Thank you very much. My question is why Lie algebra is considered in this way by the Cassiopaeans? I also wanted to point out that Algebraic Gememometry developed independently of Algebra and Lie groups
Yes! Exactly what we're for.Unstable - prone to change
Wave - a periodic disturbance, motion, variation, to convey
Gravity - fundamental idea, instruction, attraction due to being (matter), information
Unstable gravity wave - temporarily make use of fundamental idea/information for purposes of action.
But they hear and vibrate "upwards" when some around them aren't "going down". The flora around you grows, if you are such. By only being there. Rare, rare thing to notice, though.That applies to human beings, but what about the rest of creation? Lower density beings don't seem to have that capacity for abstract ideas and purposes.
All of that is monkey shine. You, we, some know it.And a most of humanity also could be said to act mainly out of biological drives, subconscious impulses. They still learn to speak a language, hold a job, etc. And whose "thought" is it, "God's" or the person's? It seems to me that part of the lesson must be to struggle with a very distorted antenna, and learn as we try, to "read the signs" properly, to separate thoughts that are imposed (biology, childhood, etc.) from more authentic thoughts, combining that with application of the information absorbed, learning as much as we can so as to "tune in" to something that leads to growth, if possible. And the drive one has must be important. Following your analogy, someone can learn a language or a musical instrument very well, just to show off or feel smart, but not do to anything in the way of giving to others with it, or really "organizing information" to expand being, right? It's tricky!
Well, are you not beyond a rock or an animal? Pretty sure you are much more of an unstable information gravity wave than a rock. Rocks are sustained (held together) by the same waves: they're less unstable. They think a little slower.Another thing that is confusing to me is that if gravity is all information, and learning is reorganizing information bits, then shouldn't "gravity" for a person who has learned a lot be different from that of a person who hasn't, or an animal, a plant, a rock? Yet, we would all fall at the same speed give them same resistance. Of course, the problem here is that we don't know what gravity IS.
Yeah, Earth has been a good Mother. Lots of good vehicles for Souls to grow. Either way.Another confusing thing is that the Cs mentioned the purpose of life being this reorganization of information bits, expanded being. But what about a being who chooses a purely "STS path"? Can we not say that he or she is also reorganizing bits of information, except that the nature of his acts, and the way he organizes the bits lead to more contraction than expansion?
No.I think it's pretty much predefined at some level.
Must be like "etheric quantum entanglement". Sharing info between souls via operating similar antennae - between live or dead (incarnated or discarnate) - peeps with similar receivers just need to be powering same type antennas, like CB radio: everyone hears the chatter once tuned in.(Pierre) You were wondering about how you relate to them. They're dead, they're far away. Sharing the same DNA antennae, if we are connected via DNA to an information field, and you have other people with similar DNA connected to a similar part of the field, and time really doesn’t exist on other planes, then you can access these kinds of memories or information shared by ancestors...?
Stunning Carminite crystals from Clara Mine, Wolfach, Black Forest, Baden-Württemberg, GermanyWell, are you not beyond a rock or an animal? Pretty sure you are much more of an unstable information gravity wave than a rock. Rocks are sustained (held together) by the same waves: they're less unstable. They think a little slower.
I agree. When I wrote "determining the details is up to us", I meant determine in the sense of "ascertain or establish", not to create for ourselves. There are things that are true and good, and it's up to us to learn what they are. Mathematicians don't 'create' mathematical relationships, they discover them. And people trying to live better lives don't create the values and principles by which they live, they discover them. Evolutionary history is a long string of discovering better ways to live - what works and what doesn't.I don't think what is objectively true and false is up to us. I think it's pretty much predefined at some level. Sure, we can proceed with some false ideas and actions for a while, but ultimately they must be proven true or false, real or illusory and we have to accept them as such, that's the "work in progress" part. We, and all conscious beings, are in the (often protracted) process of figuring out the real from the false, which appears to be predefined.
I take freedom to mean the freedom to choose between alternatives. Reality exists. And we can choose to accept or reject reality. Discernment and cognition are free processes: you must be free to consider possibilities and test them against a norm or standard. But if you define free will as the freedom to create reality, then no, we don't have that. We can deceive or delude ourselves, but reality will always be there to let us know. We can convince ourselves that we are all that matters, but that's a denial of the wider reality.When you say: "'higher' is that which conforms with the ultimate purpose and meaning with which cosmic mind imbues the cosmos", that could be construed as someone or something 'deciding' what is real and true, which doesn't really jive with the idea of a free will universe. But then a free will universe, if taken literally and absolutely, is a bit of a paradox, because surely it can't be possible that a thing and its exact opposite can be equally real or true forever.
