It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Conspiracies and Religions in a Holographic Reality

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by Student X

I love it. Very well said X however, I do not interpret the symphony metaphor as being biocentric because in conjunction with the organic instruments we must also appreciate the inanimate components of this symphony. I am mainly referring to what in the symphony metaphor would be the acoustics.

The instruments are organic but the space and objects which affect and are effected by the sound produced are not organic. Within this symphony metaphor we may also have a concert hall, acoustic blocks, dampeners, resonators and all kinds of other things that can and will necessarily impact the waveform of sound.

Non biological entities in our reality (I am certainly including plants and the like in the biological side) can be looked at as the acoustic foam or the architecture of the concert hall and how the nuances are designed to manipulate the sound.

A tree that falls in the woods when no one is around does make a noise. There may have not been any "thinkers" around but the waveform of the sound and the waveform from the impact is surely destined to force some plant to sway with the force of the pressure released upon the tree hitting the ground.

For this metaphor we should use a rock and not a tree. If a chunk breaks off of a mountain this crag is surely inanimate however it plummeting to the ground is definitely going to cause an impact on surrounding objects be they biological or not. This would then create a chain reaction in the immediate environment. No one was there to witness the rock fall but they may have been there two weeks ago and seen the mountain intact. now, they see the piece that has broken off, they know very well that it did break off without having to have been there or play a part.

Our instruments create the sound but we still must account for our environment in which we are making it. Are we in a bathroom a closet or a canyon? Where ever we are making our music will definitely determine, to a degree, how the final product of the music actually sounds.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:57 AM
Sorry, double post.

Bad connection

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Brahmanite]

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by Brahmanite

The difference may be a choice of emphasis. An emphasis on the acoustics is fine with me too, because I view matter and energy and space-time as mere expressions of an underlying unity. The word biocentric may not be adequate for such a view.

The objective universe is united, "entangled". The subjective universe is united as the collective unconscious, or the imaginal realm, or the astral plane, or heaven, or any other of numerous terms which are just metaphors, really.

The objective and the subjective universes are united too and are mirrors of each other but from the human perspective we can't see the subjective in the cosmic scale. It's too large. But rest assured - as above so below.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19

But we can look deeply into the collective unconscious, and we find the archetypes of the collective unconscious. But we always find them in symbolic form. Long story short, different reality tunnels will have different symbolic forms for the same archetypes of our collective unconscious. Like different instruments hitting the same notes, perhaps. But underneath the symbolic forms is transcendent unity. It's just that some symbols are more transparent to the transcendent than others.

The archetypes themselves are formless and autonomous. And yet, the forms they take are...somehow related to us and our forms and environment. Which comes first?

When the first shaman entered the first altered state of consciousness, the archetypes were projected into the collective unconscious. The objective psyche was then filled with the subjective psyche, which in turn created us through retro-causation, a psychic ability. The creation need not be intentional. Ouroboros comes to mind as a metaphor.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Student X]

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:50 PM
After re-reading the whole thread, I must apologize for my sometimes muddy formulations and imprecise terminology: Must edit some of the posts later. Also, my latest post to X was rather out of context. Getting old, I am.

Brahmanite, I too liked your orchestra, and hopefully without infringing on your purpose with it, I will compare it to my former suggestion of '....totality greater than the sum....' An orchestra playing together produces a symphony. Individual musicians playing as s/he best likes is only a 'sum', manifesting as noise.

And if X is going, where I believe, he will go, there will also be an unavoidable consideration of a composer. (Don't worry, I'm not going holy on you; if I can, I try to stay with the word 'intent' for such).

I don't find a necessary contradiction between an orchestra and a holographic universe. Both are possible in multiple relative 'realities'.

X. Your example of sheep/goats as evidence I can't fault, but then I'm already so convinced of the existence of anomalies, that I don't need proof anymore. So to the biocentry.

But first, being circumstantial as usual, a few thoughts. I have spent some time speculating on the difference between complex and non-complex. And, at the moment, I can't put my finger on any specific single point, which makes THE difference. Even if it's a bit farfetched...who knows what happens awareness- and communication-wise in an atom, when it swaps an electron with another atom or get signals through the force-executing transmitter particles (e.g. photons). Or does a stone say a 'stoneword' every thousand years? Neither can we speculate on 'will' or 'intellect' in non-complexity, for lack of any knowledge at all. Personally I believe, that there's SOME kind of consciousness in everything.

Obviously organic life is much more complex, and a structural complexity (as a co-operative unit) can perform activities based on a multi-approach, even manifesting in possibilities of reversing processes. I.e. to an advanced degree going somewhat against mechanistic determinism; relatively fast. This is probably an existential bonus, we are not COMPLETE victims of cosmic laws. But then this existential mobility also makes for a quicker evolutionary competition, and even if mankind presently seems to have something of an upper hand, we're not on top of the world. E.g. will viruses mutate as fast as we can create defenses against them.

Guess X already knows this, but maybe a few readers have ended up here and wonder what on earth I'm talking about.

Most complexity, will because of certain cosmic blueprint -aspects of predation, evolve very quick. The competition is stiff.

And considering, that complexity ALSO has another side, this is important. This other side is a PASSIVE function for reversal of processes. Complexity practically functions as a milk-separator. From input, raw milk, is produced light milk, milk and cream. This can be considered in context with the cosmic process called enthropy, where energies eventually reach a homogenous state. Everything will be 'the same'. Complexity can be said to be negative enthropy, reverting enthropy and recreating 'differences'. And cosmos, as we experience it, is based on the dynamics between differences.

So the passive role of complexity is part of universal maintenance.

Some retrocausul ideas can be derived from that.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by bogomil]

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in