Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

Also, how come no one still has accounted for this quote?

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a 'mental' consctruction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: "The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual."

I can post the source if you need me to. This is from a Physicist and is fairly recent. Please explain to me Writer how you are more advanced than these Physicists and also explain to me how any of the above quote, if it turned out to be true, would interfere with or discount the existence of Magick?

Also, if you're so in touch with what you do, certainly you would be aware of this counter-movement currently going on within the Scientific Community?

 

This is not correct on the face of it. A fundamental conclusion is a thought that can change. There is nothing fundamentally sound about that statement and any reasoning built on it will be flawed because the beginning axiom was unsound. Observers don't create reality, reality exists in the absence of observation and observation is the relative observation of reality. The observer holds in attention a corridor of refraction and as long as you are looking in the same direction and consistently hold that vector that estate will be sustained for you. We simply hold things in a specific corridor of refraction through attention. The fundamental conclusion that could be made is that the observer influences whether a phenomena will appear in one way or another.

 

And how come you just keep adding and as though no one has commented on anything you said. You just completely block your attention to anything else and you find yourself lonely in comparison. you are taking up storage space with commentary that no one is interested in and it breaks the flow of the sustained development of reason. My only interest in your presentation right now is to show you the errors in reasoning, which is a project that doesn't need to deal with substance of issues.

 

Our biological machine is in a class called mammal and each and everyone of us mammals has the same functional equipment and so in fact our taste of experience is identical. Your preference of particular experience within that shared matrix is a matter exclusively of your own choosing.You identify the source of peculiar behavior by looking at your own peculiarities in related to similar situations or tapping into the relevant emotions present and relate them to your own causes. Rule of thumb uncivil behavior is not intentional but out of control even though one so engaged thinks he might be justifiably employed by anger. Anger is not justifiable in any form considering that you are real. it is like being angry at a plant or the weather and it sure makes for and angry cadre of worldly constituents. I prefer to be happy.

 

Why have you still not accounted for the fundamental propositions of the position you hold? Why are we still struggling to get you to say one concrete thing about magick? why are you doing nothing but slinging dirt around you and calling it "cleaning things up"?

Scientists don't bother themselves with second or third hand accounts of things; they go right to the primary account of things, the reality; the experiment; the observation. This paragraph is a third hand account. It is someone writing about a writing about events. He says physicists are "forced to admit", immediately pitting physicists against their own observational data. Do not confuse the rhetoric of one blog writer for some kind of scientific reality or consensus. You yourself posted a paper discussing the mental aspects of the universe from a physics point of view. Was there any "forcing"? No, if the evidence suggests further exploration, then we will explore. I also reject his sentiment of "hail [mind] as the creator and governor of the realm of matter"; this shows a fundamental misunderstanding, a deeply rooted dichotomy and duality of thought which you yourself are guilty of chinacat. You speak of unifying matter and mind but you don't already see that they are one and so struggle with both.

We are all still waiting for any evidence that Magick is a real thing that needs exploring, after basically 3 full threads of discussion and squirming around on your end. You will forgive us all if soon we lose interest in your freshmen fumblings of the universes' lingerie. Get to the action already chinacat, where is the magick.

If the above quote is true then it still does not verify or discount Magick; it merely provides a possible source of mechanism. However this quote need not be true for Magick to be true. Magick could be true today, right now. Perhaps everything is ultimately "material stuff" and Magick is still true. It's irrelevent.

The question Chinacat, is where is the evidence for Magick being true? Here, now, where is the evidence? Is there any? If yes, let's study it. If not, drop it.

You still don't understand science if you think any of this is a "counter-movement". Science only has movement. This is another paradigm within it; this IS science.

 

Doing a quick bio on Sir James Jean, he died around the end of World War 2.

This is another quote of his regarding time travel...

Now by no means am I claiming to be as knowledgeable in regards to physics, however that doesn't necessarily mean that physicists are always right.

For instance, I would not claim to be "more advanced" than Newton in regards to physics, however he claimed time to be absolute and then Einstein came along to show time is relative, which is the general current understanding of time.