Yep. STS is the ultimate form of living a lie. It denies that you are living in a world where others exist and have value. Some people may be able to force it for a while, but for most people their lives will fall apart from the mismatch with reality. And those that do force it may have a metaphysical price to pay: ultimate disintegration into non-being.I think the Cs have given the answer in the form of the STS/STO paradigm. That which determines what is real, or true and lasting seems to be whether or not the 'thing' (a belief system) is ultimately focused on the self or others, on the affirmation of expansion and 'more' and creation or the affirmation of contraction, limitation, and singularity. It's seems logical that something that seeks to limit all things, ultimately down to the a single unit or the self - and then right down to its logical conclusion of a complete lack of existence of anything - cannot be true and exist in any persistent way with the opposite of that idea. So coming back to what you said, there does seem to be a 'preference' that is effectively a law that mandates existence over non-existence, which seems reasonable enough because what's the point of non-existence? There obviously isn't one. So 'the universe' does 'decide', but it's a kind of forced choice, and therefore there is a technical limit to free will, but only in the context of the 'limitation' being itself the limitation to beat them all, i.e. non-existence.
Not to the same degree, for sure, but I think the same principles apply. Like Marshall shows in the Evolution 2.0 book, cells act out purposes; bacteria distinguish 'me', 'you', 'us' and 'them'. They may not 'think' in the ways we think, but they have some rudimentary sense of what works and what doesn't, what feels good and what doesn't, what's safe and what's dangerous. Whitehead called this 'prehension' - a relatively unconscious 'feeling' by which they grasp meaning and purpose. Damasio ALMOST goes there in Strange Order of Things when he writes about 'sensation' in beings without nervous systems, but he's still a bit too much of a materialist to accept that there may be some degree of experience that goes along with that kind of rudimentary sensation.That applies to human beings, but what about the rest of creation? Lower density beings don't seem to have that capacity for abstract ideas and purposes.
Exactly. Most humans run on autopilot. To use the analogy I used in my reply to Joe: they're using grade-two lessons in grade-three. Not only that, they're skipping classes and thinking they know all the answers to the tests without studying! They can still survive, like animals do - because our bodies already learned those lessons over the billions of years of 2D evolution. And maybe they're even learning SOME of the lessons of grade three, slowly, but they still have a lot to learn. That much is clear when you see how much suffering there is and how unprepared people are when disaster strikes in their lives. Biology and society create a very stable system of survival, but at the same time, they are very limiting. They create the 'domain of the known', in JBP's terminology. And it's a tough job to enter the unknown, learn to read the signs, think authentically, and 'tune in'. But that's life!And a most of humanity also could be said to act mainly out of biological drives, subconscious impulses. They still learn to speak a language, hold a job, etc. And whose "thought" is it, "God's" or the person's? It seems to me that part of the lesson must be to struggle with a very distorted antenna, and learn as we try, to "read the signs" properly, to separate thoughts that are imposed (biology, childhood, etc.) from more authentic thoughts, combining that with application of the information absorbed, learning as much as we can so as to "tune in" to something that leads to growth, if possible.
Yep. Analogies like that only go so far. Like Paul and the Stoics taught, your overall mindset is the most important thing. You can be a good musician but a bad human. But to be a good human, you need to organize your entire being into an STO "shape". That means harmonizing ALL your thinking, feeling, and actions according to an ideal, which Paul called the "mind of Christ".And the drive one has must be important. Following your analogy, someone can learn a language or a musical instrument very well, just to show off or feel smart, but not do to anything in the way of giving to others with it, or really "organizing information" to expand being, right? It's tricky!
I had the same thought while reading the session!Another thing that is confusing to me is that if gravity is all information, and learning is reorganizing information bits, then shouldn't "gravity" for a person who has learned a lot be different from that of a person who hasn't, or an animal, a plant, a rock? Yet, we would all fall at the same speed give them same resistance. Of course, the problem here is that we don't know what gravity IS.
Yeah, I think so. By analogy, take a book by some schizoid postmodernist. The book itself is an organization of information. It may even have bits that are true, but other bits are only kind of true from a certain limited perspective, and even more bits are totally wrong when seen in the context of wider reality. Overall, it's a faulty organization: it doesn't map to reality, and when it is put into practice it only creates chaos - it destroys the wider system of social organization, and the organization of the individual psyches that make up that society.Another confusing thing is that the Cs mentioned the purpose of life being this reorganization of information bits, expanded being. But what about a being who chooses a purely "STS path"? Can we not say that he or she is also reorganizing bits of information, except that the nature of his acts, and the way he organizes the bits lead to more contraction than expansion?
A: Learning by organizing information bits. Expanded being.
A: Gravity is all information.
