Religion = Early computer (aka, non-primary forms of thought, etc.)

[kavaris]

Religion = Egyptian language = Early computer (What a computer really is?)
We preface w/ a story. In the early onset of the Chinese culture and writing system, the king of that early Chinese dynasty would ask \*questions, and he would have the royal aide, chamberlain or king's scholars write out the kings requests~What they thought his questions were onto fossils or bones (within a crude form of early Chinese) and then they would then \*burn the fossil, which would lead to these \*cracks in the bone, ultimately leading to "Oracle bone script", or what consider a kind of "Bone divination", as they would then interpret these cracks as being "nature's answer" (or an answer from either the primordials or an exalted form of the King's spirit, of which they assoc. w/ nature and other things like this).

This is similar to the Egyptian's use of language. That is, they were using early forms of pictures (hieroglyphs) to mimic what they had/were experiencing in nature. Then they would perform a kind of \*Pictographic divination through the interaction w/ nature and writing out what the sequences would be, and over time their beliefs (\*believing in (verb) aka \*predicting in) changed and evolved, and were subsequently subsumed by these early pictographic letters or what we sometimes think of as a *stream-of-consciousness* language.

Thats not to say then that there wasnt critical thinking involved. But anyway, at this point for the Egyptians, it was no longer based on "nature informing them and their beliefs/language", so much that it had become a kind of \*interactive divination, where theyd then take it one step further to try to \*predict what was happening in nature and around them, referencing early pictographs~or simply, "communicating through language" (albeit, they wouldnt have had fancy kinds of words to describe what they were doing, but thats what they were doing).

This is whats called a "belief", however its an *advanced form* of it (today we call it a "program", though some people who are a little behind are still thinking of it as a religion). That is something that has both "input" and "output" is a belief/religion. Think of an **Abacus**: You have the beads (memory), and a user moves the beads (processing/input), then you have the visual count/content (output). Thats a computer. Thats a belief. Its a *system* that you use to evoke (or invoke) output to the screen (to your senses) only to *feed back into the system* your own input.

Its also called a language. Language underlies belief. It underlies religion, and god, and all things holy on earth. Are there more things that underlie this whole programming thing? Absolutely. We havent even gotten started, put it that way.

To be cont.

p.s. the title of this meant to be "Egyptian language (and what a computer really is)" but it got caught up in a bunch of exp., and it came out like that

Edited Wednesday at 07:37 PM by kavaris

[thierry]

.

I think that throughout history, what humans have always feared most is the truth that we have little to no control. We fear powerlessness, even though in reality our control is very limited. Humans want to feel that they have some control and an understanding of what’s happening.

 

 

[kavaris]

23 minutes ago, thierry said:

Humans want to feel that they have some control and an understanding of what’s happening.

I guess 'control' is a funny one. When we interact with words we are also willingly investing/investigating into the meaning of the words spoken or received. What *control could (and may) mean takes on differing shapes+meanings. Like i would try to propose what it means, but we are also giving examples of what we are experiencing all the time, and in giving an example, i dont actually know what to make of it. "Fear" on the other hand is very poignant. Like, i try to get people to investigate romance languages, Greek, Latin, Italian, etc., because the way we use English is suppose to be like "using words to make distinctions" but when you start looking at something like Italian, like Greek, you realize they are using words in a totally different way. They are trying to "point to the essence/idea of something", which is different from just describing what something is... So in that way, "Fear" occupies a poignant spectrum or perspective they we've all been acclimated to in some respect, like... p.s. Im sure theres more to say but ill stop ther

Edited Wednesday at 06:25 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Post scriptum ~ None of us have the same Idea when channeling or communicating God
---------------------
We keep trying to point to \*The Inexorable One, but the Inexorable one is *he (\*it) who pervades all human thought. Like humankind are the "right hand" of a **left handed being**, ergo the left handed one is only *one* if you include humankind within it. So in including humankind, we mine as well talk as if its humankind first and foremost. That doesnt mean you cant (or shouldnt) evoke the presence of god(s) or religion in a way that makes sense. But we bring to the forefront so much the existence of religion-esque and God-esque, and it straddles what we're really even able to say, Like, i cant speak on what Gods thinking. Like if this was a chain of command and God was at the top of the chain, i would say, "Hes fine", right. Like, what do you want to know besides that? My point to this is, we are trying to get to the bottom of what "self" is, but that doesnt mean to imply that there isnt like an All Pervading Soul to all of this, its just that that (\*it) at the top of a chain of command thats like, i mean, you have to be some sortve angelic being to see into what thats all about or something, or you have to be communicating to the plants, like The Secret Life of Plants, and creating this whole persona around plants and describing the Universe in terms of "how on earth you can take (A) *a piece of our language,* and associate it w/ (B, \*it) to describe (B, \*it)" Like some sortve abstract yet, incomprehensible way to link together nature and all these things...

