Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

[luc]

I'm pretty sure I channeled a LOT of that book

I had the same thought when I was rereading this part. Quite astonishing.

As I was rereading it, I realized that I did, indeed, mention the "soul smashing" idea, though in a different way.

Yes, it wasn't exactly in those terms, but the idea is clearly there!

 

[truepositive]

Approaching Infinity cracked the summary as well as it could reasonably be done. Read it if you are unfamiliar with the whole topic. Chris Langan is currently inspiring people to form the bridge to the spiritual, moving away from reductionist materialist nonsense. The word salad is due to an extremely complex logical framework that might be required in certain discussions. Whatever people might assume, to me he is also exemplary of the phenomenon of intelligence assuming qualitative aspects as it rises, rather then 'improving computational capacity' or similar banal crap.

 

[Ryan]

Maybe. But we can also notice that ibn al-Arabi considered all the objects of creation to be something like "words" of God. That, of course, kind of meshes with "as above, so below", in that everything that happens in material reality is a reflection of a spiritual reality and those events/reflections can be very complex.

But then, what I am saying here does not seem to be what Langan is saying.

True. We also understand that "perspicacity" as al-Arabi used it, means to be able to discern the spiritual reality behind, or informing, or reflecting, the physical reality. It's like that comment that Malachi Martin made in HTTD: "A bird doesn't fly because it has wings, it has wings because it flies."

I won't pretend to understand Langan completely, but based on what I've read from him, I think he would agree with al-Arabi. The objects of creation are the "words" generated by God. Every "word" is an expression of a metaphysical thought of God. "Speaking the word" is like forming something specific and actual out of pure potential.

There's a lot to unpack in the responses in this thread, so I'll start by setting aside Langan's model for a moment and examine this concept of the objects of creation as the "words" of God. I think I was having problems trying to see speech as directly analogous to creation in some way, but considering it in more McGilchristian terms made it finally make sense (I think) to me.

For example: I have a crystal sitting on my desk. That crystal was not created in any way by me. It is a natural product of the Universe, a "word" of God, or if I understand correctly, a very specific "instance of pronunciation of that word", in the same way that tonal variations of the same spoken word can give distinctiveness to the experience from the perspective of the listener.

Now, if someone is in the room with me and I point to the crystal and say, "crystal", it doesn't 'create' the crystal in the same way that God created it. It merely describes the already-existing crystal. So there's a difference here in terms of process that cannot be effectively conveyed by analogy.

So, what if language and speech, as we understand them, are what McGilchrist would call "limit cases" of the larger creative "speech" of God? When we use language and speech for the purposes of communication, we are engaging the creative process in a very limited, specific way, and thus while it is different from the "speech" of God, it's also essentially the same thing, thus Al-Arabi's emphasis on the concept.

This "limit case" might also be intrinsically related to the conditions of experience in third density; we have hints from the C's that the restrictions on this may be significantly lessened in 4D. "Speech" might grow exponentially closer to the sort of creative power that God uses to manifest creation, and if so would significantly behoove all of us to continually keep in mind and practise Jordan Peterson's Rule #10!

Considering Langan's model again, I don't know at this point to what extent his "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" accurately reflects the essence of Al-Arabi's idea of the "words of God", however if I'm reading Laura's comment correctly, she has suggested that there may be a distinct difference, thus Langan's conceptualization could be incomplete. I'll have to dig into his material more to try to recognise what, if any, that incompleteness is.

This is an issue that Peter Janich discusses at length in his book "What is Information?" - the attempt to turn information into a commodity, some "stuff" (or "elements") because this supposedly can make it accessible to science. However, this can easily lead one astray. I'm not sure Langan falls into this trap, but from what I read so far, I noticed that he never tried to define what he means by information - which (if true) can be interpreted both ways, I suppose.

Thanks heaps for the recommendation, luc. I started reading this book today, and it was the following part of the Translator's Introduction that led me to think about and compose this post:

In the mid-1990s, Janich began to use the term methodical culturalism (methodischer Kulturalismus), distinguishing his work and that of his students at the University of Marburg from the constructivism of the Erlangen group (which had by then spread across Germany). The methodical culturalist program is laid out in a collection of essays that Janich edited with his former student Dirk Hartmann in 1996. Describing the shift as a “substantial, serious expansion of the goals and means of philosophical work,” Janich and Hartmann distance themselves, in their Introduction, from Lorenzen’s “ortholinguistic” emphasis on the development of logically sanitized terms for the production of logic, geometry, proto-physics, and the like.

A too-narrow focus on the rectification of names, they argue, misses out on the fact that language always operates relative to the goals it seeks to accomplish. Language is thus embedded in cultural practices, an action like any other and thus a matter of pragmatic, goal-oriented behavior that takes places in specific historical contexts. While methodical culturalism retains the earlier emphasis on basing its principles on “complete, non-circular chains of arguments,” as Janich writes elsewhere, it embeds “this business of foundation and justification in communities which share forms of a prediscursive consensus by historical processes of (cultural) selection.”

