The possibilities of Kairos
Alrah
Kairos is a way of viewing time in a qualitative sense rather than a
quantifyable one. This means that rather than see time as a simple
measurement of passing action, we can observe how paying full
attention to all passing action makes the passage of the time seem
slow and eventually unimportant. But Kairos was also the Greek God of
opportunity, identified in the Hellenistic period with Horus the
Child, and to be open to opportunity is to be open to possibility and
catch the forlock of this God before he swiftly passes by.
So Kairos has a dual symbolism. Kairos means to be open and attentive
to all action and possibility but also to pay attention to quality of
moment as it passes.
Damn. I used the word 'Quality'. lol.
Anyway, cultivating the awareness of Kairos through meditation or
ritual practise would seem to be the deciding factor on the whole 'how
do you do your true will?' business.
Tehiru
The symbolism presented by you can be extended or reinterpreted to not
so much say that the passage of time is insignificant, but that there
is none. To wit, denoting that timeless moment of awareness. It would
make a more than passable Word.
Alrah
*nods*
What do you think of this triad?
Will
Kairos
Love.
Tehiru
Does Will have anything to do with it? I might suggest intentionality,
that spontaneous movement toward an object of desire as a more
suitable word.
Love may be understood as a desire for union while Kairos may be
understood as awareness.
Alrah
It is both desires and begets itself then what object of desire can
not be this?
> Love may be understood as a desire for union while Kairos may be
> understood as awareness.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alrah
If it both desires and begets itself then what object of desire can
not be this?
If it both loves itself and creates love then what object of love can
not be this?
Don't ask me. I don't know.
Tehiru
Desire still implies incompleteness. Leaving out flowery references to
Nuit, if you are taking this from the perspective of self-creating we
could go another way.
If Hochmah is primordial Awareness and Kether is considered
Intentionality (Will) we are looking for Binah which is the hidden
mother of the other sephiroth, the mother of the descent into matter
and the generatrix of differences. Love might work, but it doesn't
seem quite right. I am tending to favor Manifestation.
That leaves us with Manifestation(Love?), Awareness(Kairos) and Will
Alrah
Do you fancy discussing the tarot card 'Lust'?
> Leaving out flowery references to
> Nuit, if you are taking this from the perspective of self-creating we
> could go another way.
>
> If Hochmah is primordial Awareness and Kether is considered
> Intentionality (Will)
What makes you think that primordial awareness and will are seperate
spheres of action? At a primordial level of awareness then you don't
understand a thing unless you are that thing in action.
> we are looking for Binah which is the hidden
> mother of the other sephiroth, the mother of the descent into matter
> and the generatrix of differences.
You could make Binah the father and Chokmah the mother. It swings
either way.
> Love might work, but it doesn't
> seem quite right. I am tending to favor Manifestation.
How about manifestation as a product of Will, Kairos and Love? :-)
Tom
>
> Kairos is a way of viewing time in a qualitative sense rather than a
> quantifyable one. This means that rather than see time as a simple
> measurement of passing action, we can observe how paying full
> attention to all passing action makes the passage of the time seem
> slow and eventually unimportant.
Seems kind of silly. I can see how much trouble it would be if one
regarded depth as unimportant. What sorts of trouble would you get
yourself into if you regarded time less important than any other
dimension?
Alrah
Lol.
lololololol
Thats a very logical objection.
It's not like you are looking at time and thinking - that's
unimportant now so I'm going to ignore it. That would be silly. This
is more of a left brain/right brain thing.
Alrah
> Seems kind of silly. I can see how much trouble it would be if one
> regarded depth as unimportant. What sorts of trouble would you get
> yourself into if you regarded time less important than any other
> dimension?
Perhaps this will help. It's a Horizon programme. A journalist is
sent out to measure a piece of string.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p1fpc/Horizon_20092010_How_Long_is_a_Piece_of_String/
Miguel Alberto
now, and judging the living and the dead at the Last Judgement.
Also, In the Book of John, Judas hung himself soon after his
betrayal of Christ; while, in Acts, Judas falls down the hill on the
land, called Aceldama, he bought with the betrayal money, bursts open,
and dies from that accident, after he had attended the Pentecost,
sideways in time, across timelines, in the sixth dimensional direction.
Dr. Albert Einstein defined the fourth dimension to be time. The
probability timelines revealed by Dr. Hugh Everett, have been finally
called the sixth dimension.
What happened to the fifth dimension? Dr. Lisa Randall, professor
of quantum physics in Harvard University defined the direction into bent
timespaces to be the fifth dimension.
By the entropy production rate analogue of thermodynamics we may
easily access globally bent timespaces in a fifth dimensional direction
to more easily choose any timeline by inductive resonance.
Dr. Max Tegmark, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
showed that every possibility exists somewhere, sometime, on its own
timeline, such that, most scenes and events in fictional movies actually
exist for real on their own timelines.
Tehiru
> Do you fancy discussing the tarot card 'Lust'?
Unfortunately I am not qualified. I am not a big fan of Tarot,
preferring other divinatory methods.
> > If Hochmah is primordial Awareness and Kether is considered
> > Intentionality (Will)
> What makes you think that primordial awareness and will are seperate
> spheres of action? At a primordial level of awareness then you don't
> understand a thing unless you are that thing in action.
Awareness is not action, it is not necessarily even comprehension.
Awareness is the perfect mirror that reflects the world around it but
makes no distinction between seer and seen.
> > we are looking for Binah which is the hidden
> > mother of the other sephiroth, the mother of the descent into matter
> > and the generatrix of differences.
>
> You could make Binah the father and Chokmah the mother. It swings
> either way.
It all depends on the symbol set. An argument could go either way.
> > Love might work, but it doesn't
> > seem quite right. I am tending to favor Manifestation.
>
> How about manifestation as a product of Will, Kairos and Love? :-)
I have no problem with that. In this case you are looking at a Daath
position and different paths though. Something like this
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/photo.php?pid=81341&id=100000213181244
which would be an entirely new turn of discussion!
I've enjoyed this thought and would like to consider it a bit more
Alrah. But by all means I would like to continue it further when I
have finished some work...
Tehiru
> Seems kind of silly. I can see how much trouble it would be if one
> regarded depth as unimportant. What sorts of trouble would you get
> yourself into if you regarded time less important than any other
> dimension?
That wasn't the point, but does underscore an American issue.
Americans are more concerned in my experience with time than other
flavors of human. We carry a bevy of timekeeping devices, schedulers
and so forth in order to manage time and while I lived in Europe they
simply don't care to nearly the same extent as Americans do. How often
do you gun the engine to avoid being late to work? Stress over how to
pack in the most amount of activities into a vacation? We all do.
I'm an engineer, and one of our sayings is "it costs what it costs".
To do something right certain resources have to be expended, and
cheaping out only shortchanges the final product. All she's saying is
that the duration of time an event takes to manifest or experience is
secondary to the experience itself.
bassos
"Tom" <dant...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ad1d107-a9c4-4413...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 10:04 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What is Kairos?
>
> Kairos is a way of viewing time in a qualitative sense rather than a
> quantifyable one. This means that rather than see time as a simple
> measurement of passing action, we can observe how paying full
> attention to all passing action makes the passage of the time seem
> slow and eventually unimportant.
