Very good. I have read text (my favorite would be Johan Calleman http://www.calleman.com/ ) that presents the idea that because our current state of collective consciousness includes the more eternal states that are not bound to space time in a linear way, the annilation aspect of the cyclical change will not be necessary, as by the time it is upon us, our perception of space time will be so different (collectively and for some, individually) physical reality will be sustained through the change transparently and seamlessly, without need of collapse or chaos. This contemporary mystical view is hard to find and even more difficult to communicate given the current conceptual foundation. And then there is the sufi teaching that it is a sin to present material that the other is not ready to hear. But I know you are there and probably well past. And appreciate.
On May 27, 8:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 May, 17:35, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sure, but in consciousness, we need not be tied to neither space nor > > time in any linear way, so time running out is no longer possible with > > all time, bi location or multi location. > > What I mean by 'time running out' is the potential for a cataclysmic > ending to space-time that results in the re-creation of the 'next' Big > Bang to Cataclysm sequence. Time doesn't actually go away, nor space, > but when space-time hits the wall (which I believe to be made of the > supposedly 'missing' antimatter from our early cosmos) at the end of > the medium through which it is expanding, then a huge matter-anti- > matter annihilation will result and everything get turned back into > photons and wraps back around to start a new sequence that will allow > for a 'new Creation' where different events can be explored. The fact > that space-time is expanding at a faster rate now than it was when > that rate of expansion was first discovered by Edwin Hubble stands as > evidence, to me, that we are, indeed, approaching that anti-matter > wall. Just like two magnets of opposite charge pull towards one > another the closer they get, the rate of space-time's (consisting of > matter) expansion would increase as it approaches its oppositely > charged wall of anti-matter. In my system of physics, it is this > matter/anti-matter opposition that drives the expansion of space-time > and, therefore is the mechanism that pushes us FORWARD through time > rather than entropy, which is the current belief, because the > oppositely charged particles would, naturally, draw together and, if > the anti-matter wall is fixed, then it would force the matter in space- > time to rush towards it. > > Consciousness, though, I purport to exist in atemporal space (in the > Calabi-Yau space), so consciousness itself is eternal and not actually > a part of space-time. What IS a part of space-time is our nervous > systems that set up a quantum interface TO our consciousness in a > Penrose-Hameroff kind of way. That is, what Penrose and Hameroff see > as Quantum Consciousness, I see as the actual quantum-level interface > TO the real consciousness, which is in the Calabi-Yau. This (my) > configuration allows for both re-incarnation and resurrection > processes to be much easier, as all that has to be re-organised is the > interface, rather than re-inventing the consciousness as well. > Rather, the consciousness remains eternal and is re-used as God sees > fit. > > So, yes, I completely agree that we, as conscious entities (or 'fields > of conscious energy') needn't be 'tied' to space-time and, in fact, > are only tied to it during our lifespan via incarnation; the rest of > our existence is eternal or, more properly, atemporal, because, as > conscious entities, we simply 'are'. > > > > > On May 25, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 24 May, 17:31, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Alright Pat, continuing to ‘uplevel’ the conversation, I’ll say that I > > > > agree that in more ultimate terms it has to do with ‘view’. As to your > > > > most likely rhetorical questions…such things are innate. Yet, I’ll > > > > post something about ethics in a different thread today too. > > > > > However, returning to the level of your previous post, when you ask “… > > > > what are the options?”, on an everyday relative and practical level, I > > > > repeat my observation…the way change (assuming the more common > > > > cyclical form of change) occurs is most often through revolution in > > > > the most common parlance of the term. > > > > > And if a book is used to this end, examples include the Qur’an, The > > > > Bible, Mao’s Little Red Book, Tao Te Ching etc. And, while a bit more > > > > integration of science and theology is appropriate and necessary for > > > > today, my bet is that other books to that end will be more effective. > > > > Well, it's not just science and theology that I integrate, but also > > > lay down rational philosophy and ethics that can be drawn from that > > > integration. And, God willing, it will be effective for the > > > betterment of humankind before our time runs out. Space-time is > > > expanding faster, that does NOT bode well for a long and happy future. > > > > > On May 24, 4:17 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 21 May, 21:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Pat, you appear to reject out of hand the seemingly rhetorical > > > > > > questions you opened this post with. Since we know that most > > > > > > revolutionary change takes just that way…I find that the ‘problem’ > > > > > > lies at the feet of those who won’t accept let alone discuss the > > > > > > obvious. And all too often the obvious is the banality of > > > > > > evil.