Former conspiracy believer here

[Pardalis]

And with all the coincidences if you apply logic and reason over emotions, it's much more than a possiblity.

Isn't a coincidence just that, a coincidence?

 

[DGM]

I have to admit things look bleak right now.

The sad thing is even without a monopoly of information, people are still uninformed

People of this generation care more about entertainment than politics.


It may be a long shot but more people are waking up to my side every day.


They are starting to question why they have never heard of these false flag operations and these secret societies especially Bilderberg.

They are starting to realize all the holes in the official narrative of 9/11 that have not been accounted for.

It's easy to apply credulity at first when you have no historical perspective on what a false flag operation even is in the first place.

But when you start to build that background and moved from those years of deception people break the veil

Perhaps since people see that our government is coniving enough to take advantage of an attack to start a war that costs thousands of lives, perhaps they are coniving enough to have actually taken place in the attacks.

And with all the coincidences if you apply logic and reason over emotions, it's much more than a possiblity.

And all this with out one shred of evidence. Wow!

Did you know the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?

 

[Nick227]

I'm curious: How would you describe "the nature of objectivity"? The reason I ask is that the discovery of materialistic indeterminism was an objective discovery.

Hi CS,

In a way that is certainly true. Applying for lengthy period the mindset of objectivity, and examining all sorts of phenomena through it, it became clear that paradox started to emerge.

I would say that "the nature of objectivity" is that act of preceding from the assumption of a limited observer, a limited self.

It's an objective aspect of the nature of the universe. It's predictable. It's not expected to change, except perhaps when we retreat to the first moments of the Big Bang, to a moment we presently have no way to observe.

Indeterminism simply means we have no way to determine what a specific particle will do.

I was actually not referring so much to this. Rather to the fact that examining the subatomic world, it becomes clear that the observer and the observed are not such distinct entities. The action of observation itself, in some experiments, appears to affect that which is being observed. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, seems to me to point to the liklihood that the universe is fundamentally non-dual, and that "observer" and "observed" are merely arising conceptualisations from what is actually a thoroughly entangled non-dual reality. I'm happy to be corrected by physicists here but this is my understanding.

And yet their little theories hold, despite the mysterious inner-workings of subatomic particles.

They hold within their parameters. Metaphorically, the universe IS pink until you examine phenomena so thoroughly that you find behaviour that seems to point to non-pinkness existing. Or, of course, until the rose-tinted specs fall off!

I suppose you could say objectivity is a way of filtering information. I think it's more accurate to say it's THE way of filtering information. Without objectivity, all you have is noise and impression. If it's not objectively filtered, it's not information.

Objective evaluation of phenomena allows one to make useful adjustments to ones environment. But, if you forget that it is simply a mindset, you can make a prison of it.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

What useful data have you gathered on the illuminati through direct subjective investigation?

By what standard do you measure usefulness of data?

Well, personally, through getting more interested in myself and who I actually was (beyond the mind's capacity to create self-image that is) I became aware of the vast possibilities that were shut out through the rigid application of the objective mindset. I studied subjective science, in the form of Western Qabalah, for 8 odd years and I'm aware that, when you let that rigidity drop, all bets are off so to speak.

Now, of course, this of itself doesn't really justify asserting that Illuminati exist. But if you study ancient disciplines such as Alchemy, and I mean you study them thoroughly, you see present a wisdom that survives the collapse of the objective mindset, that survives the realisation that objectivity actually does proceed from an assumption that the mind has not yet tested.

So, to me, this has pointed me to becoming aware that (a) objectivity is highly limited in its application, and that (b) there were deeper levels of wisdom present aeons ago. From this it does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that Illuminati, one product of the Alchemical process, could exist.

Nick

 

[StickMan2008]

And all this with out one shred of evidence. Wow!

Did you know the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?

Yeah because every element of the official narrative has been backed up with tangible evidence

No anomalies whatsoever


Everything was perfectly normal


Gotta love how such widespread incompetence hasn't led to anyone being held accountable. People have been promoted but who has been demoted?


Yet people trust an official narrative from an administration that stole the executive branch of the most powerful nation in the world.

Not to mention individuals who had defined motives to take advantage if such event were to occur.

