If you are referring to Zeus Chrishna as documented by Kersey Graves
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...ier/graves.html and his Tabloid approach to the history of Jesus, I would have to say anything you might add to your previous statements on this subject would be entertaining to say the least.

No, I was referring to Zeus Chrishna from other point of view.

These two words put one near another: Zeus Chrishna, is a small Words Matrix, which will incline any person who will see it, to stay in a search mode of the truth. It is my invention, enjoy it. It modifies very important code. You see Joesus, just two words and the human world is changing. Mind is reconstructing. You try to fight against the power of the Words Matrix, but it is very powerful, you cannot, it will reconstruct your entire brain database and will help you, as well as other people to make serious discoveries in theology. It is very old magic, you know.

Maybe it is the time to hammer the ring of the power as well, such a trifle, you know.

People! All what is written in this post is a JOKE, do not take it serious and remember that the "Matrix" does not exist, it is just a movie! The word "Matrix" in this post means "array of words", a pile of words etc.

Again, let discard this discussion in this topic. It is funny but we must respect others.

What you propose is not possible. Jesus cannot be discussed in detail because factual details about Jesus do not exist. It cannot even be reliably established that Jesus was an actual person and not merely a legend.

Enki seems to be making a habit of posting foolishness as fact, encouraging others to not take him seriously, at the same time suggesting to others not to disrespect the participants and the topic of discussion by doing what he has been doing.
Possibly the picture being created around his personality of late is one of frivolous stress release, rather than anything serious or stable.

I just wanted to discuss the content of the Book of Mark. Text exists and can be discussed, as well as the person depicted there.

I have found that discussing the non-literary merits of ancient religious texts to be unproductive. For example, did you know that Deuteronomy requires that nonbelievers be put to death?

Yes indeed, I am such a great fool sometimes. Why I post such things I really do wonder?!

Maybe.



What do you want to say by that Rick?

That if one takes ancient texts seriously, one becomes a murderer. Therefore, they should not be taken seriously, but as literature, nothing more.

Might I add the Bible is a fantastic bed time story--I don't even get half way through Mathew and I am asleep!

I agree that old texts being read wrongly may incline a person to become a fanatic, that is why such writings have to be updated from time to time. Just like realizing new version of Windows.
Different people understand the same things differently. I just want to show how the well known book can be interpreted in quite different and interesting way. I just wanted to analyze the Book of Mark.

If the original texts are not understood they cannot be updated, only misinterpreted.
If the original writings are understood they can be explained, however the masters in the delivery of their knowledge also knew that without the level of conscious awareness to understand the knowledge,explaining it is like handing a college physics book to a preschool attendee.
Once a person begins to grasp the reality of life he can begin to experience it as it really is.
Until the individual is ready to experience it, the individual mind cannot begin to understand it.

Which is why Jesus was quoted from time to time as saying, "those who have the eyes to see, the ears to hear..."

6: "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which neither you nor your fathers have known,

7: some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other,

8: you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him;

9: but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10: You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

--Deuteronomy 13 (supposedly the words of Moses as told to him by the god Jaweh)

It would appear that if a believer should fail to kill one who tries to lead him away from belief, he will be disobeying a direct order from the god Jaweh. Believers assume a heavy burden, don't they?

Ha, I believe nothing, only the I in Me.
Enki: Zeus Chrishna is a good word matrix. I immediately thought Jesus Christ, and I guess that was the impact you were hoping. Its true that history and religion get completely muddled up with fact and truth. No one can ever know the full truth, only reincarnation and time travel could sort that one out.

There is no doubt that differing religions have exactly the same "God" as all the rest of us, the unknowable force propelling us on. Is this evidence that a lot of religions are based around the same person/people? Is it because the Divine image is percieved in many different ways?

Joesus:

"Once a person begins to grasp the reality of life he can begin to experience it as it really is.
Until the individual is ready to experience it, the individual mind cannot begin to understand"

Do you really grasp reality in its full extent? Are you enlightened?

Deuteronomy is misrepresented, twisted from the Truth and goes against the idea presented in..
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

In the times of Jesus the people were often misled by the current spiritual authorities of the land who were themselves arrogant and selfish. In order to maintain their own power they used violent acts of punishment to control thinking.
Jesus often spoke against such violence and misuse of leadership but it didn't change the way some people think nor did it remove the lust for power and greed in those that wished only to control the masses.

