A eventual theory of everything?

I have created a thory that possibily gives answers to some philosophical questions. I hope you enjoy reading my theory at:
I would be glad if you give any opinion on my theory.
Thank you.
Note: The images on my website may not diplay properly. Consider refreshing a page more than once. Thank you.

Yor web page doesn’t work for me. I tried clicking on the place it says “Chapter One Click Here,” and I got nowhere. Just thought I’d let you know.

yeah didn’t work for me either. Looks pretty big though so if you finally do get it working might want to pop it in Essays and Theses.

It should work now. Does it?
I have removed all the scripts and relied only on html stuff.
Check it out now.
Thanks for information.

It does work now.

Why did you choose the word Koz? Is this a word of your own creation or something that you heard and so learned elsewhere?

I don’t quite understand what you mean by saying that Koz is something that can be seen especially in modrn art. Is Koz the impulse for change that drove Jackson Pollack forward into his “drip” discovery, or was it that something within Cezanne, or Monet that propelled them into their individual styles, and so made them famous posthumously?

“Black Mantana” to me is the stage which occurs when clarity fades, and we become embroiled in our lack of perspective, and our ineffiecient ability to seperate cause and effect, object from subject, no longer offers the strength of mind to navigate our way through the complications of our understanding, either because we don’t posses the ideas or becasue our available language and our perception of it does not surpass the largess of the question being asked. We are being dwarfed by our ignorance so to speak. Thats the point you sit down and search. Maybe you find a book. Maybe you find the answer floating in the chaos of your mind, and you realize that the problem was not that you didn’t possess the answer, but that traffic in your mind was obscuring what was within your reach. once calm takes hold, and diection and clarity reassert you can then agian move forward with your line of thought. I like your writing. I’ve only read the first chapter so… I’ll have to get back to the rest of it later.

Thanks for this extensive reply. This aspect (black mantana), as you have said, is just the critical moment of a human mind that is flooded by all this information. And koz is just a force that “makes” all this mess. Koz can be split to bangra and tanga (see next chapters).

Oh, the names I have invented myself. There is no connection or relation to other resources (concepts, books, movies).

Thank again, concordant, for your opinion.

Oh, in contrast to black mantana, there is an aspect that I call hitra (see Chapter 6). Hitra means, in brief, filtering the mess which is produced by koz (=bangra+tanga).

Maybe I should explain the origin of my theory.

For all my past existance I have been searching for something special and unique. Maybe the very basic cause of it was that I was a bit schizophrenical in relation to my existence in the world. Maybe yes maybe no…

As I have explained in my theory (Chapter 2/3: mantana-theory.tripod.com/Chapter3.htm) I was afraid to become a mantanial remaining. I, for all this time, was bangranian. Becoming a mantanial remaining means to change to tanga and stay there for the rest of your life.

Source: Chapter 3
I thought to myself: Once I show my theory to other people and recieve opinions I will find myself in an active tanga:

Then, after some time I have to accept being a mantanial remaining, letting someone else to be in another active tanga. But at least, after all that, I shall get free from all this irritating bangra.

So, the words themselves, such as Koz, have no intrinsic value or actual meaning? They have no derivitations to other words of aesthetic sense to empower whosoever speaks of, writes down, or reads from?

I say of this as strange words seen in other religious text or philosophical musings tend to have a deeper meaning in which the reader can conceptualize as a basis of memorization and further understanding.

So…would not Koz presume to mean something as “center” or “begining” or something of the sort that would give the reader, writer, or speaker a level of authoritive power?

Mantana, you need strategy in your theory and in your presentation.

The only people I can picture putting forth the effort to try to understand it are either those who perceive themselves to be victims to the extent that they need a complex system of perception to escape the more painful everyday reality… or the other type is a person with ill intentions who would like to take advantage of some aspect of you or your theory.

You should join a martial art. I read the entire theory and went through the graphs so please excuse the negitively critical nature of this post.

This is an obvious question but could you talk about how this is different from other systems or ways like taoism or buddhism.

What distinguishes your theory from other new age theories which promote universal understanding besides asthetic differences?

Don’t be sorry for your criticism. I am satisfied with any opinion. Why do you concentrate your reply only on koz? Even I am not satisfied with this conception. What about the rest of my work (tanga, bangra, sandra). I have written the first chapter a long time ago, so it is actual, but “old”. The thing, that I think is the most interesting, is chapter 2,3,4,5 and 6 although chapter 1 consists of some nice thoughts.

Why do I think my theory is special? I do not think it’s special. Just take into consideration the fact that the theory was created only on base of my own observation and comprehension of the world. I even got from someone the book “Sofies Verden” and I didn’t manage to read it after all.

Thanks for your opinion. ANY other opinions are welcome.