learns more about how the system works in practice, all systems can be conceptual in theory, but you often find in practise people do things you hadn't envisioned.
[Roland] In itself it’s obviously true. Not certain what the point is but if you are suggesting that it is an example of aseity I am not sure. Something is not quite right but I can’t quite put my illusory finger on it. ; )
My unease might be that it is something very close to displaying aseity and I am wondering at present if that might be because it is in some way one of the first affects that results from aseity.
[Rosie] Any system without such a mechanism usually fails early on.x
Yes agreed and that could be something else that is important to consider in relation to aseity. One can imagine that an effect produced by aseity that did not have a feedback loop of some kind would remain frozen, basically cease, near or at its point of origin. Given that the condition of aseity is the originating cause of everything then something like a feedback loop would have to be inherent in it. Does that mean it is part of its nature, though? Because we could say that of everything in our consciousness.
Thanks for giving me more wondering to do. Don’t you think I have enough? ; )
Take care, Roland
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/4245e2e6.1ae94.18202bc7685.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Roland Cichowski
Hi, Philip.
[Philip Benjamin]That is a more rational approach. Only a degree of rationality can be accomplished in such matters.
[Philip Benjamin] What is more rational? Aseity of dead matter producing life.
[Roland] I’m not sure if these statements
are rational or
not but I thought I gave good reason in past posts, why. I do
not believe that
any evidence can be found for the existence of what you call
dead matter. I am
presuming that by dead matter that you are referring to what
most people would
call the physical or material universe.
Our understanding of how our senses
might work in
this physical reality does not work when we investigate it. If
such a physical
universe exists in the way you seem to think it does, then what
we experience
of it is unlikely to be anything like what it really is. This is
because our
sensory equipment, which you seem to presume to be part of this
physical
universe, do not transmit to us what this physical reality is
really like. In
this sense what we experience is an illusion representing
something unknown,
created by consciousness, to realise this is the real awakening.
Given this situation I agree it is not rational to believe that dead (Physical) matter can be producing life. I am not completely sure how you see a connection between the principle of aseity and the appearance of dead matter. Aseity is a principle it is not physical in any way. So the idea that it gives rise to physical or dead matter seems to be a non-starter to me. [physical or dead matter is an illusion produced by consciousness. Perhaps that is the reason that as you suggest the statement does not appear to be rational.
[Philip Benjamin] …or Aseity of LIFE creating dead matter and life forms?
[Roland] It is not clear to me what you mean by aseity of Life.
As I have already said about dead matter, aseity does not give rise to it. It may give rise to an illusion that dead matter exists and so suggests that life exists as an extension of it but this is not the true state of reality. So the only way I can understand your point is that you believe that dead matter exists and that it gives rise to life forms. Well if I believe dead matter does not exist in the real state of reality then obviously I cannot see a way in which it gives rise to life forms. Can you? you are asking me to choose between two options that are self defeating. I can see the possibility that what you are calling life and life forms is better perceived as consciousness. As in life produces or is consciousness.
So to rewrite your sentence; Aseity of consciousness creates dead matter and hence life (conscious) forms. Written this way, then, yes, that could be correct, but consciousness is still producing an illusion whose purpose is to perceive the real situation.
[Philip Benjamin] Marxists prefer the former. Augustinian civilizations preferred the latter. The difference in outcomes is obvious!
[Roland] You keep stating these points in your posts many times. Given what I have said above. Can you understand, if I believe dead matter is an illusion and does not exist. How can you then pose a question to me that Marxists prefer one option that does not exist and Augustinian civilisations prefer the other option, which is; (something that does not exist), can give rise to life. The division you perceive does not seem to make sense. To me it suggests both Marxists and Augustinian civilisations are on the wrong track and are mistaken.
That may seem a bit harsh but this discussion is supposed to be about finding out the true nature of consciousness. Your consciousness is suggesting to you that there is some sort of conflict between Marxists and Augustinian civilisation. I would suggest that these conflicts that you have become so wedded to are the result of illusory manifestations produced by the fact that your consciousness accepts the reality of a physical universe in, which all these conflicts take place. In reality they are side issues to the question of what consciousness is because they are all based upon experiences that are manifested to you by your consciousness. A possible reason for this would appear to be; that it is so that you can experience something unknown and unknowable to you. This is in turn because none of your senses are capable of giving you a direct experience of what this unknowable thing is.