Nonetheless, @Chu has provided some extensive evidence in the Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design thread that human languages have an objective basis beyond cultural context, so there's clearly a very nuanced balance here. I'm looking forward to reading more of what Janich has to say, because so far it seems his perspective contains that very unique form of postmodernism that still retains grounding in human experience and objective reality. Osit.

 

[Bluegazer]

For example: I have a crystal sitting on my desk. That crystal was not created in any way by me. It is a natural product of the Universe, a "word" of God, or if I understand correctly, a very specific "instance of pronunciation of that word", in the same way that tonal variations of the same spoken word can give distinctiveness to the experience from the perspective of the listener.

Now, if someone is in the room with me and I point to the crystal and say, "crystal", it doesn't 'create' the crystal in the same way that God created it. It merely describes the already-existing crystal. So there's a difference here in terms of process that cannot be effectively conveyed by analogy.

So, what if language and speech, as we understand them, are what McGilchrist would call "limit cases" of the larger creative "speech" of God? When we use language and speech for the purposes of communication, we are engaging the creative process in a very limited, specific way, and thus while it is different from the "speech" of God, it's also essentially the same thing, thus Al-Arabi's emphasis on the concept.

This "limit case" might also be intrinsically related to the conditions of experience in third density; we have hints from the C's that the restrictions on this may be significantly lessened in 4D. "Speech" might grow exponentially closer to the sort of creative power that God uses to manifest creation, and if so would significantly behoove all of us to continually keep in mind and practise Jordan Peterson's Rule #10!

Considering Langan's model again, I don't know at this point to what extent his "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" accurately reflects the essence of Al-Arabi's idea of the "words of God", however if I'm reading Laura's comment correctly, she has suggested that there may be a distinct difference, thus Langan's conceptualization could be incomplete. I'll have to dig into his material more to try to recognise what, if any, that incompleteness is.

I have not read McGilchrist, but I understand it this way.

You say crystal, but the word crystal is to designate all crystals, i.e. its family. But each crystal has its specific properties. The same is true for many objects in our world. You say tree and you have the generic mental image of a tree, but a palm tree is not the same as a pine tree, even if they are both trees.

So one can deduce that even if you can reduce the object its name to its universal designation that should touch its essence, that is to say to call its attention (manifest), it would be difficult its manifestation if you do not have its " composed name ".

You only have to look at the complexity of a palm tree or a pine tree at the genetic level, even if they share being a tree. Even every atom of every molecule must have a word that brings the essence to manifest.

But here is the thing and I remember that the C's in one of the sessions explained that the genetic realm is a reflection of the 6th density. Where 6th density consciousness is in a state of pure energy, names operate in frequency in vibration. Which is the case of the C's when they give their name in each session.

Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening?

A: Nilennioa of Cassiopaea.

Q: (L) I've often wondered when these names come up. They're just such strange things. What is it that they mean?

A: They relate to the specific vibrational frequency of the moment as expressed by the numerical frequency of the combination of vowels and consonants.

Q: (L) What is the numerical frequency of a vowel and consonant?

A: It is a science barely understood by your civilization but was once well known. Words have deeper meaning than you suspect.

Q: (Bubbles) Like in numerology?

A: Similar, but that is a dim reflection of the ancient science.

So to manifest something you must not only know its root name that designates all crystals but also the whole chain of names, understanding it as a collection of frequencies and vibration.

Which brings us to the popular concept of spell, enchantment.

An incantation, a spell, a charm, an enchantment or a bewitchery, is a magical formula intended to trigger a magical effect on a person or objects. The formula can be spoken, sung or chanted.[...]Words of incantation are often spoken with inflection and emphasis on the words being said. The tone and rhyme of how the words are spoken and the placement of words used in the formula may differ depending on the desired outcome of the magical effect.

Remember the berries?

Perceval) The other thing about the Missing 411 book is that the people who are disappeared and found again, it usually happens near berry bushes. I was wondering what the...

(Andromeda) Yeah, what's the connection with berries? They're either near berry bushes, or picking berries, or they reappear with berries.

(Galatea) Why berries?

A: Convenient markers for TDARM type technology due to sound frequency.

Q: (L) Sound frequency of the word "berries"?

A: Yes.

Q: (Perceval) That's how they mark places.

(Andromeda) Be careful how much you say it! [laughter]

(Scottie) "Put him back in the berry same place where you took him from!"

(L) That makes me think of Br'er Rabbit and Briar Patch story.

[See: Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby - American Folklore]

(L) Yeah, there's that sound thing. There were several cases of spontaneous human combustion where they had name similarities. So, there's something about this transdimensional business locating itself via words or names which have frequency relating to sound or something.

(Galatea) Does it have something to do with numerology and the frequency?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So it's similar. It has to do with objects and sounds.

(Perceval) It's the location at that level... a locating device.

(L) It's a locator.

A: Yes.

