1. |
Seek your total individuality.
Do not define it. Any definition of yourself is a deceptive hideout.
Detail:
"When I escape a final definition of myself, I joyfully
exclaim, 'I am not only that.' " Page 140, Second Coming
of Reb YhShWh, Weiser paperback, 1994, 226 total pages.
All social collectives emphasize OSFA.
Collectives only permit a OSFA Boris Sidisean demos will
spirit: "Our way or the highway." Paraphrased
from page 141. Ibid.
All social collectives are spiritually dead, Mawt-Hamawt.
Collectives use ants, termites, bees as dialectically 'elegant'
exemplars of their dead social spirits. Collectives worship the
dead. This shows us whyings gnosis
denigrates hylic-psychic thing-king as degenerate. Collective
minds are degenerate.
Main stream media (MSM) today illustrates this collective
degeneracy par excellence.
We have an answer to Pink Floyd's (The
SOMitic brick Wall.) insistent, "Teacher, leave us kids
alone." Collectives build brick walls! Dialectical either-or
walls. Psychic-hylic diodes of thought control.
Individual consciousness can overthrow all collectives'
walls! This represents the collective's greatest fear.
They should be afraid. A current collective called 'science'
declares its own current destruction "deconstruction,"
tearing down one 'scientific' brick after another: Parmenides,
Plato, Aristotle, Buridan, Newton, and Einstein, etc. While our
quantum~Planck~rate
clock keeps on ticking, ticking, ticking into many futurings,
unlimited and perpetually absolutely~fluxing omnimensional manifoldings
of realityings... Clifford Geertz describes this quantum disassembly
well in his Available
Light. Jung describes it in his Red Book as an
individual process of leaving 'spirit of temporality,' and entering
'spirit of quantum (the small) depths.'
Doug has recently emphasized Suares' use of antinomial as
a powerful quantum wMBU tool. We have an opportunity to
illustrate antinomialism in one of its purest emerqancies here.
Suares claims there are two Satans
(in Farewell
Discourse: Peter - Satan one, and Judas - Satan two).
For example, Peter is antinomial Judas. Why? Peter was catholically,
collectively working against Jesus' individualism. Judas was
assisting Jesus' story of individualism: Gnosis.
In this Detail, Suares is showing us all collectives are like
Peter: Satan one. All anti-collective individuals are
like Judas: Satan two. Collectivism (Satan one:
worseship) antinomial individualism (Satan two:
bettership). This is pneumatically
very subtle, yet incredibly powerful. We see two views. One of
collectivism's view of individuals. Another as individualism's
view of collectivism. Each calls other, "Satan." Two
Satans!
Quantum~reality deals with this very well. It offers Mae-wan
Ho's quanton(coherence,autonomy) without any classical contradiction.
I.e., quantum~coherence of fluxing quantons as islandic~individuals
isn't classically, collectively synthetic...it isn't faux
mechanical-Newtonian objective and predicable social 'organization.'
(It isn't faux like Keynesianism. Simply, Keynesianism
isn't quantum!)
Doug - 29Apr2013.
2Jan2015 - A problem with
Peter:
Learning about all of this isn't easy. Doug has spent over
a decade attempting to understand it.
Following Suares' lead (as Doug, historically, has followed
Pirsig, James, Bergson, et al.) Doug has found that, again, translators
(and those who intentionally re engineered Autiot texts) intentionally
altered semantics to fit their vulgate sensibilities.
Issues here with Peter
as Satan one and Judas as Satan two are not as simple as Doug
has portrayed them. It turns out that Suares does a better job
of describing 'a problem of Peter'
in his Cipher of Genesis, pp. 188-189. Importance of Suares'
words there cannot be over emphasized. Allow Doug, with great
respect for Suares and his opus, to transcribe part of p. 188
and ~all of p. 189 here (Doug left off a beginning of Suares'
apology, last line of p. 189):
|
Suares' Original
Text |
Doug's Intratext
Hermeneutics |
Page 188. |
"In Caesarea, however, it was not understood. And yet
the population, little satisfied with the promised 'new look'
of the old god Pan, was groping for something new. Jesus became
the object of this search, as Matthew recorded. When YhShWh
asks, 'Who do men say that I, Ben~Adam, am?' the
answer is: Some say thou art John the Baptist: some
Elias: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets
(Matt. xvi, 14). It is obvious that no one has understood. Turning
then to his disciples, the Rabbi asks, But who say ye that
I am?
