a project

[click image]


I am trying to listen to this smarmy kid because he uses a premise of mine, but he's mangling it in places and I am left gobsmacked by the ego's ability to set itself out as a teacher... the format it unerringly takes... which treats seekers like babies... which ends up satisfying their need for a spiritual parent figure and your need to pontificate for pay, but doesn't really get us anywhere.

It's not enough to have realization if you can't train yourself not to give in to this kind of enlightenment theater... and most especially not if you haven't got your metaphors both the right tightness and the right looseness to help someone get there from here... and if your object is not truly to do that, if that is just the excuse you use to get along in the world playing a part, you are playing a part in the problem, not the solution.

I'm going to keep listening betimes, though, take some notes maybe... because somehow I've got to repay cosmos before I'm dead.


Might as well park these links here, here, here and here so I can return to them when I've got enough marbles to consider them properly. Anyone out there with any facility with topology, might want to get on this. Tell me if this of mine works:
The whole fashionable bit about empiricism is just wonderful. If we think it's right, it's right!

People keep forgetting one of the jewels Einstein passed down when confronted with the problem of the red shift. He said he thought it might be a local phenomenon... like our optics or our atmosphere making it look that way.

Turns out there is at least one darn elegant alternative explanation for that, no one ever thought of before, that it's a property of the movement of the bodies in proximity to the apparently red shifting stars... which makes way more sense than our ludicrous astrophysics mainstream, while STILL very possibly dying in the boiling oil of Einstein's original statement.

Science, on a very mundane level, works really, really well for making things that help us or hurt us or heal us or at least entertain us... EVEN when it's not fully right or incomplete or outright doesn't apply except on this planet.

Little-known fact. Math can be used to prove the existence of God. It is a math that lets infinity be infinity too... not having to halt it somewhere so the equations will work out... none of these LUDICROUS "fudge factors" our physicists have to agree upon to do their thing.

Simplest way to start on that one is to imagine the ONLY way anything can be anything, that what if there were nothing whatsoever anywhere, and no anywhere because you can't have a where in infinity.

If not for us and what we can see and sense, or any other critters with similar faculties, or any other rocks floating around, the ONLY thing that could possibly BE beside all this stuff, in the entire universe, and I mean "universe" in the sense of ALL, not this quantum physics googols of universes shit, is NOTHING.

Then you think about nothing. If not this, or something else, the only other alternative is nothing... infinite in time and space nothing. Lots of people leave it there.


Nothing, of itself, IS something. A beginningless and endless expanse of complete emptiness... no borders, ever, in time or space, a totality of NOTHING.

Then you realize you are here and thinking about that, experiencing that thought, and you realize that the universe of nothing was aware of itself.


So you have an infinite unity that splits into two infinities with that realization... which leaves you with not two but three infinities. The original that was halved, now two, and the demarcation between them.

Do your God math on the topology of consciousness, and you're going to stop being a shit head about God. I promise.
Because I know someone who claims to have done it, and my wrestling with it seems to bear out his claim, but I'm not versed enough in the math to be able to spot any mistakes and it needs to make the annals of mathematics and theology before life gets any worse on this planet.

What I'm saying is that I know it's true and so math should be able to express it. The major obstacle is that people who are good at math are rarely able to see directly and use the math to bring others along. They are most apt to noodle with math and imagine it's telling them what there is out there to see.

In fact, it's worse than that nowadays. Waaay too often the math seems to say something, and it's taken as a given before anyone checks it. If the guy who did the math is popular enough, it goes straight into cosmology, or astrophysics, or whatever, and we now have "experts" pulling us in every direction because it's REALLY good for garnering grant money.

We NEED to get a grip on this.

pipe up any time....