I read "unstable" as prone to chaos, of raw information without construct or 'order'. If "Expanded being" expands through - and in accordance with - learning through the process of organizing information bits - and organizing and learning is order, then why are gravity waves "unstable" when transferring information into matter? I wonder... Existence is gravity is all-information, and the lack of all that IS is NON-existence (another concept beyond 3D understanding) as represented as the Abyss... Therefor if "Abyss = NON-existence" is what conscious 'being' expands into, and the "information field" (mentioned a few Q&A's down in a different context in regards DNA... although, maybe not really so different a context?) event-horizon of existence coming into contact with NON-existence through expansion, creates a chaos-forming 'impact/interaction-zone' resulting in new yet raw un-constructed un-ordered information... aka Chaos.(Chu) So gravity is all information, but gravity is also the impetus for going from pure information into matter.
(L) I guess gravity is all information, and the unstable gravity waves are information crossing the bridge.
I had once traced my paternal (male) lineage back to a man named Abraham who lived in the 13th century. As a thought experiment I put Abraham in the broader context of my ancestry as follows:The part about the ancestors was really interesting and sort of confirms my feeling about genealogy work as being something important that could help us learn a lot about ourselves. In short, it's not just a nice pastime for retired people I had begun some research on my paternal family but I've now hit a wall, due to the difficulty of getting official documents, and the lack of "first hand" information. And the info I do have is just basic stuff - names and dates, professions and places of birth/living. It'd be nice to have some juicy stories. At the very least, when you have places and dates, you can read about the history of the country and the period your ancestors lived in, and it can give you an idea of their way of life.
Geometric algebra/Clifford algebra can though give you Lie groups. For example, Geometric algebra 2-vectors give you the Lie group called the Spin group. You also get spinors from Geometric algebra and if you combine bivectors and spinors, you can get the E8 exceptional Lie group (which contains lots of other Lie groups as subgroups like E7, E6, D8, F4, A3). So it may be independent historically but not mathematically. Klee Irwin puts a lot of money into E8 research and he very much seeks out people with E8 related models like Tony Smith, Garrett Lisi, and Carlos Castro Perelman. However, these people have some very different ideas aka it's easy to get lost hence the warning from the Cs. The Cs don't seem to like to give away anything that we can figure out on our own so I don't think they are going to say who among these guys is the least lost.Thank you very much. My question is why Lie algebra is considered in this way by the Cassiopaeans? I also wanted to point out that Algebraic Gememometry developed independently of Algebra and Lie groups
Hi WIN 52, I didn't get it... You mean you quitting the crystal thing for awhile was like a 'disturbance in the force' in relation to the "The Programming is complete" on a mass scale?"The programming is complete."
About a week or two ago, I quit carrying my personal crystals. I still treasure all of them. Oh, I also quit using my water crystal about the same time.
Thanks for the session.
It sounds like things are about to pick up speed.
I think we can have the freedom to create new versions of reality, and potentially genuinely new creations, but no one can change a fundamental 'law' of the universe (it seems ) that between expanded being and self-centered contraction towards 'nothingness', the former is viable while the latter is not. It seems this is not even a law but a self-evident and immutable truth.But if you define free will as the freedom to create reality, then no, we don't have that.
I thought the same: If programming is complete, then it can't be good because invasion begins. We'll have to see how this translates into reality. I doubt we'll see the mother ship on the White House lawn, with predictions often being symbolic and all that, but what do I know.
Something else I thought is that, if the program is complete, then it is right in front of our eyes in society for us to see it, so we should be able to tell by now what it consists of. I always thought the program had to do with nihilism, materialism and postmodernism, and obviously that's a big part of it. But then about half the people on the ideological spectrum don't share those. A housemate commented that the program is perhaps the ease with which people are manipulated. And I tend to agree with that. Something that many people on both sides of the political/ideological (or even scientific, philosophical and religious) debate have in common is that they seem to be massively influenced by emotions, very hysterical, missing all sorts of nuances and complexities. So perhaps it's as simple as that and more fundamental than the errors of the left: people can't think straight nor deeply these days, or simply have no interest in finding the truth about anything. Thus, they remain divided and very easy to manipulate one way or the other.
When I read your post, I began to wonder if there is any guarantee the invasion might not include something we would not expect. Would not an invasion of viruses or comets also count, that is an invasion of beings in density 2 and 1? And of course there is also density 3 and 4. Another possibility is that the senses and minds of the beholders of some would change, they would begin to experience and to see more, and this rapid increase of sensory perception could also be interpreted as an invasion. Another way of thinking is that the modern technology is invasive; the eyes and ears of machines controlled by algorithms have already totally invaded our lives, and we only have a vague idea of who really is watching. Is it the system administrators, the big cooperations, the intelligence communities and those they are linked up with, or is it the beings and what the C's called soul imprints that are attracted to the machines?