To summarize, what Langan is missing and it is something that Laura has already pointed out, is that he has not done research work like we do here in the forum going from history to exact sciences, sociology, politics etc. For this reason Langan's work feels incomplete in its conceptualization.

If you can know the exact name of an object, its compound name from its root name to the names that detail it, understanding how frequency, vibration and resonance operate from an algebraic and geometric framework I think a hyper-dimensional effect can be generated.

 

[Ryan]

If you can know the exact name of an object, its compound name from its root name to the names that detail it, understanding how frequency, vibration and resonance operate from an algebraic and geometric framework I think a hyper-dimensional effect can be generated.

This is slightly off-topic, but I would add a qualifier here, which I think Janich touched on very lightly in his comment about the "rectification of names" - there's also a difference between knowing the "composed name" and actually speaking it. Since the intended effect is dependent on the correct generation of frequency, one must know how to speak the name, which I suspect may actually be more important than getting the fully composed name 100% correct (note the reference to chanting, speaking or singing vis a vis the definition of "spell" in your post).

Extrapolating from this, it may not even be within the genetic capabilities of humans presently to be able to "sing" the necessary "word" in such a way as to perform object manifestation. The human vocal range is only between 80 Hz and 1050 Hz (including trained professionals), yet our range of hearing is much greater. It's possible that these limitations are 'part and parcel' of 3rd density experience, however it's also possible that historically this limitation was overcome (perhaps only to certain degrees) via the use of technology - especially that known by the ancient techno-spiritual shamanic tradition.

Anyway, enough on that, back to the CTMU discussion.

 

[whitecoast]

Extrapolating from this, it may not even be within the genetic capabilities of humans presently to be able to "sing" the necessary "word" in such a way as to perform object manifestation. The human vocal range is only between 80 Hz and 1050 Hz (including trained professionals), yet our range of hearing is much greater. It's possible that these limitations are 'part and parcel' of 3rd density experience, however it's also possible that historically this limitation was overcome (perhaps only to certain degrees) via the use of technology - especially that known by the ancient techno-spiritual shamanic tradition.

There's a cricket in Columbia and Ecuador called the Supersonus, so-called because its chirps go as high as 150 kHz (the human ear taps out at 20kHz). Crickets historically are seen as symbolic of good luck, abundance, wealth, and were even used as watchdogs in China.

Crickets

Crickets - A symbol of good luck. The symbolism, meaning and superstitions of the insects. Crickets folklore.

goodlucksymbols.com

Crickets seem to be an almost forgotten good luck symbol. They certainly have been a symbol of luck and are still loved by many.

This may be because it is believe that crickets made us happy. The cheerful chirp does magical wonders on humans making them in a happy mood.

In fact many say that the gods or God sent us the cricket to remind us to be happy. A happy person surely has a good life!

William Shakespeare was familiar with crickets being associated with happiness.

In scene IV of his play Henry IV Prince Henry asks Poins “Shall we be merry?” Poins answers “As merry as crickets, my lad.”

Wealth and Good Fortune​

In many countries around the world the cricket is a symbol of wealth and good luck.

It was believed in many places in Europe that the cricket brought with it a promise of good fortune and riches coming to the family.

Some still insist wearing a cricket amulet or charm will increase the attraction of wealth.

Having a cricket in the kitchen or near the hearth is especially lucky and is said to bring good fortune to the home.
Cricket lucky Dickens

“It’s merrier than ever tonight, I think.” “And it’s sure to bring us good fortune; John! It always has done so.

To have a cricket on the hearth is the luckiest thing in the world!” Charles Dickens,The Cricket on the Hearth (1846)
Order your Lucky Cricket today

In Ireland and parts of the United States crickets were called “Old Folks”. There was a superstition that they were hundreds of years old.

They could tell you about all that had happened and the history of their home. That is if you could understand their chirping.

Their singing also kept the fairies away during the night. It was considered a soothing sound and all could sleep safely.
Symbol of Life

The Chinese observed that the crickets lay their eggs in the soil and lives underground as lava.

They then emerge and transform into the imago. This was earlier seen as the three fold symbol of life, death and resurrection.

Crickets Singing​

It is only the male crickets who continuously produce the enjoyable chirp by rubbing their wings together. The left forewing has lots of “teeth”, sort of like a comb.

When the left forewing is rubbed against the right forewing they produce the famous and well-known chirp.

The male credits do this for love; to attract female crickets. They may produce their “music” for hours and hours.

In ancient Greece the cricket was sacred to Apollo. Apollo was the god of music, fortune telling, the sun and healing.

Crickets Guarding the Home​

In China it was quite common to keep crickets in small cages. These insects did a wonderful job as “watch dogs”.

Their load singing was a sign that all was safe and good. The crickets knew its human family and friends.

If a stranger came to the house during the night the crickets stopped singing. The sudden silence would wake up the family members.

This was a warning that someone was approaching that did not belong to the household.

 

[heinrich]

hi. this forum can be quite addictive. looking into new posts, i discover langan and i am baffled by the depth of discussions in this thread. i will look more into it.