***
Seems kind of silly. I can see how much trouble it would be if one
regarded depth as unimportant. What sorts of trouble would you get
yourself into if you regarded time less important than any other
dimension?
***
I am actually rather fond of depth.
Like time it depends on viewpoint.
Btw, i thought kairos was akin to joining with experience.
Same thing as love.
What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
31+370 ?
Alrah
> On Nov 18, 4:49 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > If Hochmah is primordial Awareness and Kether is considered
> > > Intentionality (Will)
> > What makes you think that primordial awareness and will are seperate
> > spheres of action? At a primordial level of awareness then you don't
> > understand a thing unless you are that thing in action.
>
> Awareness is not action, it is not necessarily even comprehension.
> Awareness is the perfect mirror that reflects the world around it but
> makes no distinction between seer and seen.
If it makes no distinction between seer and seen, then reflection
(which is an action) does not happen.
Lol - It's the Huineng poem isn't it?
Shen Hsiu said:
The body is the wisdom-tree,
The mind is a bright mirror in a stand;
Take care to wipe it all the time,
And allow no dust to cling.
and Huineng replied:
Fundamentally no wisdom-tree exists,
Nor the stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is empty from the beginning,
Where can the dust alight?
> > How about manifestation as a product of Will, Kairos and Love? :-)
>
> I have no problem with that. In this case you are looking at a Daath
> position and different paths though. Something like thishttp://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/photo.php?pid=81341&id=10000021318...
> which would be an entirely new turn of discussion!
>
> I've enjoyed this thought and would like to consider it a bit more
> Alrah. But by all means I would like to continue it further when I
> have finished some work...
Ok. Catch ya later. :-)
Tom
"Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK
only"
You'll have to come up with your own explanation.
Tom
> On Nov 18, 4:49 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you fancy discussing the tarot card 'Lust'?
>
> Unfortunately I am not qualified.
Oh my. That *is* unfortunate.
Alrah
> "Tom" <danto...@comcast.net> wrote in message
You know - I haven't gotten around to looking at that yet. If you
feel like giving it a bash, then feel free. :-)
Tom
> On Nov 18, 8:00 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Seems kind of silly. I can see how much trouble it would be if one
> > regarded depth as unimportant. What sorts of trouble would you get
> > yourself into if you regarded time less important than any other
> > dimension?
>
> That wasn't the point, but does underscore an American issue.
> Americans are more concerned in my experience with time than other
> flavors of human. We carry a bevy of timekeeping devices, schedulers
> and so forth in order to manage time and while I lived in Europe they
> simply don't care to nearly the same extent as Americans do.
And still complain that the trains don't run on time.
Americans are not obsessed with time. Americans are obsessed with
synchrony.
> How often
> do you gun the engine to avoid being late to work?
Never. I am of independent means.
I understand what you're talking about, though. Synchrony leads to
predictability. Predictability allows control. In a fast-moving
environment, one must attend to synchrony to keep one's balance.
> Stress over how to
> pack in the most amount of activities into a vacation?
That's an obsession with timing. Synchrony again.
> I'm an engineer,
Speaking of trains...
> All she's saying is
> that the duration of time an event takes to manifest or experience is
> secondary to the experience itself.
Attending to time (or timing) is an experience itself.
Alrah
> On Nov 19, 8:47 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Attending to time (or timing) is an experience itself.
Being open to the passing of the ice cream man (slurp) is better! ;D
Alrah
Well Ok. Whenever you try to measure something more accurately the
thing you're trying to measure get's longer in exact proportion to the
level of detail you're seeking to measure. There's no limit to the
level of detail you can measure. So arbitary awareness of time such
as this is just convenience. Any O'clock and any attempt to measure
anything definitively and quantatively cannot suceed.
That's reality. Kronos time is an illusion, it's belief in it is
delusion, and a conventional truth only. Kairos time is what's there
when you strip away that delusion. It doesn't make that delusion
suddenly dissapear from the minds of others, so as a truth of
convenience - I'll set an alarm etc. I wouldn't be a slave to it or
want to be attached to Kronos time however.
Tehiru
> If it makes no distinction between seer and seen, then reflection
> (which is an action) does not happen.
Reflection isn't an action, unless you are talking about thought. A
mirror isn't acting by reflecting the local environment.
Tehiru
> > Unfortunately I am not qualified.
>
> Oh my. That *is* unfortunate.
Did this have a point Tom? Of course not.
Tehiru
No, Tom. Synchrony is something different. According to Collins
English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003,
synchrony is the state of being synchronous, or simultaneous.
However, if you have an issue with the notion that Americans by and
large are more concerned with time, perhaps you would be more amenable
to the notion that Americans are by and large more concerned with
schedules and scheduling.
Tom
>
> Well Ok. Whenever you try to measure something more accurately the
> thing you're trying to measure get's longer in exact proportion to the
> level of detail you're seeking to measure.
That is patent nonsense. Suppose I use a ruler that is accurate to 1
millimeter per foot. Then I get another ruler that is accurate to .5
millimeter per foot. That would be twice as accurate, then. So
you're saying that whatever I measure will get twice as long between
measurements with one ruler and then the other?
I think that would be an excellent male enhancement product.
Tom
I spent several minutes debating with myself how I should tease you
about your admission that you're not qualified to talk about Lust. I
decided to go for something subtle, instead of blatant. But you don't
do subtle very well, as I should have anticipated.
Tom
It's exactly the correct word in this instance.
> According to Collins
> English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003,
> synchrony is the state of being synchronous, or simultaneous.
When you're hurrying to be at work at the same time as everyone else,
you're attempting to achieve synchrony.
Patrick Schaaf
Another approximate truth... In reality any mirror gets a bit hot and
wound up by the impulse of the light reflected, producing some amount
of hot air in the aftermath. How fitting...
all the best
Patrick
Tehiru
> Another approximate truth... In reality any mirror gets a bit hot and
> wound up by the impulse of the light reflected, producing some amount
> of hot air in the aftermath. How fitting...
Only an imperfect mirror. How fitting...
Tehiru
And when you are planning on vacations it is scheduling. Going to work
is about being on time, not necessarily with everyone else.
Alrah
> On Nov 19, 3:05 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well Ok. Whenever you try to measure something more accurately the
> > thing you're trying to measure get's longer in exact proportion to the
> > level of detail you're seeking to measure.
>
> That is patent nonsense.
No it's not. That's what that guy who was trying to measure a piece
of string was told by a plethora of phd's in maths and physics.
It *sounds* a bit mental, but it's correct.
> Suppose I use a ruler that is accurate to 1
> millimeter per foot. Then I get another ruler that is accurate to .5
> millimeter per foot. That would be twice as accurate, then. So
> you're saying that whatever I measure will get twice as long between
> measurements with one ruler and then the other?
No. I'm saying that if you take your ruler and measure a piece of
string and the ruler says the string is 32 cms, then if you start
measuring the length of the piece of string with a lazer that accounts
for all the wavy undulations of string then it will say that the
string is longer. And the more accurate you try to be, taking it
right down to the Atomic level, the measurement will show your string
is longer than the previous less accurate measurements says it is.
Until eventually your string becomes infinite.