In regards to quantum mechanics, realize that we're talking about phenomena below our macroscopic view of the world. From my understanding, the 'observer' doesn't need to be a sentient being looking at a particle, it can be a measurement object placed along the the particle.

Physicists attempting to understand the fundamental workings of reality, often have to put forth certain philosophical notions of reality and it seems James Jean espoused Hegelian type philosophy fresh out of the 19th century.

 

You still haven't answered my question of how can matter have consciousness and yet a man can't have any sort of effect (energetic, psychic) on reality via a ritual, using his consciousness?

That's funny that you don't think that a countermovement is happening, as it was a SCIENTIST who said that there was one happening.

Also it was a physicist who suggested to hail mind as the creator of matter, so why you are attributing that quote to me I am unsure.

I would say that if it were true it would be providing the very substance, ground work, and 'prima materia' for Magick to be theoretically possible. And yes the quote would need to be true in order for Magick to be true. You not agreeing with that shows that you don't really get what Magick is perhaps. And why you're going from "it's not real man, you need to let it go" to "well, it could be real" within a few posts is rather strange.

It's my choice not to share my private life with you. Get over it. Nobody's stopping you from studying it on your own. Isn't that what a Scientist does?

If this countermovement IS Science then Magick will also be Science quicker than we think. It already is in my opinion. Part of the post-2012 Cycle.

If mind and matter are one as you suggest then whatever would be so ridiculous about the existence of Magick?

 

to guerillabedlam, the full quote was from R.C. Henry, Professor of Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, 2005.

 

We have consciousness because we are matter. Matter has three properties, absorption, reflection,and polarity. All of our relations are informed following the interactive character of those three properties..

There are no idle thoughts.
A man uses his consciousness for all conscious activity. There is no time when you are not actively and powerfully creating exactly what you want to see.

Your understanding of men and effects is minuscule. If you even knew something more than how to take a dump you still wouldn't come close. you are asking questions about whether or not it is possible to walk before you learn to crawl and ask the least information about your possibilities thinking they point to your highest attainment. You could be asking questions about how to develop you capacity for levitation but instead, well you know, just keep aiming high there pal.

 

It's funny that you don't understand there is no such thing as counter movement but moving and not moving. You can have rotation and in comparison counter rotation. No counter movement. You can encounter a blow or counter a blow, but movement is a complete term of itself that covers all specified and unspecified movements. You don't know any scientist who said that. You read it and grabbed onto it as contribution to your popular take on what is valuable. You need to develop some fundamental strength to break in with the cool cats

 

post #514 is in reference to a response by CannabisSoul I believe. a few pages back. computer isn't letting me quote so I have to bear with that.

 

Oh, please! I want to break in with the cool cats SO BADLY! I want to fit in! Please grace me with the strength required to break in!

 

Are you a physicist. If not don't speak for physicists. I have been telling you the thought comes first for years.
Because nothing of yours is that quotable and we need a mutually understandable document form which to glean appreciation of what ever you might be thinking. Your thoughts are so overtly disorganized as to not be able to tell where they are coming from. Seriously it sounds like a twelve year old flushing into puberty.

Who speaks for buddha

no buddha

no buddhism

 

And guerillabedlam, Ancient Greece used Alchemy! Heavily. Hermes Trismigestus is a combination of Greek and Egyptian Gods. Both were engrossed in Alchemy.

 

i can lend you my grace but exercising and building personal integrity are your job

 

You can get that information from saturday cartoons

 

The way you presented it saying "these physcists" among other things, gives the impression you were suggesting James Jean was a part of the current "counter-movement in science" as well.

 

you mean to tell me that a computer is restraining you in some way? your bdsm proclivities do not require our participation

 

It's an indistinct view in the sense that I'm drawing upon the modern interpretation and associations of those words to describe a form of study from a civilization which no longer exists. I realize, particularly speaking with you, the amorphous quality language often takes.

 

What does this mean? what kind of source is it? Yes exacting terms means exacting appreciation. Did you know the anaphora distort and limit your apprehension of real things?