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.


Theorizing something that is already well established.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:58 PM
I have had this happen more than once.

The first I remember was in high school World Religions class. The class was learning, (in vain, most were too Western/Christian focused and for the most part unable or unwilling to see outside the box,) about the concept of Brahman. This was around the time I began studying philosophy, and wrote out a paper where I defined Brahman scientifically as being an anthropomorphizing the theoretical ability, with knowing the initial or any other state of a closed system, (universe, sticking to its original definition of everything,) and being able to calculate interactions.

When going online to see if anyone had thought of this as well, (I did expect to find some smaller, unnoticed thinkers with similar thoughts,) I quickly came across determinism and La Place's Demon.

Has anyone else had similar experiences?

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:34 AM
Funny you should ask.

A few days ago I was checking into the tenets of Christian Gnosticism - basically to see if my AutoGenesisism theological premise has any conceptual linkage to any aspect of it. This has been an ongoing research effort since I finished and published my book last summer and fall, since I know that someone, somewhere, must've done something with at least some of the aspects of this theological premise before I stumbled over it. I got wind of Gnosticism after reading a book called THE JESUS MYSTERIES by Timothy Freke and Peter Grandy, that theorizes that the Jesus narrative is a continuation of a perennial myth that started with the Egyptians. The two authors are Gnostics, I guess. Or they really like the Gnostic thing. So, I got another book (called GNOSTICISM by Stephen Hoeller) and figured I'd see if I could find any linkage to my Auto-G theology there. I tried the web, but the information was too diverse and scattered. This Hoeller guy is a bit of an authority in the American Gnostic Society, and I had a Barnes & Nobles gift card.

I was floored with what I discovered.

Now, what you need to understand is that I've discovered a very specific metaphoric formula that seems to work throughout the entire Bible - New and Old Testament - and when used, describes something that is extremely different than what I've ever read or heard from any source, published or not, concerning what the Bible exists to describe. In fact, this metaphoric formula causes this gathering of disparate documents to unite in a description that is anything but religious or even spiritual. Mundane and biological is more in line with what's being detailed. Of course, you have to take into consideration the fact that each of these texts were heavily edited for a specific purpose, so the only useable material is the stuff that's presented in significant redundancy. After all, redundancy is what bases the structure of physical existence in general, and is woven into the foundational whole. If informational redundancy within any whole presentation is significant enough, it becomes impossible to vacate or substitute without destroying what it is that is being altered for whatever purpose you've chosen for it. Just like the structural redundancy within any composition determines that composition's true essence. Therefore, redundancy is always the initial criterion when listing criteria to be used in sorting out original notions from later edits.

When I applied this same metaphoric formula to the basic Gnostic myths - specifically the Story of Sophia - I discovered that this Hellenistic myth describes the general outline of the central impetus (why and how God has done what God has done, and where we fit into the whole of it) of my AutoGenesisism premise. Of course, the Sophia myth is highly allegorized, but the alignment is unmistakable. I'm presently tearing into where these traditions originally came from, if such a thing can ever be determined of course, so that I can structure a proper point-to-point alignment presentation, as well as a workable thesis concerning how such a highly technical (it really is extremely technical but completely divisible via elemental logic) could have been translated into the myths (at least - so far - the Myth of Sophia) of such ancient people. Not hard to figure out why people took what they took from these myths, but the origins of the myths is a very different issue.

So yes, I have experienced what you're describing. Recently. Like three days ago. And this, after working years to allow (and ensure) the entire layout of AutoGenesisism to fully emerge without any influence or distraction from anyone or anything. Now, it's like I'm a detective trying to find the fingerprints of the source where I got it from, and to establish its identity. I hope this path of inquiry leads somewhere.


log in