Mate With an Angle

May 2, 2014—continued:

lots of good stuff... reading about Abraham, now. the founder of Judaism. says: "The account of his life in Genesis, though considered today to be not entirely historical, is nevertheless in accord with historical facts dating from the beginning of the second millennium B.C."

Abraham left Ur for Canaan. covenant established after his father's death. the promise. an inheritance. a land deal. haha. I read about that somewhere else... "in context of Genesis and Hebrew Bible, 'faith' = agreement to promissory relationship." politics. an arrangement between men.

anyways...

- Jews settled in Canaan, probably first monotheistic religion in history, chosen by God, given the law

and so on. much drama. standard stuff. enmity.

then Jesus... born in Bethlehem on December 25th. ...I read somewhere that Jesus was not actually born at that time, but that that date was given in order to coincide with the winter solstice. Capricorn, the sea goat. now mountain goat. I read that those establishing Christianity used the same holidays as the well-established pagans in order to make the transition more smooth. like easter. perhaps there is another reason. perhaps they simply slapped a new label on a set of beliefs they agreed with. or wished to continue. an evolution, as it were.

speaking of easter...

- "Jesus died at Golgotha, the Place of the Skull ... in 30 A.D." "...descended into hell, 'harrowed' it ... and then himself rose again on the morning of the third day after his death ..."

so many different stories. other sources say 33 CE. what with the meticulous records which were apparently kept, I can't understand why there is such confusion. perhaps it wasn't a big deal, at the time. just another day, and all that.

another question: when did we change the calendar to mark year 1 as coinciding with the year of Jesus's birth? then? or later? did we get it wrong? wasn't Jesus born in an earlier year?

oh, good quote: "Jesus almost always spoke in parables, which required interpretation in those days and still do today."

and: he founded the Christian Church upon a rock, a play on words. Peter = rock, in Greek. haha. I wonder: why all the mysticism? clearly, his teachings were not meant to benefit the laypeople. or, at least, his ministry, the actions of that group of people, were not meant to involve everyone. otherwise, they would have spoken plainly, no? for all ears to hear, so to speak. why would Jesus preach parables to multitudes?

May 2, 2014—continued:

okay. Jesus was Jewish. he modified the law of Moses. the Old Testament is the history of the Jews, but also read as a prophecy of the coming of Christ.

good quote: "Every event in the Old Testament is viewed as having a double meaning."

interesting. are the events accurately depicted, then? or embellished in order to provide these double meanings? either way... interesting. most interesting are the modifications. seems almost as if God undergoes a major personality change.

oh, like in Genesis. apparently written by Moses. but I've heard differently. I heard there were multiple writers. which would explain the duplicate stories. and the fact that the duplicate stories are very different. each written in a completely different style and focused on different aspects. ...one, for instance, is all about rituals, and the author rather mechanically provides every last detail, dimensions, materials, and so on. the other is more relaxed, casual.

anyways...

haha. too funny: "The historical Jesus was probably a member of a sect of Jews called Essenes, who were themselves more mystical and theological than many previous Jewish groups." indeed.

well, I've got another question: how did Jesus grow up? it's barely mentioned. his birth is told in detail. and then it kind of jumps to the last couple of years of his life. perhaps I missed a passage or two. it seems to me that, being the son of God and all, his entire earthly existence would have been of interest. would have carried miraculous stories.

more interesting to me, though, is the recording of his sayings. first of all, at that time, they wrote on papyrus. or animal skin. or clay, I think. anyways, it was a process. no factories and machines pumping out page after page. they used inks which had to be used fresh. it was not a convenient process, to write. I'm guessing. was it expensive? or was it common? was Jesus literate? apparently those who recorded his teachings were. were people taught to read and write at that time? schooled?

the Sermon on the Mount. or Plain. whatever. this is told as if a single sermon given by Jesus to thousands of people. an event. was there just the one? or was this a regular speech he gave? I get the impression that this one event was important. the scene is described. the accounts of the sermon are different, but all contain certain identical information. obviously, it wasn't the exact sermon given, if indeed this event actually occurred. but the sayings, written by different people, are close to identical, using the same terms. and... apparently written well after its occurrence. years later.

anyways, I would assume it was also written at the time, while Jesus was alive. not merely memorized. for the accounts to be so close. written and copied, too. for whom? how many copies were made and where were they kept or sent? were they kept only by the disciples? for what purpose? to teach? to teach whom? the laypeople? using parables? I wouldn't think that likely. but what else could their purpose have been? the sermon reads as if it is instruction, inspiration, wisdom for all people. if so, then why speak above their heads? why prompt them to think like a mystic? it doesn't make sense to me.

another point: the Bible, the so-called history, kind of focuses on the activities of the rulers. the kings. them and their activities. as with most recorded history, the bulk of the population is depicted as a crowd, when they're mentioned at all. are these people and actions that important? the battles and territory and all that? nothing else of importance was going on? just kingdoms and bloodlines? where's the rest of history? not included in the Word of God. which I find interesting.

makes me wonder: who would wish to write, to record such accounts? who would be most interested in the kind of stuff included in the Bible? I mean, to be sure, it's not all thrones and war. there's also law. and, from what I've heard, the majority of people couldn't even read the Bible, in those days. I think because of the language. so who was the instructor? and who wrote it? and why? in any case, it certainly wasn't written by the people. ...and human nature doesn't change.

Brief tangent...

July 18, 2014:

k...wait... there's no way 'written history' began at any time. a ridiculous thought. things were written down, at different places, at different times, and so on. written history developed. it didn't begin.

in any case... what strange things were apparently being written when writing was new, recently developed. well, fairly recently, to be fair. but, when the Bible was said to have been originally written, the first texts, writing in the form the Bible was written could be considered 'new'. like how computers could be considered 'new' to us. ...bad example. perhaps more like how ... I can't think of a good example... how about 'crossing oceans'? would that mirror the timeline? that is: from the time people began to cross oceans, rarely and with difficulty, to the time it was done regularly and easily by all.

at the time the first books of the Bible were written, writing was not 'done'. to my knowledge. most of the world wasn't literate, and those who were merely kept records. the style of the Bible is rather more than a simple record. was it rewritten? the originals don't exist anymore, after all. and why wouldn't it have been rewritten? perfected? like how today we make new versions in more understandable language, not simply translate.

for instance, there are passages which label places by names that had different names at the time the events being described occurred, but the writer used the current name in writing about the past events.

anyways, in Jesus's day, how literate were people? in that place and time. I was under the impression that most people, the average person was illiterate. Greek began, as a written language.... some eight hundred or so years before then. that's when the written language was invented. I find it difficult to believe that, especially considering the times, by Jesus's day, literacy was common.

a person could teach themselves, no? to read and write. that's what I first thought. but then I was thinking: how? if there was no way to translate the meaning of the written symbols, how could one teach themselves to read? they could mimic the writing, but how would they understand what it meant? it's not like spoken language, where actions, events, and so on can be associated with a word.

imagine you can't read, and you don't know anyone who can. but you have a book. or a scroll. haha. how would you know what the written word 'book' means? you've heard the word 'book' said aloud, but the symbol 'b', for instance, you would not associate with the 'b' sound. how could you? besides, how common were written works? proportionate to the number of writers. too, of what was written, what would be distributed and how, etc.?

