| Users Online Now: 1,696 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 448,047 | |
| Pageviews Today: 697,304 | Threads Today: 320 | Posts Today: 4,287 |
| 07:32 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,696 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 448,047 | |
| Pageviews Today: 697,304 | Threads Today: 320 | Posts Today: 4,287 |
| 07:32 AM | ||
X Marks the Spot | |
| acuk User ID: 29537977  United Kingdom12/10/2012 05:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Seer777 Ride the wings of the mind  User ID: 3018467  United States12/10/2012 05:23 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Sorry was my turn to do the school run seeing as no work today, funny that your day off never really is once you obtain some kids, is this the one seerstar Quoting: acuk 29537977 Yeah...that's the one. I could only remember the image so as not enough to pull it up. What a year huh? I have 555 karma points...  I love this song just because.  "Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body." ~Seneca |
| acuk User ID: 29537977 United Kingdom12/10/2012 05:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Seer777 Ride the wings of the mind User ID: 3018467 United States12/10/2012 05:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29541191 United States12/10/2012 06:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Empathy is not a programable variable to remoting. It is deliberately left out. Do let us know that code though if you figure it out. It would denote progress to human. Empathy is a physical affect/effect. You take your body with you, you materially change the target. Emote, not Remote, requires not something added, but something taken away. Empathy is seeing self in other and situation. Transposition. It speaks more of your choices than any words. Much like the fundaments of altruism. In my personal vocabulary, I would call such parallel resonance sympathy ----> you are your thinking self feeling and recognizing a pattern. In empathy, you are the other with a physical directness that bypasses thought. |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 07:33 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Lovely aether. I am thinking perhaps the 'Tree' comes before the flower, due to the flower becoming the fruit which then returns to the seed. Seed(potential)--->Tree(Plant/Path/Growth)--->Flower(BlossomingMaturation)--->Fruit(successful completions of Circle of Life, plus...delicious fruit.) Haha...  :) good morning hehe "it" you and i sequence the same way while label language went astray the faith dept. ponders on that issue |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 07:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | toxoplasmosis sounds like bunk to me. What if you have two cats? How would the mind control work then? Would the 'dominant' cat have control all the time? What about when the dominant house cat was asleep, yet the frisky troublemaking slightly younger and lesser dominant cat was on the prowl. Would it suddenly have control over you? Quoting: Jonny Blaze The theory runs into problems when the situation gets complicated. If would have to work in a subtle way or else cat mind control would be acceptable to the 'main stream' of 'common knowledge'. I just don't believe it exists. Attention, awareness, focus. For a disciplined and aware individual, it is quite obvious who has the stronger force of awareness and willpower. (hint: it isn't the house cat).  I believe it has something to so with them being guardians of the Underworld. Nice to see you back. :) A telluric current (from Latin "earth"), or Earth current, is an electric current which moves underground or through the sea. Telluric currents result from both natural causes and human activity, and the discrete currents interact in a complex pattern. The currents are extremely low frequency and travel over large areas at or near the surface of Earth. Quoting: observation[link to en.wikipedia.org] |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 07:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation |  gotta love feedback X-Jets Dec 10, 2012 X-rays in space are an electrical phenomenon Quoting: observationAccording to a recent press release, the most distant X-ray jet ever observed is spewing from a supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the center of a quasar known as GB 1428+4217, extending for an estimated 230,000 light-years from the source. The consensus opinion among astrophysicists is that the SMBH pulls matter from the surrounding stellar neighborhood, where it is accelerated by an intense gravity field. The extreme velocity supposedly heats up particles as they approach the speed of light. It is that excitation that is said to create X-rays. Ironically, the Chandra X-ray Telescope science team suggested that “… radiation from electrons spiraling around magnetic field lines in the jet” could be a source for the X-rays. However they “favor” the idea that it is the cosmic background radiation that is somehow being “boosted”, causing the jet to be so energetic that it is visible over a distance greater than the diameter of multiple galactic superclusters....................... [link to www.thunderbolts.info] Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 07:43 AM |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 07:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | feedback continues in the faith dept. on the topic label language I believe Arp is correct, quasar-baby galaxies are ejected, just as I believe stars eject