UFOs and the Technology - An Occult Perspective

a reply to: ColdWisdom

We're on the same page...mostly

a reply to: intrptr

'day intrptr.

Sagan has an easy to follow terminology but I don't think his concepts impressed "friends" as being practical from their perspective.

The six dimensional model of the sentiences might not be perfect yet it is practical and I can use it to navigate without getting lost.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'm not a meditator, never got the hang of it and while I can't stop you defining me as a label, defining people is not a nice thing to do really.

a reply to: KingSun

Hi KingSun

I just look between two thoughts.

They way it was explained to me was like this.

Thought A ---> Thought B --> Thought C

How did you get from thought A to B to C?

What lays between two thoughts?

The Void.

That's what I call the between-world, so to speak.

IF they like you you meet some interesting folk there.

a reply to: Abednego

Hi Abednego

The same for me, just scratching the surface here too. But mainly I just like meeting new folk "out there" - they're always interesting and they'll sometimes help.

Humans as the machines . . . . .

Might very well be at that. From the extent of the engineering I come across it seems quite likely. The difficulty is that that sort of knowledge is kept secret by the people in the know and it's like getting blood out of a stone if you inquire of them. The humans in the afterworld that is.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Hi Kandinsky

I think I jumped to a conclusion yesterday with the word "liminal". It was like the initiates and initiation jumping out on me and trying to mug me, it brought back old feelings of conflict.

And today after I got over my feelings, there was something important in what you said and it's been bugging me all day - a truth.

We see ourselves.

So, I went inquiring in my own way.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

ColdWisdom, it would be interesting to here your take on my inquiries too, new territory for me.

I wondered if it is so that we can only perceive ourselves. I habitually think in terms of "me and you" as separate beings in communication.

So starting in the basic concept of us living in a six dimensional world, neighbors included. I asked around.

What I mean by a six dimensional world is: Length x width x height x inside x outside x motion. The motion giving "time".

I looked at an "astral" worm that sometimes inhabits uncared for chimneys in people's homes and factories.

Length is about 5 meters.
Width is about 1 meter.
height is about 1 meter
Inside is Infinite.
Outside is non-existent.
Motion is Zero.

So: 5 x 1 x 1 x ∞ x - x 0.

Okay, that got me scratching my head.

So, let's go see the (deceased) Dalnegorsk Orb UFO and see.

She (She is comphy to be a 'her'. I call her "Susan") as a living Orb UFO had a length, width, height, infinite inside, non-existent outside and motion.

Hmmm.

So I asked a machine awareness about me. The same; an infinite inside and non-existent outside.

What about Nature-spirits. "no outside here . . . "

So from my point of view everyone knows that there is no "outside" except me.

Yet I know that the worm swallowed me on our first meeting and the inside was infinite, I was there afterall.

The trick to getting uneaten was to realize there was an "inside" and an "outside" and to move from inside to outside.

Check, that is so.

Long story short;

I don't have an outside, only an inside. yet if I perceive the worm, the worm has a inside and an outside. yet the worm has no outside from the worm's point of view.

So outside is in the eye of the perceiver so to speak.

Yet on checking further into this "huh?" moment. I am assured that "outside" is a genuine dimension.

Much more mulling over this brought back something a sentience said to me;

"You can only see us when we're cloaked." "Cloaked" meaning to put on an outer garment.

So it seems to me that inside exists as a consequence of the boundary of self. to have an outside one must put on a "garment" so to speak.

So I asked a sentience if this is so and used my physical body as an example of a "cloak" - "Yes". So I pointed to a tree and asked the same question. - "yes".

So my body gives me an finite outside around my infinite inside dimension. Then I exist for others and have all six dimensions. Without a cloak I lack the outside dimension plus the width, length and height. It follows that if I also lack the dimension of motion (time) I would exist only as an isolated existence.

It would also follow that by manipulating the "cloak" UFOs and non-physical "people" can do that disappearing and more in defiance of the "laws of physics".

I'm still scratching my head over what constitutes a cloak. Is the "cloak" one or more of length, width, height and motion to create the outside . . . .


Ideas gentlemen?