"We have only Greek versions of their answer. It is even
probable that the first texts of the gospels were in the Hellenistic
language. However, certain clues, especially in Matthew, lead
us to believe that the Rabbi taught in Hebrew. We can infer from
them that Jesus tried to oppose the Hellenistic revival by revealing
the deep sense of the original Revelation. But the minds of his
contemporaries were not ready to understand the Aleph~Bayt.
"The Hellenistic answer, attributed to Simon, 'Thou art
Khristos,' is preposterous. The very idea of being called Khristosor
Christ, the Anointed, in modern languageso horrified the
Rabbi that he later on charged...his disciples that they should
tell no man that he was Jesus Christ (Matt. xvi, 20). And
WHAT HE MEANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHER THAN
WHAT HE SAID.
"In Hebrew, Simon probably said: 'Thou art Ben~YHWH~Elohim
(or Ben~YHWH), thus emphasizing the Rabbi's statement.
And this answer would have been in accordance with the profound
original theme of Genesis, which, ever since the appearance of
YHWH, proclaims the primacy of his symbolic..."
|
"In Caesarea, however, it was not understood. And yet
the population, little satisfied with the promised 'new look'
of the old god Pan, was groping for something new. Jesus became
the object of this search, as Matthew recorded. When YhShWh
asks, 'Who do men say that I, Ben~Adam, am?' the
answer is: Some say thou art John the Baptist:
some Elias: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the other
prophets (Matt. xvi, 14). It is obvious that no one has understood
(that Ben~Adam means evolution of Aleph
in blood...it does not mean 'son of man'). Turning
then to his disciples, the Rabbi asks, But who say ye that
I am?
"We have only Greek (hylic) versions of their answer. It is
even probable that the first texts of the gospels were in the
Hellenistic language. However, certain clues, especially in Matthew,
lead us to believe
that the Rabbi taught in Hebrew (Modern
Hebrew is Anglicized. Jesus decried dialectic (static bivalency)
as Satan (bad language and bad thingking.) Jesus taught using
Qabala's Autiot and its Gematria. Qabala is autsimilar Buddhist
Li~la as Game of Life). We can infer from them
that Jesus tried to oppose the Hellenistic revival by revealing
the deep sense of the original Revelation (Aleph~Bayt and Moses'
Ehieh~Esher~Ehieh: Qabala is Qabala).
But the minds of his contemporaries were not ready to understand
the Aleph~Bayt.
"The Hellenistic answer, attributed to Simon, 'Thou art
Khristos,' is preposterous. The very idea of being called Khristosor
Christ, the Anointed, in modern languageso horrified the
Rabbi that he later on charged...his disciples that they should
tell no man that he was Jesus Christ (Matt. xvi, 20). And
WHAT HE MEANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHER THAN
WHAT HE SAID. (See Gospels Thomas and Philip, among others.
Nag Hammadi Library has these and many other 'non approved'
texts.)
"In Hebrew, Simon probably said: 'Thou art Ben~YHWH~Elohim
(or Ben~YHWH), thus emphasizing the Rabbi's statement.
And this answer would have been in accordance with the profound
original theme of Genesis, which, ever since the appearance of
YHWH (the demiurge: it has no
Sheen..., it has life, Hay, but that Hay is Yodc without Aleph), proclaims
the primacy of his symbolic..."
Commentary copyright Doug Renselle - 2015-2029.
|
Page 189. |
"...offspring over the earth's (Adamah's) offspring
of flesh and blood. We remember Caheen, son of this primal
cosmic energy, rising above his brother Hevel, and Hevel
thereby being reduced to a mere pool of blood. We have learned,
through all the allegories, of the struggle between the Aleph,
which wills to spring forth, and the blood which tends to stifle
it.
"In conformity with this process, the Rabbi probably
answered Simon in terms of which Matthew still shows some visible
signs: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar~Yona: for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which
is in heaven (Matt. xvi, 17).
