Christopher Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

[lilies]

*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.

I think the above should be amended or expanded a little:
I think the actual state of the system - what Ark probably referred to, is your subjective, localized region in the Universe. Your local energy environment - only as far as you can see, because the observer / You is not God, therefore you are limited, therefore technically you are always forced into the "subjective" niche by default. As you can only see a limited section of the Universe: a localized system energy state. When you are God, you become truly Objective, I think. So the actual state of the EEQT system, I think, technically must refer to your locality in the entire objective universe, which has all EEQT energy level states available / already attained.

I think You are a needle and this is what you do with your place in the Universe, when Ark describes "the system jumps":

EEQTs full range of 'system energy jump levels / states' are already available to God on the 'Complete Universe System' (the entire vinyl disk on below pic), I think. EEQT system jumps can be visualized in a simple, reduced way as the grooves on this full vinyl record below:
1. see as each groove ("scratch") represents a different EEQT energy level jump state of the system, I think.
2. And you are the pin / needle,
3. You can make yourself jump to a new EEQT energy-level = new groove = new energy state = new world = new timeline

In our subjective perception on 3rdD, I think, you perceive a completed 'EEQT system jump', as if your whole Being & World Energy State changed. Your outlook / Life changed: everything became new, exhilarating, newly energizing. For you the entire

the system jumps,

into more organized, less chaotic state.

when you successfully raise your Being to become more objective = matching the new localized part (EEQT System Jump Target) [new groove on above pic] of the Objective Universe (Primary Reality) and you are rewarded with a system jump, better world. Because you (the hand on above pic) succeeded in lifting yourself (the pin on above pic) to a new EEQT System level = groove on above pic. On that new "system jump state" you have more energy. You read better news. You are on a better timeline, I think.

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 think the system does care. The C's said "You are an experiment" and "expect it to happen". I think we all 'change EEQT states' on the Objective Conscious System of the Universe (complete vinyl record on the above image), where all possible EEQT energy level jumps (groves on above image) are already available & therefore already attained by others. I think all EEQT energy level jumps are / should be referred to as localized energy-environment changes.
Session 25 March 2017:

Q: (L) Well, the next logical question was: where does the so-called "sexual center" get ITS energy?

A: The sexual center is in direct contact with 7th density in its "feminine" creative thought of "Thou, I Love." The "outbreath" of "God" in the relief of constriction. Pulsation. Unstable Gravity Waves.

 

[Bluegazer]

I think the actual state of the system - what Ark probably referred to, is your subjective, localized region in the Universe.

Mmmm...that's not what I was thinking when I made the EEQT quote. Any theory that one can postulate can be proposed from the philosophical or from the mathematical. Those are the expectations of the observer. I did not think about whether it is subjective or not. I thought of it in terms of hypotheses where generally what you are trying to do is to answer a question. And to do that you collect empirical data -knowledge-.

If for a proposed hypothesis it turns out that, after the data is collected it is shown to be valid and confirmed by other observers, reality becomes more ordered because now the observer has accessed a new parcel of reality to which he aligns himself (a new truth).

Each new truth revealed, could be that jump in the system.

As an additional note, the word empirical comes from the Greek word Empeirikos, which means <<experienced>>.

 

[Ryan]

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.

Agree in general, but not so much with your definition of probability. Probably (no pun intended) better to use a mathematical description, such as LaPlace's definition as described in this post.

Localization of a conscious unit, IMO, seems to require the bifurcation of the mind into two hemispheres,

If the brain's hemispheric aspects are a result of genetic engineering (see sessions 9th October 1994 and 28th August 1999), that doesn't necessarily imply a bifurcation in the consciousness/mind.

Q: Okay, so this realm changed, as a part of the cycle; various choices were made: the human race went through the door after the 'gold,' so to speak, and became aligned with the Lizzies after the 'female energy' consorted with the wrong side, so to speak. This is what you have said. This resulted in a number of effects: the breaking up of the DNA, the burning off of the first ten factors of DNA, the separation of the hemispheres of the brain...
A: Only reason for this: you play in the dirt, you're gonna get dirty.

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.

Perhaps if the observer is anticipating, but some observations can be made indifferent to the outcome. Impartiality may even be intended, osit.

 

[iamthatis]

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 think that the "they" - whether it is 4D STS or 3D minions - get fed somehow. If not by the smashing itself, then by the downward spiral that leads to it. I'd wager that this process generates negative energy for them to feed on. Exactly how this works or how to describe it in terms of actual energy transfer, I don't really know.