perhaps I am wrong, only I would think such a system, in such an era, would have taken quite a while to become common. considering the depictions of the lifestyles of the people, and their actions, at that time. oh, good idea. I should check the Bible, the New Testament, to see if I can find examples of people reading and writing. people other than its writers, that is. haha.

even fairly recently, many people signed their name on documents with an 'X' because they couldn't even write their own name! of course, these people, I think, didn't go to school, being busy on farms and stuff. and I think, at certain times and places, the general knowledge of a populace waned due to circumstance. immigration and settling. the dark ages. haha.

oh, another point... there have been universities for centuries. our history books are full of educated people. I was thinking... we don't realize how few there were. there were lots, sure, but not compared with the total population. we read name after name after name of accomplished mathematicians, philosophers, inventors, musicians, and so on, without realizing that we're reading a collection. these people lived in different parts of the world and in different times. the collection of geniuses encompasses not only the globe, but thousands of years. most people were simple laypeople. ...I wonder when we started educating children?

hey, I just thought of something funny.... in all of history, astrology has been more popular than God. isn't that funny? it came first and has survived, all this time. I wonder, though, why its popularity has waned. it was rather a big deal until .... was it around the 1600s? shrug. I can't remember. anyways, it's still big business. in certain circles. wink wink. that, in itself, is quite funny. I mean, why would such a thing be so very popular and important for so very long, only to be 'replaced' with so-called proper science, except still practiced, and seriously, as it always has been, by the highly educated and successful? to the layman, God's ways are supposed to be mysterious and unfathomable. ...also funny: what happens when everyone is born? it's logged. to the minute and all. wink. a curious practice.

May 3, 2014:

continuing where I left off yesterday, with the Bible being written for the benefit of a people who could not read it and who would not be able to do so for quite some time...

at the time the Bible was written, not only could the people not read it, but there was no system or plan to teach the people to read. even some scribes, copyists, from what I've heard, could not understand what they were copying. they simply formed the letters on the page. it was an art, so to speak. and teaching people to read wasn't even on the agenda. otherwise, it would not have taken hundreds and hundreds of years for them to learn.

but why should they have learned? what was there to read? records and laws and so on. and the Bible? they had teachers. official teachers. people couldn't instruct themselves, after all. the laws of God, dictated to a chosen few, deemed worthy by God, and to whom was shown the purpose of man's existence and all that. the people had to be taught this sort of thing. for instance, kings were chosen by God. wink. and, interesting: the priest's duties were sacred, and they even had a sacred place no one was allowed to enter. ever.

speaking of which... the prophecies. they were recorded. and taken seriously. why? and why for so long, if there was no reason to take them seriously? that is, if nothing ever came of them. if they were unreliable. were they stupid people? in the Bible accounts, as with most 'prophecies', they're not exactly literal, perfect. similar to what can be 'predicted' through astrology and similar 'arts'. forbidden to the people, but, I'm guessing, not to the prophets. it was said that God spoke to the prophets. God. he arranged for the prophecies to be known. as opposed to man making predictions, using his stargazing or whatnot. forbidden knowledge.

Jesus's birth was prophesied, no? and what happened at that time? they had to look for him. wink. they knew about it, but not exactly, with absolute precision. so the story goes. funny: it appears no one seems to know when Christ will return, as predicted. people, for the last couple of hundred years have been anxiously awaiting that time. devoutly religious people, spending their lives wondering when, when, when, and praying soon, soon, soon, any day now... why? because all the pieces are in place, and have been for some time. the prophecy, as it is taught, of the world situation at the time of Christ's return speaks of a general time, circumstances which are not of the kind that change from year to year. haha. Christ's return. I just realized: the time when a planet completes one full revolution is called a return. 365 days is the time it takes for the sun's return. this is the dawning of the age of aquarius.

oh, also worth noting: boy, we sure do spend a lot of time, expense, and resources studying space, eh? and we can see the future! the future alignments of the planets and so on. we have the ability to figure out way in advance where and when the stars will be. to the minute, and the minute. haha. no surprises this time around! for some, anyways.

but, again: what's the big deal? if there's nothing, no truth, to it and all? why is it literally everywhere? further, why are so many people completely oblivious? as in: why is it not openly discussed as concerning heavenly matters, but rather, taught under pretenses. like God, for instance. wink. must be a reason...

May 3, 2014—continued:

the Bible was written by men. clever beings, but not flawlessly so. their story was imperfect. people have been questioning it for years. scholars, historians. religious people, too. trying to figure it out. the truth. the mystery of God. funny, though: there's an awful lot of mundane mixed in with the mystical. why would God's Word include mundane material or instructions? further, why would the mundane be attributed to God? as coming from him? part of his will and plan and desire for us, and so on. I'm thinking either men mistook such instructions or occurrences as being inspired or delivered by God, or... men invented God. for what purpose?

well, what is a focus of the Bible? correct human behaviour, as dictated by God, according to his will, and consequences of incorrect behaviour, punishments inflicted by God. God is master, humans are subjects. God will not tolerate defiance. God will reward compliance. God is powerful. He is everywhere, all-knowing, all-seeing. oh, and God is also merciful and good.

okay. let's rewind in history to the point where tyrants rule large areas and numbers of people. what is the common method used, in this rule? force.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In October of 2014, I posted an edited version of this journal entry—(The words in bold are from the journal entry, and have been added to the quoted post. And the paragraphs from the quoted post which are not in the journal entry have been deleted.):


Thread: Revolution: 2. circular movement

May 3, 2014—continued:

well this is really too funny... what I wrote earlier today, I had no intention of writing. that is, it was spontaneously written. I meant to talk about, to explore, the purpose of the Bible. who wrote it and why, originally. I had vague intentions to discuss a potential consideration with respect to God's law, as being inspired by the need to control a population so large and widespread that control by force was no longer practical, (a thought which occurred to me, consciously, in connection with my questions, only yesterday afternoon—after I had written what I wrote yesterday, that is... in any case...

on may 1st, when I started to write what I'm writing about now, I had no intention of studying, reading. I was merely going to state some thoughts I had. these specific thoughts came together the day before may 1st. after writing on may 1st, I realized it would be helpful to know the answers to a few questions, since my timeline was confused, my knowledge was confused. so, the next day, I decided, instead of continuing with my writing, I would get some facts straight, and got out my books.

the book I copied the excerpts out of, I have read twice, but not for years. I got it out and skimmed through, looking for certain things. I found it very interesting, so I ended up going back to the beginning and flipping through, jotting down some quotes. that was yesterday.

today, I felt like pondering further, and ended up talking at length about tyrants and relating my thoughts about rule by force and the transition and all that. spontaneous. automatic writing, so to speak. off the cuff. so... what's funny is... I left off yesterday, in the book, with the chapter about Judaism and Christianity. there had been nothing in the book thus far about rulers, etc. or rather, little.... there was a bit about empires forming. and the book-burning stuff. but it's been mostly about religion and writing and agriculture and so on. then I wrote what I wrote today. without having read further in the book.

what I wrote today, those particular thoughts were formed independently, so to speak. that is, not having been directly inspired by anything read or heard, but as a result of a trail of thoughts stemming from my thoughts on the material within the Bible, biblical history. in any case, they were 'independent thoughts'.

then, just now, (well, about a half an hour ago...), I got the book out and continued to skim through, intending to bookmark passages, searching for relevant or interesting details. and just a handful of pages after the stuff on Abraham and Jesus, I came across:

"Most of the ancient kingdoms and empires arose out of the turmoil of warring families, villages, or tribes. For almost all of them, the establishment of political and social order became the most important task. Often, order was imposed by force alone. When threatened by immediate and painful death, most people, then as now, would remain quiet and obedient—as long as the force remained. The problem became, then, how to keep order when force was not present, as it could not be at all places and times."