"We know that the 'father' is YHWH. As to 'heaven,' Shamaim,
we have seen that it is the action of Sheen (a cosmic breath)
upon the symbolic 'waters' (Maim) of life as existence,
and we also know that it is the action of timeless YHWH permanently
pervading the Universe. We can thus compare Shamaim and
YHWH:
Shamaim: |
Sheen~Mem~Yod~Mem: |
300.40.10.40 |
YHWH: |
Yod~Hay~Waw~Hay: |
10.5.6.5 |
"This comparison of the two schemata reveals that the
schema YHWH (as 'father') truly is included in Shamaim:
no. 10 corresponding to 300 shows it in existence, no. 5 and
5 corresponding to 40 and 40 shows them alive, and no. 6 corresponding
to no. 10 shows it to be fruitful.
"By declaring himself Ben~YHWH Jesus identified
himself with Israel: And thou shalt say unto
Pharaoh, thus saith YHWH, Israel is my son, my first~born
(Exod. iv, 22), and we do not see any reason for not accepting
that statement. An interesting fact is Jesus qualifying Simon
Bar~Yona: son of Yona, the dove. It is not
generally known that the dove personifying the Holy Spirit has
been, since time immemorial, the symbol of Israel.
"Let us follow the scene, step by step. YhShWh
says, 'I am Ben~Adam.' Simon must have replied, 'I know that
you are Ben~YHWH.' In this reply, the Rabbi sees that
Simon understands the origin and ultimate purpose of human evolution."
|
"...offspring over the earth's (Adamah's) offspring
of flesh and blood. We remember Caheen, son of this primal
cosmic energy, rising above his brother Hevel, and Hevel
thereby being reduced to a mere pool of blood. We have learned,
through all the allegories, of the struggle between the Aleph,
which wills to spring forth, and the
blood which tends to stifle it.
"In conformity with this process, the Rabbi probably
answered Peter in terms of
which Matthew still shows some visible signs: Blessed
art thou, Peter~Bar~Yona:
for (the hylic poverty of) flesh
and blood hath not revealed it (evolution
of Aleph in blood: Ben~Adam) unto thee, but my father
which is in heaven (Matt. xvi, 17).
"We know that the (dead, demiurgical)
'father' is YHWH. As to 'heaven,' Shamaim, we have seen
that it is the action of Sheen (a cosmic (evolutionary)
breath) upon the symbolic 'waters' (Maim) of life as existenceq, and we also know that it
is the action of timeless (ever present
dialectical demiurge) YHWH permanently pervading the
Universe. We can thus compare Shamaim and YHWH:
Shamaim: |
Sheen~Mem~Yod~Mem: |
300.40.10.40 |
YHWH: |
Yod~Hay~Waw~Hay: |
10.5.6.5 |
"This comparison of the two schemata reveals that the
schema YHWH (as (dead, demiurgical)
'father') truly is included in Shamaim: no. 10
corresponding to 300 shows it in existencec,
no. 5 and 5 corresponding to 40 and 40 shows them alive, and
no. 6 corresponding to no. 10 shows it to be fruitful. (Again, though, lacking Aleph in Yod.)
"By declaring himself Ben~YHWH (an
evolution of his initial demiurgic self toward becoming a mature
YhShWh) Jesus identified himself with Israel:
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith YHWH, Israel is
my son, my first~born (Exod. iv, 22), and we do not see any
reason for not accepting that statement. An interesting fact
is Jesus qualifying Peter
Bar~Yona: son
of Yona, the dove. It is not generally known that the
dove personifying the Holy Spirit has been, since time immemorial,
the symbol of Israel. (Israel was founded
by Isaac post Abraham...Islam was founded by Ishmael post Abraham...)
"Let us follow the scene, step by step. YhShWh
says, 'I am Ben~Adam.' Peter
must have replied, 'I know that you are Ben~YHWH.' In
this reply, the Rabbi sees that Peter
understands the origin and ultimate
purpose of human evolution."
|
Appended Commentary ©Doug Renselle, 2015-2029 |
To Doug, after decades of doing his best to understand, to
Doug anyway (and to Suares, et al.), how Hellenistic translators
altered semantic value of original Autiot text into dialectical
Greek. Either by intent, malice, possibly hylic ignorance...outcomes
are incontrovertible. Our world evidences every day now results
of people believing, having faith in, a desultorous and fake
Khristos! Of course Simon~Peter
took the rap. Suares is saying here, that Simon~Peter
is innocent. Guilt lies in Greeks, whose Babel so-called 'christians'
adhered. It's a sad story, but its results now are very clear.
Christianity is simply a lie, a bare faced lie!