planets. Quoting: observationCould be true. However, Galaxies don't look a lot like stars ; quasars and satellite galaxies are not exactly terrestrial planets But sure, we could take a quick side talk on the idea of mega stellar ejecta. What would such an event look like? After all there are a few billion stars around we can look at, maybe we'll catch one in the act. The theory is in desperate need of one of two things: 1) Observation. Some observation of an ejection process of similar scale, from a star or gas giant anywhere. CMEs aren't quite enough. The story of Aphrodite springing from the head of Zeus is not quite enough. OR 2) Theory. A coherent and clear explanation of the forces involved explaining why this would occur. Separation of charges somehow maintained by plasma double layers, initiated by something..?? Often we look for both theory and observation. In this case I'm forced to conclude we have neither, as interesting and possible as the idea is. /end side talk Yet all the evidence we have excludes planets and stars forming from nebula. Diffuse gasses in space expand, never condense. Plasma on the other hand obeys electrical laws, not gravitational or gas behavior. We have not one shred of evidence supporting planets or stars forming from condensed clouds of dust. Know from laboratory experiments clouds of gasses and dust disperse seeking to equalize the pressure differential. Only when you add electricity do things condense in opposition to their natural tendency to disperse. Most stars are traveling outward from galactic center, not towards. Galactic jets are common, as is quasar filamentary connections to a parent galaxy. When you get a ball to form from a cloud of gas and dust, let me know, although I expect an eternal wait for the result. Quoting: observationAs for forming things from separate charges, no atom is known to exist except from electric interaction. Electricity can split an atom apart and also combine particles to make compound molecules. Apparently it is not a gravitational anomaly as no gravitational model exists for the atom. So you are telling me that like charges repel, unless they are traveling in the same direction and then they attract? What about your electricity 101 that says like charges always repel? If like charges always repel, then direction of movement has no bearing. Do not those charges have their own magnetic moment, the same force you want now to assign to attract instead of repel? Even with the strongest magnetic field in the world you cannot get two like charges to stay together for more than a few milliseconds, now you want an even weaker magnetic field to keep them together across the vastness of space as they travel. Seems electricity 101 needs to be re numbered. Electrical Basics 101 [link to electrical.about.com] Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 08:18 AM |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 08:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 101 i used to see that as irony Irony (from the Ancient Greek eirneía, meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance) is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is an incongruity between the literal and the implied meaning. Quoting: observationnow i do not it is simply how it is at this location (time linear) Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 08:36 AM |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 08:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Russellian science vs. EU Can someone explain the major differences between the two? I breezed through some Russellian Magnetic Electric stuff and saw it mention a creator. I garnered it is an intelligent design type theory, is this the case? What other differences are there between the two? Quoting: observationthat will be interesting |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29416318 United States12/10/2012 08:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Russellian science vs. EU Quoting: aether Can someone explain the major differences between the two? I breezed through some Russellian Magnetic Electric stuff and saw it mention a creator. I garnered it is an intelligent design type theory, is this the case? What other differences are there between the two? Quoting: observationthat will be interesting Creating heaven and earth would cause a big bang in my opinion. The two go together and sustained life. Its like the chicken and the egg. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24542515 United States12/10/2012 09:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | feedback continues in the faith dept. on the topic label language Quoting: aether I believe Arp is correct, quasar-baby galaxies are ejected, just as I believe stars eject planets. Quoting: observationCould be true. However, Galaxies don't look a lot like stars ; quasars and satellite galaxies are not exactly terrestrial planets But sure, we could take a quick side talk on the idea of mega stellar ejecta. What would such an event look like? After all there are a few billion stars around we can look at, maybe we'll catch one in the act. The theory is in desperate need of one of two things: 1) Observation. Some observation of an ejection process of similar scale, from a star or gas giant anywhere. CMEs aren't quite enough. The story of Aphrodite springing from the head of Zeus is not quite enough. OR 2) Theory. A coherent and clear explanation of the forces involved explaining why this would occur. Separation of charges somehow maintained by plasma double layers, initiated by something..?? Often we look