Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us?

[James S Saint]

Actually I find this to be a difficult question to answer for two primary reasons.

On the brink of total annihilation, what constitutes "more freedom"? It would depend upon the exact timing and current situation more than anything. So it's a bit hard to tell. And what is freedom in such a case anyway?

And there is the issue of actual present affects versus theoretical possibilities. If people are simply too insane, nothing really works and again, how do you define freedom for them?

The drive behind ALL living impetus is the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT. Hedonism is the concern of pain and pleasure, which is PHT void of forethought. So again, given that people are basically insane, incapable of much forethought, hedonism is what is going to guide their behavior, like it or not.

What happens, and has happened on many occasions, is that in the midst of hedonism, a superior strategist plays hedonistic passions against each other such as to form a monarchy, known as Satanism. In such a world, there is constant competition and struggle for life. The system requires the constant presence of PHT on an obvious and conflicting level. There are wars, disease, and strife mixed with great wealth, health, and glory. So to what degree are people "free"? And which people?

But an even greater strategist can be born who also turns the hedonistic passions against each other, but toward a different end goal. That goal would be the instilling of "sight", "sanity", or "rationality" as an end product. After sanity is restored, the concerning portion of PHT isn't the mindless part reflected by hedonism, but the mindful part wherein passions are tempered with forethought and care. That forms a monotheism and a harmony of passions is the result which definitely leads to far more freedom than Satanism could ever achieve.

It is really a question of currently realistic, but insane disharmony or the possibility of future, unrevealed sane harmony.

..not an easy question for me to answer.

[Mithus]

This thread has nothing to do with pagans, heathens, christians, arabs..... just a linguistic maze by a german frustrated they lost the war in WW2, and wants everyone to walk around still legged with pointy hats hailing some great reich leader. Its rather lame. The heathens I know like metal music and Rammstein. They dont care about these silly riddles.

Never saw such a nonsense coming from you before, Contra-Nietzsche.
A few weeks ago you made a big fuss about leaving ILP. Now it seems as if this is the only place where you can get rid of your frustration.
(I've seen on KTS they call you "Contra-Diction". Good choice of words.)

[Arminius]

Contra-Nietzsche or Contra-Diction or whoever you are, please try to read the thread and try to notice that the topic of my thread is a QUESTION.

Quitting again, Contra-Diction?

This thread is no thread for frustrated warriors!

[Arminius]

So to what degree are people "free"? And which people?

People can merely be relatively free, as I said a number of times. Even the most powerful people are merely relatively free. However, there is a great difference between relative freedom of the most powerful people and relative freedom of the most powerless people.

[James S Saint]

So to what degree are people "free"? And which people?

People can merely be relatively free, as I said a number of times. Even the most powerful people are merely relatively free. However, there is a great difference between relative freedom of the most powerful people and relative freedom of the most powerless people.

All "freedom" is relative. But the question still remains, "How much of what kind of freedom and for whom?"

[James S Saint]

Something just occurred to me. Paganism is actually devolved philosophy and hedonism is the lack of philosophy.

Sorry, it was Volta, not Voltaire (been a while, grade school stuff for me).

A philosopher is required to figure out what is to be figured out. In Votla's case, it was an issue of measuring the strength of specific movement that seemed relevant. Thus he had to metaphysically define a unit of measure, the "volt" without any scientist trying to tell him what it was.

Scientists then try to figure out if he was observably false.

The same situation with Ohm and Lorentz (his aether theory).

They were the philosophers who began the thing you now call science. It was a philosopher who stated Nullius in Verba. The prior name for "Science" was "Natural philosophy".

Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics.[1][2]

It helps to be a philosopher (preferably an ontologist) if you are trying to figure out what a philosopher actual does and what science actually is. Scientists are technicians, nothing more. Although today's "scientists" are more like monks working for the Secular Church.

Philosophy is about reasoning, Logic, Mathematics, understanding (ontologies), and epistemology (defining words). Philosophers have created all religions, sciences, and governing methodologies. Unfortunately there is an insidious lot as well as an altruistic lot, some as serpents and some tasked to catch the snakes in a pit. Everything involved in societies, both good and bad, has been derived from philosophers.

Religion is merely metaphysical philosophy being applied to sociology.
Science is merely one particular philosophy being applied as the art of observational confirmation.

When a society is being coerced into change, hedonism is promoted as it helps hide the subtle trickery.