It may be unknowable to us through our senses but our very existence as conscious beings indicate to us that we exist. This suggests to me that there is a link between the unknowable and our own consciousness. We ourselves are proof that something exists. The condition of aseity would seem to be a good candidate for at least the root cause of this unknowable manifestation of something existing. This is because as I stated in my last post aseity may be the root cause from, which issues; all following chains of cause and effects that manifest in our experiences.
As far as I can discern our consciousness is attempting to perceive what it cannot know directly. Please consider the possibility that the condition of aseity may in fact be as close as we can get to a representation of consciousness in this discussion.
This suggests that the effort of our consciousness to know itself is in fact the result of the circumstance of the condition of asities’ efforts to know its self. The appearance of a dead matter physical universe to us in our consciousness is the result of this effort by consciousness to know itself. This may seem somewhat of a circular argument but then this is to be expected of the condition that is producing it. It too is a self-sustaining circular manifestation. The miraculous thing is that this condition of aseity seems to have the ability to stand outside of itself and view itself. However, it seems it can only do this by creating the appearance of a physical universe (of dead matter) perhaps in an effort to give consciousness something to latch onto. Our problem is how to correctly divine what this illusory projection is suggesting to us because it would seem to be the only indication of what this condition of aseity or consciousness is.
The issues of PAGANS WAMPS etc. all pale into insignificance in the face of this. I intuit from your previous posts that you might be recognising that this condition of aseity is something to do with what you call YHWH (SINGULAR), if it is, then this is good reason to pursue the issue of consciousness, is it not? I feel this is the real task behind what you might call the Augustinian revelation. But that might be putting words into your mouth.
Have to close now, all the best Roland
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/DM8PR14MB5253AFF45ECFC9673E191DF1A88B9%40DM8PR14MB5253.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
Just as an aside partly connected to this [so it is relevant].
Doctors seem to make the assumption that no feedback is a good sign, that the person must be well because they didn't come back. But of course they may not have come back because the treatment had no effect and the person gave up on doctors, or the treatment made the person feel worse, or in the worse case scenario they might have died.
Practically every government system is built without any feedback at all. There is the assumption that elections sort this all out, but this is a ridiculous assumption if you think about it. The civil service design and run the systems and the MPs get the blame.
A personal example. I have been waiting for a disabled badge from Sheffield City Council, for nearly 14 weeks now, and it has long since run out. If you ring the help desk you get a recorded message that tells you the council is desperately short of foster parents [which if you think about is an exceptionally cruel answer phone message to deliver to a disabled person]. As such there is no way anyone can find out about their badge - and mine is a simple renewal. I am never going to get well again, I am either going to get worse or die [or both - chortle].
As such the civil service [in this case Sheffield Council] is a failed service, because although we are forced to pay for it through taxes, we have no means of commenting on the service.
In essence Sheffield Council appear to be playing God - "the quality or state of being self-derived or self-originated specifically : the absolute self-sufficiency, independence, and autonomy of God." as in this case nothing is coming out. But the Council are not in reality totally independent and autonomous, as we are forced to pay for them. Money goes in, in its millions, but nothing comes out.
It may be noted that this is the downside of a Marxist style government . Without competition nothing gets done and entropy sets in. [Sorry a bit of politics]
regards
rosie
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/4245e2e6.1ae94.18202bc7685.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/bf2d1285-10f1-77e3-11c0-8e9202f83ae2%40gmail.com.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
If we hypothetically assume all communication outside the 5 senses is achieved via our Higher spirit and the Higher spirit is immortal and out of time, the question can then be asked
"is 'God' separate from the innumerable Higher spirits/consciousnesses there are
Thus One made many"
or
"Is God the sum total of every Higher spirit a vast truly vast collection of consciousnesses that act as one?"
Note that the current separation between Augustinians and Marxists is totally irrelevant , we are back now to a discussion of consciousness
------ Original Message ------
From: "Roland Cichowski" <rola...@gmail.com>
To: general...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52641073A77832CDBC1A1971A8899%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/382b4fd3-25ac-af08-b238-b8e9403d3512%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/DM8PR14MB5253AFF45ECFC9673E191DF1A88B9%40DM8PR14MB5253.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/5b964bfe-3a66-d5a9-88ea-f446a3541ba3%40gmail.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Roland Cichowski]
“As I have already said about dead matter, aseity does not give rise to it. It may give rise to an illusion that dead matter exists…. if I believe dead matter is an illusion and does not exist. How can you then pose a question to me that Marxists prefer one option that does not exist and Augustinian civilisations prefer the other option, which is; (something that does not exist), can give rise to life.. ”
[Philip Benjamin]
Aseity is a quality of something that ontologically exists, which solves the problem of infinite regress. Consciousness is also an attribute of existence with no creative powers. Sense perception is an experience resulting from objectively measurable (not illusionary) observations. No existence, no experience. That is well settled as regards the requirements of law of noncontradiction and law of causality, as you have observed in your previous post. No objectivity, no science. That is the observable difference in outcomes of illusionary worldviews of Yogis and rishis, and objective world views of reality. Science is then an effect, not cause, of rational thinking.
