The General Misperception of a Conspiracy 'Theorist'

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


I am also not a believer in the big bang.. It was a theory proposed by a pope in 1923 and mainstream science ran with it. I am a believer in the electric universe theory. But again, to each their own.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Shneal
 





As far as the solidity thing goes.. What i am saying is that the way matter is decoded through our pineal gland makes up the solid world around us, when in reality there is more empty space between the particles then there is particles themselves.. Our senses create the solidity.. Of course a table is 'solid' to us because that is the way it is perceived. That was my point to begin with


That argument, in my opinion, falls apart. But luckily we are on ATS, so we can both have this dialogue. I am not trying to annoy or aggravate, but simply understand. For instance, assume you are an aboriginal and I am a traveler, but I am not on the ground I am on a plane. I throw a coke bottle out of the plane and it hits you in the head (Like the movie, the Gods must be crazy). You had no time to process anything. Reality dictated that it is solid, nature dictated that it was solid. It is solid, independent of your interpretation.

Our brains, not our pineal gland, interpret the world around us and process the world around us. Our brains send signals to the pineal gland, without our brains the pineal gland would not work. Our senses do not create solidity that same argument can be used to say that our senses create frequency. It is a circular and obscure argument that leads no where. The answer to that in my opinion, is saying, that independent of myself things exist and have form on their own and this is reality. If you and I were to die tomorrow the world would continue. If the entire human race died tomorrow the world would continue. If the entire animal race died tomorrow the world would continue and it would still be... solid.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Shneal
 


I understand, but that theory proposes that the world is mostly composed of plasma. That is just not how the universe is composed. But as you say, to each their own.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shneal
reply to post by randyvs
 


Haha well if history has taught us anything it is that these ppl take out their foes. I make music that counters the agenda which puts my life at risk. Ask Michael Jackson & Tupac
I saw 3 options... 1 sell out n sign my name in blood on the contract.. 2. Give up on the dream.. and 3. Fight against it and put myself on the line... If I wont rest til i rest in peace then Imma live the dream until i get some sleep.


If you can't sleep and dream, you can always day dream and hope to get some rest.

While waiting till we all wake up from the dream.... ATS loves the nightmare at the end of the dream scenario.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I find it interesting you call it perception of solid objects.

Perception, is a property of the energy system - energy perceiving energy and so it is real enough for all that exists within it.... No illusions there. By your hypothesis.

Until of course, you re-unite with the supposedly inanimate energy.
edit on 11-1-2013 by sensibleSenseless because: small change



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shneal
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


I am also not a believer in the big bang.. It was a theory proposed by a pope in 1923 and mainstream science ran with it. I am a believer in the electric universe theory. But again, to each their own.

Close, but no cigar -- Georges Lemaître was a priest, not a Pope.

Mainstream science "ran with it" because, like most things that mainstream science runs with, the Big Bang Theory makes sense, is supported by solid evidence, and doesn't have significant evidence that it's incorrect.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shneal
reply to post by CaptainAbstract
 

No doubt fam, thanks for the response.. What kind of music do you do?


well, it's drifting somewhere in between dub techno, deep house, tech house, ambient, drone..



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by Shneal
 


Energy is not a substance any more than "mass" or "volume" are substances, and therefore nothing can be "made of" energy any more than it can be "made of" volume or "made of" mass. Energy is the ability to do work, which is found in every system.

You may be confusing the technical term energy with the more commonly used term.

We should be weary of pushing this 'everything is made of energy' deception too much. It leads people in wrong directions.


If energy is not a 'substance', does that mean it is nothing? Or maybe it is spirit.

The belief is that there is a physical world made of 'something', something solid, something material. This thing we call existence is no more than energy moving - which like you state, is not really a 'substance'. The super strong belief held by most is that the world is 'made'. But what is it made of?
Nothing is actually 'made'! Nothing makes this and then it disappears back to nothing and then appears diferently. Notice how nothing ever stays the same.
Constantly changing is the image - seen and known by the unchanging. Things change, nothing never changes.