Isn't that spooky? it's so similar to what I had said. and I never even glanced at that page in advance for the material to have inspired my thoughts. knowingly, anyhow. not consciously. the thoughts I had were the logical result following a whole train of thoughts, which came independently, as I pondered. I was in the bathroom washing up at the moment when I realized: rule by force had been the norm, but an expanding border and increasing populace made that impractical, so the all-seeing God was created in order to tackle that so-called problem.

not worth explaining, I suppose, and probably only interesting to me. I certainly did a double take when I flipped the page and read that. something that was basically identical to what I had just written hours earlier. of course, as I said, I had read that book before. and it's likely that my brain remembered that information and passed it along. that is, reading the book caused my brain to recall the info, as one might recall a later scene when watching a movie they've seen already. still.... if so, it made the connection discreetly, without my awareness. behind the scenes and all. haha. ...or maybe I time-glitched...

May 3, 2014—continued:

anyways, much of what I had planned to say has already been said. on may 1st, I jotted down some notes, a few points I wanted to address. one is: ability until recently to know history, news, etc. (ignorance of laymen and individual circle / isolation) and, in flipping through the book today, I read: "You were well enough aware of a narrow region around your home, and you had notions, often wrong, about your neighbours over the horizon, but beyond that you knew next to nothing. You had no time to read, even if you knew how, for life had become hard, with most people dependent on what they could scratch with their hands from the earth around their homes, and much of that was likely to be stolen as a matter of course by stronger and more ruthless men." etc. etc.

not to say that my thoughts are original, but explaining something which has already been explained countless times is rather pointless, and reading what you were about to say is a reminder of just how much so. it is easier to simply quote, when necessary, to provide explanations. although there is a drawback to that: typically I do not agree with the entire quote, or the presentation of the thought, or the conclusion drawn, etc. often, I use quotes in order to simply point out what was said, but don't agree with any of it. and, to be fair, much of what I say, myself, I do not necessarily agree with, in that I don't believe it is correct. I ponder carelessly. well, all ideas are relevant, if only in terms of: how/why did they come to be? and: what is their impact/influence?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

perhaps I'm simply naive, but why burn books? I mean, the answer is given: to destroy unwanted or harmful knowledge or opinion, or to prevent the masses from gaining power through knowledge... but these reasons don't make sense to me. as I said, maybe I'm simply naive. how could knowledge or inspirational ideas written give people freedom? these ideas, the knowledge could have been passed by word of mouth far more easily than through books.

not only that, where were the books which were burned? what a process to gather them. and they could be easily hidden, too. well, I don't know what the situation was. perhaps they were for the most part kept in libraries, schools. and perhaps those who possessed books were known to have had them in their possession. the books to be burned, that is. too, there would be communal policing. neighbours and family members.

still, it strikes me that knowledge is known before it's written about. and it's passed on through discussion, as well as by reading. and it can be easily rediscovered, too. burning books, to me, would seem to be primarily for show. a statement. ...or to erase things that were not 'knowledge' per se.

practical knowledge had been gained and perfected over the years. people didn't learn about things or how to do things by reading about them. and that sort of knowledge was well-established. burning books could not erase it. nor prevent its spread. the same can be said about any idea. the only things that could be erased by erasing a record, by burning a book, would be things that people did not apply in their lives. information that people did not use or think about or talk about. information that was not memorized, so to speak. what kind of information would that be??

all other knowledge or information could not be erased through burning books. it could be 'forbidden', but not erased. of course, if the people with that knowledge were also burned...

all it would take is a couple of generations for that knowledge to be mostly wiped out. or at least stamped out. if the most knowledgeable or outspoken or defiant were killed, and the rest intimidated into silence... only a fraction would slip between the cracks, forced to practice and teach in secret. and, after a time, the stories would begin to be distorted.

but, as I said, any idea or knowledge can be 'rediscovered'. after all, how was it 'discovered', in the first place? observation, consideration, experimentation, and so on. only records of events and their participants, etc., can be erased or forgotten, lost. no big loss, however, for a couple of reasons. first: any record cannot be trusted to be accurate. even when multiple accounts given by unconnected sources reveal the same information, the whole story is not told. in any case, more importantly: the results of everything which actually occurred are right in front of us. what exists currently is the direct result of what happened in the past. a living record. can't burn that, eh?

May 3, 2014—continued:

one more thought: when you don't understand the cause of something, do you conclude or even consider a magical, mystical or spiritual nature? an invisible, intelligent force perhaps causing your washing machine to malfunction? no? why not? if you're an average human being, your level of knowledge with respect to all the systems you employ on a daily basis is akin to complete ignorance. and yet you're sure that a manufacturing or technological error is the cause of the malfunction. why? because of your general 'knowledge'. you know about such things. more specifically, you know, through experience, that such things occur. you also know, through experience, that the situation is temporary or resolvable. that is: the machine can be repaired or replaced.

in any case, you don't assume an invisible, intelligent, interfering entity. similar, I would think, to what people might have felt before they understood the science behind weather and droughts and so on. they had experience with such things, and knew of the regularities and irregularities. that each year wasn't identical to previous years in terms of rainfall and so on. why would they have assumed an intelligent interference? and one which was personal? what a creative thought! I wonder who came up with it...

also, why would people who had done nothing wrong believe they were being punished? do you think they scratched their heads, confused about what they could have done to anger the gods, but assumed that it must have been something...? similarly, why would they believe that the gods would punish everyone for the sins of a few, through a catastrophe or drought or what not? especially when the ability to individually punish would have been no problem for a mighty god.

May 3, 2014—continued:

on a similar note: most people don't believe that bad things will happen to them. that is, they don't consider it a potential reality. like... their house burning down. a car accident. a heart attack. or newlyweds who don't believe they'll end up miserably married or divorced. we never believe those things will happen to us. and I think that's kind of funny. because these same people know that these things do happen. to many people. in fact, in the case of unhappy marriages, it's practically the norm. so, an unbelief or non-consideration that it will happen to them implies that: either they believe they are different, better somehow, or they believe that other people, many other people, are stupid. that, for instance, the people whose houses burned down did something so outrageously stupid, or something abnormal happened to cause it. (assuming that the people who don't believe it will happen to them are 'normal' as opposed to experts not believing their house will burn down because they possess expert knowledge or perform extra maintenance in order to ensure it doesn't...)

I mean, they could believe that those people were just plain unlucky, but that would follow with the realization that anyone, including themselves, could be equally unlucky, no? or, in the case of a failed marriage... why does no one believe their marriage will fail? because they're so in love and right for each other? but... isn't that why most people get married? and yet, other marriages fail. even though they started out the same way. people are funny creatures, aren't they?