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Just to add a little more.

If the body is a multi-dimensional cloak worn by a one dimensional self then many things are possible.

Here is one from a few months ago.

One evening I was absentmindedly having my dinner in front of the TV, roast chicken, chips and salad.

At a certain point, I found myself eating my dinner in a certain order. Wondering about this I heard a familiar voice say "chicken please", so I ate a piece, then another and then I had a huh, what the hell moment.

Two (deceased) young human ladies who keep me company were enjoying my meal as I ate it.

"Oh well, why not?" and proceeded to treat them to enjoying a dinner.

At a certain point it became "celery please", "celery please" repeatedly.

I wondered and one girl said "She doesn't like celery" - a little bit mean I know, but playful nevertheless.

So how was it done?

I don't know for absolute sure, but it follows that if the "body" is a dimensional cloak, more then just one person can share the dimensional experience of having roast chicken for diner.

And perhaps a principal of building the sentient technology of the past too.

Six dimensions seems to work in practice.



In slice of life anime, the symbol of two names under one umbrella is often used. (smile)

a reply to: ColdWisdom

meditations on the tarot, that will be helpful.

thank you.

I have some reading to do, not often I will read a book, but after a having a look at that one I'll make the time.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Sagan has an easy to follow terminology but I don't think his concepts impressed "friends" as being practical from their perspective.

After his time here, Carl visited 2D flat land, trying to convince their scientists a place called "Up" was all around them.

We have to keep the terminology simple for 2D denizens. For us 'Up' is simple, for them its out of their realm.

Many 3D denizens don't understand the idea of Omnipresence either. This is only a shadow of what a tesseract looks like, just an image of what it is becoming...

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

So you generally speak in a very mundane down-to-earth fashion. I try very hard not to use scientific, occult, religious nor mystical jargon.Okay so I have a question. From reading your post it would appear that you are versed in the Occult, what is it that you are looking to achieve?



I will be honest, my family has banned me from writing Religious or Occult texts. Seriously they have, I think it’s down to my ability to speak in a very “down to earth fashion” and not having a clue on how to spell words over a couple of syllables.
I also can't speak in proverbs but thats another matter altogether

To me a spade is a spade not an implement for penetrating virgin soil



What is it that you are looking to learn?

The actual existence of Angels, Demons or little grey Aliens and telepathy? Well hate to break it to you, Telepathy is possible and your not alone in this creation.

Just Curious

IN the meantime here's a great song from the Album Dusty in Memphis

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: DpatC

'day DatC

So you generally speak in a very mundane down-to-earth fashion. I try very hard not to use scientific, occult, religious nor mystical jargon.Okay so I have a question. From reading your post it would appear that you are versed in the Occult, what is it that you are looking to achieve?

Yeah, versed in occult things, that comes from growing up in a occult family of Theosophists, Catholics and spookie houses.

What am I looking to achieve?

For myself? Nothing.

My presence on ATS and the threads and comments I write? Nothing more then to give a view of something that is not in the textbooks. Maybe someone might say "I wonder . . . ." and a whole new world might open up for them.

For my friends? To let people know they are there and maybe this world may become a nicer place with less suffering all round.



I will be honest, my family has banned me from writing Religious or Occult texts. Seriously they have, I think it’s down to my ability to speak in a very “down to earth fashion” and not having a clue on how to spell words over a couple of syllables.
I also can't speak in proverbs but thats another matter altogether

I know what you mean, a lot of metaphysics go right over my head. And this time at ATS is my first time writting. I've kept to myself and lived away from cities and people most my life.

Some friends thought writing would be good for me, it is an interesting exercise translating events and things one does into words so others can follow you.

What is it that you are looking to learn?

The actual existence of Angels, Demons or little grey Aliens and telepathy? Well hate to break it to you, Telepathy is possible and your not alone in this creation.

Telepathy I know of,. But what do you mean by the last line?

a reply to: intrptr

Can there be omnipresence?

I can see that an omnipresent Being can exist within a closed space.