for both theory and observation. In this case I'm forced to conclude we have neither, as interesting and possible as the idea is. /end side talk Yet all the evidence we have excludes planets and stars forming from nebula. Diffuse gasses in space expand, never condense. Plasma on the other hand obeys electrical laws, not gravitational or gas behavior. We have not one shred of evidence supporting planets or stars forming from condensed clouds of dust. Know from laboratory experiments clouds of gasses and dust disperse seeking to equalize the pressure differential. Only when you add electricity do things condense in opposition to their natural tendency to disperse. Most stars are traveling outward from galactic center, not towards. Galactic jets are common, as is quasar filamentary connections to a parent galaxy. When you get a ball to form from a cloud of gas and dust, let me know, although I expect an eternal wait for the result. Quoting: observationAs for forming things from separate charges, no atom is known to exist except from electric interaction. Electricity can split an atom apart and also combine particles to make compound molecules. Apparently it is not a gravitational anomaly as no gravitational model exists for the atom. So you are telling me that like charges repel, unless they are traveling in the same direction and then they attract? What about your electricity 101 that says like charges always repel? If like charges always repel, then direction of movement has no bearing. Do not those charges have their own magnetic moment, the same force you want now to assign to attract instead of repel? Even with the strongest magnetic field in the world you cannot get two like charges to stay together for more than a few milliseconds, now you want an even weaker magnetic field to keep them together across the vastness of space as they travel. Seems electricity 101 needs to be re numbered. Electrical Basics 101 [link to electrical.about.com] my very first introduction to EU theory came to me from GLP. It came in the form of a random post i encountered in the fall of 2011. it was written in a stream of consciousness and was very long. the thread was mostly ignored. but it fucking blew my mind and had me reeling with reconstructing basics in my mind for months... chnaged the way i look at the universe and our place in it. anywho, within the document was a hypothosis for star and planet formation that stuck with me: made sence to me. still does. his hypothesis was that the process goes: energy->star->matter->planet->moon. stars form at high intersteller energy density 'points', building mass as the energy 'incarnates' into hydrogen. (this is why we so many rogue brown dwarfs. Once these new stars aquaire enough 'mass', they migrate away from the energy node thru gavitaional forces (moving *away* from the galactic center-like our moon does from us) and aquire rogue planets to eventually form a new steller system. that gas giants are old suns, whose energy output drops too low to be a true source, and that small living planets are the end result of the 'cooling' process, each cooling stage increasing in complexity. moons are not aquired, but birthed from the cooling body. there is evidence that Jupiter's great spot is a nacent moon ready to be birthed from the condensing matter in Jupiter's atmosphere. this, of course, flies in the face of nebula theory. but i liked it instantly and while i don't understand his hypothosis, nor the underlying physics enough to really logically judge:it just felt right to me. his frame work also explained gravity, inertia, and wave particle duality, which was why i gave more credence to his planet formation theory. if his ideas are correct, then it would make earth the oldest planetary body in our system and the sun, the youngest. somehow that still feels 'right' to me. |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 09:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 09:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | listen to this guys language , he is using a lot of seers sequence words and visuals sapt the shapes he is making (video) look like your descriptions yesterday (to me) Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 09:44 AM |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 09:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 09:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | yes listen to him especial from 8 mins onward`s our kabbalah signs to 32 tradition tells but we know it advances as far all will go so it is waiting for us to know before sequence will visibly grow Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 09:53 AM |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 09:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 10:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24542515 United States12/10/2012 10:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | feedback continues in the faith dept. on the topic label language Quoting: aether I believe Arp is correct, quasar-baby galaxies are ejected, just as I believe stars eject planets. Quoting: observationCould be true. However, Galaxies don't look a lot like stars ; quasars and satellite galaxies are not exactly terrestrial planets But sure, we could take a quick side talk on the idea of mega stellar ejecta. What would such an event look like? After all there are a few billion stars around we can look at, maybe we'll catch one in the act. The theory is in desperate need of one of two things: 1) Observation. Some observation of an ejection process of similar scale, from