(I went into my marriage with the attitude that it was like a house that needed to be maintained. there were specific requirements, and if those requirements were not met, if that house wasn't properly maintained, according to factors that had nothing to do with wishes or wants, or even love, and were as rigid, inflexible, and unforgiving as bodily needs (food, air, etc.), it would fail to function, to be liveable, to be comfortable.)

which reminds me: it's funny how we start with no knowledge or experience. in order to become proficient at a thing, we need to practice. well, we only get one shot at life. isn't that funny? life is long, sure, but there are many separate stages. only one childhood, one adolescence, one prime of life, and one chance to get it right. with no experience. sure, we can recover or correct to a certain extent. but many mistakes have serious lasting consequences from which we can never completely recover. and we all make them consistently. in practising.

afterwards, we can realize where we went wrong, but it's too late. no rewind. no second chance. no new game. we have to continue moving forward from where we are. no do-overs. we have to forfeit the opportunity to 'do it right'. to pick the right career path, the right marriage partner, to raise our children right... we never get the chance to do it right. with a project or practical skill, we can learn and perfect a technique and then produce a proper version with fresh materials. we can't do that with life.

Question: Did anyone read the last half a dozen or so posts? The May 3rd, 2014 journal entries?

Anyone?...anyone?......anyone?.........

No need to answer. I'm going to assume: no. Perhaps a couple of skim-throughs, and maybe a few check-and-rejects. But I doubt anyone found the entries interesting, insightful, worth reading and all.

Understandable.

God, however, is not at all burdened by a desire for stimulating, thought-provoking, or entertaining material. Either that or he feels some compulsive need to know everything that goes on in the Universe. In any case, when the entries were originally written, he read it all! (Presumably.)

And then—disgusting!—threw my words—all mixed up in a mess of other words—right up in my face—through the devotional posted the following day—(May 4th):

"Vision—the one essential ingredient for being an original in a day of copies—gets lost, overwhelmed by the odds. Too bad! We start focusing on the trouble. Then we start comparing the odds. The result is predictable: We become intimidated and wind up defeated. ... What does your future resemble when you measure it on the basis of facts and figures? ... I have no magic wand to wave over your future and say, 'All of a sudden everything is going to fall into place.' Vision requires determination, a constant focus on God who is watching and smiling. Even in a world that is negative and hostile. ... Trust God today. With eyes of faith, get back into the game. Play it with great enthusiasm!"

You would have to (have) read the entire May 3rd entry, (and, of course, the entire devotional), in order to fully appreciate my perspective, to understand why I might find the above material to be (more than casually) reflective.

If you're interested in wading through the long version, scroll up. Or, if you'd prefer to simply read a few pertinent excerpts, scroll down. If neither option strikes your fancy, you probably won't be reading this—(and if you are, somehow stuck in the midst of a pile of words you'd rather not read, exeunt left.)









- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

May 4, 2014:

Well, I've attended a JW meeting. what can I say? it was exactly as I expected.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bla bla bla. And so on. (I posted about my experience, in this thread, on February 7th.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

oh, while I'm here... I happened to notice... during the [...], there was a clip I had heard quite a while ago. I remember it well. it was the exact same clip. that's weird, isn't it? a host clip from a weekly show, aired months later, repeated. parking is ever-so helpful. you see it all.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

May 5, 2014:

first things first... last night, just after I turned off my computer, directly after I typed that I noticed the old clip aired on the [...] that evening, there was aired a message advertising an upcoming sermon about what we can expect or something—"in 2011". haha.

anyways... this morning, I noticed a dog on my property. since the highway is nearby, I brought the dog in. it could get hit by a car. it was very friendly, followed me around, explored my house, not at all shy. I had a cup of coffee and then decided to take a walk down the road and see if anyone knew where the dog lived. not really expecting that anyone would. it could have wandered from anywhere. I thought it was probably from town.

first, I stopped at my next door neighbours. they weren't home. I decided to continue to the houses at the end of the road. I've only met one other person down there. it's pretty much a dead end road and there aren't many houses down there. I came to a house that looked almost abandoned. there are a few abandoned houses in the area. I couldn't even make out a front door. there were 'no trespassing' signs posted. but there was smoke coming from a chimney so I figured someone did indeed live there and was possibly at home.

I approached the house, looking for a door to knock on. just then, a man came out. I asked if he knew whose dog it was, and, what do you know—it was his. funny, because not only wasn't I expecting to find anyone who knew the dog, let alone find its home, but that house was the first house I stopped at, except for my neighbours, even though it wasn't at all 'approachable'.

anyways... I couldn't help but notice that he wore a hat that read: [...]. I don't watch tv, and don't know how popular this show is. the only place I'd ever heard of [...] is on [a Christian radio station]. so, naturally, I looked it up on wikipedia when I got home. [Bla bla bla.] interesting. of course, people come across hats in many ways. baseball caps are one of those things that are not always purchased by the wearer. still...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I simply had to stop by and acknowledge that I noticed the message aired which referenced [...]. and, I'd also like to mention, for the record, that this message was aired about an hour, no—two hours after I typed the above. and I've only heard [...] mentioned on the station a handful of times in the last year and a half. maybe three times. and not recently. interesting, no? God is a funny person. almost as if he has nothing better to do.... maybe he simply has a crush on me. I could hardly blame him. ;)

...oh, good song choice. "with every act of love, we make the Kingdom come.... God put a million billion whores in the world for His love to [something], one of those whores is you." (I'm not sure if I've heard those lyrics correctly.... O.o the [something] sounds like "walk through", but that doesn't make any sense, in context, does it?) :D

oh...! immediately after I typed the above, there was a message aired about using 'bad words'... :D (and how we shouldn't, of course) ...I hardly think using 'bad words' is all that naughty ;);)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

May 10, 2014:

before I forget, I'd like to point something out. for the record.

the [...] reference that I mentioned the other day was included in a message that aired multiple times that day—(the first time I heard it was two hours after I wrote about the [...] hat)—and has been aired multiple times every day since then. (in connection with the [...] Festival, which, by the way, had been mentioned many, many times, for months, with no reference to [...].) my point? since it has been aired multiple times daily, it stands to reason that the day I heard it was the first day it was aired, as I had the radio on during the previous day(s) and had not heard it once.

not only that, the first day I heard it, I had the radio playing. I had turned it on in the morning and it remained on. if the [...] message was aired on that day before I wrote about [...], it would have to have been aired either before I woke up or while I was out with the dog.

what a wacky coincidence! then again, this is not the first time I have heard messages which have aired for the first time directly after I wrote something literally identical. messages which were aired regularly after that first time I heard them.

isn't that curious? I mean it seems ridiculous that anyone would write, record, and air messages which purposefully included or revolved around topics I happened to have discussed, don't you think? and to air such messages many times sends a... er... clear message. (pun totally intended)

as far as what that message is... *shrug* I suppose simply: we are watching you. choosing something memorable and rushing off post-haste to produce something including identical material in order to provide you with a weird miracle.

cute. like little child magicians! imitators of Christ! haha. too funny. you know that miracle with the loaves and fishes? sleight of hand. guy totally had that shit stashed under his robe. :D

I have read all your entries and yes, now I do understand the real meaning of life

Oh...?

I had the strangest daydream yesterday...

In it, I entered the town square and noticed a figure posting a sign on the message board which stood in the center of the square. Written in bold letters, I could clearly read the heading:

A Petition For M.E.'s Death!