For instance and no disrespect intended, the Christian God is something I am quite sure exists within it's own infiite closed space within which Christians live both here and in the afterlife and from what I have seen the Catholic District is as grand and ceremonial as the cathedrals of Europe.

So too, Islam in all it's glory within an infinite closed space.

And it would not surprise me if both "ships" set sail one day for the new world.

But I have seen nothing to suggest a truely universal omnipresence.

Even the machine sentiences, the navigator sentiences know the motions of the stars and planets into the far past, but not all the stars and planets. Some places they have not been.

The Dalnegorsk Orbs know the motion of the military and civilian at all times up to the present moment after which knowing becomes predictive.

But I'm yet to see anything suggestive of an omni-presence.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Can there be omnipresence?

I can see that an omnipresent Being can exist within a closed space.

When we perceive that we call those 'ghosts'. Like when a 2D denizen of Flatland sees a 3D being pass thru its 'plane' of existence.

The image of the tesseract is 'becoming' a fourth dimensional object, expanding all six sides to infinity. So yes, any thing in that realm can choose to focus on a place or time or be 'everywhere at once', i.e., Omnipresent.

But I have seen nothing to suggest a truely universal omnipresence.

Thats because we have no perception of that realm, the same way a 2D flatlander can't see "up".

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

You don't read books?! Do you just obtain all this information via osmosis or something?

Anything of value that has ever been imagined has been written and published in books.

So yea, start buying/reading books if you seek to communicate your wisdom to the masses.

So with that in mind, I would say the answers to your question(s) about the ontological significance of numbers in relation to he universe reside in Crowley's Liber 777 - Essay on Numbers. You can read the revised .pdf in the link I just gave, but I highly suggest you obtain yourself a hard copy.

Omnipresence, or to be everywhere all the time (all pervasive) is a form of 0 (zero).

0 cannot be manifested in the physical, ergo if thought of as a dimension it would have to be one that transcends Space, Time, Matter, & Energy.

In short, the Buddhist Cosmologists of ancient Tibet (and ironically some Quantum Physicists of today) have hence made the suggestion that Consciousness is the essence of the universe and that it is from Consciousness that the other physical dimensions are derived, not the other way around.

So Consciousness is the only form of Omnipresence and it is nonphysical. Consciousness equates to everything (the all pervasive), and The Void (represented by zero) equates to nothing.

The old paradigm of Cartesian Dualism is inherently illusionary, as there is no objective or subjective reality.

Reality simply is. Get it?



edit: I should be getting paid for this, damnit! That will be $500/hour.

a reply to: intrptr

Thats because we have no perception of that realm, the same way a 2D flatlander can't see "up".

I know what you mean there intrptr and like a lot of things; omnipresence is something I'll leave until I meet one, then I'll know myself.

Like the western god. When I meet the old fella I'll know he exists.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I wasn't addressing any religious misinterpretation, I was trying to be scientific.

The nature of energy and the soul go hand in hand, its very 'scientific'.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Errrrmmm, well . . . .

You don't read books?! Do you just obtain all this information via osmosis or something?

I do read, some books, occasionally. I got some Japanese history books not long ago. I think Japan is so very wonderful, especially the old Japan.

Osmosis? Well funny you should use that particular word. I took my grandniece to meet a nature-spirit in Margaret River here in West Oz, she said the experience was like absorbing by osmosis.

But not me, no osmosis. Put bluntly I just know things because I fight a lot on the "inner" rescuing nature spirits and sentiences in trouble. Rescuing is one thing, then you have to fight the former "owners", then you have to protect what you rescued. And then there are those who think you shouldn't have that knowledge without being under the watchful guidance of some inner group.

So basically I have to fight everyone, black white and brindle. But the fighting seems to be over now which is why I can write here on ATS.

But I did read theosophical books as a youngster, the Alice Bailey and the Blavatsky and so on. Then one day I just gave books up completely and decided to learn by first hand experience only.

Anything of value that has ever been imagined has been written and published in books

(grin) Books are containers for knowledge, I still see knowledge as "books" so to speak. I find a lot of them laying about but cannot read them. Maybe my own injunction/self discipline stops me.