Something incredibly important emerges here. Suares' use of
Bar as son (in Doug's opinion, Bar (not Ben) is a correct translation
of son) compared to Suares' description of Peter's
understanding (last paragraph, p. 189) of Ben as evolution
of. Specifically Ben~Adam as evolution of Aleph in
Blood, and Ben~YHWH as evolution of the demiurge. We may choose
to see that Jesus (Ben~Adam) in all of us starts out demiurgic
(hylic) and evolves toward psyche (the called),
thence psyche~pneuma (the elect). This is a growth
of y~our Yod from Mem (immaturity) to finalMem (maturity). Many
don't make it. Those who remain hylic (apparently) become
extinct. When we grasp Aleph in Yod, we mature well. When
we deny Aleph
in Yod we beg self's immature extinction.
Happy New Year!
Doug - 2Jan2015.
|
|
|
You have n¤ total individuality in any 'classical'
sense. You have (are) a quantum~coherent, Jungian~islandic, quantized,
absolutely changing, middle~including ensemble of perpetually
evolving quantons.
Suares understands Doug's comcision here. He didn't have quantum~language
and quantum~semasiology at hand to explain better. Doug
is making up for that in his comcision.
Readers please realize that Suares was a Jew. Too, he didn't
write this text in English. He wrote in Hebrew, perhaps Spanish
and French too. His original French text was translated in 1994
by Bernard Suares.
French clearly isn't Anglican, but it does share dialectical
issues with English and other 'objective,' 'formal,' 'canonic'
languages. If Suares had written this text in Hebrew, it wouldn't
have reached as wide an audience, and Doug's comcision wouldn't
be necessary. Quantonics raison d'etre for doing quantum~remediation
of English is to enable Autiot~like (cosmic energy-like) quantum~comcisionings
like what you are reading here.
Begin A Doug Personal Experience Aside:
It is nearly four years since my beloved Beth unexpectedly
passed...transitioned. Her loss for me was a personal tragedy,
but I am not alone. This happens to all of us...often more than
once in a life time.
My loss of Beth left me empty. She was so special and we were
so compatible in terms of two of us making one happy and rewarding
human interrelationshiping.
I knew she was unique. Her friends called her, "An Old
Soul." Patients in nursing homes we visited could see her
Aureola (spiritual halo). I could feel her spiritual energy and
she shared it as completely as she had qua to do so. We
love[d] one another. Love was a word she used every day, and
gradually she taught me to use that word about us. Prior her
death I was using it every day regarding us. She had changed
Doug!
Beth had a degree in psychology, and she had a very physial
(not physical) quantum~mind. She took to my opus almost gleefully.
She was my champion.
Foolishly, after my loss of her presence in my life, I considered
potentia of finding another similar Beth. In 2011 I thought I
had found that person (as a friend, but like a family (surrogate
daughter) too), I was mistaken. It took three years to grasp
my mistake.
I am writing this personal experience here since it exemplifies
an ostentation of Suares' Proposition 1: "Seek your
total individuality. Do not define it. Any definition of yourself
is a deceptive hideout."
My personal experience helped me to understand my mistake.
Let's reword Suares' proposition to allow Doug to make his point:
"Seek others' total individualities. Do not define others.
Any definition of others tends to force them into a deceptive
hideout."
My 'friend' did that to me. She tried to use a dialectical
(mechanical-formal-objective) tool called Myers-Briggs
to put me in one of its Babelian detention centers. At first,
I shrugged it off as humorous, but she persisted. Then I realized
I was only a guinea pig to her. No love there, just a mechanical
mind trying her best to destroy my quantum~free~will individuality.
Prior this she exhibited another dialectical surprise, "I
hate love!" She said that.
In our goodbye meeting I asked her, "How can one, who
loves love, love one who hates love?"
Doug - 27Feb2014.
End A Doug Personal Experience Aside.
|
|
3. |
Your total individuality is
your soul. It abides an independent plurality of universes. Because
it is alive, it is evolving. Because it is outside of time, its
evolution is only the time you need to permit it to find you.
Because it is omnimensional,
it contributes to the composition of an Ecclesia. It is one and
innumerable. [Doug's bold green QELR
for quantum~exegesis.]
