Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

[Joe]

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

Are we assuming that the "they" who wants to create "soul smashing" are 4D STS or similar? If so, what do they achieve for themselves through this "soul smashing"? And then there's the question of whether or not this is part of a "natural" cycle and if there is, from a big picture pov, a need for certain souls to be "smashed" to contribute to the primal matter of the 'redo'.

 

[Joe]

He is using the words (un)observable in the sense that the materialists/hardcore empiricists/behaviorists use them - i.e. that "only material things which can be directly observed and verified by multiple people are worthy of scientific investigation." He's pointing out that even things like gravity and probability waves fall into the "unobservable" category, and thus science must admit the nonphysical. But there are many more things that can't be observed in this way, which are just as much a part of reality as the so-called scientific "observables". I think he would include paranormal phenomena there and everything he considers "metaphysical," along with things as ordinary as the love someone feels for their family. They're not "observable" in the materialist sense, but they're knowable and able to be experienced.

I think a scientist would point that it's not about things that can or can't be observed, it's about things that can or can't (with human abilities) be scientifically measured in one way or another. Hence, gravity and probability waves are scientific 'things', while paranormal phenomena and love are not and are, instead, something else.

 

[Bluegazer]

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.

But that I think always falls on the point of view of the observer. Absolute terms are real and existent. If we examine God's point of view, we see that everything in creation is good... from his point of view. Only we at our particular level see the STO / STS dynamism.

Ultimate reality as the ultimate or supreme truth is elusive to us because it is the essence of all possibilities of creation, everything everywhere, at the same time.

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.

Would the C's be labeled arrogant or vain, because once we reach 4th density, they will reach 7th density? I would think that 7th density contemplates just the point where things are absolute from god's point of view.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think a scientist would point that it's not about things that can or can't be observed, it's about things that can or can't (with human abilities) be scientifically measured in one way or another. Hence, gravity and probability waves are scientific 'things', while paranormal phenomena and love are not and are, instead, something else.

You're right, I forgot the most important part of the definition! Should've looked it up first: "A physical property, such as weight or temperature, that can be observed or measured directly, as distinguished from a quantity, such as work or entropy, that must be derived from observed quantities." I don't know physics, so I'm not sure if a probability wave counts as a physical observable, or if it is more of an inferred entity of some sort. At the very least, physicists seem to disagree on its "reality status":

Ontology​

Whether the wave function really exists, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many famous physicists of a previous generation puzzled over this problem, such as Schrödinger, Einstein and Bohr. Some advocate formulations or variants of the Copenhagen interpretation (e.g. Bohr, Wigner and von Neumann) while others, such as Wheeler or Jaynes, take the more classical approach[43] and regard the wave function as representing information in the mind of the observer, i.e. a measure of our knowledge of reality. Some, including Schrödinger, Bohm and Everett and others, argued that the wave function must have an objective, physical existence. Einstein thought that a complete description of physical reality should refer directly to physical space and time, as distinct from the wave function, which refers to an abstract mathematical space.[44]

This is more what I was getting at: even physicists have to accept some non-physical things (in the strict sense of the word) in order for science to work, like the logic governing their equations, their own consciousness, the strange effectiveness of their abstract entities on the "real world," etc. Many will even accept the reality of certain abstract things, but modern mainstream philosophy and hardcore materialists have trouble accepting these as "real". I think a lot of them like to deny common sense while they're at work, and then come back to humanity on the weekends, when they are finally able to love their spouses and children and stop being purposeless machines whose every movement is dictated by their subatomic processes.

When it comes to measurement, psi effects can be measured, but I guess most scientists don't like them because they seem intimately related to consciousness and don't operate according to strict mathematical rules like so much in physics (e.g. inanimate matter and forces)?

 

[mkrnhr]

When it comes to measurement, psi effects can be measured, but I guess most scientists don't like them because they seem intimately related to consciousness and don't operate according to strict mathematical rules like so much in physics (e.g. inanimate matter and forces)?

I think there is also a strongly digested anti-religion stance too. As long as an non observable quantity doesn't relate by near or by far to the idea of a soul or spirit for instance, they're fine with it. Mind or consciousness, without a material support to magically emerge from, like neurons or quantum effects within neurons, is anathema because it supposes something beyond the physicalist realm. Many mathematicians confess that they are platonists and many physicists are also platonists without verbalizing it (they're less philosophical than mathematicians) but it's still a non-living, or unconscious metaphysical realm. A conscious or living metaphysical realm however reminds them of the soul and of god and that's a blasphemy in the atheist religion.