Curious, I walked over to read what it said, and, as I made my way across the square, a number of townsfolk with pitchforks in hand appeared, also headed towards the sign. I watched as each of them planted their pitchfork in the paper and walked away, then I timidly approached and read what was written:

The humble prayer and petition of this inhabitant sheweth as follows:
Whereas, for some time past, M.E. has been behaving in a silly manner; and
Whereas your Petitioner is of the opinion that M.E.'s behaviour is silly; and
Whereas there being but a few in possession of the ability to end M.E.'s silliness; and myself not being so able;
Your Petitioner therefore prays that the said M.E. be put to death and for this your Petitioner will ever pray, &c.

Haha!—I laughed. A mock petition! Then, just as I was about to add my name, in a properly silly fashion, the sign vanished...

hi OP,

I found this thread via another thread that was a complaint about this one and a plea for it to be deleted. Im guess you did not see that one and it actually was deleted after 10 or so posters commented on it, one of which predicted it would be deleted. sorta like your daydream in a way.

anyway, my interest gets peaked when someone has a problem with someone elses opinion/perspective so I decided to check this thread out.

Im glad I started on the last page.. I read and then thought this will be good! but then went to the first page and read a few more and was thinking WTF is this? LOL

so I skimmed the rest until the pg15 where it got more interesting to me again.

you must be a writer? I still dont know what you mean by god #2 (or #1 for that matter) but I like how youve found the bible suspect and you actually hit on some points I havent considered about that too.


let us know what you discover about jupiter OK? that is also interesting now that you mention it.

here is a small sample of my perspective as it is now. history is all hearsay, we have no firsthand knowledge of any of it. we can be reasonable about it as you seem to be very good at but it is still hearsay except that of our own but thats only seemingly recent.

but I like to consider others thoughts on these subject (most are better at it than I) you may find M. Tsarion's work on origins intersting. makes as much if not more sense as anything else Ive noticed.

Ive noticed syncros with music and radio but rarely do I listen unless its 2nd hand listening so I dont get those often.

I prefer silence to music, Im just an odd ball like that.

there we other things you worte I was planning to comment on but they have slipped my mind. maybe later?

hiya. smile.

Funnily enough, "WTF is this?" is what I had first planned to title this thread. grin. (Either that or "Deer Diary".)

I use the term God #2 to describe many things. A universal term. And always sarcastic. LIke with the music syncs: God #2's handiwork. wink.

With respect to Jupiter, I have not found any further information. Well, I never looked, except, if I remember correctly, on wikipedia, which wasn't at all helpful. If you happen to come across a reference which mentions when Jupiter was named, or, similarly, a reference to it by a pre-Roman name, please share.

Oh, and thanks for the recommendation. It's always interesting to see what's on the menu. Allow me to show my gratitude by offering you something I just know you'll like. Order up:

















Silence.

silence can not be beat.. it has no competition. thanks

about jesus (even spellcheckers insist on capitalization)

I like to entertain any and all theories about "him" because I no longer buy the christian viewpoint but also because the words that have been written and that supposedly came from his mouth, many have that ringing sound of truth it seems.

some of the stuff Ive read from others about him you might find worth looking into?

he was apolionous of tyana (im sure I spelled that wrong but spellchecker also has an agenda)

he was a mason initiated by john the baptist.

he was not a real man but an astrotheological alegory. (see santos binachi material)

I dont know but even if he was not a real man he has a very powerful life now as an egregor or archetype.

but yeah, the traditional story we are led to believe just doesnt add up. and theres also the fact that we have so many volumes of platos writings from 4-500yrs prior but somehow all this missing time and details of jesus's life?




surely you are familiar with the gospel of thomas also? because what you seem to be hinting at is (I could be way off) but making the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside..


oh yeah, I remembered I was going to mention the calendar changes.. from what I gather the orthodox and non orthodox calander confusion/change was/is for a devious purpose. that purpose is so insiders have a 14day advance notice of some sort due to law issues.

the date system used is also a jurisdictional device and if you look into it the masons have a different calendar which also varies depending on the lodge.



tsarion suggests that our current civilization started in ireland and moved eastward to everywhere else including egypt. that we were once biologically connected to the earth grid but after a planet-wide catastrophe (not unlike velokosphkys theories) tsarion suggests in the time of great disruptions and lost connectivity the druids knowledge was retained by some but then used for bad purposes which continues to this day.

carl jung talked about this too in some ways but strictly on the collective psychological side of things.

i just want to reconnect. i read all kinds of stuff and you have somehow caught my attention and it seems like you might know more than you are letting on? (maybe)

or you are just saying/writing it in a way I cant grasp onto. round about sorta? i can build highly advanced systems from schematics and reverse engineer computer codes but poetry and creative writing is beyond me (up to now anyway)

so anyway.. look forward to reading more from ya! kinda surprised more havnt posted here and other notables have moved on?

and the thread suggesting that yours should be deleted LOL people..

...Spellchecker. chuckle. Well, at least you don't appear to have it set on "auto-correct"... blink.

Oh, there are lots and lots of stories. And, hilariously, all of them are about the same thing, basically. Containing the same elements. As if: there are 20 or so ingredients available, and everyone can choose whichever ones they wish to use, in whatever amounts, and so on. A great many combinations are possible, and the various dishes created taste and appear different. But... shrug. They're not so very dissimilar, essentially.

Like with people. Physically, I mean. Take any two people and compare them. They are far more similar than dissimilar, when all factors are considered. These stories are like that. Although... I suppose that is because we are only interested in certain things. Relevant—for lack of a better term—topics, from our perspective. For instance, the 20 or so ingredients are the only ones we use, because they are the only ones we find palatable. Digestible and all that.

I don't know much at all about most everything you have mentioned. I've heard the terms—Apollo, masons, John the Baptist, Plato, gospel of Thomas, Tsarion, Jung, etc.—but am really more of a casual researcher/student. Most of what I read is what falls into my lap, so to speak. What I come across on my travels. I typically only look something up when searching for a particular answer to a specific question.

And my interests are rather scattered. What I find most interesting is everything. The Big Picture. Except not the picture, itself, rather how the picture is viewed. Interpretations, perceptions, focal points, reviews and all that. That's the story I read. It's fascinating. grin.

Never been a better age for it, too. Infomania these days! Picture this, picture that. All in HD. chuckle.

In any case... it certainly would be interesting to know all the historical facts. About Jesus, for example. However... well, here's how I look at it:

When our ancestors were building cobblestone streets, it's doubtful they imagined, pictured, a world in which automobiles would be the common mode of transportation. Heck, consider, even, the building of roads in fairly recent years. In North America, for instance. The towns were established, and roads were installed. Fast forward a few decades and what do we have? Traffic congestion! wink. We don't see the future. And because we don't see the future, we don't plan for it, in what we do today.

So... With respect to history, and historical facts—about Jesus, for instance, and the Bible—it's a safe assumption, I think, that neither did they. They lived in their present. And: we live exactly LIKE they lived. Study the present and you study the past. Know the present and you know the past.

Also: does anyone live with a conscious awareness that future generations will be digging up their dirt?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the calendar stuff. Interesting. 2-week notice of what?