> I think that would be an excellent male enhancement product.
Lol. All men can now boast they are infinately large, as proven by
science. :-)
Alrah
> Lol. All men can now boast they are infinately large, as proven by
> science. :-)
*the deflation*
Did you know - if you took away all the space in the quantum world,
then all human beings would collectively end up the size of a sugar
cube?
Odysseus
<b5631221-5fd6-41dc...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Nov, 03:02, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Suppose I use a ruler that is accurate to 1
> > millimeter per foot. �Then I get another ruler that is accurate to .5
> > millimeter per foot. �That would be twice as accurate, then. �So
> > you're saying that whatever I measure will get twice as long between
> > measurements with one ruler and then the other?
>
> No. I'm saying that if you take your ruler and measure a piece of
> string and the ruler says the string is 32 cms, then if you start
> measuring the length of the piece of string with a lazer that accounts
> for all the wavy undulations of string then it will say that the
> string is longer. And the more accurate you try to be, taking it
> right down to the Atomic level, the measurement will show your string
> is longer than the previous less accurate measurements says it is.
> Until eventually your string becomes infinite.
Only if the "string" is a self-similar fractal whose length has a
Hausdorff dimension greater than 1. Benoit Mandelbrot's famous paper
"How Long is the Coast of Britain?" introduced this idea over forty
years ago. But in the real world self-similarity doesn't pertain at all
scales, and a idealized fractal like the Koch snowflake is as much an
abstraction as a perfect circle or a purely one-dimensional line.
For a somewhat mangled, but still readable, PDF of the paper see
<http://tinyurl.com/coastofbritain>
--
Odysseus
Alrah
> In article
> <b5631221-5fd6-41dc-9d9e-dbf0f637d...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Well - in the real world, life would not exist without utilising every
possible quantum energy state, and you would not be able to smell
without your nose utilising quantum tunneling. So if you attempt to
find out how long any piece of string is, you aren't coming up with a
mathematical abstraction, but the quantum reality of the very very
very very small. And it's at the quantum level that measurement
really fails - as you can have particals in two different places, or
all different places at the same time. So you can never find an 'end'
to measure from or two. It's undiscoverable because nothing has any
boundaries, and also because at that level, the more you try to
measure something the more energy you give it until you eventually
would end up with a black hole.
Thanks for Mandelbrot's paper btw. :-) I'll give that a good read
tonight.
Alrah
Correcting the mess:
> Well - in the real world, life would not exist without utilising every
> possible quantum energy state, and you would not be able to smell
> without your nose utilising quantum tunneling. So if you attempt to
> find out how long any piece of string is, you aren't coming up against a
> mathematical abstraction, but the quantum reality of the very very
> very very small. And it's at the quantum level that measurement
> really fails - as you can have particals in two different places, or
> all different places at the same time. So you can never find an 'end'
> to measure from or to. It's undiscoverable because nothing has any
> boundaries, and also because at that level, the more you try to
> measure something the more energy you give it until you eventually
> would end up with a black hole.
I wonder if someone will quote the BOTL soon... ?
*sits on hands*
Miguel Alberto
coordinate system turned where the "origin" is Kether. Chokmah is on the
X axis, which represents opposite polarities separated, and Binah is on
the Y axis which represents opposite polarities united and cancelled
out.
From the origin, ray out colors, red by the X axis, then orange,
yellow, lime down the middle, green, blue, and violet next to the Y
axis.
Chesed is in the yellow ray. Geburah is in the green ray.
Tippereth is in the lime ray. Netzach is in the red ray. Hod is in the
violet ray. Yesod is lower in the lime ray, And, Malcuth is even lower
in the lime ray.
As you go lower and lower on this graph you get slower and slower
polarity cancellation rates, more and more "bound astral light".
Daath is at the light speed equivalency, the boarder where, going
toward Kether, along this fifth dimension, matter is transduced into
probability.
Neither time, nor all the probability timelines thereof, are
represented on this graph.
Miguel Alberto
correspondences, as for example, Geburah, which is usually thought of as
red, being in the green ray.
This is the complementarity found in the Chinese Pa Qua. "When you
are green, the world looks red." This was pointed out to me by Jay
Johnson in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alchemy61/ where you may read
the ultimate revelations in the posts of "lahunken" from Post #1, on.
Jay has been a loyal member of Alchemy61 for years, and he is now
having trouble with his WebTV/Yahoo compatibility.
You will agree that this material is really being suppressed when
you read it shamelessly unveiled by Leo Bouzan in Alchemy61. You may
even want such material suppressed yourself. Now, you'll know what I'm
talking about.
Alrah
> What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
> 31+370 ?
Kairos. Looks like Kairos comes from the root word Khaos = 871 with
IR added to the middle (meaning 'to go' and also 'not' according to my
dictionary) = 110. 981 has a weird word (oaxoon?) meaning 'the
axis' (apparently).
Alrah
*noodles a bit more*
The Greek for Axis is Axon = 61 + 120.
*enough* lol!
Robert Scott Martin
Etymology. This is important. Ontology recapitulates etymology at least as
well as gematria recapitulates ontology.
In article <e5f3390f-f842-46a6...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kairos. Looks like Kairos comes from the root word Khaos = 871 with
>IR added to the middle (meaning 'to go' and also 'not' according to my
>dictionary) = 110.
We usually write "Xaos" (=331) around here if it helps.
> 981 has a weird word (oaxoon?) meaning 'the axis' (apparently).
Surely not our old friend AXXON N?
--
As a Lacanian, big fan of tuche (=1308) here. Not only is it one of the
great ZZ Top songs but it rhymes with stego, "to cover, shelter, vault" --
the mother of steganography if only incidentally a roofer's concern. The
encounter and its mask, the mystery of Being that simultaneously discloses
and conceals. Raise high those lucky roofbeams!
Robert Scott Martin
Miguel Alberto <gell...@webtv.net> wrote:
> If you haven't already noticed, some may object to such
>correspondences, as for example, Geburah, which is usually thought of as
>red, being in the green ray.
> This is the complementarity found in the Chinese Pa Qua. "When you
>are green, the world looks red."
Heck, gold (Tiphareth) in its transparency turns sea-green, which fits
your reflection/transmission approach.
I like the cartesian model but enjoy the freedom a third dimension
provides: http://cfrussell.homestead.com/files/cubed3.htm. The cube can be
*rolled*!
Tom
The point is too trivial to spend any more time trying to educate you
on it.
Tom
> On 20 Nov, 03:02, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 19, 3:05 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well Ok. Whenever you try to measure something more accurately the
> > > thing you're trying to measure get's longer in exact proportion to the
> > > level of detail you're seeking to measure.
>
> > That is patent nonsense.
>
> No it's not. That's what that guy who was trying to measure a piece
> of string was told by a plethora of phd's in maths and physics.
I bet they weren't saying what you have just written, because what you
wrote was patent nonsense.
> > Suppose I use a ruler that is accurate to 1
> > millimeter per foot. Then I get another ruler that is accurate to .5
> > millimeter per foot. That would be twice as accurate, then. So
> > you're saying that whatever I measure will get twice as long between
> > measurements with one ruler and then the other?