a star or gas giant anywhere. CMEs aren't quite enough. The story of Aphrodite springing from the head of Zeus is not quite enough. OR 2) Theory. A coherent and clear explanation of the forces involved explaining why this would occur. Separation of charges somehow maintained by plasma double layers, initiated by something..?? Often we look for both theory and observation. In this case I'm forced to conclude we have neither, as interesting and possible as the idea is. /end side talk Yet all the evidence we have excludes planets and stars forming from nebula. Diffuse gasses in space expand, never condense. Plasma on the other hand obeys electrical laws, not gravitational or gas behavior. We have not one shred of evidence supporting planets or stars forming from condensed clouds of dust. Know from laboratory experiments clouds of gasses and dust disperse seeking to equalize the pressure differential. Only when you add electricity do things condense in opposition to their natural tendency to disperse. Most stars are traveling outward from galactic center, not towards. Galactic jets are common, as is quasar filamentary connections to a parent galaxy. When you get a ball to form from a cloud of gas and dust, let me know, although I expect an eternal wait for the result. Quoting: observationAs for forming things from separate charges, no atom is known to exist except from electric interaction. Electricity can split an atom apart and also combine particles to make compound molecules. Apparently it is not a gravitational anomaly as no gravitational model exists for the atom. So you are telling me that like charges repel, unless they are traveling in the same direction and then they attract? What about your electricity 101 that says like charges always repel? If like charges always repel, then direction of movement has no bearing. Do not those charges have their own magnetic moment, the same force you want now to assign to attract instead of repel? Even with the strongest magnetic field in the world you cannot get two like charges to stay together for more than a few milliseconds, now you want an even weaker magnetic field to keep them together across the vastness of space as they travel. Seems electricity 101 needs to be re numbered. Electrical Basics 101 [link to electrical.about.com] my very first introduction to EU theory came to me from GLP. It came in the form of a random post i encountered in the fall of 2011. it was written in a stream of consciousness and was very long. the thread was mostly ignored. but it fucking blew my mind and had me reeling with reconstructing basics in my mind for months... chnaged the way i look at the universe and our place in it. anywho, within the document was a hypothosis for star and planet formation that stuck with me: made sence to me. still does. his hypothesis was that the process goes: energy->star->matter->planet->moon. stars form at high intersteller energy density 'points', building mass as the energy 'incarnates' into hydrogen. (this is why we so many rogue brown dwarfs. Once these new stars aquaire enough 'mass', they migrate away from the energy node thru gavitaional forces (moving *away* from the galactic center-like our moon does from us) and aquire rogue planets to eventually form a new steller system. that gas giants are old suns, whose energy output drops too low to be a true source, and that small living planets are the end result of the 'cooling' process, each cooling stage increasing in complexity. moons are not aquired, but birthed from the cooling body. there is evidence that Jupiter's great spot is a nacent moon ready to be birthed from the condensing matter in Jupiter's atmosphere. this, of course, flies in the face of nebula theory. but i liked it instantly and while i don't understand his hypothosis, nor the underlying physics enough to really logically judge:it just felt right to me. his frame work also explained gravity, inertia, and wave particle duality, which was why i gave more credence to his planet formation theory. if his ideas are correct, then it would make earth the oldest planetary body in our system and the sun, the youngest. somehow that still feels 'right' to me. decreasing heat = cooling = increasing complexity = more complex life and thought/thinking entropy is fundamentally a 'cooling' process flux from hot to cold. so keeping the above in mind it would mean that entropy is the vector to life not "heat" death, that so many modern scientists hypothposize. and while wrtitng my mind keeps flashing to all the metaphysically metaphored imagery that so comonly utilises the red/blue blend... hot to cold .... hot AND cold flux between entropy vector of life. ultimate directionality. now if i can just get that into quanitatuive thermodynamics. *breath* |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 24542515 United States12/10/2012 10:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | feedback continues in the faith dept. on the topic label language Quoting: aether ... Quoting: NASA themisCould be true. However, Galaxies don't look a lot like stars ; quasars and satellite galaxies are not exactly terrestrial planets But sure, we could take a quick side talk on the idea of mega stellar ejecta. What would such an event look like? After all there are a few billion stars around we can look at, maybe we'll catch one in the act. The theory is in desperate need of one of two things: 1) Observation. Some observation of an ejection process of similar scale, from a star or gas giant anywhere. CMEs aren't quite enough. The story of Aphrodite springing from the