Gurdjieff talked about 'sacred Rascooarno', wherein the death of each human releases an energy required for the maintenance of the cosmos. I don't know if that's true, but it could be that Soul smashing also creates or releases a certain kind of energy.

Fermentation has been a topic in Sufi poetry and other wisdom traditions since way back when. They talk about wine so much that one would think they're a pack of drunks! But beyond the literal interpretation, I think they're talking in the alchemical way about the arrival of a sublime quality from base matter if the recipe is just right. The finished wine is generally understood as a positive thing - a matured substance of the Soul. I was totally blown away when I read Gurdjieff's postulation that we are responsible for producing this energy or 'wine' within such that we can higher benevolent beings in their work.

I've thought for a while that authentic initiation and transmarginal inhibition are actually quite similar in their process. It's the difference between positive disintegration (or breakthrough) and negative disintegration (or breakdown). Maybe there is a kind of dark fermentation process happening with Soul smashing?

I have three cabbages in the fridge, so maybe making sauerkraut is just on my mind, but maybe its a good way of thinking about Soul smashing. After pulling the cabbage from the earth, you cut it into thin slices, then salt it, smash it a bunch, and finally seal it into an airtight container and allow it to ferment in its own juices for a while before. Voila - it becomes a 'culture' whose contents are suitable for consumption.

First you cut humans apart by severing their relationship with the earth and the divine, the relationship between body and mind, and also cut decent relations between men and women, between families and their children. You add something granular that will preserve them but also release the living water inside and then just start pounding. After they've softened, you seal them up in a frequency fence, let them stew in their own juices and eat as needed. Maybe it's a bit of a crude metaphor, but our own 'culture' looks to me like it is being made more and more edible through a kind of dark fermentation process.

 

[Ryan]

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'.

This reminds me of something from recent sessions:

Q: (hesperides) When psychopaths die, do they reincarnate again?
A: No
Q: (hesperides) Do psychopaths automatically disintegrate through the 2nd death process?
A: Not exactly. A crystallized psychopath can become something akin to a demon.

Q: [..] (Joe) I think it was brought up on the forum. The Cs have said that all souls were already created from the beginning. But we have this idea that OPs and stuff can develop souls. So they are kind of mutually ... they are not compatible ideas, right? And the idea that OPs come back to the soul pool, and keep coming back and forth, so, what is the deal there? If all souls are already created, is there no progression from an OP point of view into... or is it a group soul type of thing?
A: No. A group soul can differentiate. Same "amount" of soul "stuff".
Q:(Joe) OK. So, it's just levels of souls, then, right?
A: Yes

Q: (Joe) So how are 4D STS beings... How do they get to be there then if they haven't gone through, you know what I mean? I mean the natural progression for non-STS or not fully STS beings?
A: Different process. And they must achieve a high percentage of negativity in a single lifetime. And, yes, some of the extremely negative types do go directly to 4D STS.

So, in terms of "soul smashing", perhaps there's a small range of STS polarity between "crystallised psychopaths" and OPs that are the targets of this? Presumably a 4D STS candidate would be more STS polarised than a crystallised psychopath, so perhaps "regular" psychopaths, whom the Cs have also described as "failed OPs", are the subjects of this?

 

[Laura]

On the topic of "soul smashing", read this:

Stalking or Precis on The Good and The Evil

This is drawn from a series of articles written by a fellow named Michael Topper, who uses the nom de plume “Marshall Telemachus” or even “Mother Terasu” and others. After p…

cassiopaea.org

The higher density positive entities are light beings. The higher density negative entities are “light eaters.” Love is light is knowledge. When they induce belief against what is objectively true, they have “eaten” the light-knowledge of the person who has chosen blind belief over fact! When you believe a lie, you have allowed the eating of your energy of awareness! When you do not take the time and trouble to check things out for yourself, to do the research, to compare, to network, to get a consensus, you have given away your power. You have failed in the creative act of learning. [...]

The Objective – the ultimate total destruction that is desired by the Being at the Apex – the total consumption of even it’s minions – is masked from the higher density negative beings below it. The lower levels may “feel” or “sense” the looming black hole of absolute annihilation as they mount through the hierarchy, but the immediate pleasures of their feeding-frenzies keep them occupied, reinforcing the discouragement of the idea of looking any deeper into the Heart of Darkness proclaiming its gospel of Oneness and which has no qualms about making food out of even THEM!