Augustinian consciousness is an awakened consciousness. Marxist consciousness is a natural consciousness. No bias or prejudice can fail to note the difference in outcomes of the tw, so much so, that (stated many times afore) the pagan Marxist Joseph Stalin had to coin the term “American Exceptionalism” . America is not the product of yoga, occultism, Cabbala, Talmud, Tao, TM, Jungian Sorcery, Maya thinking, New Age etc. Rather, this Non-Sovereign Republic of Sovereign States, resulted from the “Two Great Awakenings”, first led by the prodigious founder-President of Princeton U and the other led by President of Yale U. These are not illusions, but historical and historic events. It will be very unwise and perilous for politicians and jurists groomed by WAMP-the-Ingrate to ignore those FACTS and indoctrinate every level of Civil and Military life with Socialist-Fascist-Marxist (SOFAMA) pagan globalism in the once Augustinian objective West in general and twice awakened factual America in particular.
I have to skip the definitions of “Awakening”, “pagan”, “WAMP” etc.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
Although you have decided to ignore my comments, I am not ignoring yours, ...........so
"Consciousness is also an attribute of existence with no creative powers".
Why do you say this? We do have creative powers, don't we? Otherwise there would be no airplanes, no motor cars, no paintings, no cathedrals. We are the only ones with hands able to make things and a mind capable of thinking a plan through .
And via the placebo effect we can make ourselves well
And via the nocebo effect make ourselves unwell
Indeed once upon a time shamans used to issue death prayers [and they worked]
now doctors do it ,by telling peope they are 'pre' something or other, meaning they are not ill - but they could be [if they put their mind to it].
rosie
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52641073A77832CDBC1A1971A8899%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52641088C265AE14B9D11FF4A88D9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benajmin]
That will be a repetition. It was settled: “To be or not to be” cannot be true at the same in the same frame of reference. No existence, no consciousness. Simply going in circles!! There is no antecedent consciousness floating around before existence. How can an impersonal consciousness create personal beings? Science, nor scientists did not and could not originate in or by an amorphous world of consciousness. The TAO world of the brilliant Niels Bohr did not create the Balmer series, Bohr used his intellectual capacities to explain it and got away with the Nobel Prize which itself was soley a product of an awakened Augustinian-- not an illusory—West.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/67654263.1d3b5.182108731b2.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
Dear Philip,
I know that as it is now 34 degrees C , this is indeed a very good moment to see if you can tie me in knots , but you said
“Consciousness is an attribute of existence with no creative powers”
So I simply challenged the ‘no creative powers’, because we do have creative powers made possible by the form we have
Unless we are magicians we have to ‘physically’ design [mind] and then physically build [form] inventions in order to see if they work. We may get gifted with ideas, but the only way you can ever enjoy them or make sure they are good ideas is to make the design into a form based thing that is used
But this assumes nothing of where consciousness ‘is’.
If consciousness is ‘out of time’ then it needs a form in order to experience anything, otherwise it is all a dream.
Form only exists in order for us to gather experiences – perceptions.
Consciousness, as I believe it to be, is with the Higher spirit [immortal soul] and it directs the mortal soul – the puppet. Each time round it chooses a new role. If it is having a very very hard time it may create a new puppet [personality] robust enough to cope [Multiple Personality Disorder].
That’s what the Lady of
Shallott is all about – she is a Higher spirit watching everything going on,
but experiencing nothing, just recording it. But attracted by a handsome man she gives in and makes
the decision [if you call it that] to become mortal. She has
to ‘die’ [be born] to join in [to live].
The poem has looms, mirrors and Serge and I have explained all of them
The Lady of Shalott (1832) By Alfred,
Lord Tennyson
Part I
On either side the river lie
Long fields of barley and of rye,
That clothe the wold and meet the sky;
And thro' the field the road runs by
To many-tower'd Camelot;
The yellow-leaved waterlily
The green-sheathed daffodilly
Tremble in the water chilly
Round about Shalott.