head of Zeus is not quite enough. OR 2) Theory. A coherent and clear explanation of the forces involved explaining why this would occur. Separation of charges somehow maintained by plasma double layers, initiated by something..?? Often we look for both theory and observation. In this case I'm forced to conclude we have neither, as interesting and possible as the idea is. /end side talk Yet all the evidence we have excludes planets and stars forming from nebula. Diffuse gasses in space expand, never condense. Plasma on the other hand obeys electrical laws, not gravitational or gas behavior. We have not one shred of evidence supporting planets or stars forming from condensed clouds of dust. Know from laboratory experiments clouds of gasses and dust disperse seeking to equalize the pressure differential. Only when you add electricity do things condense in opposition to their natural tendency to disperse. Most stars are traveling outward from galactic center, not towards. Galactic jets are common, as is quasar filamentary connections to a parent galaxy. When you get a ball to form from a cloud of gas and dust, let me know, although I expect an eternal wait for the result. Quoting: observationAs for forming things from separate charges, no atom is known to exist except from electric interaction. Electricity can split an atom apart and also combine particles to make compound molecules. Apparently it is not a gravitational anomaly as no gravitational model exists for the atom. So you are telling me that like charges repel, unless they are traveling in the same direction and then they attract? What about your electricity 101 that says like charges always repel? If like charges always repel, then direction of movement has no bearing. Do not those charges have their own magnetic moment, the same force you want now to assign to attract instead of repel? Even with the strongest magnetic field in the world you cannot get two like charges to stay together for more than a few milliseconds, now you want an even weaker magnetic field to keep them together across the vastness of space as they travel. Seems electricity 101 needs to be re numbered. Electrical Basics 101 [link to electrical.about.com] my very first introduction to EU theory came to me from GLP. It came in the form of a random post i encountered in the fall of 2011. it was written in a stream of consciousness and was very long. the thread was mostly ignored. but it fucking blew my mind and had me reeling with reconstructing basics in my mind for months... chnaged the way i look at the universe and our place in it. anywho, within the document was a hypothosis for star and planet formation that stuck with me: made sence to me. still does. his hypothesis was that the process goes: energy->star->matter->planet->moon. stars form at high intersteller energy density 'points', building mass as the energy 'incarnates' into hydrogen. (this is why we so many rogue brown dwarfs. Once these new stars aquaire enough 'mass', they migrate away from the energy node thru gavitaional forces (moving *away* from the galactic center-like our moon does from us) and aquire rogue planets to eventually form a new steller system. that gas giants are old suns, whose energy output drops too low to be a true source, and that small living planets are the end result of the 'cooling' process, each cooling stage increasing in complexity. moons are not aquired, but birthed from the cooling body. there is evidence that Jupiter's great spot is a nacent moon ready to be birthed from the condensing matter in Jupiter's atmosphere. this, of course, flies in the face of nebula theory. but i liked it instantly and while i don't understand his hypothosis, nor the underlying physics enough to really logically judge:it just felt right to me. his frame work also explained gravity, inertia, and wave particle duality, which was why i gave more credence to his planet formation theory. if his ideas are correct, then it would make earth the oldest planetary body in our system and the sun, the youngest. somehow that still feels 'right' to me. decreasing heat = cooling = increasing complexity = more complex life and thought/thinking entropy is fundamentally a 'cooling' process flux from hot to cold. so keeping the above in mind it would mean that entropy is the vector to life not "heat" death, that so many modern scientists hypothposize. and while wrtitng my mind keeps flashing to all the metaphysically metaphored imagery that so comonly utilises the red/blue blend... hot to cold .... hot AND cold flux between entropy vector of life. ultimate directionality. now if i can just get that into quanitatuive thermodynamics. *breath* perhps the enrgy 'loss' measured in thermodynamic cycles (still not really understood nor properly explained) is related to complexity. could energy express as complexity. hot and simple goes to cool and complex in a CLOSED system. keeping in mind conswervation of energy then the heat loss (lower measured ave temp) = complexity gain, not 'randomness' that we currently decribe it terms of. so there is a relationship between heat and complexity ...quotient? between energy and information..or information density... but it is also rate dependant, flux magnitude depentant. *pause* |
