Consciousness observing itself is nothing new. Being able to find cultural analytical memes as correlates too is nothing new while looking at/for the truth. The process is at once complex (as in ‘the many’) and simple (as in ‘the one’). This is no contradiction.
On Apr 30, 9:20 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 Apr, 16:31, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No pat you did not insult my intelligence as it is hard to insult > > someone who is, I actually have that in my profile here, Title; > > Working Slob... I must say that you are a true character, Yahoo, LMAO! > > I always thought it might be pronounced Yaowee, as in if you had > > touched a hot stove! Consequently, most people after doing so, scream, > > hollar and shout profanity while invoking the Lord's name as well. > > Having had this thought in my head for some time, I have developed > > quite a tolerance for pain and most times remain silent. lol! > > Well, SLOB could be an acronym for Specifically Lazy Old Bore. And, > again, I'm only saying that for laughter's sake, not that it's true. > It could equally be Secretly Latent Omnipotent Being. Don't worry, > I'm sure you're not the only poster here who's fluent in the ancient > tongue of Profanity. But, of course, that raises the question what is > 'fanity' and why, then, is swearing pro-fanity? > > Have a good weekend!! > > > > > On Apr 30, 5:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 29 Apr, 14:55, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I am a working slob, Pat but not an unlearned one! I did, in fact, > > > > know this about the name יהוה > > > > The pronunciation, however, is probably incorrect! More likely Yahwee > > > > than anything else but hard to tell since the language has evolved so > > > > much through the years. The pronunciation "Jehova", is likely to come > > > > from the names of the characters that form the name which are; Jod, > > > > He, Vau an He. > > > > Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you intelligence; but, there are > > > other readers that may NOT have known, so I feel obligated to take > > > them into account. The pronuciation of "Yehovah" (really sounds more > > > like Yaa-hoe-vah [and DON'T forget to pronounce that final 'H' as it > > > has a 'dagesh' in it {a dagesh is a small dot in the centre of the > > > letter that, in some letters, completely changes the pronunciation. > > > For example, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Bet' is > > > pronounced like a 'V' without a dagesh but, with the dagesh, is a 'B'} > > > that, when present, demands the speaker to actually finish the word > > > with an aspiration!]) was the result of adding the vowels associated > > > with the word "Adonai" (ADNY with the vowels: short 'a', long 'o', > > > short 'a'; the word Adonai means "Lord" or, when used colloquially, > > > "my Lord", as the final 'Y' is the suffix that connotes the first > > > person singular possessive) and adding them to the letters YHVH. That > > > was done after the REAL pronunciation was lost. Personally, I've > > > always hoped that the REAL pronunciation was 'Yahoo' and that the > > > search engine of the same name has led the world to commit the sin of > > > 'taking the Lord's name in vain' to the point of common parlance. > > > 'Twould serve us right. ;-) > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:54 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 17:07, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. I look > > > > > > for > > > > > > ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be employing 11 > > > > > > dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to the > > > > > > "One" > > > > > > or God as I like to call it? > > > > > > Actually, I'd be happy to spoil that one for you by telling you now. > > > > > I'm opting for the very first 26-dimensional pure bosonic string > > > > > theory as the most likely. That way, using only bosonic fields, the > > > > > various fermions are, in essence, illusory resultant products of the > > > > > interactions of the underlying bosonic fields. Thus, with the > > > > > original 26-dimensional theory, all 4 bosonic types (EM, Gravity, > > > > > strong and weak atomic forces) stem from one generic force and can > > > > > account for all that exists. My proposition is that 16 of those 26 > > > > > dimensions act as the 1 extra dimension of M-Theory, the remaining 10 > > > > > are the 4-D space-time and the 6-D Calabi-Yau space in which > > > > > consciousness exists (in 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions) and, in a > > > > > Platonistic way, where and how the underlying abstract concepts we use > > > > > are defined (in the remaining 3-D area of the Calabi-Yau). It is my > > > > > proposition that that 1 extra dimension of M-Theory is, in fact, a 16- > > > > > D reticulum that acts as the medium through which the other 10 > > > > > dimensions expand. > > > > > > Thus, I can have an M-Theory approach, but actually employ the > > > > > original, most mathematically complex 26-dimensional theory and > > > > > explain how consciousness works and where ideas are 'kept'. My > > > > > reasons are that I need to not only explain our 4-D tangible space- > > > > > time, but also be able to explain 7 heavens and 7 hells and how THEY > > > > > can expand (which is alluded to in various scriptures); and only with > > > > > the original 26-dimensional theory can both 