Individuals who had no interest in even having any sort of an investigation before being pressured by the families of the victims.

Individuals instead of appointing criminal investigators to lead the investigation, appointed masters of deceit

 

[Nick227]

If you're interested in what's been done since the slit experiments, start with a copy of Richard Feynman's QED:The strange theory of light and matter. It's a highly accessible and slim volume transcribed from his lecture series aimed at a lay audience. It's fascinating!

Thanks. I will check it out, especially if it's on audiobook.

I copy this great quote from Feynman, introducing a lecture and talking about why people say they can't understand what he's talking about...

"Then there's a kind of saying that you don't understand it, meaning that "I don't believe it," "It's too crazy," "It's the kind of thing I'm not going to accept." This kind, I hope you'll come along with me, and you'll have to accept it! Because this is the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it, carefully, look at it, that's the way it looks. You don't like it? Go somewhere else! To another universe, where the rules are simpler, philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can't help it. OK? If I'm gonna tell you honestly what the world looks like, to human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like. I cannot make it any simpler. I cannot do this. I'm not going to simplify it. I'm not gonna fake it. I'm not going to make it something like a ball bearing on a spring. It isn't. So I'm going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. OK?....
It's going to be so shocking, the way nature actually works, that you're not going to believe that either....
So, I'm going to ask you to not to get turned off, not to be afraid, relax and enjoy it, and realise that nobody understands it" - The Douglas Robb Memorial Lecture, Part 1 (24:14 - 26:13)

Nick

 

[StickMan2008]

Isn't a coincidence just that, a coincidence?

Well but it's a problem when the entire narrative revolves around a coincidence theory.

IOW, every anomaly surrounding the event is merely coincidence.


On the surface every one of those big coincidences raise an eyebrow but are not exactly damning evidence.


But when you compile them and see that it's an inordinate amount of coinvenient coincidences that alleviated the attacks, IMO it's reasonable to question whether or not if it was mere coincidence or intentional.


Just like any criminal case that relies on circumstantial evidence.


If people said that everything that looked suspicious was a coincidence they could get out of anything.

As long as they didn't have any DNA or damning physical evidence like that they could get away with anything.


At some point you evaluate those coincidences and use logic and reason and take out emotion and at least ask "What if it wasn't just a widespread series of coincidences?"

What if those warnings by other countires were ignored on purpose?
What if those terrorists were allowed to live out in the open on purpose?


That's why I think it's reasonable to at least have another investigation.

I mean after all it's the most significant event of the 21st century.

And it's been the basis for every foreign/domestic policy since.

The implications of it being complicity would be huge and because of that it should be explored.

But unfortunately because of those implications no one wants to accept it not only as a probability but even as a physical possibility which is just sad

 

[PixyMisa]

Thoughts arise in response to other thoughts, yes. The phenomenon of identification creates the experiences of them being "my" thoughts. It fuels the process.

Identifying thoughts as your own is just a thought. There's no separate phenomenon or process at work here.

Well, by "its parameters" I meant rather the assumption of limited selfhood. Didn't really make that clear, it's true. Objectivity shows that which is visible through the assumption, or experience, of limited selfhood.

NO.

Objectivity provides a framework for interpreting our observations. It does not in any way limit our observations.

I would not for a second dispute that objectivity is highly functional. It's great. It's just that if one is trying to establish a priori truths about the self, it is largely not so much use, because it is preceding from the prior assumption of a limited self, a limited observer.

No it isn't. Limited self is an observation. You are completely wrong about this.

It's testable within its own parameters. No one has yet validated the existence of limited selfhood through direct experience.

Wrong again. We do little else.

Neither has anyone uncovered the brain process, should it exist, which allows the experience of limited selfhood to be created and sustained.

You have that back-to-front. Limited selfhood is necessary result of the fact that the brain generates thoughts. It's a simple physical reality.

I'm not knocking objectivity. I'm not knocking identification. I wouldn't be able to write these thoughts down, did they not create the experience that there is a me that is writing them. Objectivity is great. But it is just a tool, and there are certain fields of enquiry for which it is not suited. If you want to investigate directly the illuminati, then you will have to leave objectivity behind, because the assumption it proceeds from procludes the gathering of useful data here.