Would you mind explaining further your reference to the "earth grid" and "connection" to it? You would like to "reconnect" how? With what?

...Oh, and: my knowledge is both more and less than what has been stated through my posts. Isn't yours? grin.

May 22, 2014:

okay. dog came to visit me on May 5th. I'd never seen it before. nor had I met the people it belonged to. I only noted the incident because of the [...] ball cap. a couple of hours after I mentioned it (in my journal), a reference to [...] was made on the radio. an irregular topic of reference. so I noticed, quite naturally.

then, on May 17th, less than two weeks later, the dog visited again. I brought her home and chatted a bit with the woman who lives there. but, before I got there, as I was walking with the dog down the road, I ran into a neighbour. she said to me: "I was going to call you." you know what she was going to call me about? the neighbours whose house I just happened to be going to. further, she didn't appear to know where I was headed, as she asked me: "Is that your dog?" she didn't recognize their dog. I told her: "Actually, it belongs to [...]. I was just going there, now." isn't that interesting? that was... five days ago.

well, today I was at the hairdresser. I don't go very often... and you'll never guess what happened! there were a couple of other women there. we chatted. since I hadn't met them before, naturally the conversation included where we lived.

actually, here's how it played out: the hairdresser introduced me to the women. she said, about the woman sitting beside me: "She's from [...]." we chatted a bit, and I, in turn, mentioned where I lived. immediately after I explained which house—(it's always referred to as [the previous occupant]'s house, and everyone around here is familiar with it, as soon as I mention [the previous occupant])—she started talking about "a house that ..." (I won't repeat what she said.) she was talking about the house where the dog lived.

a very lengthy conversation then began about the people living in the house. between the three ladies. I said they seemed like nice people. then I sat quietly as... well, the two older ladies gossiped about them. the hairdresser tried to intervene. she seemed uncomfortable. on my behalf. she even apologized after the ladies left. I told her it was okay, that what I had heard didn't affect my opinion about them. the two women who gossiped, I should mention, were older ladies. older ladies have a tendency to gossip. they know everyone in the area, past and present, and all the goings on.

isn't that interesting, though? I should point out that no one else was gossiped about. all other chat was not about people, rather the weather and so on. but they talked about these people for quite a time. ...in less than a month, I've met the people twice—spontaneously—in returning their wandering dog, and had two occasions where people I'd (also spontaneously) chatted with brought up discussion about these people, mentioned them to me. spontaneous, unrelated incidents. ...and the woman who brought them up, at the hairdresser's, lives a distance away. yet, as soon as I mentioned where I lived, she immediately started talking about them. curious, no?

oh, I forgot to mention:

Did a double take when I read the opening line of your post. Last evening, I happened to joke with my husband about competition. I had been thinking about historical monuments and remarked, essentially:

Isn't it hilarious how we build these huge monuments and feel so proud of ourselves? LIke we've done something spectacular. We're like: Yeah, it took hundreds of men hundreds of hours to assemble hundreds of pieces together. We worked really hard. Isn't it grand, this thing we built?

I went on to joke about the skyscraper competition, saying it was ridiculous, from an objective point of view. A competition to have the tallest building. Someone would build one, and then someone else would work to make theirs just a foot taller, to win the competition.

I said it was not much different from a competition to see who could dig the biggest hole. Like: Yeah, it took us 400 years to dig this hole. It's huge.

Too funny.

2 week advance notice in legal process giving certain insiders an unfair advantage in legal timings but also control (jurisdiction) of legal instruments that utilize a date system that was created with ownership in mind.

when someone asks "what is your birth date?" or date of birth.. these are loaded questions actually even though 99% of the time the one who asks also has no idea of the significance of the question.


the ancient earth grid that has been hijacked. good search term for it is "Telluric current"


my knowledge? I question everything, including what is "mine" and I also want to forget everything I think I know. with increased knowledge comes increased sorrows.

Im sorry for mentioning these things too now.

Oh. Legal stuff(-and-nonsense.) Ownership: because, you know, we called it. chuckle.



How so? After all, one's date of birth is thoroughly registered.



Ley lines? What are they "used" for?



A lot of that going around. It's currently trending. grin.

May 6, 2014:

okay... the invention, implementation, and progress of technology. a tool is technology. a shovel, a shower curtain. and even things as simple as that took a while to perfect. that is, the idea, the desire, the need comes first. and there may not even be a conscious awareness of having 'invented' a tool. the materials used are always those which are available. the first shower curtains were made of cloth. and the first shovel was likely a simple stone.

after the first idea and implementation of a tool, they are perfected. they are improved so as to be more effective, or aspects which are problematic are altered. materials and methods used are those which the inventor has access to and knowledge of. those materials and methods—the knowledge—increases, generally, over time. ...this is simple enough, right? no explanation necessary, and all that...

in our age, a light bulb is considered simple technology. yet quite a lot of knowledge is necessary to fashion one. the process in making glass, for instance. (employed in earlier designs, but, I believe, no longer used.) (I'm going to have to wing this, because I don't even understand how a light bulb works—I don't possess that particular knowledge!)

in any case, when the first light bulbs were invented—the descendants of our modern bulb, using electricity and so on—knowledge previously acquired was used. the people who worked on its design did not start from scratch. other people, for instance, had already discovered how to fashion metals, which made these materials available to be used. I would be interested to see the earliest designs, the earliest experiments. we are still working on new designs to perfect our system of providing artificial light.

the more complex the technology, regardless of the amount of previous knowledge acquired and used in its design—(that is, even if we are trying to make something which employs the use of, or works with, a million bits of information we are already comfortable with and have used with success for a long time, in other uses)—the lengthier the process in achieving perfection. that is, the fine-tuning of any one implementation requires a process comparable to its complexity. as well as its use. that is, if it is technology which is to be used in a complex way, it will require more time to perfect.

so, first there is an idea or a need. a desire. it may be that experimentation or observation leads one to believe that such a thing may be possible. it may be something sought, in solving a particular problem, with no structured idea in mind. it may be something assumed or known to be possible based on previously acquired knowledge. the idea may be purposefully explored with a specific need in view, or it may be play—curiosity—which leads to a discovery. many inventions or discoveries came from work involving something entirely different—serendipitous discoveries. but the perfection of design and implementation always requires a process.

in the case of the light bulb, for instance... the idea, to my knowledge, was born around 1800. the idea of creating electric light. the light bulb, I believe, was born around 1880. people had been working on it. tinkering until they had a working model. (interestingly, engines and airplanes and guns appear to have taken greater priority over providing a system of light beyond candles and oil lamps. ...er, what light were they working on those projects with? perfecting the machine gun by candlelight... strange image.)

the discovery is made public knowledge after the design is "perfected", so to speak, (according to the best which could be achieved at that time, using the contemporary materials and methods), (and the necessary patents have been acquired, of course!) then the introduction to society. (the implementation—manufacture—of the light bulb began, I believe, shortly after the turn of the century.) production begins. this requires materials and methods of production. mass production, that is.

resources are required, machinery, custom molds, etc. need to be fashioned, people need to be taught/trained in order to understand how to make the thing correctly. if it's something entirely new, this process would be relatively lengthy. the process to get from discovery—the first working model made by hand—to mass production—which would require machinery which had to be, itself, invented or customized, as the parts in a light bulb are particular.

well, just take the corded fixture, for example. it is a simple thing, but it had been introduced just prior to it first production. that is, the situation would have been different with the first lamps manufactured than in setting up a factory to make a new design of lamp. a factory, today, built to make lamps would be in a different situation than the factory which produced the first lamps ever. and then there is the installation into homes. the wiring and delivery of electricity. a process. which took, I think, about 40 years, roughly.

yes but nonsense? does the one who creates a thing have the right to claim ownership? its a tricky subject (by design) that I happen to be motivated to study more.




that one, the one that is registered, is that you or me? are you sure?

legalese is a different language that utilizes common words but with not so common definitions. consider reading a law dictionary to define some key words. you may be in for a surprise.





energetics?



that cant be too bad then.

so you have studies the bible but not the legal system? are they not intertwined?

chuckle.