'the seen' and 'the > > > > > unseen' be explained in a way that matches what God said He did. And > > > > > it matches perfectly...but only by using 26 dimensions. I'm not sure > > > > > if you knew or not but the ancient Hebrew name for God, YHVH (commonly > > > > > pronounced as 'Jehovah'), has a numerical value of 26...and I really > > > > > don't think that was by chance. > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of something. You > > > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes are > > > > > > > > manmade and > > > > > > > > useful only for our understanding which is limited. Omnipotent, > > > > > > > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding so that > > > > > > > > we can > > > > > > > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any religion in > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of logic and > > > > > > > > not a > > > > > > > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much, they > > > > > > > > believe in > > > > > > > > what the scripture says and pray according to their faith. Some > > > > > > > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such activities. > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too much above > > > > > > > > us and > > > > > > > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual acceptance. > > > > > > > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of > > > > > > > evidence-- > > > > > > > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily enough, > > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > my life's work to answer these very questions and, I'm afraid > > > > > > > that I, > > > > > > > personally, cannot close the book on it until I've written that > > > > > > > book. > > > > > > > And that will be done. You and many others believe that God is > > > > > > > so far > > > > > > > above and beyond us that we can never hope to understand Him. In > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > very face of that obstacle, I will persue it to the very end > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > because others don't or won't. It's my obligation, as no one else > > > > > > > dares. They say that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, > > > > > > > well, > > > > > > > I rush in where fools fear to tread. Some may think that, then, > > > > > > > incredibly foolish, yet I view it as my office and obligation. > > > > > > > I'll > > > > > > > never fill in all the fine details, but I will pin down enough > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the concept (of God) will be known and will be discussed, because > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is my firm belief that God is NOT so transcendant as to be > > > > > > > completely > > > > > > > beyond our comprehension, rather, His immanence gives Him a > > > > > > > closeness > > > > > > > to us all that we, each of us, can hold on to and learn from > > > > > > > within. > > > > > > > All that is needed is a roadmap and a few guideposts and I'm > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > on them. > > > > > > > > I do agree with you that "energy is something and God is the > > > > > > > source of > > > > > > > something". I agree with that through extending that energy back > > > > > > > TO > > > > > > > its source. Essentially, God is a multi-dimensional object of > > > > > > > stringy > > > > > > > energy that is twisted and contorted in such a way as to produce > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > that is in this 4-D universe as well as everything in any heaven > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > hell and many other places, as well. This, God does by extending > > > > > > > Himself through those dimensions and using the ends of those > > > > > > > extensions to interact with one another to produce all that > > > > > > > exists. > > > > > > > It is His obligation to do that, as there is nothing ELSE that > > > > > > > can. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 4:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 11:55, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather > > > > > > > > > > everything emanates > > > > > > > > > > from him. He is above all attributes and the source of all. > > > > > > > > > > I would completely refute that. To date, we have discovered > > > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > > that exists that is not comprised of energy. It is energy > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > exists. If you can find something that is NOT energy, then, > > > > > > > > > please, > > > > > > > > > do so and take the Nobel Prize in Physics. If God does not > > > > > > > > > consist of > > > > > > > > > 'something', then He must consist of 'nothing' and nothing > > > > > > > > > can EVER > > > > > > > > > come from nothing. Rather, God must consist of some > > > > > > > > > substance and, > > > > > > > > > the only underlying substance we have ever discovered is > > > > > > > > > energy, > > > > > > > > > albeit in countless 'forms'. Nothin could emanate from > > > > > > > > > nothing. So > > > > > > > > > that statement, too, I refute. Rather, everything emantates > > > > > > > > > from (or, > > > > > > > > > as I would term it, everything is an extension of) God. He > > > > > > > > > has many > > > > > > > > > attributes, 99 according to Islam. I can use just three to > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