 

[truepositive]

I have no idea how to introduce B exactly, but his whole channel ties in directly to this topic, and the forum. Check him out, bar none, the most informed, friendly and intelligent channel you have seen on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/@MathematicalMetaphysics/videos

 

[truepositive]

This is where science meets spirituality at the cutting edge.

 

[Laura]

FOTCM has bi-monthly meetings and at the last meeting, we discussed Chris Langan's small article "To the Greater Glory of God". In addition to several correspondences between what Langan was writing/saying, there was one paragraph that made me immediately recall something I had written quite a few years ago. The original of this little snip of text was included in a Hallowe'en message I wrote for SOTT in 2004, I believe. Maybe someone can check that out in the archives. Anyway, I later incorporated it into another article that is on the cass website.

Here is the Langan remark:

"... with complete logical certainty, athiests are bound for severance from the global identity or reality and the font of being. Their presence is simply incompatible with existence. Accordingly, such a denial means severing one's connection with the GOD and suffering complete annihilation. After all, it if comes down to Ultimate Reality or you, you may as well resign yourself to losing in the end."

And here is what I wrote, the basic subject and ending of which came to my mind when I read Langan's paragraph quoted above:

What we learn from EEQT can be described in simple terms as follows:

Let us call our material universe “the system”. The system is characterized by a certain “state”. It is useful to represent the state of the system as a point on a disc. The central point of the disk, its origin, is the state of chaos. We could also describe it as “Infinite Potential.” The points on the boundary represents “pure states” of being, that is states with “pure, non-fuzzy, knowledge”. In between there are mixed states. The closer the state is to the boundary, the more pure, more ‘organized’ it is.

Now, an external “observer”, a “consciousness unit”, has some idea – maybe accurate, maybe false or anywhere in between – about the “real state” of the system, and observes the system with this “belief” about the state. Observation, if prolonged, causes the state of the system to “jump”. In this sense, you DO “create your own reality”, but the devil, as always, is in the details.

The details are that the resulting state of the system under observation can be more pure, or more chaotic depending on the “direction” of the jump. The direction of the jump depends on how objective – how close to the reality of the actual state – the observation is.

According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state.

If, on the other hand, the expectation of the observer is close to the negation of the actual state (that is when the observer’s beliefs are closer to being false than to being true according to the ACTUAL state – the objective reality), then the state of the system, typically, will jump into a state that is more chaotic, less organized. Moreover, it will take, as a rule, much longer time to accomplish such a jump.

In other words, if the observer’s knowledge of the actual state is close to the truth, the Truth being defined as how the Universe views the matter, then the very act of observation and verification causes a jump quickly, and the resulting state is more organized. If the observer’s knowledge of the actual state is false, then it takes usually a long time to cause a change in the state of the system, and the resulting state is more chaotic.

What this means is that order can be brought out of chaos by observing chaos as it IS and not pretending that it is otherwise. Also, you have a robust feedback mechanism so that you can train yourself to recognize Truth.

Everyone who “believes” in an attempt to “create reality” that is different from what IS, increases the chaos and entropy. If your beliefs are orthogonal to the truth, no matter how strongly you believe them, you are essentially coming into conflict with how the Universe views itself and I can assure you, you ain’t gonna win that contest. You are inviting destruction upon yourself and all who engage in this “staring down the universe” exercise with you.

On the other hand, if you are able to view the Universe as it views itself, objectively, without blinking, and with acceptance, you then become more “aligned” with the Creative energy of the universe and your very consciousness becomes a transducer of order. Your energy of observation, given unconditionally, can bring order to chaos, can create out of infinite potential.

A little further down in Langan's article there is this:

"One cannot be an enemy of Truth and a servant of God. By hating truth and serving evil even under the aegis of orgainized religion, one earns the same fate as that of atheists who misidentify God as a misdefined version of science. Worshippping a false God is as bad as, or worse than, worshipping no God at all."

That reminded me of something the Cs once said:

94-11-19
Disinformation comes from seemingly reliable sources. It is extremely important for you to not gather false knowledge as it is more damaging than no knowledge at all. Remember knowledge protects, ignorance endangers.

96-07-14
Q: (MM) Don't you get more free will by assimilating knowledge?
A: Yes!! Yes!!
Q: (L) So, in other words, knowledge and awareness makes you aware that you have free will, and also makes you aware of
what actions actually ARE acts of free will, and therefore, when you know or suspect the difference between the lies and deception and truth, then you are in a position to be in control of your life?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Ark also wants to ask... well, his problem is faith, as he said it to me.
A: Faith comes also from knowledge, and as we have stated before... False knowledge is worse than no knowledge at
all!!!!!

At our meeting, we discussed Langan's comment about "complete annihilation" in the first quoted text and compared it to what the Cs called "soul smashing".

2009-09-13 Q: .... (Joe) There's that question that you wanted to ask for the people on the forum about soul smashing? (L) Oh, the soul smashing! Can you frame a question around it? Or you, you're the expert on that topic Keit. Make a question. (Keit) Well, basically if what I said was close...?