Nick, if you leave objectivity behind, you don't have any data. You just have stuff you've made up.

By definition, if the illuminati / alchemists / whoever work their workings based on "subjective science", they cannot do anything. They can imagine they are doing something; they can even convince other, likewise bewildered, people that they are doing something. But they can't actually do it.

Because if they were able to do something, that would be objective.

Your entire grand conspiracy theory only exists - only can exist - in your imagination, simply by the way you have defined it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yeah because every element of the official narrative has been backed up with tangible evidence

Yes.

No anomalies whatsoever

There are always anomalies... Especially if you don't understand what you are looking at.

Gotta love how such widespread incompetence hasn't led to anyone being held accountable. People have been promoted but who has been demoted?

The Director and Deputy Director for Operations of the CIA, and the Secretary of Defense have all resigned.

Yet people trust an official narrative from an administration that stole the executive branch of the most powerful nation in the world.

America has this thing, I think they are called "elections".

Not to mention individuals who had defined motives to take advantage if such event were to occur.

Who are they, and what are these motives?

 

[PixyMisa]

I'VE GOT BINGO!!

Darn you! I just needed an argument from incredulity and I was there.

 

[Pardalis]

Well but it's a problem when the entire narrative revolves around a coincidence theory.

OK, I'll try and read this without laughing next time.

Well but it's a problem when the entire narrative revolves around a coincidence theory.

Nope, can't do it.

IOW, every anomaly surrounding the event is merely coincidence.

What's your definition of "coincidence"?

On the surface every one of those big coincidences raise an eyebrow but are not exactly damning evidence.

What constitutes a "big" and a "small" coincidence? How do you jugde the scale or importance of something that is by definition random?

But when you compile them and see that it's an inordinate amount of coinvenient coincidences that alleviated the attacks, IMO it's reasonable to question whether or not if it was mere coincidence or intentional.

What do you mean by "coincidences that alleviate the attacks"?

Just like any criminal case that relies on circumstantial evidence.

Which is completely different thing than a coincidence.

If people said that everything that looked suspicious was a coincidence they could get out of anything.

Again, it depends on your definition of what a coincidence is.

As long as they didn't have any DNA or damning physical evidence like that they could get away with anything.

Not sure I follow you here.

At some point you evaluate those coincidences and use logic and reason and take out emotion and at least ask "What if it wasn't just a widespread series of coincidences?"

What if those warnings by other countires were ignored on purpose?
What if those terrorists were allowed to live out in the open on purpose?


That's why I think it's reasonable to at least have another investigation.

I mean after all it's the most significant event of the 21st century.

And it's been the basis for every foreign/domestic policy since.

The implications of it being complicity would be huge and because of that it should be explored.

But unfortunately because of those implications no one wants to accept it not only as a probability but even as a physical possibility which is just sad

Then go ahead and prove your case.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, personally, through getting more interested in myself and who I actually was (beyond the mind's capacity to create self-image that is) I became aware of the vast possibilities that were shut out through the rigid application of the objective mindset. I studied subjective science, in the form of Western Qabalah, for 8 odd years and I'm aware that, when you let that rigidity drop, all bets are off so to speak.

There is no such thing as "subjective science".

Qabalah is properly termed "nonsense".

Now, of course, this of itself doesn't really justify asserting that Illuminati exist.

No, it doesn't.

But if you study ancient disciplines such as Alchemy, and I mean you study them thoroughly, you see present a wisdom that survives the collapse of the objective mindset, that survives the realisation that objectivity actually does proceed from an assumption that the mind has not yet tested.

No you don't. There is one assumption inherent to objectivity, and that has indeed been tested. Not proven, but certainly tested.

So, to me, this has pointed me to becoming aware that (a) objectivity is highly limited in its application, and that (b) there were deeper levels of wisdom present aeons ago. From this it does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that Illuminati, one product of the Alchemical process, could exist.