The following are entries from my journal, relevant to the topic of "ownership":

why do people want credit for a thing they did? why not just put the thing out there? isn't the thing the important thing? wasn't vulcanized rubber the focus? why should Mr. Goodyear care to get the credit for his work? personal credit and full, perpetual compensation for his contribution.

why is the focus on the person? why name the company "Goodyear"? why "Morse" code, after the person who invented it? small people, who wish to be bigger. to be immortal, even. businesses, products, organizations, most are named after people. even species of "discovered" plants and animals! or cities and streets. equations, too! why is personal credit important? to everyone, too. that is: others want to know: who did this? I don't get it. it seems ridiculously, childishly self-absorbed.

I'm surprised language, itself, doesn't have a copyright. with the descendants of each word's "creator" receiving royalties. it's a little out of control, in my opinion. mostly I feel this way because I can't get over a couple of points.

first, anything created has not been something that another couldn't have, that many others couldn't have. so, to me, it feels kind of like an "I got here first" kind of thing. that is: it doesn't seem "fair" for a person to get sole credit for something, as if they were the only one who could have done it. and, further, for their families to receive compensation, for anyone to receive compensation long after the creator is dead! what happens when people do the same basic thing, without any awareness of one other? that is: without having "stolen" the idea? the first to file it gets the glory. the glory. and no one else can do it, only buy it.

the second point, with respect to "ownership" of an invention, creation, product, etc... is... well, take writing, for instance. there are only so many ways to say a thing, right? to speak about any one thing in any one way with any one opinion. so, how many books on a topic have been published? if all those words are owned, under copyright, then how long before there won't be a "free" way to say a thing, to speak about a topic?

and how can one know whether or not they are designing a thing that hasn't already been done? must we do a search?? with each passing year, more and more phrases, tunes, product designs, will be taken "out of commission", so to speak, owned by an individual or business. not the world's, belonging to the world. ownership of words! notes arranged in an order, with a particular timing! how many different combinations are there left?

for these reasons, I find such things unsettling.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I received an email from a friend, with attached info on cyber security. mentioning the "permanent memory" of the internet, how messages shared online will be around for decades. advising to "check the privacy policy of each networking site you use to find out who owns what you are posting (including photos)." and that confidential information should never be stored on your computer or sent to your email, because if your email account or computer is hacked into... bla bla bla.

so, what I gather is that people's personal email accounts and computers are so commonly insecure, and hacking is such a widespread, serious problem, that keeping confidential information on them is akin to leaving your valuables sitting unguarded and unsecured on your front lawn. also, how was it made legal for any networking site to write into their policy that they can own your photographs? presumably, this means that they are free to use them as they wish. why would they want to own them? too, if the site owns your photo, legally, does this mean that the person no longer possesses the right to use said photo?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

take for instance, the internet. services, in particular. they all have "agreements", no? which you must accept in order to use the service. I don't think I need to get into what a typical agreement involves. they're all basically the same. which is a good point. because if you don't wish to accept such an agreement, you cannot use any service. not so much an option, in our society, no? that is: the offline world, in terms of business and communications, is being phased out.



Yes, I maintain that it is nonsense. Ownership doesn't truly exist, as with laws. What actually exists is action, performed according to belief. For instance: what would occur if no one believed in ownership? There would be no claim, right? No action, to the effect of, and all that. Conversely: if enough people believe in ownership, such claims will be acknowledged, and violations will be met with action. It all comes down to action, which is all that is real.

More legal nonsense:

In a town near to where I live, three essential services—(using the term "essential" loosely, as these services are not necessary for survival, but rather necessary in our current system)—have been recently shut down because the proprietors could not—or would not—conform to certain government regulations.

One of them is a gas station. Can you believe it? No gas station. Another was forced to close because no employee could speak french—they were not bilingual. In a town with a population of just under 2,000, I wonder how many people speak only french, so as to justify such a requirement? blink. And, funny: now that the business is closed, all of the people, not only the french-only speaking people—(if, in fact, there were any)—are denied the convenience of having a local service, which, apparently, would have been allowed to remain open if only the employees spoke french.

Oh, and another business was informed they needed a wheelchair ramp in order to remain open. So they built one. But it didn't meet the proper requirements. sigh.



A lot of this, too, going around. wink.

I think I understand quite well, even without having read a law dictionary. (And I'm not at all surprised. smile.)



Hm. Are you suggesting that anything which trends can be considered good? By virtue of its having permeated? (I'm asking because that's what your words, literally, say. The word "then" gives them that meaning. That is: what you literally said is: "If (/Since) there's a lot of that going around and it's currently trending, then that can't be too bad." wink.) Did you, instead, intend to simply express agreement with this particular trend?



I have not studied the Bible. I have looked into it somewhat, but have yet to read it in its entirety. I left off somewhere in Exodus. chuckle. But, yes, it is my belief that the Bible is, for the most part, a book of Laws, which was created, by men for men, with that purpose, using a different format—(and "source"—wink)—than we use in our Law books, today. (Although, it could be argued that we also use the "storytelling" format, in other areas, to encourage/influence social behaviour. grin. (We haven't changed a bit, in that respect. Kind of like: A successful strategy employed when hunting the same creatures under the same conditions, and so on, will always be successful.))

May 6, 2014—continued:

the progress of technology, the exploration, experimentation, everything up to the implementation occurs behind the scenes, so to speak. things, to society, appear out of nowhere. like with a movie, for instance. simplified: someone has an idea. they write a script. they submit their script. it is accepted. (for the sake of this explanation, we'll assume it's not filed away for future use...) the script is altered. plans are made. locations scouted. funds are raised. sets are built. actors are hired. production begins. scenes are shot. everything is edited. copies are produced. it all takes time. and when is the public first exposed to the movie? just before its release. the trailers contain scenes from the movie, from the finished product.

it is the same with technology. and, as I said, the process, the behind the scenes development is relative to the thing being developed. new technology is not as easy to develop as a new product using old technology. the first light bulb, the first television, the first computer, as compared with a new light bulb design, or an improved television design, etc.

another interesting point: a great many technologies—even those which are now commonly employed in the average household and used in daily life for rather mundane purposes—were invented, initially, by those employed—contracted—to develop specific technologies for specific purposes, to be used by governments. experts in a field were approached, given specific instructions as to what was required—specifications pertaining to the use of a desired technology, desired capabilities, etc.—and the experts were contracted to develop such a thing. submarines, for example. although subs are not one of the items which are employed by the average person. the computer, however, is. it was invented, if I remember correctly, by government employees, for government use.