And in looking at it like this, we can then sortve mute that whole religion connotation to get to what im trying to say here, which is that: We are on a journey thats like, stunted by seeing God(s) as the utmost important part, and when there isnt any gods or goddess, atleast, not in the way we usually think of them, it leads to the next obvious chapter in our current story. In any case, we're learning (now) about how to think of these things.

Now~or more soon than later~we'll be learning Not to be "thinking/interpreting them as powerful humans" ~Not that anyone was doing that explicitly... however, WE automatically apply FORM to a God(s), but virtue of not having a form to apply it to (if that makes sense). Afterwards, once we have gotten things straight to each other~Once we've shed ourselves of the numerous descriptions and versions on what god or religion is, we can then go on to tell each other (in a more agnostic and neutral way) how, *"I feel the light of Muhammad coursing through my veins. Or Jesus is here w/ me"*. Like we can use these things as a way to demonstrate what we mean when we say things, if we can, and then, we'll better describe  "what it is we mean" when we even talk about God. Cause none of us have the same idea about God. So we need a way to better describe to each other what it means. Thats all iwa tryin to say.

*P.s. Of course, theres something else i was thinking of~And when i remember it i might add it here, or post it later.

Edited Wednesday at 07:38 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

New word idea

In my ritualistic way of going way off topic in my own thread, i have this question (posited to everyone) regarding what to call this thing that lives underneath a word akin to say *morality (or words that denote something familiar, similar to), but a word or synonym that blends between this morality word, and survival (a kindve word that feels like its a survivalish word) in a seemless/confusing way. Of course, how can that makes sense is the question you might have in response. I dont care if it makes sense or not, i just want a word for it: That is, its a thing you might consider oscillating towards~wat we could say is surreal source point, but it leads out from [insert morality word] point. Im gonna invent a word if no one else has a word for it, and then that way, we got a cool word to use on this rare occasion. Im thinking like, -istomi (the link to ~), which has an Uzbeky/Sciency flavor to it, cause its entering into a realm that on the surface seems like its pointing towards a familiar place, but it feels foreign in the moment. Uzbekistans pretty far from where i live, but iuno bout yous. Maybe thats the headquarters for actualized dot org, who knows. Well never know. Im being funny. but anyway, you could use this word maybe even as a way to describe a bridge or link between, like "its the istomi between X and Y" is the idea.

Edited Wednesday at 11:06 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

This is another thing we wont be able to fully describe until we make that \*God swap in our head (that is, until its more aligned w/ that sequence in the liminal threshold of \*being, then other things)

Also this idea isnt authentically mine, so yous can try to find who phrased it like this originally.

"We \*identify w/ the Broadcast and Not the Signal" (its important to separate those two, otherwise we are saying that we ARE the signal, but the signal is NOT the broadcast)
Even in dream, where we are like pure imagination, we are identifying w/ the broadcast. We take the shape of all things, concurrently (or, we do this in some dreams~And some dreams we are just one thing the whole time, like this one, or so it appears to be).
The moment you try describing this, it starts giving people different ideas about what the signal is, as its only the broadcast part being defined (weve made that clear). It makes total sense when you go to sleep and realize it, though it sounds erroneous to try describing the signal part, given the clarity of the broadcast part.
In order to describe things like God, the signal, the light, etc.,  we ALSO need a new way to think about it (hence the rest of this thread which turned into this like, protest of sorts to get everyone thinkin diff about \*it), as God could imply infinite potential, or it could mean "the source, the beginning" or both, or neither. Its a long story, but itll essentially help us in defining the signal part, as well as all these things we consider Divine X or Y

Edited yesterday at 09:31 AM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Like in other words, even just knowing how something is gonna be difficult to define, is itself very helpful to ppl in defining  As it sortve gives every1 now an idea of whats gonna be our weakest strength in the whole rigamarol