Detail:
There isn't much Doug can write here which hasn't been covered
already in Propositions one and
two. Perhaps it is better to just
quote two of Suares' most enlightening paragraphs:
"The only thing we can really do is to put ourselves
at the service of our natural talents. If we do so without exploiting
our talents for personal profit (and most people do exploit their
talents for personal profit), then those talents are at the service
of the Timeless Energy [AKA reserve energy], which is their origin.
By becoming their humble servant, we open up channels that Soul
will use. Gradually we discover much more in us that we knew
we had--more intelligence, more capacities, more inner gifts,
and wider horizons. Our soul prospers, growing richly and vigorously.
It grows and grows and grows. It wants to grow until it catches
fire!
"So let us never limit ourselves to what the environment
has made us. If it has turned us into a janitor or sales clerk
or corporation president or artist, let us realize that we could
just as well be a plumber, movie actor, philosopher, or healer.
The more open our viewpoint, the greater our soul's harvest."
Pages 146-147, ibid. Doug's brackets.
Doug - 29Apr2013.
|
|
|
Suares is using classical language to describe a living quantum~reality.
Jung does similarly with YhShWh as a quantum~being in his Plate 127, which Doug
has reviewed in depth.
There are deluded, dialectical, classical Ecclesiac
and there are quantum Ecclesiaq as Suaresean~Jungian
quantum~complementary antinomials similar Yodc and
Yodq.
Essene~tially your ensembleq is in an Ecclesiaq
and said Ecclesiaq issi ihn
your ensemble "without any classical contradiction."
(Pagels, et al., make a serious case for YhShWh as an Essene
Gnostic. For example, see Pagels' Johannine
Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis.)
Quantumly your evolvingq totalityq is
islandicallyq individualq, quantized, alive,
and c¤hærænt
its both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal
hologra[[il][m][ph]]ic comtextings. Its quantons(wavings,waviclings)
are both individual and c¤hærænt
an quantum~unlimited~reality.
|
5. |
The death of false evidences
is a psychological death, announcer of resurrection. Each false
evidence denounced opens a window in the inner space where the
measurable dies.
Detail:
'False evidences' roughly correspond these classical ideas
and notions:
- monism (essentially socialists' and central planners' tyrannous
insistence on one 'global' system fits all)
- discoverable 'laws' which are perpetually true
- stoppability
- analyticity
- objectivity
- Aristotle's sillygisms
- identity
- contradiction
- excluded-middle
- lisr:
- localability
- isolability
- separability
- reducibility
- closure
- conservation
- 'scientific' measurement
based upon those classical ideas and notions
- etc.
Despite some of Suares' own (bad habit) dialectisms he homes
in on Essene~nce. One bothersome aspect of Suares' apparent (partial)
dialectism is his use of 'truth.' Does he intend truthq
which evolves? Does he intend truthc (leading to 'law')
which is perpetually, state-ically always 'true?' Ideal classical
unchangeable truthc? Doug infers from Suares' insistence
on a living and conscious cosmic~flux~reality that he intends
truthq which evolves. Note that quantum~truthings
do n¤t deprive individuals of their freedoms, especially
freedom of individual self~evolution of body and mind.
Begin Doug Aside on Truth
- 19Jul2013:
Let's describe two kinds of truth: truthc
and truthq:
- truthc
- truth of certainty
- truth of determination
- singular truth
- monistic truth
- static truth
- "received objective knowledge as 'truthc'
(See contradiction,
opposition, state, truth,
etc.)
- 'c a t h o l i c' truth, AKA 'universal' truth
- etc.
- truthq
- uncertainty (Suares, see his Second Coming of Reb YhShWh,
p. 56, Weiser Press, 1994, translated by Bernard Suares)
- indetermination (Suares, Ibid.)
- truthings
- radical quantum~pluralism of truthings
- evolving truthings (Suares describes Ben Adam as "Evolution
of Aleph in Blood," see recurrences of this in his opus.
He emphatically disavows a classical and naïve staticc
and concretec interpretation of Ben Adam as
'Son of Man.' Said evolution is toward better! and bettership!)
- self~other evolutionq of truthings as truthq:
truthq as an agent of its own evolutionaryq
changingsq (See antinomy,
chance, change,
choice (AKA heresy),
evolution, scintillation~quantization,
transmutation,
etc.)
- comtextually complementary (hologra[[ail][m][ph]]ic) truthings
(Study Suares narrative on antinomialism of piecemeal quantonic
energy~welling dualities which classical nous naïvely
refers ideal 'dialectical opposition.')