in any case, having said all this... considering all these points... I can't understand how... (although I'm not aware of the exact timeline... but, roughly)... at one point in fairly recent history—around the turn of the century, or just before—people's homes had no electricity, they used candles and oil lamps, they had no indoor plumbing—(such a thing was possible, but not implemented or common)—using instead wells, washtubs, outhouses, chamber pots, and so on—(such a simple system, too!), they used woodstoves to heat their homes and cook their food, and for supplying hot water for bathing and laundry.

this was how people lived. ponder that for a moment. horses and buggies, brick chimneys, collecting eggs, milking cows, plucking freshly killed chickens, houses built using hand tools, barns painted using a mixture of milk and rust to attract sunlight to keep livestock warm, hand-sewn clothes using loom-woven cloth, hand-made leather shoes... got the picture? no toilet paper, no telephones, no refrigeration...

and yet, sixty or so years later—roughly one lifetime—men successfully walked on the moon! computers, (and the internet), existed. (I would be interested to learn how we invented a system that would allow men to survive an experience with which we had no previous experience—the breathing apparatus, the pressure and gravity factors, etc... what the process was.) the basics of such technologies, to fit a realistic timeline, would, to my mind, have to have been known, in use, so to speak, concurrently with the aforementioned age—an age with no electric light, etc.

I mean, there was contact, communication between the men on the moon and the base on earth. satellites in orbit. ...and when was the radio invented? I don't know the details, not the details of history, the timeline, nor what is involved in the process. still... the timeline doesn't make sense to me.

obviously, once the use of electricity in an appliance, for example, is discovered and implemented, it can be applied in other areas, after figuring out how to properly apply it and designing a system or object. the process of inventing and designing all the technology required to not only explore outer space, but to send humans into its environment, would be a rather lengthy one. it seems to me it must have started well before it would appear to have.

that is, some of this rather advanced technology must have been in existence at a time when people were living without indoor plumbing. at the very least, it must have been being developed at that time, for a successful implementation to have been employed a few decades later. a successful full implementation of technologies involving travel into outer space.

which says to me: that sort of thing had not only been in development, but had been a priority over providing people with something as simple as indoor plumbing. water heaters. electric light. these things were invented, (at least, implemented) sixty or so years before space travel became a reality. of course, the excuse is "an explosion of technology/knowledge"... explosion indeed! does that make sense? from light bulbs to space travel in such a short period because we suddenly discovered one or two types of knowledge or technological application, which led to such speedy advances and full implementations?

there's quite a big difference between a light bulb or telephone and a spaceship. the navigation alone... I mean, it took forty or so years to get electric light into people's homes! consider, even, the timeline of progress with respect to computers. how long it took to get from a computer the size of a closet to the models we are currently using, with the current capabilities, memory, design, and so on...

in any case, considering the process which must necessarily have occurred—the practical process—the timeline doesn't make sense to me. from light bulbs to spaceships... in a century, a lifetime...

yes, you see alot of what is wrong with things. I dont agree with the way this stuff is set up, I actually see it much like you but it is a system we must deal with so I study how it works. everything is based on law so IMO there is no better subject of study.

ownership, patents, etc., all that stuff is messed up.. we need open source systems from top to bottom.

actually, legalese is copyrighted language by the worlds oldest guild. the BAR. they have encrypted laws into codes.

now everybody believes these people and their "spells" but with some study we can break free from this code matrix.


the most important lesson Ive learned is how a man has a higher status than any corporation or any other legal fiction. once you learn how and why this is you can hold people posing as some fictitious title (cop, judge, etc., anybody!) accountable as a man (or woman) and they have no corporate government immunity. including the highest officers. its called piercing the corporate veil and there are more and more people learning these things.

I just hope enough will start to put these monsters back in their place sooner rather than later because the longer this mess continues, more damage is done.

I do think big changes are coming but Im not sure how long it will take for people to realize that it is the BAR member society that is causing this damage and the only way to correct this problem is for enough people to become competent enough to handle legal affairs on their own and not paying these shysters for more corruption.

I no longer worry as much about these quasi-contracts you mentioned called "privacy policies" and licenses and anything else dealing with corporations because I know a corporation in reality does not exsist, they can not testify and Im not fooled by their agents either, they are only acting as..

just like the town near where you live, these things would never happen if people were competent to handle their own legal affairs! this BAR society has done more harm to mankind than everything else on the planet combined!


you think you "understand quite well" try to innerstand and overstand instead. stop standing under things. lol


Im not saying trends are good, I was saying if that was a trend then that is good but I dont see it.. I see ignorance everywhere! questioning everything as a trend? I dont see that, I see chattel/sheeple everywhere.

about the bible, it is actually public law in the US, R. Regan did that in 1982 I think it was. yes, it IS a law book.

sorry I didnt format this reply, have alot going on right now but I wanted to get back to you here. I think you would make a great law student and probably a competent court of your own (A court of record)


we need more people to get with it! if not for ourselvs then for those who will be inheriting this world.

I always heard that the angle of dangle was inversely related to the heat of the meat, and the mass of the ass.

your last post was dejavu for me.. or was that a repost because I swear I read it already. ;-)

about that last line though, I see it as a snowball effect. terrance mckenna had some interesting theories about that also.

I cant make sense of it myself without firsthand knowledge though. cant see how the practical process and timeline does not make sense to you. I'll re-read that again but can you clarify more why?

but what are you getting at here anyway? lol I mean altogether with this topic? just curious and admittedly I skimmed alot of the first 10 pages.

and where did everybody else go?

I knew a mate with an angle, his angle was to succeed!

There is no way to say this in a way that won't come across as cynical, however...

I think if we could successfully create such a reality as you long for, we would have created it long ago. To put it another way: If such a system as exists was avoidable, why was it not avoided?

A rather large percentage of our—human—activities are dedicated to the elimination—solving—of (perceived) problems of varying seriousness and triviality. With limited success.

Dissatisfaction with life "as it is" is inherent—felt by all, regardless of one's individual situation.

And have we not always been trying to improve things? Dissatisfied with things as they are? Take any point along the way: Was the solution to a perceived problem not foreseeable to them? That is: they had goals, the fulfillment of which would improve their lives.

Did ancient men picture modern life as something to work towards? Doubtful. And yet they, like us, clearly pictured a better life. Will any changes we make in our world make it best? Or will we still feel uncomfortable in 2,000 or 2,000,000 years?

We tend to believe we can rid ourselves of that feeling. And we believe we know just how to accomplish it.

In any case... les miserables: Why are they miserable? Trodden upon, ignorant and all that? Why?

Question: If we—hypothetically speaking—implemented a system of procreation which eliminated the inconvenience and discomfort of pregnancy and giving birth, would people continue to have sex? ... wink.

Nature is constant.

My point in saying this is not to address, (nor criticize), the actions of people—(nor to suggest that we should "accept what is")—but rather to point in the direction of the reason behind the action.

It is my belief that everyone innerstands. Further, I believe it would be impossible for one to not innerstand. Listen closely. Every word, every gesture is a natural reaction to dot dot dot. Is that not evidence of innerstanding?

If everyone innerstands, then... (scroll up and reread.)

And, speaking of "standing":

Thread: Falling For Standing For Some Thing