A: Pretty darn accurate. An example of "getting smarter!"

Q: (Joe) Does that mean Keit?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) What was your theory? (L) She was talking about Illion's Darkness over Tibet and the descending spiral and that it's a choice and you have to, blah blah-blah blah-blah...

A: We couldn't have explained it any better!

Q: (Scottie) Did you write about this on the forum? (Keit) Yeah. (Scottie) How did I miss that?? (Andromeda) Yeah. (Keit) I have some more to say about this. (Joe) So that was about trying to smash all these souls back into primal matter, was that it?

A: Yes

Q: (AB) Could you just explain it, because I didn't read it. (Keit) What I said is that... (L) An individual that is in a position to be "soul-smashed" would have to already be on a descending spiral. (Keit) I brought this in quotes and quoted from Darkness Over Tibet. The author mentions that there are two possibilities in development: upward and downward. And there is a possibility of losing one's soul, but it should be a conscious decision, it's a choice. And it can't be taken by force. (L) But they can make you choose by wearing you out. (Keit) Exactly, and I gave my personal example where I felt that traumatic experiences in our lives kind of manipulates us into choosing the downward development. And we basically choose something that is against our own level of being. And it's so traumatic for the soul, that it twists the soul and puts it in a downward position. The eventual event is basically smashing the soul, even if the final smashing event is relative small. And that's why there is so much suffering and pathology in the world, where they force and manipulate souls into choosing. (L) Against their own nature. (Pierre) And Illion said that the worse thing for a human being is the sin against their own soul. (Keit) And sinning against the soul is going against your own level of being. (L) Against your own nature. (Keit) So, like narcissistic tendencies and everything, that's why for our own sake we need to clean ourselves. (DD) Is this why they've injected so much drugs into the culture to just weaken people?

A: Yes and remember also transmarginal inhibition principles.

Q: (L) One of those principles is that even strong dogs that could not be broken in ordinary ways, if they subjected them to physical trauma like surgery, or illness, or something like that, that that would weaken them to the point where they could be turned. So torture is also part of this process.

A: Yes

Q: (L) And we live now in a culture of torture which is basically a soul-smashing culture.

A: Yes

Q: (L) So there are souls that are being twisted and deformed to the point where they will... I mean, a lot of these people think that they will be going to heaven because they're imposing their god's will on other people, and they think that whatever they have to do to bring in the rule of their distorted version of Jesus Christ on Earth or whatever - ya know, these fundies that basically they themselves are putting themselves in the position of being soul smashed because they are completely going against not only the teachings of Christ, but also against their own natures. I think many of them really mean well, but they have been so gradually and so incrementally twisted by pathological individuals in positions of power and in high positions in churches and pathological individuals that create doctrines and theologies that are twisted that they are essentially agreeing to the sale of their own souls to the devil. (Joe) I wonder if it extends to people who aren't directly involved in it, but are just ordinary members of the population whose minds are so twisted that in their own minds they sanction it or they agree with it. Even when they're faced with the facts, they're not being lied to so much, but they realize the whole thing about torture and the CIA and torture camps...

A: Silence in the face of "evil" is equal to participation unless there is a good reason for the silence that serves a higher goal.

Q: (Joe) That's really interesting because it kind of explains the whole debate over torture, and how they've been trying to get people to accept torture. And more and more facts coming out about the reality of the CIA having tortured and trying to twist that around to get people to accept that as something that is conscionable.

A: Acceptance of torture is the "mark of the beast."

Q: (Don) That's why there's the popularity of television shows like "24". (Joe) Conditioning people. (Don) It's wildly popular. (Joe) I mean, you get all these people who are faced with the real life torture of another human being, and they actually cheer it on. And if that's the same as participation, then these people are all being put on that downward spiral.

A: Remember the "lake of fire" in the Book of Revelation? Remember that those who live by the sword will die by the sword?

Q: (Keit) What's "lake of fire"? (AB) In Revelation where all those who didn't accept Christ would be thrown in... (Joe) Hell, basically.

A: Soul smashing.