Religion in and of itself is not the evil. Evil only presents itself in the face of ignorance and cannot exist in the light of reality and truth. To say religion is inherently wrong is not unlike suggesting black people are ignorant and lazy. The correlation that people make when they take things for granted because they accept what others tell them without understanding the source of the statement rather than using intelligent reason is what spreads fear rather than enlightenment.



Who could recognise the enlightened but the enlightened? What I would say about myself is irrelevent..
You might have already decided whether I am or not based on your own idea of what that means.

I'm not interested in self created systems of measure and self worth.

Are you rather interested in society created systems of measure and self worth? Personally I cannot see who could possibly be a better judge of the measure of an individual, or the worth of an individual, but that individual~

God is not democratic.
From the ego we become our own judge and the judge of others.
In an Oligarchy the few become the ruling class based on their own Sense of worth judged and justified by their own wealth, prosperity and control.
In a democracy the majority judge the worth of others and the worth of themselves based on relative interpretations of reality.

In the awareness of enlightenment one aligns themself with the nature of reality through the natural laws that support reality. That which exists in reflection of the source is by its nature giving back to its source as it interacts with all objects created from source. All is realized as equal.

From the awareness of inequality the judge is seeking points of measure relative to understanding. That understanding being personal.

For example in the relative relationship of ones own self judgment Hitler saw his vision of himself and humanity as being superior than the current mixed social classes and governments that existed in the world.

What one feels about themselves may be inspiring but not always constructive towards the uplifting of all of humanity towards Self realization.

Any plan you have about what should take place in the growth of humanity and yourself may be filled with good intentions but the nature of progression according to the universal scheme of things seems to have a mind of its own and always seems to support the intentions of a much greater mind.

Why is it that when I say A=A everyone gives me shit, but it is okay to claim that everything is just a reflection of the source...

Everyone?

At the risk of getting back on topic...

http://www.well.com/~abs/SIGGRAPH96/4Dtess.html
http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/4D/

Both are good at demonstrating 4d through 3d, but I still can't actually visualise 4 dimensions at once. Its been quite a thorough workout for my brain. It hurts at times.

I'm waiting in ernest Enki.... this is beginning to fascinate me.

you people sure are good at taking a conversation on 4d spatial dimension and turning it into a buzz of nonsense.

i will add nothing to this discussion until i can understand what its actually about. pathology or spatial dimensions? you decide.

To visualize in four dimensions you need to reject your current view of reality and replace it with a four dimensional one. One needs to understand that a hypercube is interlaced with itself at diffrent points - multiple cubes coexisting in the same space and yet geometrically in cohesion. You need to think in 4d geometry instead of 3.

To dizl and anyone else who thinks this is a confusing subject, try reading a book on 4 dimensions, its WAY worse than whats posted here. Talking about 4d in any context means we have to stop talking in regular english and start talking in philosophical english.

Those are some interesting links, Orbz. Thanks for posting them.

I did not forget that I promised to provide description of of how to vis. 4 D cube, just problems with free time.

How about the fact that there is no 4th spatial dimension?


Could that possibly weigh in to the argument?

Lol a man after my own heart

That could account for the difficulty in visualizing a 4th dimension. Mathematics has abstractions for all kinds of physical impossibilities.

I think the point of the thread was to show that, since we cannot visualize in 4 spatial dimensions, that our imagination is not infinite, and that our imagination is in fact highly constrained, which may be counter-intuitive to many people.

I agree. Some people naively assert that human imagination is unbounded. There is a whole unknown world of the unknowable out there.

Some naively think that even though humans in their current evolutionary configuration are mentally constrained, future evolution may allow unbounded mental ability. It might actually be the case that brain capacity has nearly reached its evolutionary limit. Maybe not, but there is some evidence for my position here. It is well known that many of history's greatest geniuses were mentally unstable or had severe problems in social relationships.

Rick could you post some of the evidence? I am keen to read up more about this subject. I recall reading (will get references) that recent experiments performed with positron emision tomography has proved that the human brain has no underused areas which debunks the old Dale Carnegie school of thought.

!

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth

http://www.brainboomer.com/2007/01/23/the-...ent-brain-myth/

Here's a simple example of the unknowable all around us:

Andy was born with his brain wired backward with regard to red-green color perception. When he looks at the grass, he sees what normal people see when they look at blood, and vice versa. Beatrice suspects this might be the case, but she has no way to know it. It's an example of the unknowable. Further, she can't even ask Andy if it's true, because language has no way to communicate color qualia (as opposed to words for color).