Scientists have taken a vacuum and watched it with powerful microscopes and have seen 'virtual particles' appearing and disappearing. Out of nothing appears something.
edit on 12-1-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I'll share my vision too.
I am fully aware it's just a scheme, a scheme of a binary consciousness, based on language, and this is the only thing I can tell for sure: that what's being seeked by all kinds of metaphysicists, alchemists and mysticists is a state, not a dead snapshot of it, captured in words. As soon as you feel it and start to stalk it with logos, it avoids you, slips away, and confuses, because its snapshot contradicts the original message, leaving you going in circles unless you recognize the trap... It's that tiny fish in the depths they mention so much in alchemistry... It's between the Ouroboros' mouth and tail... It's the Tao, the transcendent source of everything, which is above the duality of Yin & Yang. This is the reason for existence of every kind of art whose true purpose is an attempt to give a glimpse of THAT, indirectly. No one will ever be able to express THAT directly in binary terms, because it's paradoxical.

I know there's nothing new in what's been said... But before I was shown all of this right before my eyes... It was all merely something irrelevant, some ever-evolving philosophical discourse. Now it's as clear as a bright day and understood at the deepest level currently available.

But ok, given that, a consciousness will always iterate the cycle of approaching that transcendent truth. And in process, it will build schemes in countless numbers, adapted for the spirit of time the scheme builder lives in.

So here it is, a combination of I-Ching, Carlos Castaneda and quantum physics:

Let's imagine the absolute nothing. Given the infinite potential possibility of everything, it explodes like a thunderbolt, or a tree (yes, the Tree of Knowledge), first two branches are Yin and Yang, the absolute antipodes (let's replace Yin with 0 and Yang with 1), the second four are digrams 00, 01, 10 and 11, which are the supreme archetypes of father, mother, son and daughter. The third level is eight trigrams 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. It keeps branching further, and at the sixth level we have 2^6 = 64 hexagrams, which are the base of I-Ching, the Book of Changes. These are, so to say, the blocks which describe every possible situation in the Being. Of course, the top levels also do, the higher the more generalized. And the deeper level, the more details are exposed, but the less is the difference.

Then let's remember what Carlos wrote. He described the universe as consisting of shining lines, which form bunches, which form larger bunches and so on, and every line might be viewed as a bunch of even smaller lines and so on into infinity. So this is it. These lines are the branches of the Tree of Knowledge, the sequences of I-Ching symbols.

And what consciousness does is basically engages them, "lights" them, and in the process of maturing fixates about a predefined set of bunches, or branches. And the perception of "I", the ego, is just a set of them. Like if the person is kind, his consciousness lights the branch of human kindness, let's arbitrarily say it's 100010-110. This is a sub-branch of some top level which might look like 100010. The kindness of this exact person might be described using more levels of detail than the general human kindness, it might include many variations like being kind especially towards.. I donno, let it be animals. So his full "kindness" would look like 100010-110-1110101... (and so on into infinity).

Or let's consider a car. A car would be a sub-type of a means of transportation (a horse, a spaceship and some magic teleportation spell called JAHDhejjsjehHH will be all sub-types of it). Then this CAR (let's imagine it's 000100011) would be the supreme car of all cars, it would be as simple as possible, but you would fall on your knees in awe if you'd experience it
)) Then this archetypal car branches down, growing in details but loosing its power. And if we imagine a robotized car factory which makes absolutely visually identical cars, we might find difference between them only at the micro level: 000100011-0110-...(skip thousand levels)-...001 vs. 000100011-0110-...(skip thousand levels)-...000

So if you remember that article called "we all live in a giant hologram", I read it and instantly gathered the pieces of a puzzle: the binary encoding of holograms with dark and bright areas; the Yin and Yang; the Carlos' "lines of the world".

I personally can vividly imagine how perception of the Being at the deepest, "system" level might look like, and that's what Don Juan called "vision". This would be like seeing the binary sequence of any phenomenon, and ability to trace its up to the root which is where Tao or the Eagle is; and down into unimaginable depths of quantum processes of micro-, nano-, femto-worlds and so forth.