Willows whiten, aspens shiver.
The sunbeam showers break and quiver
In the stream that runneth ever
By the island in the river
Flowing down to Camelot.
Four grey walls, and four grey towers
Overlook a space of flowers,
And the silent isle embowers
The Lady of Shalott.
Underneath the bearded barley,
The reaper, reaping late and early,
Hears her ever chanting cheerly,
Like an angel, singing clearly,
O'er the stream of Camelot.
Piling the sheaves in furrows airy,
Beneath the moon, the reaper weary
Listening whispers, ' 'Tis the fairy,
Lady of Shalott.'
The little isle is all inrail'd
With a rose-fence, and overtrail'd
With roses: by the marge unhail'd
The shallop flitteth silken sail'd,
Skimming down to Camelot.
A pearl garland winds her head:
She leaneth on a velvet bed,
Full royally apparelled,
The Lady of Shalott.
Part II
No time hath she to sport and play:
A charmed web she weaves alway.
A curse is on her, if she stay
Her weaving, either night or day,
To look down to Camelot.
She knows not what the curse may be;
Therefore she weaveth steadily,
Therefore no other care hath she,
The Lady of Shalott.
She lives with little joy or fear.
Over the water, running near,
The sheepbell tinkles in her ear.
Before her hangs a mirror clear,
Reflecting tower'd Camelot.
And as the mazy web she whirls,
She sees the surly village churls,
And the red cloaks of market girls
Pass onward from Shalott.
Sometimes a troop of damsels glad,
An abbot on an ambling pad,
Sometimes a curly shepherd lad,
Or long-hair'd page in crimson clad,
Goes by to tower'd Camelot:
And sometimes thro' the mirror blue
The knights come riding two and two:
She hath no loyal knight and true,
The Lady of Shalott.
But in her web she still delights
To weave the mirror's magic sights,
For often thro' the silent nights
A funeral, with plumes and lights
And music, came from Camelot:
Or when the moon was overhead
Came two young lovers lately wed;
'I am half sick of shadows,' said
The Lady of Shalott.
Part III
A bow-shot from her bower-eaves,
He rode between the barley-sheaves,
The sun came dazzling thro' the leaves,
And flam'd upon the brazen greaves
Of bold Sir Lancelot.
A red-cross knight for ever kneel'd
To a lady in his shield,
That sparkled on the yellow field,
Beside remote Shalott.
The gemmy bridle glitter'd free,
Like to some branch of stars we see
Hung in the golden Galaxy.
The bridle bells rang merrily
As he rode down from Camelot:
And from his blazon'd baldric slung
A mighty silver bugle hung,
And as he rode his armour rung,
Beside remote Shalott.
All in the blue unclouded weather
Thick-jewell'd shone the saddle-leather,
The helmet and the helmet-feather
Burn'd like one burning flame together,
As he rode down from Camelot.
As often thro' the purple night,
Below the starry clusters bright,
Some bearded meteor, trailing light,
Moves over green Shalott.
His broad clear brow in sunlight glow'd;
On burnish'd hooves his war-horse trode;
From underneath his helmet flow'd
His coal-black curls as on he rode,
As he rode down from Camelot.
From the bank and from the river
He flash'd into the crystal mirror,
'Tirra lirra, tirra lirra:'
Sang Sir Lancelot.
She left the web, she left the loom
She made three paces thro' the room
She saw the water-flower bloom,
She saw the helmet and the plume,
She look'd down to Camelot.
Out flew the web and floated wide;
The mirror crack'd from side to side;
'The curse is come upon me,' cried
The Lady of Shalott.
Part IV
In the stormy east-wind straining,
The pale yellow woods were waning,
The broad stream in his banks complaining,
Heavily the low sky raining
Over tower'd Camelot;
Outside the isle a shallow boat
Beneath a willow lay afloat,
Below the carven stern she wrote,
The Lady of Shalott.
A cloudwhite crown of pearl she dight,
All raimented in snowy white
That loosely flew (her zone in sight
Clasp'd with one blinding diamond bright)
Her wide eyes fix'd on Camelot,
Though the squally east-wind keenly
Blew, with folded arms serenely
By the water stood the queenly
Lady of Shalott.
With a steady stony glance—
Like some bold seer in a trance,
Beholding all his own mischance,
Mute, with a glassy countenance—
She look'd down to Camelot.