 

[Ryan]

Laura quoted in the article above:

“We have come across sincere people among the Folk of Allah who have been duped by this station. They prefer their own unveiling and that which becomes manifest to them in their understanding. They depend upon this in their own case. Anyone who relies upon it is totally confused and has left his affiliation with the Folk, thereby joining the “greatest losers.” Their striving goes astray in the present life, while they think they are working good deeds.”

“When the friends of God climb in the ascents of their aspirations, the goal of their arrival is the Divine Names, since the Divine Names seek them.”

“They receive only in the measure of their own preparedness.

“We do not ask those who have opinions of their own. We say to them, “Has it been revealed [among the Folk, Friends of God?]

If he says yes, then you must weigh it against what you have come to know and what has been said to you. You should also weigh it against what is known to others. This is the scale. [Scale of the Law]

Reminds me a lot of the C's paranesis here:

A: Please be very aware that these times are crucial not only to the development of your souls, but also to the future of your realm and your place within it. Be AWARE, support each other, and most important, NETWORK!!! [..]

 

[Natus Videre]

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.

Thank you for bringing up Anselm; I wasn't aware of him. His argument about the existence of God triggered in me a deep reflection about the notions of truth and falsehood.

If our goal is to understand reality, then we must follow a logical approach, i.e. a method, a protocol, or a language that will facilitate the organization of our observations, assumptions, and hypotheses in order for us to derive meaningful conclusions about reality.

A starting point could be to first define truth, a necessary property of all the logical building blocks we will piece together. What is truth? Does it even exist? If we assume that truth does not exist, we immediately reach a contradiction because the statement "truth does not exist" denies truth, yet it is formulated as if truth existed! The absurdity is captured in the following diagram:

A letter containing the message "truth does not exist" is sent by a person believing the claim to another person. But what about the paper, the ink, the envelop, the glue that sealed the envelope, weren't they all part of an organized, intelligent process that was followed that enabled the message to be sent in the first place? There must have been a logical foundation, i.e. a collection of truths that was well understood and then applied to solve a problem.

So we conclude that truth must exist.

Now, is everything true? We need to find only one statement which is not true to disprove "everything is true." The statement could be "truth does not exist," which cannot be true (as concluded above). Since not everything is true, there must be some statements that are false. But how do we prove something is false? It seems like false statements are contextual, as if they were "attached" to a corresponding, unapparent truth that they were negating. Once we know the truth, we can more easily detect false statements about something. However, discovering the truth requires work—there is no free lunch.

For example, consider this glass of water. What are the true statements about this object?

Well, we can conclude that "the glass is not empty," which immediately renders the statements "the glass is full" and "the glass is half-full" false. Interestingly, the statement "the glass is not empty" already carries quite a few assumptions, namely that "the glass can be filled by a substance," leading straight into more profound questions such as "what is a substance?" opening the door to deeper truths. Another observation is that we have so far only considered statements regarding the content of the glass and not the glass itself. We can measure the glass's physical proportions and discover truths concerning its shape if we want to.

We quickly realize that there are possibly infinite ways of characterizing something. But do the truths attached to an object imply its existence? Perhaps viewing it from the angle of "non-existence" may help. When something does not exist, how do we describe it apart from the fact that it does not exist? Well, we can say "it is not X" or "it is not Y" without much trouble, much like when we easily derived false statements by knowing the truth in the example of the glass of water. Suddenly, finding true statements about non-existence is a breeze! Of course, these true statements are not very useful in determining what exactly non-existence is. Could this mean that when something is reduced to non-existence, it is stripped from all the truths it has collected over its lifetime? A sort of disintegration or de-characterization of a being?

In the following diagram, a white (initially objective) circle/being is undergoing disintegration. It makes sense to interpret "non-existence" as a transition (or a jump) between two "existential" states rather than viewing it as separate state. This allows the being to undergo a transformation that will reclaim its accumulated truths and spawn basic life forms which will have the opportunity to learn what the being refused to learn.



Back to the question: do the truths attached to an object imply its existence?
The way the question is phrased makes less sense now. Are we talking about the truths that qualify an object (like assigning it a distinguishable attribute), or the truths that describe what an object is not? If it is the latter, it is easy to get lost in the enumeration of truths. For example, if the length of an object is 2.75 meters, it is not 2.751, nor 2.7500001, etc. The task would be immense, and reminiscent of drawing a shape using negative space, except that the negative (dark) space would include nearly all existence!

Therefore, seeking truth by elimination is not the right approach; it is more desirable to focus on the characteristics of an object, i.e. what the object really is. Existence, then, can be thought of as a collection of truths which directly characterize a being. Non-existence could be the phase where very few truths are tied to an object—perhaps just one truth, "small enough to squeeze through absolute darkness," and shared across all non-existent objects: "the object is non-existent."