- etc.
Truthings hyper truth!
Analogously fluxq hyper statec.
Are you still a dialectician...? Are you still serfing
selfc into extinction? (Doug's coining
of 'serfing.')
Doug - 19Jul2013.
End Doug Aside on Truth - 19Jul2013.
Suares writes it concisely, "As responsible adults, it
is our duty to denounce and deflate these hallucinations (classical
false evidences)." Page 153, ibid.
He tells us to ferret out these false evidences and desnouer
each one-by-one. Unmask them. Uncloak them. Exegetize them!
In that process we granularly yet quantumly eliminate
'false evidences' in ourselves. We gradually excise dialectic's
metastatic cancer cells from our individual psyche~pneuma
. Suares refers this, "Personal salvation." Page 154,
ibid. Again, Doug agrees!
Doug claims we can globally eradicate them by killing academe's
hero: dialectic. Get rid of dialectic in your individual
self!
Suares shook Doug's
timbers with this, "...philosophers will find truth when
they can die in their own words." Doug agrees if Suares
is saying that philosophers, as all others, will find truthings when they kill dialectic in themselves.
Actually quantum~reality does this for
us. Quantization and its companion scintillation change all and
always change. Quantum~reality, via quantons(scin,quan) kills (i.e., Qof destroys all illusions of)
dialectic and formal-mechanical objective thing-king. So all
of our words and their sema quantally evolve and mutate.
These mutations destroy their ancestors. This evolutionary process
evolvesq those ancestors out of existence. Due perpetual
and ubiquitous quanta and their scintillation, then
"This means, of course
that we must die to every minute [every Planck moment] of every
day, die to every thought, to every
definition of ourselves and of our supposed relationship with
a God of our projection. Far from being a
suicidal process, this is on the contrary a cleaning of our 'house,'
a letting go of the mechanism of
existence to which Yod [per se, by itself] would have
us cling." Carlo Suares in his Cipher of Genesis,
page 86.
Doug's brackets.
Always keep Aleph
with your Yod.
(Doug is paraphrasing Pirsig's "...always keep DQ with your
SQ.")
3Oct2015 - Doug.
|
Begin Aside on Bethany Ritual
to "...die in their own words:"
Doug being a novice in Qabala and Autiot often has trouble
grasping Suares' meanings, e.g., just above his "...philosophers
will find truth when they can die in their own words." What
in our world did he intend by "...die in their own words?"
Doug may have found a clue in Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln's Holy
Blood, Holy Grail. Of relevance are p. 343 (HBHG)
re: Schonfield's comments about Lazarus and his symbolic
death at Bethany thence enigma of Priori de Sion's mandate for
using Bethany symbolically at Rennes-le-Chateau.
According to Schonfield Jesus dispatched Lazarus (Magdalene's
brother; Jesus' best friend) to Bethany for a Qabalic
Essene ritual symbolic death "in words only." Ponder
sword
vav words...
Doug needs to add more here on details of Bethany and semasiologies
surrounding Bethany's specialness.
Other than its ritual, Doug still doesn't understand why?
Doug - 26Feb2014.
Begin 22-23Mar2014 Aside on Doug's Understanding
Why?:
Doug is currently (with great ignorance and an imperative
of humility) studying Suares' ciphering of Sepher Yetsira
and its Sefirot. Given Doug's ignorance and a mandate to destroy
hubris as a testosteronic illusion, Doug senses he may offer
some level of understanding here. This offering will stand until
something better emerges.
In Sepher Yetsira its 22 Autiot are grouped into at
least three quantum islands of thought:
- Three Mothers (Aleph~Mem~Sheen)
- Seven Doubles (Vayt~Bayt, Djimel~Ghimel, Thallet~Dallet,
Khaf~Kaf, Phay~Pay, Raysh~Shyar, Thav~Tav; think of each pair
having this Heraclitean omnifying
of antinomialq c¤mm¤n interrelationshipings:
open (unpointed and capable of mixing), and closed (pointed and
incapable of mixing)
- Notice dual~phaseq self~referentq
evolvingq antinomialq complementarityq
of each of seven Auts. For example, Dallet may represent a door,
and said door's self~evolution antinomially complements self
as door~open vis-à-vis door~closed. We see quanton(open,closed).