It was the closing of the day:
She loos'd the chain, and down she lay;
The broad stream bore her far away,
The Lady of Shalott.
As when to sailors while they roam,
By creeks and outfalls far from home,
Rising and dropping with the foam,
From dying swans wild warblings come,
Blown shoreward; so to Camelot
Still as the boathead wound along
The willowy hills and fields among,
They heard her chanting her deathsong,
The Lady of Shalott.
A longdrawn carol, mournful, holy,
She chanted loudly, chanted lowly,
Till her eyes were darken'd wholly,
And her smooth face sharpen'd slowly,
Turn'd to tower'd Camelot:
For ere she reach'd upon the tide
The first house by the water-side,
Singing in her song she died,
The Lady of Shalott.
Under tower and balcony,
By garden wall and gallery,
A pale, pale corpse she floated by,
Deadcold, between the houses high,
Dead into tower'd Camelot.
Knight and burgher, lord and dame,
To the planked wharfage came:
Below the stern they read her name,
The Lady of Shalott.
They cross'd themselves, their stars they blest,
Knight, minstrel, abbot, squire, and guest.
There lay a parchment on her breast,
That puzzled more than all the rest,
The wellfed wits at Camelot.
'The web was woven curiously,
The charm is broken utterly,
Draw near and fear not,—this is I,
The Lady of Shalott.'
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/67654263.1d3b5.182108731b2.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB526415BAA1A2A88CC68F8FC8A88C9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:39 AM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/4d7bd310.1e719.182122d2b8c.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Philip Benjamin]
No, I do not want to repeat the same comments over and over again, being a realist with no illusion-philia. Age and stamina go inverse!! I have to minimize the energy spent wherever possible.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:39 AM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
Maybe I understand your comments and am putting an alternative point of view, in fact I have put a number of points of view to indicate that others exist.
I said to Serge I wasn't going to be drawn in any more, but ended up doing so. It was very silly of me.
I am sorry for doing this
I should have learned from work
rosie
------ Original Message ------
From: "Philip Benjamin" <medin...@hotmail.com>
To: "general...@googlegroups.com" <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 Jul, 22 At 17:48
Subject: RE: FW: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
[Philip Benjamin]
No, I do not want to repeat the same comments over and over again, being a realist with no illusion-philia. Age and stamina go inverse!! I have to minimize the energy spent wherever possible.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Rosemary Rock-Evans' via Consciousness-Online <general...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:39 AM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52642C189BA22F6057BEE40BA88C9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Roland Cichowski
Dear Philip and Rosie,
Wow! Can I please ask you guys to slow down a little because I cannot keep up. From my perspective I send a post usually before I go to bed. If I am lucky I get a response sometime late morning or during the following day. Even if I am not busy with things I like to consider what either of you have said before replying but I often go to bed thinking about what has been said. I get up in the morning and find that you two seem to have posted several times overnight sometimes it is a total of 4 emails.
From my perspective whatever thread of discussion I might have been trying to follow has vaporised in all sorts of directions and I am at a loss as to where I should pick up or what I should reply to. There are enough interesting points in both your posts that I could spend most of the day thinking and writing replies to them. I don’t feel comfortable with not replying at all as then it is possible that someone will think I am ignoring them. I am in fact pondering them mostly to try to grasp the perspectives that you are coming from.
Some of this might be due to the fact I am on the other side of the earth and when it is Monday for me you are still in Sunday, awake or asleep. Time travel ; ) I am always in your future…
So please… I’m going to post this now and then try to reply in more depth to something later but I desire to pick up the original thread, in the meantime.
Rosie when you said ….
[Rosie] Note that the current separation between Augustinians and Marxists is totally irrelevant , we are back now to a discussion of consciousness
[Roland] I had a little smile to myself prompted by the thought; I think you might be being a little optimistic. I recognise that Philip is well entrenched in his conception of reality and like all of us I don’t think it will be easy for him to adjust to a new perspective.
[Roland to Philip] You can most certainly overcome my proposals if you can come up with a scientifically rational answer as to how we actually perceive our non-illusory reality. Basically it is what they call the Qualia problem, which I am sure you would be aware of.
That problem is, where is the colour red when it is traveling from the perceived object so that it can be objectively observed in our consciousness? In space it is wavelengths or photonic energy; when it hits our retinal cells then it stimulates an electrical charge; which in turn stimulates molecules to float across synapses; millions of synapses seem to generate in our consciousness the experience of red. The problem is that this red has never been shown to exist in the space or the chain of events between the object and the experience of it in our consciousness.
