It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Fairly Interesting Thread

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
It is said - although I don't quite believe it - that the Hebrew Bible is the word of God, and that the ancient Hebrew scribe-priests-mystics created, or perhaps, discovered, the secret semiotic structure of reality, and then embedded it in the Hebrew Bible.

It's a fascinating and interesting perspective, and indeed, according to Alex Shalom Kohav, author of The Sod Hypothesis, the Hebrew bibles narrative should be understood in terms of the concept of "emergence", so that the setting, topic and object of the narrative can be interpreted in terms of inferential, conferential, and deferential functions of interpretation. The books quite a hefty one, and requires, as Kohav warns the reader, a background in many different academic fields. It's a difficult and complex read, but definitely worth the effort if you want to understand what it is that is being discussed.

And what is being discussed, by the way? Isn't all of this, from the so-called "pythagorean illuminati", going all the way back to ancient Greece (or so the legend goes) and forming the esoteric core of all world religions, as the Germans were keen to make clear in the 18th and 19th centuries: they were "Aryans", which meant, apparently, carriers of an ancient and sacred tradition?

The more perceptive gnostic must feel a bit queasy with this revisionist history, and not really believe it. But why?

My thinking along these lines is purely that of a philosophical historian. I do not care for narratives because my education in fields relavant to human-functioning - neurosciences, anthropology, ethology, psychology, cell-biology - precludes me from not asking "is this yet another deception"?

Were so full of them, Human beings.

Were full of them because people like the Krupps, Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc, live a fantasy-story based upon a metaphysical dualism which has persisted for a profoundly long time among human beings.

As Umberto Eco alludes to in his opening scene in Foucaults Pendulum

“How could I endure in the midst of that foul concatenation of diesel genitals and turbine-driven vaginas, the inorganic throats that once had flamed, steamed and hissed, and might again that very night? Or maybe they would buzz like stag beetles or chirr like cicadas amid those skeletal incarnations of pure, abstract functionality, automata able to crush, saw, shift, break, slice, accelerate, ram, and gulp fuel, their cylinders sobbing. Or they would jerk like sinister marionettes, making drums turn, converting frequencies, transforming energies, spinning flywheels. How could I fight them if they came after me, instigated by the Masters of the World, who used them as proof – useless devices, idols only of the bosses of the lower universe – of the error of creation?”

The language Eco uses conceals the metaphysical image he is painting: the "concatenation of diesel genitals and turbine driven vaginas" is equivalent to this statement of CS Peirce's:

“There may for aught we know be a thousand other kinds of relationship which have as much to do with connecting phenomena and leading from one to another, as dynamical and social relationships have. Astrology, magic, ghosts, prophecies, serve as suggestions of what such relationships might be.”

I am picking up on Peirce's trail, motivated by the same sort of insights that he was. Do you see where he is going? The man was a lion of the mind: willing and able to move purely as a function of what episteme showed him; 'abduction', or his term for how aspects of the environment are intrinsically linked with the inference-chains of our cognitive-mind, such that we 'abduct', and from abduction, move to infer or hypothesize, after which we can engage in induction - or experimentation - described the very dialectical structure of consciousness in a way far more clearly than Hegel was ever able to do with his very general thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic.

Pierce is purer, truer, at a higher level. Europe failed to reach the heights that Charles Sanders Peirce brought the human mind; and from the influence of Peirce has come many of our most important thinkers: Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Umberto Eco, Thomas Sebeok, John Deely, and the whole field of modern biosemiotics. The popular new age philosopher Ken Wilbur also considers Peirce an important influence.

Peirce, unlike Hegel, operates from a perspective that tries to make clear the semiotic or meaning relationship that emerges between one thing and another thing. Jakob von Uexkull importantly thought up the idea of point-counterpoint; but perhaps he took it from a much more ancient way of thinking popular in the east:



The eternal symbol; the archetype of reality. The very root and base of what we are. There is nothing else but this.

What the biosemiotic perspective allows, in effect, is an understanding of the evolution of meaning on planet Earth. A very exciting and important thing.

Look at the following image for how the various "worlds" of our planet emerge:



This is a neat little image; I thought it all up and it seems to be expressive of a fundamental reality - or so i fancy.

Look at the three elements present within it. The hydrosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere: chemical domains and boundaries; but from these boundaries, originally starting with the first, but spreading out into the second, and then into the third, the fourth world emerges: the biosphere.

The beautiful biosphere gave rise to a large ecological being - a continuum of energy transformation built around, so says Harold Morowitz, the TCA cycle - or core metabolism - of life. The logic he uses is brilliant

[I]“We begin with the ecosystem as a level of organization, which we believe supersedes the importance of the organism for both the earliest stages of origin, and certain aspects of long term organization of the biosphere and constraints on evolutionary dynamics within it. "

As Morowitz titles his book, his interest is the emergence of the "4th Geosphere".