Then I came to a conclusion that the Beholder, the deepest base of "I" is transcendent in relation to the Tree. It is the Software, while the binary Tree of Knowledge is the Hardware of Being.
edit on 12-1-2013 by CaptainAbstract because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
And there's only one beholder. We all are him (she? it?), exploring itself. Exploring, in particular, what is good and what is bad. This model of Being as a giant computer should in no way induce the feeling of permissiveness and indulge the lack of responsibility. There is a transcendent principle in this machine, and it is a positive one.

As to the original post, yes, and this correlates well with the theory of frequencies. Every branch turns into its opposite, on and on, and different levels of branching on this tree have different frequency of this process. At the nano-level, (I am fully aware these are just speculations!
the frequency of vibrations reaches the limit which is the Planck's angular frequency of 1.85487 × 10^43 Hertz. (I think it's what Itisnowagain refers to)

Why a limit? Well, maybe it's the limit of computing power of a human brain? (read: the limit of current position of the assmblage point of humankind). I read in a quantum physics article that this is the frequency at which the space/time ceases to exist and comes back to existence at the nanoscale.

Maybe it's exactly opposite and it's the frequency of Yin and Yang top-level desperate rotation in attempt to unite back.

It's all empty words, but try to read in between the lines...

Well, the more I would write about my(my?) scheme, the more the Ouroboros will kick in so I better stop now


Oh and excuse my English, it might be funny
edit on 12-1-2013 by CaptainAbstract because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Did something just zip by my blind, deaf ass ? Or did you forget to add the juicy part ?

That would be the 'two-hour, whole-body orgasm', I guess.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Shneal
 


I make music that counters the agenda which puts my life at risk. Ask Michael Jackson...

Michael Jackson made music that put his life at risk?

Yes, music lovers do often have strong critical opinions, but I don't think they've ever actually resorted to violence. I am open to correction, though.

edit on 12/1/13 by Astyanax because: open to correction.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





That would be the 'two-hour, whole-body orgasm', I guess.


Well that's a first . Just as well tho. The last time that happened, the fire dept and the eyewitness news team were here. Helicopters and cops running around arbitrarily trying to look busy. You know that old chessnut.
edit on 12-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

You should have kept the noise down.

Biting a pillow usually works.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Shneal
 


An excellent post Shneal, thanks for sharing it with us.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I guess the point I made wasn't entirely finished. Ive agreed with most (not all) of the 'counterpoints' made.. I guess my main point was that the way our senses perceive the world gives it the solidity. It would appear much different to us given different senses... Im bad with technical and scientific terms and approach metaphysics and quantum physics from a spiritual perspective.. So the terminology I used may not be entirely correct but my main point is that on a certain level, everything is everything.. The void between the particles of matter connects it all.. Appreciate the commentary from everyone! Great ideas all around.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by commencalrider
 


Thank you for the feedback fam!



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Michael Jackson started to speak out against the illuminati control on his career and life.. He never advocated violence, he just became very outspoken against the slave masters of the music industry and him being at the level he was at.. He was a threat.. So they took him out..



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shneal
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Michael Jackson started to speak out against the illuminati control on his career and life.. He never advocated violence, he just became very outspoken against the slave masters of the music industry and him being at the level he was at.. He was a threat.. So they took him out..

Seriously? The Illuminati Killed Michael Jackson -- who comes up with this stuff? Who actually takes the time to promote this crackpot nonsense?

Michael Jackson killed himself. He surrounded himself with "yes men" without ethics and the inclination to say that using surgical grade anethstesia drugs to treat a sleeping problem was beyond insane. Fame, greed and stupidity is what killed Michael Jackson, not some imaginary conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


To each their own.. This conspiracy is not imaginary to me.. I know the inner workings of the music industry. Ive seen it with my own eyes and it is obvious to me. Or maybe I am completely delusional.. In that case, kudos to you my friend.





new topics
 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join