>
> No. I'm saying that if you take your ruler and measure a piece of
> string and the ruler says the string is 32 cms, then if you start
> measuring the length of the piece of string with a lazer that accounts
> for all the wavy undulations of string then it will say that the
> string is longer.
Because then you're measuring something different from what you
started out to measure. Now you're not measuring the string any
more. You're measuring the fibers that make up the string. Neither
the string nor the fibers are any longer than they ever were.
Tom
> The ultimate Sephirothic Tree of Life is defined on a Cartesian
> coordinate system turned where the "origin" is Kether. Chokmah is on the
> X axis, which represents opposite polarities separated, and Binah is on
> the Y axis which represents opposite polarities united and cancelled
> out.
That's one way to define it, but clearly not the only way.
> From the origin, ray out colors, red by the X axis, then orange,
> yellow, lime down the middle, green, blue, and violet next to the Y
> axis.
> Chesed is in the yellow ray. Geburah is in the green ray.
> Tippereth is in the lime ray. Netzach is in the red ray. Hod is in the
> violet ray. Yesod is lower in the lime ray, And, Malcuth is even lower
> in the lime ray.
Funny how your color attributions are all different from the colors
traditionally assigned to each sephiroth. It sounds very much like
you're making this stuff up. Are your ray colors selected
arbitrarily?
Tom
> If you haven't already noticed, some may object to such
> correspondences, as for example, Geburah, which is usually thought of as
> red, being in the green ray.
> This is the complementarity found in the Chinese Pa Qua. "When you
> are green, the world looks red."
And when you're a bipolar manic-depressive, the world looks bizarre.
bassos
"Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5f3390f-f842-46a6...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
110 :
http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?Gem_Number=110&SearchByNum=Go
I notice move and therefore have the same value :)
Lots of fun comparing greek and hebrew bible gematria findings.
for instance, 31+370 comes from greek, but could it simply be directly used
in any other number based system ?
bassos
"Robert Scott Martin" <gl...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:he6ch5$dbv$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
>
> Etymology. This is important. Ontology recapitulates etymology at least as
> well as gematria recapitulates ontology.
And so the wheel turns.
Or would ontology be different from attributed meaning ?
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Alrah wrote:
> On 20 Nov, 10:52, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Correcting the mess:
>
>
>>Well - in the real world, life would not exist without utilising every
>>possible quantum energy state, and you would not be able to smell
>>without your nose utilising quantum tunneling. ÔøΩSo if you attempt to
>>find out how long any piece of string is, you aren't coming up against a
>>mathematical abstraction, but the quantum reality of the very very
>>very very small. ÔøΩAnd it's at the quantum level that measurement
>>really fails - as you can have particals in two different places, or
>>all different places at the same time. ÔøΩSo you can never find an 'end'
>>to measure from or to. ÔøΩIt's undiscoverable because nothing has any
>>boundaries, and also because at that level, the more you try to
>>measure something the more energy you give it until you eventually
>>would end up with a black hole.
>
>
> I wonder if someone will quote the BOTL soon... ?
>
> *sits on hands*
"Book Of The Law?"
*raising hand*
...."there is no difference between any one thing and any other"
..."every number is infinite and there is no difference."
Actually i had a witty comment about my absolute lack of anything even
resembling mathematical knowledge, then i remembered the above:)
Not sure about the first quote, words to that effect?
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Robert Scott Martin wrote:
>>>What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
>>
>
> Etymology. This is important. Ontology recapitulates etymology at least as
> well as gematria recapitulates ontology.
...and we all know how painful that can be:) i have a tendency to mix
up ontology with oncology and am left with little more than an onus
probandi
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tom wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:31ÔøΩpm, Alrah wrote:
>
>>On 20 Nov, 03:02, Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Nov 19, 3:05ÔøΩpm, Alrah wrote:
>>
>>>>Well Ok. ÔøΩWhenever you try to measure something more accurately the
>>>>thing you're trying to measure get's longer in exact proportion to the
>>>>level of detail you're seeking to measure.
>>>
>>>That is patent nonsense. ÔøΩ
>>
>>No it's not. ÔøΩThat's what that guy who was trying to measure a piece
>>of string was told by a plethora of phd's in maths and physics.
>
>
> I bet they weren't saying what you have just written, because what you
> wrote was patent nonsense.
>
>
>>>Suppose I use a ruler that is accurate to 1
>>>millimeter per foot. ÔøΩThen I get another ruler that is accurate to .5
>>>millimeter per foot. ÔøΩThat would be twice as accurate, then. ÔøΩSo
>>>you're saying that whatever I measure will get twice as long between
>>>measurements with one ruler and then the other?
>>
>>No. ÔøΩI'm saying that if you take your ruler and measure a piece of
>>string and the ruler says the string is 32 cms, then if you start
>>measuring the length of the piece of string with a lazer that accounts
>>for all the wavy undulations of string then it will say that the
>>string is longer.
>
>
> Because then you're measuring something different from what you
> started out to measure. Now you're not measuring the string any
> more. You're measuring the fibers that make up the string. Neither
> the string nor the fibers are any longer than they ever were.
Except from any one arbitrary measurement of time to the next it is not
the same length. A different measurement will be produced each time.
Due to various environmental factors & the nature of the 'string'
material, it expands and contracts, and probly on at a quantum level
just as much as at any more macrocosmic level.
If i am not mistaken this is so with all matter. It only appears stable
and "solid" but is constantly changing and in a state of flux, albeit in
this case a microcosmic flux. Still, if your instruments of measurement
were precise enough you would never get the same 2 measurements, with
anything, diamond or string, though i suspect the variations in diamond
would be smaller and take longer to happen, than those of string, at
least macrocosmiclly.
But even the sun will eventually go out, die and there will be no earth
or fullness therein to measure:)
*cue Mr. Data*
"The primary vehicle for function communication is operating within
established parameters Captain."
or better yet
Director to stage manager: "Sondhiem! .... send in the clowns"
Tehiru
> The point is too trivial to spend any more time trying to educate you
> on it.
And the fact you were incorrect can be glossed over as well.
Robert Scott Martin
bassos <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>Or would ontology be different from attributed meaning ?
At the risk of khabsing the khu, I think that's one of the big questions.
Some say "yes" and envision content (ontology or the noos) outside the
web of attributions (phenomena). Some take the attributions at face
value; others just ride, or see no meaning anywhere.>
THE KHABS IS IN THE KHU
As Piglet looked sorrowfully round, Eeyore picked the balloon up with his
teeth, and placed it carefully in the pot; picked it out and put it on
the ground; and then picked it up again and put it carefully back.
"So it does!" said Pooh. "It goes in!"
"So it does!" said Piglet. "And it comes out!"
"Doesn't it?" said Eeyore. "It goes in and out like anything."
"I'm very glad," said Pooh happily, "that I thought of giving you a Useful
Pot to put things in."
"I'm very glad," said Piglet happily, "that thought of giving you
something to put in a Useful Pot."