So what does this mean? What can it mean? The only solution I have found is that the red is generated by our consciousness and then placed into what we call space, which it also generates, where it can be experienced. If we extend this proposal we have to recognise that what we call the physical universe that we experience is not out there as a physical object like we think it is. The only place it can be is in our consciousness. So, when I say physical reality is an illusion this is what I mean. It has to be an illusion because it cannot be what we think it is.
I am not saying that studying and understanding how the illusion works has no value, it does. The problem is that it can lead to all sorts of errors in our perception if we believe it is real and solid; made of material stuff that has somehow generated our consciousness. Really I wish to move on from this point to explore what happens if we try to understand things from the perspective that it all originates from our consciousness. If this is the case then we might have a chance of understanding what consciousness is.
A reply which states :
[Philip] Aseity is a quality of something that ontologically exists,...
[Roland] Is no real answer; Ontology is a philosophical system of thought that as far as I can see has solved nothing because its adherents are still debating things. I don’t have time at my age or possibly the brain power to learn the intricacies of their arguments. The difficulty with this is that although they do not solve the issue they seem to be right in recognising as you do that aseity…
[Philip] …which solves the problem of infinite regress.
Roland] On that point it does and I have to agree with you, which makes it difficult to explain the perceptual fault you like most of humanity have fallen into.
More to come regards Roland.
P.S. take care in the heat Rosie wet towels applied round the neck can cool you down. Draping wet sheets across windows is another trick, especially if there is a bit of a breeze but a bit laborious to achieve. 40 degrees is fairly common in summer here. Sometimes we are approaching 45 degrees lately and that is intolerable. At the moment it is 13 degrees here and down to 5 at night. We are going for one of the coldest winters, almost the opposite to the northen hemisphere. I am having trouble heating the house mainly because south Australian houses are not built for the cold. Central heating is almost unheard of rather like air conditioning in the UK. You also need to be aware that the longer it continues the more your home will heat up. So the first day might seem tolerable inside but after three four days the house heats up and then you probably want to be outside in the shade, with plenty of water and wet towels. I have been known to soak my shirt and cloth hat in water when working in the garden on such days, which is getting difficult for me now. These evaporation technigues don't work so well if the humidity is high. if you have a two story house then at night if it is hot inside try opening the windows upstairs and a few down stairs hot air rises and it can sometimes create a bit of a breeze through the house.
So take care of yourself, it will cool down eventually we hope. Oh and where are all the climate change naysayers now. Busy keeping cool I imagine. ; )
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/7a59520e.1e7fe.18212465b2c.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Rosemary Rock-Evans
We are currently in my office, which is slightly below the level of what lawn we have left with the curtains closed [they are thick to keep out winter cold and draughts, but as they are good insulators, they keep out the sun too]. But I think your idea of the wet sheet over the door is a great one as the evaporation may help to draw a bit of cool air through.
Thank you again for your kindness.
I don't know what to suggest for the cold - but we, no doubt - have this to come - and most measures we have already taken took a long time to put in place [although bed socks are quickly knitted]
best wishes
rosie
------ Original Message ------
From: "Roland Cichowski" <rola...@gmail.com>
To: general...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/7a59520e.1e7fe.18212465b2c.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">general_theory+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/4fb716f6-2465-ea60-6006-30eb8b30e03f%40gmail.com.
Roland Cichowski
[Philip Benajmin]That will be a repetition. It was settled:
[Roland] sorry Philip but it is not a repetition and it is not settled if I think from the rest of your reply that you have missed something and I do.
[Philip Benajmin] “To be or not to be” cannot be true at the same in the same frame of reference.
[Roland] cannot be true at the same in the same frame of reference. It is difficult to tell but I suspect you are not seeing the implications of aseity here. This may be because you have separated the components in your perception so that you can deal with them. We are all able to do this because our consciousness has separated itself from the condition of aseity. This is what consciousness does. So, what we must do is use our imagination to enter into the state of entity in an attempt to be aware of what it is. Then we can consider the implications. Remember the condition of aseity is sufficient unto itself. This means there is no you to be outside of it to observe it you are within it, anyway. What is interesting is that if this is the case then consciousness is displaying this function/quality of aseity. What is important to keep in mind about the condition of aseity is that there is nothing outside of it and yet it is infinite because it is all there is. Likewise there is no room for time to expand within aseity itself. Aseity is a condition that exists because it is feeding on itself as a means of existing. Time for it is the single moment in which it absorbs itself. So when you observe:
[Philip Benajmin] No existence, no consciousness. Simply going in circles!!