On one side there is truth, organization, and objectivity—and on the other—falseness, chaos, and subjectivity. If a being aligns with the path of subjectivity, it means the accumulation of falseness outweighs the accumulation of truth. Eventually, the only truth that will be left to qualify that being will be the truth qualifying its non-existence.

Viewing consciousness as an accumulation and organization of truths may be a sensible approach.

Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?

A: Different concentrations of truth.

Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?

A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.

 

[heinrich]

Thank you for bringing up Anselm; I wasn't aware of him. His argument about the existence of God triggered in me a deep reflection about the notions of truth and falsehood.

If our goal is to understand reality, then we must follow a logical approach, i.e. a method, a protocol, or a language that will facilitate the organization of our observations, assumptions, and hypotheses in order for us to derive meaningful conclusions about reality.

A starting point could be to first define truth, a necessary property of all the logical building blocks we will piece together. What is truth? Does it even exist? If we assume that truth does not exist, we immediately reach a contradiction because the statement "truth does not exist" denies truth, yet it is formulated as if truth existed! The absurdity is captured in the following diagram:
View attachment 73975
A letter containing the message "truth does not exist" is sent by a person believing the claim to another person. But what about the paper, the ink, the envelop, the glue that sealed the envelope, weren't they all part of an organized, intelligent process that was followed that enabled the message to be sent in the first place? There must have been a logical foundation, i.e. a collection of truths that was well understood and then applied to solve a problem.

So we conclude that truth must exist.

Now, is everything true? We need to find only one statement which is not true to disprove "everything is true." The statement could be "truth does not exist," which cannot be true (as concluded above). Since not everything is true, there must be some statements that are false. But how do we prove something is false? It seems like false statements are contextual, as if they were "attached" to a corresponding, unapparent truth that they were negating. Once we know the truth, we can more easily detect false statements about something. However, discovering the truth requires work—there is no free lunch.

For example, consider this glass of water. What are the true statements about this object?

Well, we can conclude that "the glass is not empty," which immediately renders the statements "the glass is full" and "the glass is half-full" false. Interestingly, the statement "the glass is not empty" already carries quite a few assumptions, namely that "the glass can be filled by a substance," leading straight into more profound questions such as "what is a substance?" opening the door to deeper truths. Another observation is that we have so far only considered statements regarding the content of the glass and not the glass itself. We can measure the glass's physical proportions and discover truths concerning its shape if we want to.

We quickly realize that there are possibly infinite ways of characterizing something. But do the truths attached to an object imply its existence? Perhaps viewing it from the angle of "non-existence" may help. When something does not exist, how do we describe it apart from the fact that it does not exist? Well, we can say "it is not X" or "it is not Y" without much trouble, much like when we easily derived false statements by knowing the truth in the example of the glass of water. Suddenly, finding true statements about non-existence is a breeze! Of course, these true statements are not very useful in determining what exactly non-existence is. Could this mean that when something is reduced to non-existence, it is stripped from all the truths it has collected over its lifetime? A sort of disintegration or de-characterization of a being?

In the following diagram, a white (initially objective) circle/being is undergoing disintegration. It makes sense to interpret "non-existence" as a transition (or a jump) between two "existential" states rather than viewing it as separate state. This allows the being to undergo a transformation that will reclaim its accumulated truths and spawn basic life forms which will have the opportunity to learn what the being refused to learn.

View attachment 73976

Back to the question: do the truths attached to an object imply its existence?
The way the question is phrased makes less sense now. Are we talking about the truths that qualify an object (like assigning it a distinguishable attribute), or the truths that describe what an object is not? If it is the latter, it is easy to get lost in the enumeration of truths. For example, if the length of an object is 2.75 meters, it is not 2.751, nor 2.7500001, etc. The task would be immense, and reminiscent of drawing a shape using negative space, except that the negative (dark) space would include nearly all existence!

Therefore, seeking truth by elimination is not the right approach; it is more desirable to focus on the characteristics of an object, i.e. what the object really is. Existence, then, can be thought of as a collection of truths which directly characterize a being. Non-existence could be the phase where very few truths are tied to an object—perhaps just one truth, "small enough to squeeze through absolute darkness," and shared across all non-existent objects: "the object is non-existent."