NOT THE KHU IN THE KHABS
This good little boy, however, had an occasional disturbing habit of
taking any small objects he could get hold of and throwing them away from
him into a corner, under the bed and so on, so that hunting for his toys
and picking them up was often quite a business. [...] I eventually
realized that it was a game and that the only use he made of any of his
toys was to play "fort" [gone] with them. One day I made an observation
which confirmed my view. The child had a wooden reel with a piece of
string tied around it. It never occurred to him to pull it along the floor
behind him, for instance, and play at its being a carriage. What he did
was to hold the reel by the string and very skillfully throw it over the
edge of his crib so that it disappeared, at the same time uttering his
expressive "o-o-o-o." He then pulled the reel again by the string and
hailed its reappearance with a joyful "da" [here]. This, then, was the
complete game: disappearance and return. As a rule one only witnessed its
first act....
Robert Scott Martin
In article <4B06D293...@isp.com>,
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
>...and we all know how painful that can be:) i have a tendency to mix
>up ontology with oncology and am left with little more than an onus
>probandi
Pain is almost always its own onus probandi -- "a crucible of sorts." The
shrill chirp of the alarm clock, the wake-up call.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Force, strength is the ultimate defense of itself. Force, violence,
brutality, Dieu et Mon Droit. They way to do is to be the way to be is
to do. There is no grace there is no guilt .....
Pain on the other hand...the species is little more than a cancerous
tumor eating away at the life of its host planet:)
Robert Scott Martin
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq. <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
>Force, strength is the ultimate defense of itself. Force, violence,
>brutality, Dieu et Mon Droit. They way to do is to be the way to be is
>to do. There is no grace there is no guilt .....
[Success] is the proof.
>Pain on the other hand...the species is little more than a cancerous
>tumor eating away at the life of its host planet:)
Chagrin d'amour, le commencement des douleurs -- cris de coeur. Love may
be fire, but all fire is not necessarily "love" in the quotidien way of
things.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
And if we speak of Law the etymology is different than Legis.
Though more understandable to me, Law [ME law, lagh, OE lagu <Scand:
cf. Icel lag layer, pl. log law, lit., that which is laid down; akin to
LAY, LIE]
Lex Talonis:)
Alrah
> >> What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
>
> Etymology. This is important. Ontology recapitulates etymology at least as
> well as gematria recapitulates ontology.
>
>
> Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Kairos. Looks like Kairos comes from the root word Khaos = 871 with
> >IR added to the middle (meaning 'to go' and also 'not' according to my
> >dictionary) = 110.
>
> We usually write "Xaos" (=331) around here if it helps.
Following that theme:
Xairos = 441
61 + 380. Nuit & Hadit + vesper
> > 981 has a weird word (oaxoon?) meaning 'the axis' (apparently).
>
> Surely not our old friend AXXON N?
Errr. David Lynch?
Alrah
> On Nov 19, 11:31 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 20 Nov, 03:02, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 3:05 pm, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well Ok. Whenever you try to measure something more accurately the
> > > > thing you're trying to measure get's longer in exact proportion to the
> > > > level of detail you're seeking to measure.
>
> > > That is patent nonsense.
>
> > No it's not. That's what that guy who was trying to measure a piece
> > of string was told by a plethora of phd's in maths and physics.
>
> I bet they weren't saying what you have just written, because what you
> wrote was patent nonsense.
Shit. I was a might concerned about plagurizing them because that's
exactly what they said!
> > > Suppose I use a ruler that is accurate to 1
> > > millimeter per foot. Then I get another ruler that is accurate to .5
> > > millimeter per foot. That would be twice as accurate, then. So
> > > you're saying that whatever I measure will get twice as long between
> > > measurements with one ruler and then the other?
>
> > No. I'm saying that if you take your ruler and measure a piece of
> > string and the ruler says the string is 32 cms, then if you start
> > measuring the length of the piece of string with a lazer that accounts
> > for all the wavy undulations of string then it will say that the
> > string is longer.
>
> Because then you're measuring something different from what you
> started out to measure. Now you're not measuring the string any
> more. You're measuring the fibers that make up the string. Neither
> the string nor the fibers are any longer than they ever were.
And what is the fundemental difference between the fibers and the
string? If you cannot show that there is any fundemental difference
in the reality of the string and the fibre then you are measuring the
same thing. I have a bit of water in my glass, and there is water in
the sea, but neither ceases to be H2O.
Robert Scott Martin
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>61 + 380. Nuit & Hadit + vesper
This takes us somewhere new and interesting.
>
>> Surely not our old friend AXXON N?
>
>Errr. David Lynch?
A little boy went out to play. When he opened his door, he saw the world.
As he passed through the doorway, he caused a reflection. Evil was born.
Evil was born and followed the boy. An old tale, and a variation:
A little girl went out to play. Lost in the marketplace, as if half-born.
Then, not through the marketplace -- you see that, don't you? -- but
through the alley behind the marketplace. This is the way to the palace.
But it isn't something you remember.
Alrah
> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e5f3390f-f842-46a6...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 19 Nov, 16:50, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
> >> 31+370 ?
>
> > Kairos. Looks like Kairos comes from the root word Khaos = 871 with
> > IR added to the middle (meaning 'to go' and also 'not' according to my
> > dictionary) = 110. 981 has a weird word (oaxoon?) meaning 'the
> > axis' (apparently).
>
>
> I notice move and therefore have the same value :)
>
> Lots of fun comparing greek and hebrew bible gematria findings.
>
> for instance, 31+370 comes from greek, but could it simply be directly used
> in any other number based system ?
I've thought about that a lot myself. I've seen the arguments for and
against and neither persuaded me.
I suppose you have conservative and liberal camps develop along the
same lines.
Most of all - gematria is just something I play with. Too many rules
= no fun. :-)
Robert Scott Martin
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[surface area of a solid is theoretically infinite when calculated as the
sum of infinitesmals; leibnitz rejoices, guenon mourns]]
>And what is the fundemental difference between the fibers and the
>string?
Measure the fibers and the string is infinite. Measure the string and the
fibers are a myth.
>I have a bit of water in my glass, and there is water in
>the sea, but neither ceases to be H2O.
Some of what's in the glass and in the sea was never H2O to begin with,
and sometimes these hidden traces rise to the surface of experience, often
as salts. But that, like the fibers, is neither here nor there until you
start shaking the glass....
Alrah
wrote:
> Alrah wrote:
> > On 20 Nov, 10:52, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Correcting the mess:
>
> >>Well - in the real world, life would not exist without utilising every
> >>possible quantum energy state, and you would not be able to smell
> >>find out how long any piece of string is, you aren't coming up against a
> >>mathematical abstraction, but the quantum reality of the very very
> >>really fails - as you can have particals in two different places, or
> >>to measure from or to. It's undiscoverable because nothing has any
> >>boundaries, and also because at that level, the more you try to
> >>measure something the more energy you give it until you eventually
> >>would end up with a black hole.
>
> > I wonder if someone will quote the BOTL soon... ?
>
> > *sits on hands*
>
> "Book Of The Law?"
>
> *raising hand*
>
> ...."there is no difference between any one thing and any other"
> ..."every number is infinite and there is no difference."
>
> Actually i had a witty comment about my absolute lack of anything even
> resembling mathematical knowledge, then i remembered the above:)
It could be worse. My mind has a horrible habit of trying to process
equations as if they were written language instead of math or logical
variables. This means that an 'x' will have a different (feeling/
colour) about it to an 'a'. When I was programming for a while I kept
getting attached to certain variables.