To you. To no-one else, though, because all of this exists only in your imagination.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I was actually not referring so much to this. Rather to the fact that examining the subatomic world, it becomes clear that the observer and the observed are not such distinct entities. The action of observation itself, in some experiments, appears to affect that which is being observed. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, seems to me to point to the liklihood that the universe is fundamentally non-dual, and that "observer" and "observed" are merely arising conceptualisations from what is actually a thoroughly entangled non-dual reality. I'm happy to be corrected by physicists here but this is my understanding.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply means that if you want to measure one parameter (say, position) to a high level of certainty, you must sacrifice certainty of one or more other parameters (say, momentum). This is because you can only accurately measure a particle's position by interfering with its momentum, and vice versa.

It's not, as you seem to be implying, that merely observing affects the observed, it's that affecting the observed is the only way to observe. This is a physical process. There's nothing mystical about it.

 

[Belz...]

Not nearly as new as the OS gatekeepers


1)Incompetence
2)Morality

Are we going to do this again ?

Who's the paid shill, now ?

 

[Belz...]

I have to admit things look bleak right now.

The sad thing is even without a monopoly of information, people are still uninformed

Count yourself in.

People of this generation care more about entertainment than politics.

Oh, so now you're the vigilante, the no-nonsense, independent freethinker who's going to save civilisation ?

So many people, so many delusions.

It may be a long shot but more people are waking up to my side every day.

More people are growing paranoid, every day ?

They are starting to realize all the holes in the official narrative of 9/11 that have not been accounted for.

They have been accounted for. You just aren't listening.

And with all the coincidences if you apply logic and reason over emotions, it's much more than a possiblity.

How so ?

 

[Belz...]

Well but it's a problem when the entire narrative revolves around a coincidence theory.

IOW, every anomaly surrounding the event is merely coincidence.

Here's news for you, slick: EVERYTHING is a coincidence.

 

[8den]

Jesus wept Belz, what kind of intellectual masochist are you? You're still debating this idiocy?

 

[chipmunk stew]

What useful data have you gathered on the illuminati through direct subjective investigation?

By what standard do you measure usefulness of data?

Well, personally, through getting more interested in myself and who I actually was (beyond the mind's capacity to create self-image that is) I became aware of the vast possibilities that were shut out through the rigid application of the objective mindset. I studied subjective science, in the form of Western Qabalah, for 8 odd years and I'm aware that, when you let that rigidity drop, all bets are off so to speak.

Now, of course, this of itself doesn't really justify asserting that Illuminati exist. But if you study ancient disciplines such as Alchemy, and I mean you study them thoroughly, you see present a wisdom that survives the collapse of the objective mindset, that survives the realisation that objectivity actually does proceed from an assumption that the mind has not yet tested.

So, to me, this has pointed me to becoming aware that (a) objectivity is highly limited in its application, and that (b) there were deeper levels of wisdom present aeons ago. From this it does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that Illuminati, one product of the Alchemical process, could exist.

Nick

I have read through this post three times now, and I have yet to perceive (a) any data or (b) any criteria for usefulness. In other words, although you responded by quoting my questions, you did not answer them. At all.

 

[Belz...]

Jesus wept Belz, what kind of intellectual masochist are you? You're still debating this idiocy?

To which particular idiocy are you refering to ? I see more than one.

 

[Nick227]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle simply means that if you want to measure one parameter (say, position) to a high level of certainty, you must sacrifice certainty of one or more other parameters (say, momentum). This is because you can only accurately measure a particle's position by interfering with its momentum, and vice versa.

It's not, as you seem to be implying, that merely observing affects the observed, it's that affecting the observed is the only way to observe. This is a physical process. There's nothing mystical about it.

Hi CS,

Maybe the HUP is not such a good example. I will have to read more. I'm not so much up on these things. Perhaps it is more to do with quantum mechanics and Quantum Theory itself. Here's a link from Wikipedia showing the multitude of ways people are trying to interpret how reality is in accordance with the Theory. My understanding is that quantum theory does considerably erode the notion of a limited self, a limited observer.

Generally, I think objective science is good for predicting the behaviour of reality, but highly inadequate when it comes to understanding the nature of reality.

This is what Feynman seems to me to be saying - We do not understand the nature of reality. "I'm not going to make it something like a ball bearing on a spring. It isn't. So I'm going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don't like it, that's too bad. OK?" This is his position. What has been uncovered by scientists in the subatomic realm is totally shocking. You cannot grasp it because what is implied completely confounds our existing beliefs about ourselves and our world.

Nick