Q: (L) Creepy. (AB) I'm thinking about all those people who don't necessarily think torture is okay, but they still... like they're abhorred by torture but they're still kind of accepting it because it's necessary, or maybe they just try to not think about it all. (Joe) Well, people who think it's necessary... (L) They're already lost. They've already bought it. I mean, the scientific evidence is that if you need information or whatever, if there's some justifiable reason, that is NOT the way to get it. The records of the inquisition which are extensive - I mean, tens of thousands of people were tortured and confessed to bullshit just to get it over with. Just get it over with and let me die! I'll tell you anything you want me to say. And they confessed to flying on broomsticks, to mating with devils, to dancing naked in the moonlight, to kissing each other's ass... I mean, you name it, and they confessed to it just to get it to stop. And it was ALL bullshit. (AB) And I'm sorry, even if scientific didn't show that, even if we said, "Oh yeah, torture actually works for getting information," you're still torturing human beings! It's still abhorrent. It's like, how can you do that?! (Keit) The thought I had is that pathology, or like children of narcissistic families, it's like torture. (L) It IS torture! (Keit) And what happens is kind of like it poisons them and basically allows them to accept the torture environment. Because they already experienced it, they were like touched by evil. (L) Torturing another human being to force them to say or do something that is against their principles - they are, each individual, entitled to their principles, to their ideas, to their political whatever. And if you want to change that, or if you think that there is something about their point of view that is threatening to you, then they way to change that is by discourse, by education, by sharing information and data. NOT by trying to force them to go against what is rightfully theirs, at the soul level. To try to force somebody like that is basically a kind of soul killing of its own. Jesus even said in the New Testament that whoever is a stumbling block to the least of these, it would be better for him that he'd never been born. And when he said, "never been born", that's almost like a way of saying his soul is going to be smashed. It's just really astonishing. (Don) What happens to a soul after it is smashed?

A: Primal matter. Start the cycle over. Millions or billions of years acquiring consciousness.

Q: (DD) So you start out as like a hydrogen atom or something. (Joe) You become a rock. (Pierre) Is there a link between a smashing year that was announced in the previous transcript? It was mentioned, and now we're talking about soul smashing... (L) Well, it's kind of interesting because this insight that I had about this when I woke up that particular morning is that that is what they are trying to do: they actually think that they can smash souls and turn them into primal matter. And it was such a shocking thought to me, and just now I'm realizing that this insight came through in the year they called a "smashing year". This insight kind of came smashing through into my consciousness to even think of that. That's almost unthinkable. (Pierre) If they smash the soul of human beings, then aren't they losing because we are their cattle? So it's more like that... (Joe) The whole thing starts again...

A: It isn't going to happen to all.

Q: (Keit) Oh, that's what I wanted to ask: Is it going to happen on an individual level, or to everyone? (L) Yeah, so it would be individual.

A: Yes

2009-11-28Q: (L) You once said that the wave was something like "hyperkinetic sensate". And I've often wondered if that means that it's something that massively amplifies whatever is inside an individual? And if that were the case and they were full of a lot of unpleasant, painful, miserable feelings, repressed and suppressed thoughts and so forth, and something that was hyperkinetic sensate amplified all of that, what would it do to that individual? I mean, can you imagine any of us in our worst state of feeling yucky and then having that amplified a bazillion times? If it was bad stuff inside you, you would implode.

A: Soul smashing!

To our way of thinking, there is no such thing as "complete annihilation", there is only return to primal matter.

 

[Bluegazer]

To our way of thinking, there is no such thing as "complete annihilation", there is only return to primal matter.

I knew I had read it somewhere. This book every time I read it I find some similarities with the things said by the C's.

A Dweller on Two Planets: Book the Third: Chapter I: Ye Shall Reap As Ye Have Sown. The Perception

A Dweller on Two Planets, by Phylos the Thibetan (Frederick S. Oliver), [1894], full text etext at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

BOOK THE THIRD​

​

CHAPTER I​

​

YE SHALL REAP AS YE HAVE SOWN. THE PERCEPTION​

Suppose the struggle had proven me wanting, and the verdict had been, "Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin"? 'Then my--our--fate would have been that of Mainin of Caiphul. To me who know the dread meaning of this fate, it is more utterly frightful to contemplate than it can be to thee. It means being a brother to devils, and subjection to Satan, who could so cunningly, awfully tempt as we were tempted, and when successful, make a servant of the victim, ever to pile up fresh karma. And such karma as Satan's service makes is worse in a moment than the wickedest man could pile up in a long lifetime. It means such servitude until--when? Forever? Until the end of material things. Then, when the heavens are rolled as a scroll and melt in fervent heat, Satan (Lucifer) shall, with his minions, be cast into that lake of fire which is the second death: which meaneth that the force, the energy of the rebels, that which has made them distinct, potent souls through all the past, shall become depersonalized, and disindividualized, cast into the sum of the Fire of Elements, which form the forces of Nature, the winds, odic and magnetic and electric forces. But annihilation there is not, death there is not, though there be such a change as constitutes the destruction of the union between soul and Spirit, the return of the first to the great impersonal Vis Natura, the return of the other to Him who created life.