> Not sure about the first quote, words to that effect?
22. Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a
secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me. Since I
am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus.
Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any
one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt.
4. Every number is infinite; there is no difference.
Alrah
wrote:
> And if we speak of Law the etymology is different than Legis.
> Though more understandable to me, Law [ME law, lagh, OE lagu <Scand:
> cf. Icel lag layer, pl. log law, lit., that which is laid down; akin to
> LAY, LIE]
LOR? (Gr)
Odysseus
<e5f3390f-f842-46a6...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Nov, 16:50, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
> > 31+370 ?
>
> Kairos. Looks like Kairos comes from the root word Khaos = 871
That's a very odd association to make. Reverse-transcribing "kairos" to
Greek according to the usual conventions yields kappa (not chi!) - alpha
- iota - rho - omicron (or omega) - sigma. The reading with omicron,
which -- as Bassos indicated -- makes 401 (or 207), turns out to have
two dictionary entries: with an acute accent on the omicron it has to do
with due proportion, timeliness, criticality, or advantage; with a
circumflex on the diphthong it's a "_row of thrums_ in the loom, to
which the threads of the warp are attached, _ravel_" (LSJ).
> with IR added to the middle (meaning 'to go' and also 'not' according
> to my dictionary) = 110.
Greek word-formation doesn't work that way.
> 981 has a weird word (oaxoon?) meaning 'the axis' (apparently).
That's two words, _ho axon_, omicron - (space) - alpha - xi - omega -
nu; in a mechanical context "the axle". It shares ancestry with both
English words, and "axon" the neural fibre is a direct (re)borrowing.
Without the article, the word's isopsephy is 911.
--
Odysseus
Odysseus
<b9e6bf66-837d-450e...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The Greek for Axis is Axon = 61 + 120.
No, 61 + 850, if you want to put it that way: it's the big O = 800, not
the little one = 70 (see my other posting). In Beta code the word would
be transcribed "ACWN".
--
Odysseus
Odysseus
<5713279e-6112-4e6e...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Alrah <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> It could be worse. My mind has a horrible habit of trying to process
> equations as if they were written language instead of math or logical
> variables. This means that an 'x' will have a different (feeling/
> colour) about it to an 'a'. When I was programming for a while I kept
> getting attached to certain variables.
All you have to do is think of that *before* you name them: turn the
associations to mnemonic advantage.
--
Odysseus
Tom
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
> > Because then you're measuring something different from what you
> > started out to measure. Now you're not measuring the string any
> > more. You're measuring the fibers that make up the string. Neither
> > the string nor the fibers are any longer than they ever were.
>
> Except from any one arbitrary measurement of time to the next it is not
> the same length. A different measurement will be produced each time.
Well, we're not talking about measuring time, Joe. We're talking
about a measurement of the length of a string.
> Due to various environmental factors & the nature of the 'string'
> material, it expands and contracts, and probly on at a quantum level
> just as much as at any more macrocosmic level.
Obviously if you don't control for any variables at all, your
experiment is going to yield inconsistent results. However, the point
of doing careful experiments is to control for confounding variables
so that you're testing what you really intend to test. So you don't
perform your measurements while letting environmental conditions
change wildly, unless you're stupid.
Tom
Since it's not a "fact" at all, yes.
Alrah
> In article
> <e5f3390f-f842-46a6-9d4c-ca967e258...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On 19 Nov, 16:50, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > What does the greek etymology of the word suggest it means ?
> > > 31+370 ?
>
> > Kairos. Looks like Kairos comes from the root word Khaos = 871
>
> That's a very odd association to make.
Confession: I never learnt the rules properly.
> Reverse-transcribing "kairos" to
> Greek according to the usual conventions yields kappa (not chi!) - alpha
> - iota - rho - omicron (or omega) - sigma. The reading with omicron,
> which -- as Bassos indicated -- makes 401 (or 207), turns out to have
> two dictionary entries: with an acute accent on the omicron it has to do
> with due proportion, timeliness, criticality, or advantage; with a
> circumflex on the diphthong it's a "_row of thrums_ in the loom, to
> which the threads of the warp are attached, _ravel_" (LSJ).
Doing weaving is a wonderful metaphor for Kairos. :-)
> > with IR added to the middle (meaning 'to go' and also 'not' according
> > to my dictionary) = 110.
>
> Greek word-formation doesn't work that way.
I suspected it didn't. :-)
> > 981 has a weird word (oaxoon?) meaning 'the axis' (apparently).
>
> That's two words, _ho axon_, omicron - (space) - alpha - xi - omega -
> nu; in a mechanical context "the axle". It shares ancestry with both
> English words, and "axon" the neural fibre is a direct (re)borrowing.
> Without the article, the word's isopsephy is 911.
Thank you. :-)
What I'm really interested in, Odysseus, is learning whether the word
Kairos has any gemetria associations with either Thelema or Agape?
Since you seem to have the requisite level of scholarship to tackle
the matter (and I don't) would you mind if I prevailed upon you to
look into it? I would sincerelly appreciate it.
> Odysseus
Alrah
>
> Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > It could be worse. My mind has a horrible habit of trying to process
> > equations as if they were written language instead of math or logical
> > variables. This means that an 'x' will have a different (feeling/
> > colour) about it to an 'a'. When I was programming for a while I kept
> > getting attached to certain variables.
>
> All you have to do is think of that *before* you name them: turn the
> associations to mnemonic advantage.
I don't have a problem with memorising them. It's trying to train my
brain to work properly with them...
I'll try and explain:
I first noticed this clash that would happen in my brain back in
school. I'd look at an equation and I'd see letters amongst the
numbers, and my brain simply rebelled and refused to process the
letters. These letter's did not belong in a math sum according to my
brain - but there they were! Eventually I could do them, but very
slowly and with considerable confusion. I had to go back over the
steps several times and tick off what came next to keep track of where
I was in the sum. I love math but this neurological quirk seemed to
limit my access to the truely sublime stuff.
Programming was much easier. Each variable had a job to do, so could
be 'seen' in the structure of the program.
Now what happens when I look at an equation is that I have to go over
each variable and find out what it's job is and what it stands for so
that I can work it out. Variables have to be pictured. If I don't
know what a particular variable stands for in an equation then I can't
'see' it or work it out. It's simply a letter than doesn't belong in
a maths puzzle. Unfortunately, most maths and physics people assume
that you already know what the letter's in thier equations mean, which
often makes the more complex stuff incomprehensible and offends the
way my brain works.
Playing with gematria has helped a little bit. :-)
>
> --
> Odysseus
Alrah
> On Nov 20, 9:52 am, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <jpsti...@isp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom wrote:
>
> > > Because then you're measuring something different from what you
> > > started out to measure. Now you're not measuring the string any
> > > more. You're measuring the fibers that make up the string. Neither
> > > the string nor the fibers are any longer than they ever were.
>
> > Except from any one arbitrary measurement of time to the next it is not
> > the same length. A different measurement will be produced each time.
>
> Well, we're not talking about measuring time, Joe. We're talking
> about a measurement of the length of a string.
It's the same process Tom! Exactly the same process.
A clock gives a measurement based upon clockwork, or quartz - how many
standardised actions have passed, like a ruler has standardised gaps.
