Today is August 16, 2022
Join Now! | Home | Sign in | FAQ | Help
Zord's Underground Archive by Zord
 
April 2016
1ARCHIVE ENTRY ONE.....
2ARCHIVE ENTRY TWO
3ARCHIVE ENTRY THREE
4ARCHIVE ENTRY FOUR
5ARCHIVE ENTRY FIVE
9SANDERS FOR PRESIDENT!
11Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
12Selections From Old SYNTHESIS Website, Sadly, Now Defunct.....
13SYNTHESIS II
14To Worship The Funeral.....
15Some Works From My Youth......
16THE DECLINE OF AMERICA
17DADA NIHILIS LE FLEUR
18NATIONAL ANARCHISM AND THE STATE
21Alexander Dugin: Magus And Mad Prophet!
22NO, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANNOT COUNT ON MY VOTE!
23UNCONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND WORLD POWERS
24Is Vladimir Putin The Chakravartin?
25BARACK OBAMA LORD OF APOCALYPSE!
26The Myth Of SRA, Psychotronics, And The Global Reality Grid
27BERNIE NEEDS OUR HELP!
30SANDERS VICTIM OF DNC/HILLARY CLINTON'S DIRTY TRICKS!


April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016

ARCHIVE ENTRY ONE.....
April 1, 2016




Dear CERN,

Look to the far-upper-left of the Alice read and see the

geometric shape. Also there are strong spirals to the middle-

left. This time the mass and energy of the protons and ions

you smashed, was greater than the energies of their inherent

forms that hold them together. It jumped dimensions and

singularized to transfer the energy into information, but

the singularization re-collapsed with the dietritous that

did not hold to make the transfer. You need greater energy,

and only smashing the ions and protons of radioactive isotopes

will work. This will collect the needed transference.



http://www.voy.com/165075/200.html




7/17/15
THE ANTINOMIAN UNIVERSE



Recently I was watching a science show where they were talking about the nature and origin of the Universe. I found that a lot of these ideas streamlined with my own.

You had the "Multiverse" theory where an infinite number of universes could account for the existence of this one; another theory that posited the Eternity of the

Universe, but they argued from equations rather than the simpler idea in that the substance of the Universe is indestructible; therefore Eternal and never having

been subjected to having been created and will never be destroyed; and "string theory" of layering dimensions e.g. where if somebody lived in a two dimensional

reality we could see them because we are in a three dimensional reality, but they could not see us, and also that somebody in a four dimensional reality could see

us, but we could not see them, etc. Then you had ministers arguing for "intelligent design," but this idea was deflated by the three theories above. If the Universe is

Eternal, why need a Creator? If it is Infinite; then it would have infinite variables that would include our world as well, (along with us) and if "String Theory" is

true, then there are so many layering of realities that would be doubtlessly endless, and so the need for a God would be unlikely. Also if one posits a "God" this

creates a lot of complications: When Buddha was asked if there was a God he did not say either yes or no, but rather if there was one, and the world was so full of

suffering, what difference would it make? And you could say A finite God created the Universe, or that the Universe created a finite God, or that there are an

infinite number of Gods that created the Infinite Universe. Devolving into theological reasoning is no answer.


When I put forward ideas, I see them as theoretical.... I think my ideas are probably sound, but they could be an illusion templated through my mind and senses, and both

could be unreliable. You can look at optical illusions and see things that are not there. But they seem to be anyway.... So I have tried to base a new theory on a

"Devil's Advocate" kind of basis which is as follows.


It is a limited paradigm to say things that are very abstract, can be "either-or," I see it now as "both and." e.g.:



What is, is not, because what is not is.

What is not, is, because what not is is.


This sounds like nonsense because it is, but also it has its own logic because it is not nonsense.


If you try to look at things in a antinomian way, it will really play havoc with categories, but I think it would be closer to both meaningless truths and meaningful

lies.


In this way we can take the idea of Spirit: What is it? Is it feelings, emotions, or both locked into a system of faith and belief, to which reason conforms?

If so, it does not seem to resemble God/Goddess, or Gods very much, or imaginal worlds?

That is because anything divorced from its opposite is only half-true, as what is true can only be divorced from its opposite....

Half-truths can only be separated from their opposites and that is what makes them true.

This is an a-logical way of thinking, it is based on intuitive technique:


e.g. The Infinite is manifest within all things as all things unmanifest within the Infinite.

The Unmanifest is Infinite within all things, as the Infinite is all things within the Unmanifest.


When you learn to think like this: ideas of spirit and origins, and especially teleology, do not matter.....


The idea is not to find truth which is mostly relative, but a workable illusion based on your own unique reality.


Your Inner Universe is your own property, even if 'truth' bangs on the door: you have the right to say NO!


Probably what is most close to the truth is

God/No God both and neither.

Truth/No Truth both and neither.

Axiom A/Axiom A Not, both and neither, etc.


Approaching actual science like this would be suicidal.

But metaphysics, why not? Nobody agrees on this stuff anyway...

Truth is absolutely true and truly absolute... And so it goes..............




 
Login to select
your favorite journals

TopNext
 
 


© Website Copyright 2016 by My-Journal.com
© Journal Content Copyright 2016 by the Author
 
Terms of Service Agreement
 
Privacy Policy