[Roland] of course you are correct. It is simply gorging upon itself and that makes it grow more of itself which it can continue to eat. You are correct when you say this is simply going in circles. But it only applies to the condition of aseity itself. Aseity is going in circles
[Philip Benajmin] There is no antecedent consciousness floating around before existence.
[Roland] Of course; agreed how could there be? That would be the beginning of a regressive sequence to which there is no end. Put more simply this is the age old problem of; where did humanity come from? God made us. To which the next question is well where did God come from? If you answer, that some higher god made them then this simply leads to the question well who made the higher god, and so on for an eternity because there is no answer to it. If you wish to see a visual interpretation if this go to Wikipedia type in Mandelbrot Set and look at the recursive nature of the diagrams. It is essentially the same thing displayed visually via mathematics. I think I have found an answer for what we are doing when we experience this condition but that might be going a stretch to far at the moment. First we need to stick with the issue of what is the true nature of aseity.
[Philip Benajmin] How can an impersonal consciousness create personal beings?
[Roland] well that one had me stumped for a long time also. Until I realised that although aseity did not need a first cause this did not prevent it starting or being the cause of an ensuing chain of events. Since this process leads to us and we have personality then whatever the true nature of aseity is then it must hold at least the potential for personality. Until I realised this I saw aseity as a source in a very abstract sense. However if aseity holds within it the potential for personality then it could be argued that it too has a personality. If you wish to see it in this way you have a route for arguing for an aseitous god that has for want of a better word a persona.
[Philip Benajmin] Science, nor scientists did not and could not originate in or by an amorphous world of consciousness.
[Roland] Umm! I think this is where you show you may not really have understood me. If aseity represents some sort of condition or state of reality that is self-sufficient unto itself while at the same time it is the beginning of causality a condition from, which everything proceeds then it may well be a prime candidate for consciousness. As consciousness is in turn the only means by which all the amazing attributes of the physical world can be experienced, albeit as an illusion then this would have to mean that science scientists and everything else originates in consciousness. As I think I said before if there is nothing else in existence other than an aseitous condition from which all casual events occur that appear to us as an illusion then this illusion might well be the only thing there is apart from the aseitous condition that is behind it all. So in some sense the illusion is real. But it is an illusion if you are unable to perceive its true nature. If you cannot perceive its true nature then your conscious awareness cannot be expected to make any progress in its development. Just because you are looking for the answers in the wrong place; that wrong place is the illusion of physicality. Once we can make this paradigm shift then we might be able to get on with exploring how consciousness actually operates and in this way get closer to understanding what it is.
[Philip Benajmin] The TAO world of the brilliant Niels Bohr did not create the Balmer series, Bohr used his intellectual capacities to explain it and got away with the Nobel Prize which itself was soley a product of an awakened Augustinian-- not an illusory—West.
[Roland] Sorry Philip I’ve lost you here. Who said the west is illusory? Within what you perceive to be reality then along with everything else it is illusory, it is not unique in that respect. But please hear what I have said above about if the illusion is the only thing then… there may be something else behind reality, the best candidate the only candidate I can perceive is consciousness but first we need to explore how aseity is connected to consciousness. I.e. do they share any qualities? It is a pity that you are so absorbed in all these east west Augustinian issues and tussles. It gives the impression that you are not interested in consciousness at all you are only interested in the combative outcomes of causality. I somehow think you are never going to find your salvation in that way. You are absorbed in the products of the process of causality and so divert yourself from the real question of the origins of it all. Perhaps you could explain why these things are so important to you.
All the best Roland
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB526415BAA1A2A88CC68F8FC8A88C9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.
Roland Cichowski
[Rosie] This was really well said Roland [and I am not being condescending]. Please may I add something for people to ponder. It is not an answer, but a question.
[Roland] hi Rosie, thank you and of course ask away anything you like I am sure it will be interesting. I think if you read my reply to Philip it does in some ways answer your question, maybe.