But if you want a truely definative measurement of time then you're
outa luck because quantum particles thumb thier quantum noses up at
time and space.
> > Due to various environmental factors & the nature of the 'string'
> > material, it expands and contracts, and probly on at a quantum level
> > just as much as at any more macrocosmic level.
>
> Obviously if you don't control for any variables at all, your
> experiment is going to yield inconsistent results. However, the point
> of doing careful experiments is to control for confounding variables
> so that you're testing what you really intend to test. So you don't
> perform your measurements while letting environmental conditions
> change wildly, unless you're stupid.
Nobody is saying that you can't come up with measurement at a level of
accuracy that is convenient for 99.9% of applications, just that these
are not definative.
Having a good understanding why these are not definative is a definate
plus when you're dumping conventional thinking and booting up to do
some serious meditation.
Alrah
> Obviously if you don't control for any variables at all, your
> experiment is going to yield inconsistent results. However, the point
> of doing careful experiments is to control for confounding variables
> so that you're testing what you really intend to test. So you don't
> perform your measurements while letting environmental conditions
> change wildly, unless you're stupid.
I thought Joe made a very good point.
Miguel Alberto
Gheorghe Rakoczy, later know as St. Germain. I was with the American
Institute of Archaeology when Gheorghe's (pronounced Gor ka's) private
writings were translated.
Gheorghe was a contemporary of De Chartes and uses the Cartesian
coordinate system to graph this universal map of the fifth dimension.
By the way, much later, the distance from the X axis to the Y axis
was called the seventh dimension in this graph, the sixth dimension
already having been defined to be sideways in time across the
probability timelines.
The direction in and out from the origin is the fifth dimension as
defined in modern times by Dr. Lisa Randall. The entropy of the universe
at any one time being defined as being the proportion of nucleons to
photons, polarity cancellation rate is identical with entropy production
rate.
Gheorghe Rakoczy primarily derived his knowledge from books he
stored in his castle that were written on skin that was preserved by
copper acetate. These books were carbon dated to be about 10,000 years
old.
These books were written in precuniform Sumerian hieroglyphics.
After the Sumerians immigrated to the Near East about 7000 years ago,
then, they modernized their writing into the familiar cuniform.
Alrah
Ok - but what has this to do with measuring a piece of string, or
Kairos as quality of time?
Try and keep on point if you can please Miguel. This is a group
discussion and although everyones views are welcome, and anyone can
post, if you want to effectively participate then you have to keep it
at least peripherally relevent some of the time before you wander off
topic. Give it a go:
Do you think you can definatively measure a piece of string? If so -
why? If not - why?
Miguel Alberto
not only had Einstein's relativity, and Dr. Hugh Everett's probability
timelines, which is Kairos Time; he had string theory, and beyond.
Alrah
> The Old Ones taught Mankind to use Kairos Time.
Cite a reference please.
> Gheorghe Rakoczy
> not only had Einstein's relativity, and Dr. Hugh Everett's probability
> timelines, which is Kairos Time; he had string theory, and beyond.
So - you're saying this Rakoczy knew a lot of theory. Ok.
What are Everetts probability timelines? Who was Everett? And in
what way does Dr. Hugh Everetts probability timelines parallel the
concept of Kairos time?
That sounds interesting.
Tehiru
You know better than that Alrah. You forget that Tom deals only in
absolutes, and consequently will only provide detail on how something
cannot be absolutely true. Time cannot be measured absolutely because
it fluctuates with nearby masses and other factors, and even our best
atomic clocks are governed by atomic decay which is also subject to
variations in measurement as well as changes to the rate of decay
itself.
However, I would be interested to know what Tom thinks about the
situation where he can assume as a base condition that time is being
measured accurately.
Tehiru
> Gheorghe was a contemporary of De Chartes and uses the Cartesian
> coordinate system to graph this universal map of the fifth dimension.
That is an interesting assertion. I have been working with the
Tesseract Magick system originally put forth by Ebony Anpu for some
time and had developed a board model superficially resembling a
smaller checkerboard as a reference plot for the vertices of a
tesseract. As a connectitivity matrix it allows me to "see" as I move
from face to face, cube to cube in the tesseract. I have also
developed a hexeract connectivity matrix but it includes 625 vertices
(a 25x25 grid).
As a 4-d object, a tesseract cannot be accurately displayed in 3-d and
two-dimensional is even worse. At best you can show a net, a flawed
"slice" in our level of reality.
I would be VERY intersted in seeing this universal map of the fifth
dimension.
Tehiru
> Do you think you can definatively measure a piece of string? If so -
> why? If not - why?
Nope. All measurements are relative in that they have to
be compared to something else like a standard inch, a standard mile or
so forth. I must agree with Tom's implied point that since measurement
as a process of relative comparison cannot be absolute (he was
discussing time) you can only approximate measuring a string.
Unless you are suggesting a noumenal reality for dimension?
However, I was curious as to why you asked this question?
Miguel Alberto
old books, the information of which was given to mankind by the Old
Ones, as was accused in the Book of Enoch. This knowledge included the
exploitation of Kairos Time.
Every time travel story of modern times has presented time as a
single line, such that, you can mess up the future by going into the
past. My associates and I complained about this lie, and if
there is any departure from this suppression today perhaps you can thank
us for it.
It's like the blueberry candy, but, that doesn't concern Kairos
Time, except it is remotely related to a method of exploiting Kairos
Time.
To conform to the official suppression of Kairos Time the official
establishment of quantum physics at the Max Planck Institute dictated
that the future is just probability until the quantum probability
equation collapses as a single reality on the single timeline.
The quantum physicist, Dr. Hugh Everett, saw that the Schrodinger
equation necessitated a probability timeline for each and every way
everything could happen, for every probability.
This manifestation of probabilities doesn't branch off one
timeline, rather, there is a separate background for every probability,
and, we can cross them and go to any one we tune into, and this it the
use of Kairos Time.
"If you have the faith of a mustard seed and say to this mountain
move it shall be moved." You go to the timeline where the mountain is
elsewhere.
There is a timeline where you win the lottery. If you can hold
this firmly in your mind, without doubt, you will go there and collect
your lottery winnings. That's why Kairos Time means opportunity time.
Just like with the law of the lever, or a see saw, if over fifty
percent of your mind believes something, it will happen. It has drawn
you to the probability timeline where it happens.
That's why, if you wake up over fifty percent of your brain, every
thought manifests as reality. LSD awakens your brain by blocking your
inhibitory neurons. Muscarine, and physical muscarinic nervous system
stimulation, wake up the brain by overriding those inhibitory neurons.
Innocent, people who know that they deserve Heaven, and obey the
New Testament command to capture every thought in the service of Christ,
when they die, go to have the Heaven they expect.
But, we know, that when we get in so far, that every thought will
manifest. Spend a day trying not to think, for example, of a purple cow.
The Greek word for profanation means inappropriate exposure, like in
profanation of the sacred mysteries. Is this the unforgivable
profanation of the Holy Spirit? Is it contagious?
Alrah
*slams door*
I do not care for bullshit tests of a persons character than cannot be
proven. What use are they?
*rages*
What use is any of this?
"You know better than that Alrah. You forget that Tom deals only in
absolutes, and consequently will only provide detail on how something
cannot be absolutely true."