On one side there is truth, organization, and objectivity—and on the other—falseness, chaos, and subjectivity. If a being aligns with the path of subjectivity, it means the accumulation of falseness outweighs the accumulation of truth. Eventually, the only truth that will be left to qualify that being will be the truth qualifying its non-existence.

Viewing consciousness as an accumulation and organization of truths may be a sensible approach.

thank you. this is very elaborate. this is why the commandment "you shall not lie".

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Maybe it's a bit of a crude metaphor,

It works for me iamthatis. Very well put thank you.

 

[Laura]

Natus Videre wrote:
Viewing consciousness as an accumulation and organization of truths may be a sensible approach.

Q: (L) Next question on the list: How do consciousness, information, and matter relate to each other?

A: Different concentrations of truth.

Q: (L) So I'm assuming you mean that matter would be one concentration, and consciousness would be another, and information like maybe pure information would be the purest form?

A: Not necessarily, information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness. That is why truth and objectivity are so important. Without it, consciousness and individuality fractures and disintegrates.

I had completely forgotten about that exchange. It sure makes a lot more sense now than it did at the time it occurred. I think that was even said before the "soul smashing" idea was bruited by the Cs.

I was going to write "no wonder people who tell lies get things like alzheimer's and dementia", but then, I thought, that isn't really true. And why not? I think it is because people can tell lies and KNOW that they are lies and that isn't harmful in the same way. It is only when you believe lies about reality, reject reality, and especially when it is possible to get closer to the truth, that lies are self-destructive.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thank you for bringing up Anselm; I wasn't aware of him. His argument about the existence of God triggered in me a deep reflection about the notions of truth and falsehood.

Thanks for this post, NV. I found it very clear and helpful!

 

[Voyageur]

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:

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.

That caught my attention in an Orwellian way, where reality is presented as being inverted; upside down, inside out and in every which way, backwards.

To those who work at paying attention to reality, when the syllables of the inverted are heard, it is the preverbally fingernails on the chalkboard, whilst there are those who coo at the inverted language which begets actions, becoming all the more inculcated by it. For them, reality has become backwards until, if even possible, their observations and mind can be righted, as it may be just their temporary ignorance and blindness or it becomes permanent and they continue to self-replicates inverted ideas. Moreover, though, there are those who are in the business of consciously selling the backwardness of reality (pick one today), and that seems what one big part of evil is. They are the merchants of evil. They repackage reality and will sell it in anyway and to anyone they can while taking joy in pitting all and sundry against each other. This is the "we came, we saw, he died," evil, and so much more.

 

[truepositive]

Dipping our toes into every pond of philosophy on offer and currently worth considering going in-depth with, i love it :)

 

[iamthatis]

I don't know, is Langan really that smart? He's got this ethnic European superiority thing going on that seems pretty pompous, even racist. Maybe it's a reaction against anti-white sentiment in America, sure, but this just seems over the top to me, emotional thinking run amok.

Comment (White Dragon, 白龍 @Jin_Bai_Long):
"Or helping Nature recover from multiple "technological progress" related wounds inflicted mainly by "Whites". Oh wait, It is recovering by reducing White numbers. Amen, praise the Lord, etc.

Response: Let's try not to get confused here. Neither I nor anyone I know has "wounded" any nonwhites. As a matter of fact, I belong to the endangered group now sustaining most of the "wounds" despite being the most creative, productive, and generous in history. Our unacknowledged generosity is why we freed all the slaves that were dumped on us without invitation (they were already thoroughly enslaved when they were dumped here by slavers who were not themselves American), and why our countries are full of ungrateful overpopulating wastrels. We've generously tolerated them, making excuses for them as they hated us, committed crimes against us, and bred like flies. But enough is enough.

Given your handle, your address, and your Chinese pictographs, you create the impression that you belong to an overpopulating group of whom there are now over 1.4 blillion members, most languishing under totalitarian oppression by, wouldn't you know it, other Chinese (the situation is a little better in China than in Africa, but not by much). You occupy your own patch of moral low ground, far below the peak of social evolution attained by ethnic Europeans before our peaceful, productive societies were ruined by the insidious trillionaires and communist termites now in power. You should be hanging your head in shame for addressing any White person as you have done here.

Show some respect for your moral superiors. If not for us, China would not be an industrial power. The least you could do is show some appreciation for our largesse. (Unfortunately, your ethnic cohort would still be wounding nature with its profligate reproduction, overpopulating beyond the capacity of your ancestral environment to sustain it and therefore trying to acquire our resources to offset its unsustainable growth. But that shouldn't be anyone's problem but yours.)

Have a nice day.