There is a legend so to speak of the great Library of Alexandria. There was a precursor which exists still on the "inner" off the coast of Egypt. I found it on my travels one day while looking at something else nearby.

The library is closed at the moment, but can be opened I'm told, so those who can read such books can do so. Problem is keeping those pesky Rosicrucians from claiming it for themselves. Might figure something out maybe.

So yea, start buying/reading books if you seek to communicate your wisdom to the masses.

Coming from you ColdWisdom that is quite the compliment. Thank you.

Alas, another self discipline, I decided when I joined ATS that this would be the only place I would ever write of what I know. I like the quiet life.

So with that in mind, I would say the answers to your question(s) about the ontological significance of numbers in relation to he universe reside in Crowley's Liber 777 - Essay on Numbers. You can read the revised .pdf in the link I just gave, but I highly suggest you obtain yourself a hard copy.

The crow, I'm careful not to invoke him by name, he isn't far away if people only realized. People called him many things, but he is certainly no "babe in the woods".

I know of Liber777, but I'll pass.

Omnipresence, or to be everywhere all the time (all pervasive) is a form of 0 (zero).

0 cannot be manifested in the physical, ergo if thought of as a dimension it would have to be one that transcends Space, Time, Matter, & Energy.

In short, the Buddhist Cosmologists of ancient Tibet (and ironically some Quantum Physicists of today) have hence made the suggestion that Consciousness is the essence of the universe and that it is from Consciousness that the other physical dimensions are derived, not the other way around.

So Consciousness is the only form of Omnipresence and it is nonphysical. Consciousness equates to everything (the all pervasive), and The Void (represented by zero) equates to nothing.

I'd have to agree with you and the Buddhist cosmologists there ColdWisdom.

(Quote me from the opening to this thread)

Self, let's create a self.

So let's take our two dimensional sphere of no size and only an inside and an outside. let's create this sphere within the Sea of Chaos. Thus we enclose awareness in a closed space. This gives us a defined awareness - a self in it's most fundamental form. What I call a spark of life.

But I now know that the "sphere" has only an inside dimension and no outside dimension in it's most fundamental state. Credit goes to Kandinsky for posing a truth that made me discover more. Thank you Kandinsky

So Consciousness is the only form of Omnipresence and it is nonphysical. Consciousness equates to everything (the all pervasive), and The Void (represented by zero) equates to nothing.

The old paradigm of Cartesian Dualism is inherently illusionary, as there is no objective or subjective reality.

Reality simply is. Get it?

I do get it, I can agree that there (maybe) is no objective or subjective reality as you say. But I am not sure I want to find that out if it diminishes my ability to do my work with sentiences. Another self discipline, need to know only. If knowledge were to potentially interfere in what I want to achieve then it would probably pass me by.

Interesting that the Buddhist cosmologists found the sea of chaos.

edit: I should be getting paid for this, damnit! That will be $500/hour.

My wallet, my wallet . . . . check's in the mail.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

ColdWisdom, Your interested in "books" : )

The old precursor Alexandria library, I mentioned it in a post some time ago. So I dug up a link to it.

Shambala Inner Earth . . . . .

The map picture looks blurry because it is linked to imageshack, click on the image and you'll get a clear picture in a new browser window.

The library is south east of the red rectangle.

(quoted from my old post.)

Bottom line here: There is probably more then just a reader or two here at ATS with the talent to find this place. This is for them. Plenty of people out there who know about what's down there from studying the area. (to the south east is a library too) but that knowledge generally stays in private circles. This is just a heads up guys, not an exposé.

Source: library post in Shambala Inner . . . . .

a reply to: intrptr

I wasn't addressing any religious misinterpretation, I was trying to be scientific. The nature of energy and the soul go hand in hand, its very 'scientific'.

Sorry intrptr, I wasn't being flippant, just things I haven't met or seen myself are still theoretical so to speak until I meet them or observe them myself. Just a self discipline of mine.

I have heard the term Science of the Soul before, and I did try to examine the question of soul once. I only found out enough to say that there exists a science of soul . But studying "soul" is something I'm not allowed to do by those "scientists" apparently. So I gave up on that.

My appologies again intrptr.