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.
originally posted by: RussianTroll How could people know about this in those days? It turns out that people of that time were carriers of ancient knowledge and sometimes knew much more than now, although they did not have modern technologies?
Or are they hiding something from us?
Each of these planets is associated with certain archetypes and currents that are fundamental to conscious experience and to human experience and thus each can also be associated with the Sephiroth (Sephirah is the singular) of the Kabbalah. For example, some aspects of the Venusian current are the emotional qualia of our reality and our relationships to others and to ourself. This mirrors qualities of the Force dynamics of the Sephirah of Netzach. Another example: the main aspects of Jupiter are associated with expansion within domains and eventual rulership thereof. This corresponds to the Sephirah of Chesed in respect to the Kabbalah. On this site, because most practical magic is more easily worked from a planetary magic paradigm, each Sephirah is actually described in its corresponding planetary sphere's section below (even if there is not a perfect, one-to-one correspondence between a Sephirah and a planetary sphere) and is then elaborated on in the Sephirah's article. That additional elucidation is more tightly tied into actual Kabbalistic theory and can be found off of the main menu or at the bottom of the introduction to the Kabbalah.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: RussianTroll
Are they really "for" army officers, in the sense of being official issue, or were they just owned by someone known to have been an army officer?
The name of the publshers doesn't make it sound like official issue.
There was a lot of metaphysical speculation flying around in the late Vctorian era, and this looks like a sample. I haven't studied the theosophical works of Helena Blavatsky, but I would not be surprised if this man was being influenced either by those speculations or by something similar.
Those books are not telling us anything about the real world, but they are telling us what some of the late Victorians were willing to believe (which is not the same thing).
P.S. To save you looking it up, "Victorian" is a common English nickname for someone living during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901).
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: RussianTroll
Can you point to the text that says so?
"Karyshev's Trilogy" Fundamentals of True Science ", textbooks for officers of the tsarist army, published in 1895."
How could people know about this in those days? It turns out that people of that time were carriers of ancient knowledge and sometimes knew much more than now, although they did not have modern technologies?
Or are they hiding something from us?
originally posted by: ChayOphan
First thought/question that sprang to mind: as this material targeted professional soldiers, how could anyone be expected to properly discharge their duties as a potential combatant if they accepted as matters of fact the information taught from these manuals?
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: RussianTroll
That website is still a modern person's opinion.
I was asking for a statement from the book itself.
Any book intended for official use will say so somewhere, if not on the front cover, then perhaps on the title page.
originally posted by: ChayOphan
a reply to: RussianTroll
Should've put more thought into wording before I posted above.
To clarify: if I truly accepted as fact the existence of such a complex world inhabited by hosts of beings superior to us in most respects, I really doubt that I could function usefully on a battlefield. To broaden the scope - the information contained in those manuals, if true, would forcibly reshape human civilization at the most fundamental levels. I would imagine this more applying to war than most other human endeavors. Thus, I fail to comprehend why such material would be taught as factual to professional soldiers. The risk to unit cohesion alone would seem cause of great concern.
But that's just my thoughts which are typically overwrought, at best.