 

[luc]

I think there is also a strongly digested anti-religion stance too. As long as an non observable quantity doesn't relate by near or by far to the idea of a soul or spirit for instance, they're fine with it. Mind or consciousness, without a material support to magically emerge from, like neurons or quantum effects within neurons, is anathema because it supposes something beyond the physicalist realm. Many mathematicians confess that they are platonists and many physicists are also platonists without verbalizing it (they're less philosophical than mathematicians) but it's still a non-living, or unconscious metaphysical realm. A conscious or living metaphysical realm however reminds them of the soul and of god and that's a blasphemy in the atheist religion.

I think the crux is whether something is "dead" and "random" vs. something that is intelligent and goal-directed (which as you say points towards something vaguely religious/spiritual/higher). So the materialists are fine with crazy non-observables like wave functions and even string theory and things like that, not to mention the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, as long as these are seen as random and non-intelligent and non-teleological.

A sort of in-between are the panpsychists and those who think that human consciousness somehow influences the quantum world (observer effect) -- while materialists often still hate them, these positions are semi-acceptable to mainstream science because at first glance they don't imply higher intelligence or teleology. But once you go from there to the necessity of a Cosmic Mind to "hold reality stable" in the first place, then it's "burn the heretic" time!

 

[mkrnhr]

A sort of in-between are the panpsychists and those who think that human consciousness somehow influences the quantum world (observer effect) -- while materialists often still hate them, these positions are semi-acceptable to mainstream science because at first glance they don't imply higher intelligence or teleology.

Even the observer effect can be rationalized by some sort of quantum entanglement (spooky action at distance) or that the observer is part of the experiment. The divide is between core beliefs (faiths) that have opposing orientations so to speak. One tends towards a universe with no purpose (nor meaning) and the other tends towards an acknowledgement of will (or freewill albeit limited at the human level and conceivably limitless at the level of the comic mind) and consciousness in addition to materiality. In this context, the C's remarks about the Lizzies worshiping the material universe (sessions 20/10/1994, 07/11/1994) and its implication as being STS comes to mind. One can easily see that the essence of the atheistic attitude can in some cases be analogue to this worship of the strictly material universe, especially if it becomes a core belief.
Nowadays we hear things to the effect that humans are merely mindless organic machines (to be hacked, exploited and used) and within this context it's not surprising that what is being done to children is for some not a big deal. A recent example is Sam Harris' declaration that dead children in Biden's closet was less of a concern than Trump being re-elected. He was not joking, it really expresses how these "people" think.

 

[truepositive]

I like how Anselm's ontology described an infinite self referential 'system' almost a thousand years ago, and we are now finally digging deeper into that idea.

 

[whitecoast]

I don't know physics, so I'm not sure if a probability wave counts as a physical observable, or if it is more of an inferred entity of some sort.

Probability is explicitly derived from the observation of a multiplicity of outcomes originating from superficially similar identical inputs (e.g. dice rolling, or taking a population survey). I think they are comfortable with this because it is inferred that the “causal” chain is a deterministic one, never mind that Collingwood has linked he notion of causality itself to agency, and argued categorically that here is no way to untangle the notion of causality from the existence of agency in his Discourse on Metaphysics.

Localization of a conscious unit, IMO, seems to require the bifurcation of the mind into two hemispheres, one of which is a sphere of regular operations and another which assimilates new informstion from other conscious units and allows the individuality to be influenced by the global operator (left and right brain). And I think this notion of self-sacrifice based on faith, central to paleochristian dogma, is the essential story of the local unit acting while paying heed to the right hemisphere in spite of seeming contradiction in some respects with he left brain’s understanding. In essence it’s when the individual unit recognizes “something above itself” as De Salzmann said.

A part of me wonders about if the Babylonians themselves used two different writing languages and composed giant lexical lists to try and identify connections between words, sounds, concepts, etc that were not obvious in just one. Their way of writing was rhizomatic and not at all like the tree-like logical reasoning of Greek philosophy. They would list items in long form and even draw superficially illogical or contradictory apodoses from some protasis. This makes me wonder if this outright denial of left-brain constructs was due to the fact that the meat of the real mental work was occurring on a different, more protein level.

The idea came from my wondering how Langan would write his article had he been forced to do it in cuneiform, which necessarily demands a different approach to writing.

 

[Honzap]

Are we assuming that the "they" who wants to create "soul smashing" are 4D STS or similar? If so, what do they achieve for themselves through this "soul smashing"? And then there's the question of whether or not this is part of a "natural" cycle and if there is, from a big picture pov, a need for certain souls to be "smashed" to contribute to the primal matter of the 'redo'.