[Rosie]If we hypothetically assume all communication outside the 5 senses is achieved via our Higher spirit and the Higher spirit is immortal and out of time, the question can then be asked
[Roland] I am not sure in what way you are speaking about higher spirits. This is because I can’t understand what you mean by outside of the 5 senses. I have to ask how you think we are achieving this communication via our higher spirits. Via our thoughts or perhaps it is via our intuition. You seem to suggest this higher spirit is immortal and out of time that suggests to me that you must be referring to what I am calling aseity. It is beyond time and space infinite and eternal but it is one of the things I need to work out. First, is trying to understand what it is in this aseitous state that turns it into the first cause? Why isn’t it just eternally eating its own tail as symbolised by the Ouroboros? The principle symbolised by the Ouroboros has to be the cause of everything somehow. Any ideas welcome?
[Rosie]"is
'God' separate from the innumerable Higher
spirits/consciousnesses there
are
Thus One made many"
or
"Is
God the sum total of
every Higher spirit a vast truly vast
collection of
consciousnesses that act as one?"
[Roland] all these issue although fascinating are maybe outside of the question of aseity I feel. They are, apart from the highest spirit, in the realm of causes that issue from it. I don’t feel able to comment much on them at present partly because you are using symbols I have not defined with you, sorry. I can say though that you appear to be describing how the Hindus depict things. Many god manifestations, all are higher beings or forces compared to us and it is Brahman that is the supreme force that rules over them all. So I would equate Brahman with aseity but I am no expert on the details of Hinduism perhaps we need to find a Hindu priest to comment.
[Rosie] Note that the current separation between Augustinians and Marxists is totally irrelevant , we are back now to a discussion of consciousness
[Roland] you wish ; ))
Stay cool literally : )
Roland
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/70fd74eb.1c326.1820ba7c1b3.Webtop.83%40btinternet.com.
Philip Benjamin
[Roland Cichowski]
“We are all able to do this because our consciousness has separated itself from the condition of aseity. This is what consciousness does. So, what we must do is use our imagination to enter into the state of entity in an attempt to be aware of what it is.”
[Philip Benjamin]
There is an instant response of generalization evoked by this and many other posts, which I may post later. “Our consciousness” is as much a REALITY as “our”. There is no need to imagine anything here!! “Our” existence is always necessarily antecedent to “our” consciousness. No existence, no consciousness. There is absolutely no question of “separation” from aseity here. The buck has to stop somewhere, otherwise infinite regress is the only alternative. That is illogical, unsound and unsettling.
[Philip Benjamin]
From: general...@googlegroups.com <general...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Roland Cichowski
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 7:37 AM
To: general...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FW: [Consciousness-Online] RE: The Supreme Court and the Electoral College
[Philip Benajmin]That will be a repetition. It was settled:
[Roland] sorry Philip but it is not a repetition and it is not settled if I think from the rest of your reply that you have missed something and I do.
[Philip Benajmin] “To be or not to be” cannot be true at the same in the same frame of reference.
[Roland] cannot be true at the same in the same frame of reference. It is difficult to tell but I suspect you are not seeing the implications of aseity here. This may be because you have separated the components in your perception so that you can deal with them. We are all able to do this because our consciousness has separated itself from the condition of aseity. This is what consciousness does. So, what we must do is use our imagination to enter into the state of entity in an attempt to be aware of what it is. Then we can consider the implications. Remember the condition of aseity is sufficient unto itself. This means there is no you to be outside of it to observe it you are within it, anyway. What is interesting is that if this is the case then consciousness is displaying this function/quality of aseity. What is important to keep in mind about the condition of aseity is that there is nothing outside of it and yet it is infinite because it is all there is. Likewise there is no room for time to expand within aseity itself. Aseity is a condition that exists because it is feeding on itself as a means of existing. Time for it is the single moment in which it absorbs itself. So when you observe:
[Philip Benajmin] No existence, no consciousness. Simply going in circles!!
.
--
Roland Cichowski
Hi Philip and others,
Apologies I appear to have made a typo or maybe it is the predictive nature of the processor, I’m not entirely sure.
The offending sentence is:
So, what we must do is use our imagination
to enter into the state of entity in an attempt to be aware of
what it is.
Corrected it should read: (have emboldened and underlined the corrected word.)
So, what we must do is use our imagination to enter into the state of aseity in an attempt to be aware of what it is.
I’m not sure if this will make a difference to your response so I won’t comment on it until you have had a chance to reply. If it has not made a difference to your response can you let me know?
Thanks Roland
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Consciousness-Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to general_theor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/general_theory/SJ0PR14MB52645C70A3C84994F7BAD76DA88F9%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.