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns > > > > > > Ahh, but when does a necessary evil become banal or a banal evil, > > > > > necessary? I still say the best way to change society (alluded to in > > > > > my original statement) is to change the way people VIEW their role IN > > > > > society and, to change the way society views the role of the > > > > > individual. These are revolutionary changes that can take place > > > > > peacefully (with any luck) inside peoples' minds and to spur THAT is > > > > > one of the purposes for my book. I'm no Little Eichmann, but my plan > > > > > may take a while to materialise. > > > > > > > On May 21, 5:16 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 11:06, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The UK now has coalition government - we might call it > > > > > > > > ConDem(n), One > > > > > > > > wants to see some kind of success, beyond the honeymoon period, > > > > > > > > Currently, it's a relief not to have Nulabour (possibly a place > > > > > > > > near > > > > > > > > Ulan Bator) drones churning out denials under phoney positive > > > > > > > > spin. > > > > > > > > Nulabour had become functionally Stalinist without the > > > > > > > > blood-lust. We > > > > > > > > will no doubt discover they have fiddled the books, though the > > > > > > > > extent > > > > > > > > of this may never be known despite bringing in independent > > > > > > > > audit. My > > > > > > > > own belief is that it may be so bad we should have joined the > > > > > > > > Euro so > > > > > > > > we could ask the kindly Germans to bail us out. > > > > > > > > > Currently, we are being promised a referendum on proportional > > > > > > > > representation - this should happen next year, not become > > > > > > > > subject to > > > > > > > > delay. > > > > > > > > A tough budget is coming soon. I would prefer Angela Merkel > > > > > > > > did this > > > > > > > > and put in some bwanker-screwing. It would be good if this > > > > > > > > wasn't a > > > > > > > > typical 'new CEO' blaming the old regime thing. > > > > > > > > Utter crud like police targets are being scrapped, but we have > > > > > > > > no plan > > > > > > > > to really make things better. > > > > > > > > > After this stuff, which looks like typical flim-flam, I have > > > > > > > > heard > > > > > > > > nothing about how we will change practice. In the background, > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > Parliament is still full of vested interest, public school > > > > > > > > products > > > > > > > > and the same old, same old. More people voted against the > > > > > > > > Speaker > > > > > > > > than for him in the public vote, yet MPs elected him unopposed. > > > > > > > > Some > > > > > > > > expense scandal creep has been re-elected because we were not > > > > > > > > told of > > > > > > > > his impending arrest. All the arguments remain at bulldung- > > > > > > > > undergraduate levels, and no one is really engaging public > > > > > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > How long before this lot become as vile as the Tories after 18 > > > > > > > > years > > > > > > > > and Nulabour after 13? Both these governments turned the > > > > > > > > instruments > > > > > > > > of power against the people through performance management and > > > > > > > > spin,and the leaders all played this childish game to the hilt. > > > > > > > > How > > > > > > > > long before this lot start denying reality and play games > > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > lying statistics, the legal and media systems and blaming the > > > > > > > > last > > > > > > > > administration? How long before we (as the Big Society) get > > > > > > > > blamed? > > > > > > > > We ARE to blame insofar as we elected the people who govern us. > > > > > > > But > > > > > > > what are the options? Civil War? Revolution? Gunpowder Plots? > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > seems to me that the problem lies in the fact that only arseholes > > > > > > > run > > > > > > > for election, so why be so surprised when arseholes get elected. > > > > > > > Real > > > > > > > reformation will not occur as long as 'people with much to lose' > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > in the position to lose that which they must in order for the > > > > > > > reformation to be effective. Until you have decent people in > > > > > > > power, > > > > > > > you can expect institutionalised indecency. But 'decent people' > > > > > > > aren't running for election; or, if they are, they don't have the > > > > > > > money/backing to get enough publicity to get elected. Money > > > > > > > talks a > > > > > > > lot louder than ethics. Change THAT fact and you can begin to > > > > > > > hope.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