Please obtain enthymemetic
(partialq) antinomialq complementarityq
of opennessq and closednessq. Closed:
Dallet is known by a point on its Aut. Open: Thallet is
known by lack of a point on its Aut. Selfq
fractalq recursionq issi required ihn each of seven Auts' doublesq.
Doug - 23Mar2014. Doug, as a novice unintentionally reversed
Open and Closed. Hopefully they appear better
now. Doug - 6Apr2014.
- Twelve Simples (Hay~Waw, Zayn~Hhayt, Tayt~Yod, Lammed~Noun,
Sammekh~Ayn, Tsadde~Qof)
- Notice pairwise coobsfectiveq antinomialq
complementaryq other~referenceq
symbol pair by symbol pair. Otherq fractalq
recursionq issi required ihn
each of six pairs of Aut symbols. Be astounded: AIq
is built~ihn to Sepher Yetsira's
omniscriptioningsq
of cosmic reality! Doug - 23Mar2014.
Our focus here is Seven Doubles and for this naïve exemplar
Vayt~Bayt.
Each of Sepher Yetsira's doubles represents pair by pair a
shared rudimentary semantic (excluding each pairs' ostensed semantics,
unique to each pair) like this (using Vayt~Bayt as an exemplar):
- Vayt (unpointed) represents a new beginning, a new life "trajectory,"
and
- Bayt (same Aut symbol, pointed) represents an ending of a
prior life trajectory.
In quantonics, Doug shows this in his quantum script as:
- quanton(Vayt,Bayt) issi quanton(new_life_beginning,old_life_ending)
(imagine this in a perpetualq loopq
lifeq ontologyq)
- quanton(Bayt_as_a_new_beginning_borne_of_old_Vayt's_ending,Vayt's_next_new_beginning_after_prior_life_phase's_ending).
You see Doug using Aut symbols as words, and you may choose
to see a sense of "dying in those words" in order for
new beginnings to emerge from those old words: quantons(beginnings,endings)
forever... We see immortality as perpetuity.
Think of an eggshell as (quanton(strong_enough_to_protect_chick's_germ_of_life(Vayt),weak_enough_for_chick_to_escape(Bayt's_end_of_shell_trajectory)).
Classical psychiatry must find a way to end its current trajectoryc
(break its vocabulary-thoughtc shellc)
and begin a newer melioratedq lifeq existenceq!
Doug just watched one of his favorite movies which offers
an exemplar in real life. In Shadows in the Sun, Harvey
Keitel (an experienced and successful author) tells his protégé
to throw away (Bayt) his current manuscript and give his story
a new life trajectory (Vayt). Notice whatings we are seeings
hereings issi whatings Doug refers quantum~included~middle~antinomial~complementarity:
quanton(Vayt,Bayt). Vayt issi ihn
Bayt and Bayt issi ihn Vayt.
Doug.
End 22-23Mar2014 Aside on Doug's Understanding Why?.
End Bethany Ritual Aside.
Jung-like, Suares ends proposition 5 like this, "In the
inner space of my being, which is now wide open, there is nothing
left of me that can be measured. I find only a psychological
death and an indescribable freedom." Page 154, ibid.
And from Jung, to round this off nicely, "The hero [dialectic]--the
beloved figure of the people, should fall. All heroes bring themselves
down by carrying the heroic [dialectical] attitude beyond a certain
limit, and hence lose their footing." Refer Jung's Red
Book, Liber Primus, 'Splitting of the Spirit,' page 240,
footnote 102, Norton, 2009. This applies to Earth societies more
than ever, CeodE 2013. Doug's brackets. Keynesian
religion, like dialectic, is killing itself. Bravo!
Doug - 1May2013.
|
|
|
Suares, clearly here, is describing one's own killing of one's
own dialectical predilections. In dialectic's place emerges a
New Way of Thinking and Believing: quantum, qabala, etc.
Jung describes this as "killing one's (failed and failing)
hero." Suares refers it "Second
Coming."
In Quantonics Doug shows this as an inner rejection of all
dialectical ideas, canon, dogma, and orthodoxy...while replacing
those ideas with novel memes and memeos all Qabalic and Quantonic~quantum.
In our novel Ways of Believing and Doing, there no longer
is measurement, what Doug calls scalarbation: 'value.'
Our eyes are opened
to quantum~omnitoring of evolving~living quantum~processings:
Value.
|