| Septenary Man SikScent ~ Swinging on Spirals ~ Saptaparna User ID: 865798 United States12/10/2012 10:18 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Morning. I'll take a look a little later. Boss is looking over my shoulder right now...  [link to swingingonspirals.blogspot.com] [link to blackbagconspiracy.wordpress.com] "Knowledge is wisdom without experience." ~ Chad Adams "Complexity nests itself within patterns. Discover the patterns, and complexity is simplified." - Chad Adams "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in, broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, WOW, What a ride!" "I do not die, but awaken from the dream that I lived." |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 10:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 10:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Septenary Man SikScent ~ Swinging on Spirals ~ Saptaparna User ID: 865798 United States12/10/2012 10:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Morning. I'll take a look a little later. Boss is looking over my shoulder right now... Quoting: Septenary Man good morning   [link to swingingonspirals.blogspot.com] [link to blackbagconspiracy.wordpress.com] "Knowledge is wisdom without experience." ~ Chad Adams "Complexity nests itself within patterns. Discover the patterns, and complexity is simplified." - Chad Adams "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in, broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, WOW, What a ride!" "I do not die, but awaken from the dream that I lived." |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 10:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Yi King is mathematical and philosophical in form. Its structure is cognate with that of the Qabalah; the actual apparatus is simple, and five minutes is sufficient to obtain a fairly detailed answer to any but the most obscure questions. [link to hermetic.com] I Ching The I Ching (Wade-Giles) or "Yì Jing" (pinyin), also known as the Classic of Changes, Book of Changes or Zhouyi, is one of the oldest of the Chinese classic texts. Quoting: observation[link to en.wikipedia.org] Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 10:49 AM |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 10:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Yi King is mathematical and philosophical in form. Its structure is cognate with that of the Qabalah; the actual apparatus is simple, and five minutes is sufficient to obtain a fairly detailed answer to any but the most obscure questions. [link to hermetic.com] I Ching The I Ching (Wade-Giles) or "Yì Jing" (pinyin), also known as the Classic of Changes, Book of Changes or Zhouyi, is one of the oldest of the Chinese classic texts. Quoting: observation[link to en.wikipedia.org] THE TAO Quoting: 7771. TAO concentrateth itself upon Kether as a point. 2. TAO directeth itself within Chokmah and becometh the Male Force. He is called YANG, and is symbolized by a Solid Line. 3. TAO expandeth in Binah and becometh the Female Force. She is called YIN, and is symbolized by a Broken Line. 4. These three: TAO, YANG and YIN, bring forth heaven and earth, and all contained therein. Tao or Dao Chinese: pinyin: Dào is a Chinese word meaning 'way', 'path', 'route', or sometimes more loosely, 'doctrine' or 'principle', or as a verb, speak. Within the context of traditional Chinese philosophy and religion, Tao is a metaphysical concept originating with Laozi that gave rise to a religion (Wade–Giles, Tao Chiao; Pinyin, Daojiao) and philosophy (Wade–Giles, Tao chia; Pinyin, Daojia) referred to in English with the single term Taoism. The concept of Tao was later adopted in Confucianism, Chán and Zen Buddhism and more broadly throughout East Asian philosophy and religion in general Quoting: observation[link to en.wikipedia.org] Last Edited by aether on 12/10/2012 10:58 AM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29416318 United States12/10/2012 11:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| aether (OP) User ID: 28218601 United Kingdom12/10/2012 11:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Traditionally, the I Ching and its hexagrams were thought to pre-date recorded history, and based on traditional Chinese accounts, its origins trace back to the 3rd to the 2nd millennium BC Quoting: observationDespite the 3-dimensional transformation between these three shapes, a 2-dimensional hexagram is visible, when we center our perspective on a triangular face. So we see a motion which moves in a cycle, but can change direction at four turning points: 9-6-3; 3-6-9; 1-1-1; and 8-8-8. In this way, it can be steered into infinitely complex forms. We can look at it like a flow chart indexed by the angle of the triangle that is front and centered, corresponding with the 8 triangles of our 24 number circle. Quoting: observationNow compare this with the eight trigrams around a circle which form the basis of the I Ching. The four trigrams at the top/bottom/left/right are in positions of relative balance, at the zero points and peaks of the wave, whereas the four trigrams at diagonals are in the transitional phase. Because the left side of the circle is a mirrored inverse of the right side, we can unite the opposing hexagrams for a deeper understanding of this system. The noble gas is both Creative AND Receptive, it contains both the memories of every action, and the imagination which will create the future. The dense matter of maximum potential at the peak of the wave is Radiant AND Dark. That is, hot and cold, light and dark, dense motion at the center and tenuous space surrounding it are in maximum opposition. We can simplify and bring these two together into a kind of magic square/circle. [link to philosophestoned.blogspot.co.uk] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29416318 United States12/10/2012 11:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