I know that Tom is good at TESTING.
He's already conceeded in the other thread that nothing can be
definatively measured.
That doesn't sound like a man mired in absolutes to me. It sounds
like a Virgo playing a drum of pragmatism. He hops along to the beat
regardless of whether it's ultimately infinate. And in that respect
he differs from you and me on this question... not one iota.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Miguel Alberto wrote:.
> The Greek word for profanation means inappropriate exposure, like in
> profanation of the sacred mysteries. Is this the unforgivable
> profanation of the Holy Spirit? Is it contagious?
>
Originally the Greek word for Prostitution meant to 'display for sale.'
Can the sacred be profaned?
It can certainly be prostituted.
Obviously that which any particular human or group of humans hold to be
of special importance "sacred" can be abused or possibly even destroyed.
The destruction of the second temple in Israel for example. Henry VII,
Albeginsians (sp?) the Protestant reformation, votes for women:)
The "Holy Spirit" or "Great Spirit" however, is considered by many
people to be incapable of profanation or any other form of human induced
diminution.
As to its contagiousnous? if it is everywhere a part of everything how
can it spread? an awareness of it might grow, like a contagion, but the
thing itself?
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Alrah
Please see 'How long is a piece of string?' for your answer.
Tom
Then you're stupid, too.
Tom
>
> > On Nov 20, 9:52 am, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <jpsti...@isp.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Tom wrote:
>
> > > > Because then you're measuring something different from what you
> > > > started out to measure. Now you're not measuring the string any
> > > > more. You're measuring the fibers that make up the string. Neither
> > > > the string nor the fibers are any longer than they ever were.
>
> > > Except from any one arbitrary measurement of time to the next it is not
> > > the same length. A different measurement will be produced each time.
>
> > Well, we're not talking about measuring time, Joe. We're talking
> > about a measurement of the length of a string.
>
> It's the same process Tom! Exactly the same process.
Measuring length is not the same process as measuring time. You have
your head even farther up your ass than usual on this subject.
> > Obviously if you don't control for any variables at all, your
> > experiment is going to yield inconsistent results. However, the point
> > of doing careful experiments is to control for confounding variables
> > so that you're testing what you really intend to test. So you don't
> > perform your measurements while letting environmental conditions
> > change wildly, unless you're stupid.
>
> Nobody is saying that you can't come up with measurement at a level of
> accuracy that is convenient for 99.9% of applications, just that these
> are not definative.
Joe is.
And what is "definitive" is based on whatever you use as a definition.
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom - I'm just not in the mood for your bitching tonight.
Tehiru
> Gheorghe Rakoczy derived his information from those 10,000 year
> old books, the information of which was given to mankind by the Old
> Ones, as was accused in the Book of Enoch. This knowledge included the
> exploitation of Kairos Time.
Really? Where are those 10,000 year old books? I am sure they are on
display. They would have to be stone plates, fired clay or gold to
last that long though. Where can I view these plates?
Tehiru
> "You know better than that Alrah. You forget that Tom deals only in
> absolutes, and consequently will only provide detail on how something
> cannot be absolutely true."
>
> I know that Tom is good at TESTING.
>
> He's already conceeded in the other thread that nothing can be
> definatively measured.
>
> That doesn't sound like a man mired in absolutes to me. It sounds
> like a Virgo playing a drum of pragmatism. He hops along to the beat
> regardless of whether it's ultimately infinate. And in that respect
> he differs from you and me on this question... not one iota.
Yes he is good at testing. Yes, he does agree. So what is your problem?
Tom
Then shut the fuck up until you are.
Tom
>
> You know better than that Alrah. You forget that Tom deals only in
> absolutes, and consequently will only provide detail on how something
> cannot be absolutely true.
Why do you bother trying to make shit like this up? No one who reads
my posts with anything like comprehension would buy that crap at all.
The only people who would argee with you are those who agree with any
insult directed at me whether it has any merit at all.
> However, I would be interested to know what Tom thinks about the
> situation where he can assume as a base condition that time is being
> measured accurately.
Accurate measurment is simply a matter of consistency across multiple
independent trials. One doesn't "assume" it. One infers it from
empirical evidence.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that measurements can never
be completely accurate. The measuring tool itself interferes when we
get down to the atomic level and smaller. So there is always a limit
to how accurate our measurements can be. Accuracy itself is a
relative thing, not an absolute. That doesn't mean, however, that we
cannot be at all accurate. We simply cannot be perfectly accurate.
What Alrah is trying to say is that because we cannot measure with
perfect accuracy, no measurement is at all accurate, which is
nonsense.
Tom
This is simply another version of the hypnotic confusion technique.
Confusion leaves one open to any and all suggestions that will relieve
the state of confusion and provide some illusion of control. Quite a
few occult exercises are attempts to overwhelm the rational mind by
confusing it into paralysis. Then the subject of that confusion is
open to all sorts of silly suggestions. Cults routinely use this
technique to indoctrinate their recruits.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tom wrote:
>
> Then shut the fuck up until you are.
Now that's stupid.
Miguel Alberto
bacteria, mold, fungus, or yeast can live in copper acetate.
Is someone going to tell me that there was no copper acetate
10,000 years ago?
Before the "bronze age" copper was used; and, by simply soaking
copper in vinegar, or sweat for that matter, you get a solution that is
antiseptic, and poisonous if taken internally.
These books were kept by the Ceaucescu government, and these books
presented information that the superstitious Western establishment
wanted suppressed, so, they disappeared during the little revolution
that overthrew the Ceaucescu regime.
Alrah
You were being patronizing. That briefly pissed me off. I apologise
for flying off the handle.
Alrah
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
> > Then shut the fuck up until you are.
>
> Now that's stupid.
He'll have to practise much harder if he wants to make a career out of
it.
Alrah
> However, I was curious as to why you asked this question?
One reason I specifically asked Miguel this was an attempt to involve
him in the discussion and see what he thought.
Tehiru
> > You know better than that Alrah. You forget that Tom deals only in
> > absolutes, and consequently will only provide detail on how something
> > cannot be absolutely true.
>
> Why do you bother trying to make shit like this up? No one who reads
> my posts with anything like comprehension would buy that crap at all.
> The only people who would argee with you are those who agree with any
> insult directed at me whether it has any merit at all.
It wasn't an insult, you twit; it was merely an observation, and a
true one at that as only a cursory examination of your posts will
review. You pride yourself on showing on what conditions something
will not or cannot be true. If you have your panties in a knot about
the observation, you can work that out for yourself.
Tehiru
> This is simply another version of the hypnotic confusion technique.
> Confusion leaves one open to any and all suggestions that will relieve
> the state of confusion and provide some illusion of control. Quite a
> few occult exercises are attempts to overwhelm the rational mind by
> confusing it into paralysis. Then the subject of that confusion is
> open to all sorts of silly suggestions. Cults routinely use this
> technique to indoctrinate their recruits.
I am sorry if you are not comfortable with higher mathematics Tom. Are
the Enochian tablets also simply another version of the hypnotic
confusion technique? If you don't know what you are talking about,
keep your mouth shut to avoid looking foolish. Tom - I'm just not in
the mood for your blustering tonight.