I am thinking that soul smashing happens when a person/candidate "refuses" to progress further. Refusal can take many different forms external and internal. The progress can be viewed from our standpoint as mastering our own lessons in 3D in order to move to 4D whether STO or STS. Both polarities are required for balance.

So back to creation of soul smashing environment, by doing so 4D STS might be helping the universe to get the cycle started again and give opportunity to another souls to grow and mature. At the same time those determined to learn might get a boost for an accelerated growth due to more difficult conditions.

I don`t think it very likely to find a definitive answer, the deeper we dive in, the more questions we have. But I am liking every minute of thinking on such an abstract theme. The though of it being very real and clearly understandable in higher densities is truly mindboggling

 

[mkrnhr]

I think the soul smashing issue can also be viewed as an end point of a "natural" process. There are orientations that are can be viewed as flows. On flow leans towards more knowledge and more consciousness and another flow goes toward non-consciousness. Some consciousness units choose at some level (maybe through many iterations) to abandon the former flow and let themselves be driven by the latter. 4D STS, being inwardly centered and contractile in nature, use others to keep afloat so to speak despite the inevitable (perhaps not knowing it), like drowning and taking others to the bottom on the way.
On a side note, those who want to upload themselves to AI machines, if no destruction of our realm occurs in the meanwhile, could succeed, because being empty of anything more than mere automatic cognitive functions themselves (being AI themselves somehow), they can't conceive it as losing anything. I don't know how to express it but there is something of this to the perplexing notion of 4D STS (partly non-material) worship the material universe. Is marrying and becoming robots a manifestation of that proclivity?

 

[Nienna]

I am thinking that soul smashing happens when a person/candidate "refuses" to progress further. Refusal can take many different forms external and internal. The progress can be viewed from our standpoint as mastering our own lessons in 3D in order to move to 4D whether STO or STS. Both polarities are required for balance.

I think the soul smashing issue can also be viewed as an end point of a "natural" process.

Speaking of soul-smashing, keit was the one who came up with the idea and the Cs agreed with her.

(Joe) Do you wanna change the topic? (L) You have another topic? (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 is 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...

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?? (A***) 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: (Allen) Could you just explain it, because I didn't read it. (Keit) What I said is that... 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 outcome of this 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. (PL) 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 or nature of being. 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 many 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.

 

[Bobo08]

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?

I used to consider this as something "magical", beyond my understanding for a long time. But in the last FOTCM meeting, it occurred to me that the "nuts and bolts" mechanism of it could be something as follows.

A conscious, i.e. volitional, observer, while observing a system, will not merely watching it, but will also act on it and try to shape it based on their intent. Since the observer is conscious, the intent is presumably always to impart more order to the system. (Is there a conscious observer intending towards chaos?)

The effect of the acting, however, will depend on the observer's understanding of the system. If the understanding is good, i.e. close to the truth, the acting will be effective, and the system is shifted towards order. Otherwise, the opposite will happen and the system is shifted towards chaos.

Just my 2 cents, fwiw.

 

[Wandering Star]

I used to consider this as something "magical", beyond my understanding for a long time. But in the last FOTCM meeting, it occurred to me that the "nuts and bolts" mechanism of it could be something as follows.

A conscious, i.e. volitional, observer, while observing a system, will not merely watching it, but will also act on it and try to shape it based on their intent. Since the observer is conscious, the intent is presumably always to impart more order to the system. (Is there a conscious observer intending towards chaos?)

The effect of the acting, however, will depend on the observer's understanding of the system. If the understanding is good, i.e. close to the truth, the acting will be effective, and the system is shifted towards order. Otherwise, the opposite will happen and the system is shifted towards chaos.

Just my 2 cents, fwiw.

Many here in this forum have told how they have magical moments at times. The moment of getting to park in a place where it is very difficult due to the saturation of cars is an example.

The observer sees the situation, here it will be impossible to park the car, then the person gets angry and tries to impose his will on reality, he goes round and round and round with the car and each time he gets more angry and he ends up parking several kilometers of distance.

On the other hand, people here say with resignation and above all acceptance something like: "Well, here it is impossible to find parking for the car, so I'll go around and find another place!".

Our forum member, with confidence and a smile of acceptance of reality, drives with his car. So the system jumps and when the person looks around the curve, there it is. A perfect and safe place for his car.

Something that occurred to me while reading this.

 

[BHelmet]

Manifesting a parking space and making a systemic impact are 2 diff things.

There are plenty of conscious networks of individuals seeking to impact an observed system to achieve more order to the system….. and it sucks!! LOL