Whereas mine may be described as the emergence of the fifth, and the rules the fifth appear to operate by:



Yes. The star is not an arbitrary figure, but a representamen - an objective emergent symbol (geometric-semiotic) which stands at the top of Jacobs proverbial ladder, whereas the point-counterpoint of a simple cell-relation stands within - the 'logic' of the organization being organized partly by the highrst level attractor.

Ok. Understand? This is the logic of the star, and the logic of any geometric figure that is used follows a similar matching. Arithmetic, counting, and the meaning. Because emergence moves as it does, it cannot help but "abduct" from that which the system is already sensitive to receive. Thus, a real magical science is here; something unusual, but real, but not so real where we fall into the rut of thinking that there is not some underlying structure present.

And what is that structure but I just mentioned above? Yin-Yang. The so-called "gods" are nothing more than emergent qualities - or values of self-with-other relations. Take the "self-with-other" as a unit, and you are interfacing with Yin. The "you", is the observer of your Yang. The metaphor of the human body goes like this: the penis is the mind, and the vagina is the body. The power symbol on my and your computer represents this symbolism vert well: a line protruding into a...






edit on 14-1-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
circle.

Which brings me to the body and the "theater of the mind".



The above diagram, which I've used in an earlier thread, repeats the entire discussion thus far in a diagram: the overzealous gnostic Jung - the same one who abjured the zealotry of his younger days - is here properly recognized as an idealization, and therefore, a fallacy: mind is rooted in the metaphorical experience of body, and so, you cannot have an "archetype" pole. The archetype is that which is expressed in social-relations. Whereas you, the observer, are merely observing. There is no inherent quality to this observation, although the observation, since its organized by bodily affects, does ultimately have to "get to know the real story" after the life process - or at least I hope that happens (it sounds elegant).

Human reality is interesting, and it'll be interesting to observe how it is we deal with this present political situation. Will the macabre fantasies of the elite take-the-day? Or will reality intercede as it usually does - against the idealizations and falsehoods of human wishers?
edit on 14-1-2018 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
That's a whole lot of words, that really says little at all.

A wise friend once said to me; "if you cannot make a complexity simple, you truly do not understand the complexity yourself".

The way you think is reflective in how you write/type/think. It would seem you have a lot of thought, a lot of words making something more complex then it really is.

Meditate as much as you delve into philosophic thought forms. The balance is key, Yin-Yang and all that.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The ancients knew a bit about waves. Vowel sounds are the memorial of God's name. I think the Hebrew language is based on early cosmo topology. When you ditch the new age bullcrap, understand God is a low frequency being.. And that Eisensteins theory is garbage, we have not made even a degree of a rotation around the core.. Thats where Relativity fails. Do you know how much faster a large orbit must travel to keep the same period as a smaller orbit? Speed is energy. Not mass. Mass is cymatic detection of energy densities.

Less than the gap between modern sample rates of digital music. Thats how far we've traveled in our low frequency orbit around the core. You can imagine how easy it is to predict Earths future, when you are able to flee the small mindset and tap into the fundamental incident from which all other waveforms originate (bugs and germs are high frequency refractory beings, okay?). Like wise you can imagine what happens between the pulses, if we are in fact an emulation? Maybe that explains why math has to be based on pulse code modulation of analogue signals? Maybe that's why the Earth is becoming flat, after all the here years of 2D math lol?

My ethno-religious empire will use the shape of sound for its written alphabet.

Of course there are prerequisites to converting to my religion:

First you must understand that particles do not create waves, they detect them. 2nd you must understand waves are not 2 dimensional and cannot be mapped 2 dimensionally. You cannot convert a coil into a 2D plot. There is equal amplitude at all times. The cross point is just the center of the coil, there are no vallies, there are no hills, other than those created by the signals own reflection. A 2D representation equates top dead center of a cam shaft, not of a piston stroke. It is useless for mathematics, converting from 3d to 2d is a major flaw in the sciences. A piston is not a cam.


Show me one image of transverse waves that dont take place between 2 density layers (water/air etc). There are none. All coils. Spirals. Helii. Torii lol.

edit on 14-1-2018 by AdKiller because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-1-2018 by AdKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
That's a whole lot of words, that really says little at all.

A wise friend once said to me; "if you cannot make a complexity simple, you truly do not understand the complexity yourself".

The way you think is reflective in how you write/type/think. It would seem you have a lot of thought, a lot of words making something more complex then it really is.

Meditate as much as you delve into philosophic thought forms. The balance is key, Yin-Yang and all that.
Or to put it more simply...The thoughts which heretofore though not limited to, as prescribed by the school of thought which previously had been in a manner of speaking while simultainiously but not concurrently though many in the past were known or at the least recognized as having been masters in a form only found in piles of words.




top topics
 
11

log in

join