Then, after millions of years the Father will gather the fervid elements into nebulae, star-plasm, worlds, suns, systems, and a "new heaven and a new earth" shall come forth. Then will the depersonalized rebel host begin to reincarnate in protoplasmic life, and thence evolutionize up, up, up along the myriad incarnations until, after an eternity of matter, they come once more to human conditions, to another Crisis, to win or fail, and either, like Sisyphus, run again the weary course, or else inherit hard-won entrance to unconditional being. There is not nor can be, any death of the Spirit, but of the individuality only. Study this well, my friend, for such is the fate of evildoers who sell to Satan, because such is Satan's portion. Our Father hath provided a Way. It is the sharp, knife-edge Path, whereon all things so evenly balance that there is turning neither to the right nor left, but steady, even pursuit of the Path, wherein all who travel that way, contain themselves in all things, in eating and drinking, in sleeping and all those things which cause the cares of this world. Those who shall be accounted worthy, without further incarnation, to obtain the resurrection from the body of materiality neither marry nor are given in marriage, but must receive the Kingdom of God even as if still little children. Yet whoso doeth not so, it shall not be eternally counted against them, but only till another incarnation. It must be that the things of sensation which are an offense unto the Spirit occur, but karmic woe will attend the offender until he finds the Path and travels therein. Hear, if hearing and understanding be in thee, for these are the words of the Master.​

Regarding Langan's comments and compared to what is expressed in the EEQT text, and the soul mashing, I think it can be summarized as follows:

Reality = GOD. If you ignore reality as it is, then GOD will ignore you (They will become merely a dream in the 'past.'). In the process god disposes of your individuality and personality to be RECYCLED.

I have noticed after reading not only the many sessions that there are two types of ignorance. The first which is a condition of the innocence of the neophyte, which is somewhat like that of the child, where there is not yet a cultivated perspicacity (knowing the difference between right and wrong) and the conscious choice of ignorance.

Anyway, all this just comes to break down the C's headline quote.

'Life is religion. Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the world will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the 'past.' People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the 'Future.' -- Cassiopaeans, 09-28-02

Now it is easy for me to understand how one talks to god and connects with him. It is this feedback mechanism that exists between man and reality. A result of information exchange between the observer and the observed.

Now and going to a more intensive critique with Langan, and this whole truth = reality thing, we seem to have ignored the great philosophers of the past.

'The only truth is reality'

It is a phrase said by several people over time and I believe it can be attributed to Plato. Searching for this phrase, trying to validate whether Plato said it or not, one can find on the web a variety of concepts and analyses that parallel some of Langan's concepts. (now if you didn't read Plato before, so it makes you think that Langan is really a smart guy... and looking at things like that, you start to take the claim of his high IQ with a grain of salt. I'm afraid it's not that the guy is super smart, it's just that people have gotten stupider and we are seeing that every day and growing at a rampant rate. People today fail miserably in knowing how to contrast information and separate truth from lies.)

Greek Philosophy: Plato the Philosopher. Truth Reality of Plato. Quotes Plato's Republic

www.spaceandmotion.com

Plato Quotes on Philosophy Truth and Reality

And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are. (Plato)


The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge. (Plato)


Truthfulness. He will never willingly tolerate an untruth, but will hate it as much as he loves truth. ... And is there anything more closely connected with wisdom than truth? (Plato)


What is at issue is the conversion of the mind from the twilight of error to the truth, that climb up into the real world which we shall call true philosophy. (Plato)


The object of knowledge is what exists and its function to know about reality. (Plato)


One trait in the philosopher's character we can assume is his love of the knowledge that reveals eternal reality, the realm unaffected by change and decay. He is in love with the whole of that reality, and will not willingly be deprived even of the most insignificant fragment of it - just like the lovers and men of ambition we described earlier on. (Plato)​

But seriously, when I say that the philosophers of the past have been forgotten, it is because we have really reached the point of the decadence of Western civilization:

Truth is real and philosophers must return their attention to it | Aeon Essays

For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently

aeon.co

Truth is real​

For a century, the idea of truth has been deflated, becoming terrain from which philosophers fled. They must return – urgently​

It is often said, rather casually, that truth is dissolving, that we live in the ‘post-truth era’. But truth is one of our central concepts – perhaps our most central concept – and I don’t think we can do without it. To believe that masks prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to take it to be true that they do. To assert it is to claim that it is true. Truth is, plausibly, central to thought and communication in every case. And, of course, it’s often at stake in practical political debates and policy decisions, with regard to climate change or vaccines, for example, or who really won the election, or whom we should listen to about what.

One might have hoped to turn to philosophy for a clarification of the nature of truth, and maybe even a celebration of it. But philosophy of pragmatist, analytic and continental varieties lurched into the post-truth era a century ago. If truth is a problem now for everyone, if the idea seems empty or useless in ‘the era of social media’, ‘science denialism’, ‘conspiracy theories’ and suchlike, maybe that just means that ‘everyone’ has caught up to where philosophy was in 1922.