Here's another example of the unknowable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle)

If it's not in one of Aristotle's categories, we can't know it or talk about it. Kant revised (slightly) the categories in his philosophy, but essentially, the limitation remains.

Excellent links

Particularly liked this

"The origins of the myth are not at all clear. Beyerstein, of the Brain Behaviour Laboratory at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, has traced it back to at least the early part of the century. A 1998 column in New Scientist magazine also suggested various roots, including Albert Einstein and Dale Carnegie ("Brain Drain"). It likely has a number of sources, principally misunderstood or misinterpreted legitimate scientific findings as well as self-help gurus.

The most powerful lure of the myth is probably the idea that we might develop psychic abilities, or at least gain a leg up on the competition by improving our memory or concentration. All this is available for the asking, the ads say, if we just tapped into our most incredible of organs, the brain. It is past time to put this myth to rest, although if it has survived at least a century so far, it will surely live on into the new millennium. Perhaps the best way to combat this chestnut is to reply to the speaker, when the myth is mentioned, "Oh? What part don't you use?"


C u l t u r e

The meme carrier will probably reply that the unused portion is distributed evenly through the brain.

Nature is efficient, so the idea that people would have these big heads making childbirth difficult and using lots of energy while not using 90% of their brains is counter-intuitive.

While it is not clear that it is possible to evolve further regarding intelligence, it certainly seems possible for retrograde evolution. It's not even clear that consciousness is demonstrably useful to evolution's future.

For those who are really interested in spatially visualising 4d have a look at “The Möbius Strip” by Clifford Pickover.
It is a wonderful read and helped me understand this concept far better, which I am still busy running through the mill. It also made me develop a few more questions.

The inevitable questions..does “intelligence” have anything to do with all of this? Does it “emerge” by way of some unseen interaction in the 4th dimension. Is this why despite the hundreds of thousands of hu-man-hours spent pondering this problem, we have not been able to truly emulate a high form of intelligence? Does it mean that because of this extra-dimensional dependency, we will never be able to grasp the real mechanism?

is there a way to know how this starts????

how what starts?

Who says people can't visualize 5 dimensions? (4Ds and 1T)

Knowing the typical reaction of the average human mutton head to strange things coupled with the inability to describe this to someone who only sees 4 dimensions (3Ds and 1 T), would you really claim to have this ability if you really had it?

What purpose would it serve unless you could teach it to someone?

Just enjoy it if you can't share it.

just about everyone says they can't visualize in 4 spatial dimensions, and those who say otherwise have yet to present proof. What sort of proof? Well, it would be straightforward to derive tests that require mental visualization in 4D in order to solve. To my knowledge, no-one has ever demonstrated the ability to mentally visualize in 4 spatial dimensions. Hence, no-one can visualize in 4 spatial dimensions, and this seems to be a general limitation of the human mind. The question is, why does this limitation exist?

Ahh...OK

I would say that it is a self-imposed limitation brought on and reinforced by your environment.

eg: The same goofy reason the moon looks bigger to people as it nears the horizon, when in fact its size has not changed at all.

The big hurdle would be the fact that what we percieve as "real" occurs in 4 dimenions. (3 spaces and 1 time).

Going the extra mile to get 4Ds and 1T would require internal imaging, as our eyeballs just don't work in 4Ds.

Having said that, it is actually quite easy to "pretend" to get an actual moving 4D object quite clearly inside your head when you take the right approach. Wether or not this "pretend" object is a reasonable facsimile of what a "real" 4space object would look like, if you had a 4space eyeball and 4space lightsource, is not provable by any method I know of.

Some obsevartions
1) How well can you visualize something in your head? Try Win Enger's Image Streaming technique to reinforce the clarity of this object if you think you have room for improvement.
2) Play some 4D spatial games, there are some online. If you keep playing them, you get better at them, even if it seems to take an insane amount of effort to get something like a 4 space ball into a 4space hole, were as the same 3 space ball into a 3space hole takes 2 seconds of your concentration.
3) Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours. Saying it's impossible to visualize something in 4 dimensions doesn't help your case any.

Also,
I do not claim to be able to visualize 4 space objects.