Before the 20th century, reflection on truth in Western intellectual and spiritual traditions usually exalted it. ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know,’ declares John Keats, very Grecianly, or at least Platonically, Plato having anointed truth as the goal of philosophy, the goal of human life. ‘Assuredly we must be bold to speak what is true, above all when our discourse is upon truth [aletheia],’ Socrates says in the Phaedrus. ‘It is there that true being dwells, without colour or shape, that cannot be touched; reason alone, the soul’s pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge thereof.’ Plato’s truth is identical not only with the beautiful, but with the good and the just. It is the highest thing. Jesus agrees, proclaiming himself at John 14:6 to be the way, the truth and the life. [...] For such reasons, and under the influence of Kantian and Hegelian idealism, the various classical versions of correspondence were challenged by coherence theories, which incidentally re-exalted truth. Underneath these developments was a struggle about what sort of thing reality is as a whole: a series of discrete facts independent of human consciousness, as the correspondence theory suggests, or a web or network of interdependent facts, leaning on each other and perhaps on human consciousness, only understandable as a whole, as the idealists insisted. [...] To get the ultimate truth, we would need to see how the particular claim fits into something like a complete theory or system of the Universe as a whole*: each fact is a fact and is the fact it is, only in relation to such a system, or only because it finds a place in such a system. ‘We cannot assume,’ wrote Harold Joachim in 1906, ‘that the idea in question possesses its “significance” (its fullness of meaning or its power to constitute truth) alone and in its own right. It in turn derives its significance from a larger significant system to which it contributes.’

*According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

So, what if language and speech, as we understand them, are what McGilchrist would call "limit cases" of the larger creative "speech" of God? When we use language and speech for the purposes of communication, we are engaging the creative process in a very limited, specific way, and thus while it is different from the "speech" of God, it's also essentially the same thing, thus Al-Arabi's emphasis on the concept.

I think that's a good way of putting it.

To our way of thinking, there is no such thing as "complete annihilation", there is only return to primal matter.

Up further in the thread I quoted a couple more places where Langan talked about the idea. Here are a couple quotes: "Evil must be unbound before it is resorbed." That is, it must be taken apart, disintegrated back into pure potential to be absorbed back into a state of relative nothingness (since absolute nothingness is a paradoxical impossibility). And from the interview:

Langan: I probably shouldn't pick on Richie Dawkins. He is what he is. But Richie Dawkins will create his own kind of hell. ... And that is probably going to be a hell where nobody pays any attention to him. ... And then finally, in the end, he'll just be melted down to nothingness. And the telesis of which he consists [i.e. the pure potential made actual in the form of Richard Dawkins] will be redistributed to the rest of the universe.

Curt: You mentioned God can't absorb what's imperfect because God is perfect and he needs to stay consistent. However, none of us, at least I'm not perfect, and no one that I've met is perfect. So does that mean that none of us are going to heaven?

Langan: None of us will be ultimately reabsorbed back into unbounded telesis. The world throws too much at you for you to be perfect. Okay, nobody can be perfect in this world. To live in the physical world is to be assaulted by imperfection all the time. Things that don't suit you and cause you to react sometimes poorly. ... it's an oxymoron to think that God holds this against you. We all have to adapt. We all have to do what it takes to survive and God doesn't hate us for that. ... that isn't what makes a person evil. What makes a person evil is total denial and negation of his, of ultimate reality and his own highest level of identity. Which is God. ... It's wanting to undo, to unbind reality, to say the name of reality backwards. That's what evil is. That's what you get punished for. And that's unfortunately what a lot of these new atheists are doing.

 

[BHelmet]

Interesting assertion

*​

According to EEQT if the expectations of the observer are close to the actual state of the system, the system jumps, more often than not, into more organized, less chaotic state.​

But is this anywhere close to the truth? Is this actually not another delusion? Or perhaps wishful thinking? Does any system care about the expectations of an observer and change state even if it is a conscious system?

As for absolutism regarding God’s system dynamics

1. "I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good."

-Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, 'Faust'.

It’s the old Yin Yang dynamic. And there are systems within systems with interconnected mechanisms and functions. I understand the desire to nail down the system we are embedded in. But to do that while still in the system is difficult if not impossible and perhaps even unnecessary.

I think any divine system needs dynamism and uncertainty to allow for creation and creativity. Absolutism (system laws that are unchanging) creates a kind of stagnant stasis in the long run.

So, looking for the magic feather that guarantees any outcome due to systemic rules is kind of like looking for your glasses when they are already on your face. The 3D system is superseded by the 4D system. Coming up with a unified field theory of anything is massively complicated by the fact that there are differentiated intersecting fields with different laws, postulates, parameters etc. Any of which can be observed and theorized into a system in which it doesn’t really belong.

Once again, all is vanity and the way forward comes not from studying the composition of the road you’re on but by developing one’s being in the face of uncertainty and chaos which, at some point, requires a leap of faith. And that’s kind of the whole point.

The desire to figure it all out, I think, comes from wanting to know what the right thing to do is. But thinking Eureka! I HAVE IT! Eliminates the need for faith and a true test of faith.

 

[Laura]

Well, EEQT is Ark's mathematically constructed and proven Even Enhanced Quantum Theory. I don't think it is an illusion or a delusion.

 

[Joe]

Does any system care about the expectations of an observer and change state even if it is a conscious system?

The "system" in this context is primal matter which, according to the theory, does not "care" about anything. It is not conscious, it's more akin to "sleeping consciousness", and serves as the materia prima that is shaped by consciousness. That is, again according to the theory, how creativity in the material universe happens.