[Arminius]

Something just occurred to me. Paganism is actually devolved philosophy and hedonism is the lack of philosophy.

Why should paganism actually be "devolved philosophy"?

[James S Saint]

Something just occurred to me. Paganism is actually devolved philosophy and hedonism is the lack of philosophy.

Why should paganism actually be "devolved philosophy"?

Yeah, at the top of philosophy, everything is understood and there is but one God and thus a monotheism. At the bottom, there are no gods, hedonism (merely pain and pleasure void of reasons or reasoning). So between the two, there is paganism wherein a little thought is proposed concerning cause and effect. Paganism (or Heathenism) proposes that one person or entity can cause "magical effects" upon others. Whatever is responsible for the magical relationship is called "a god", so there are many "gods" or "causal agencies".

Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are "devolving" into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).

[Arminius]

Are you sure that "monotheism ... is decaying"? And if yes: why are you sure that "monotheism ... is decaying"?

[phoneutria]

Why is it that nobody seems to know what hedonism is? I have been getting ticked at the word being thrown as it is.

[Arminius]

Hedonism and monotheism. Okay. And what is your "real statement"?

[Arminius]

Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are "devolving" into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).

Hedonism has been existing for a long time, and when it "will lead into pur hedonism", as you said, will that be the "black hole" as a social metaphor, the "singularity" because of the most extreme individualism?

- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481828
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481830
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481834
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481840
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481843
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481846
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481848
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481850
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481857
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481867#p2481867

[James S Saint]

Since the Monotheism has already arisen and now is decaying, thoughts are "devolving" into a prior state of paganism. And as it continues, will lead into pure hedonism (just before being completely whipped out).

Hedonism has been existing for a long time, and when it "will lead into pur hedonism", as you said, will that be the "black hole" as a social metaphor, the "singularity" because of the most extreme individualism?

- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481828
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481830
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481834
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481840
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481843
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481846
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481848
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481850
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481850#p2481857
- viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2481867#p2481867

No. That would be the opposite, "an ambient field of chaotic affectance", soon to automatically particlize. And create the nastiest form of dictatorial rule ever imagined. One creates a dictatorial regime, by trying to annihilate it.
"What doesn't kill it, makes it stronger."

[Arminius]

According to the current physicists the pre-condition of forming a "black hole" is the mass of a stellar object (mostly a star with more than 3.2 masses of our sun [cp. the so called "Oppenheimer-Volkoff-Limit"]) which later becomes this "black hole". But what is the pre-condition according to your RM:AO?

[James S Saint]

According to the current physicists the pre-condition of forming a "black hole" is the mass of a stellar object (mostly a star with more than 3.2 masses of our sun [cp. the so called "Oppenheimer-Volkoff-Limit"]) which later becomes this "black hole". But what is the pre-condition according to your RM:AO?

All it takes (as the physicist are aware) is an increase in affectance density ("energy density") over a larger physical space than a particle could sustain.

That is why they suspect that it might dissipate. As a particle, it would have to shrink. But what they don't show the understanding of, is that the new "super-particle" would automatically begin absorbing "mass" from the space itself, something that they cannot detect or currently imagine it seems (although Krauss has indicated some understanding in that regard).

What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain. Once it is formed, if it is not seriously isolated from any mass field (as in far, far into the inter-galactic space) it stands a good chance of never stopping from absorbing energy endlessly.

[Arminius]

All it takes (as the physicist are aware) is an increase in affectance density ("energy density") over a larger physical space than a particle could sustain.

That is why they suspect that it might dissipate. As a particle, it would have to shrink. But what they don't show the understanding of, is that the new "super-particle" would automatically begin absorbing "mass" from the space itself, something that they cannot detect or currently imagine it seems (although Krauss has indicated some understanding in that regard).

What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain. Once it is formed, if it is not seriously isolated from any mass field (as in far, far into the inter-galactic space) it stands a good chance of never stopping from absorbing energy endlessly.

When I say "according to the current physicists“, you don't accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term "according to the current physicists". I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don't they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be "wrong"? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a "black hole", you say: "What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain". Who is right?

[James S Saint]

When I say "according to the current physicists“, you don't accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term "according to the current physicists". I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don't they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be "wrong"? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a "black hole", you say: "What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain". Who is right?

"Who is Right" has become a critically important question, even more important than "What is right". I have found that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream. And that is why Science was founded on "Nullius in Verba", "take no one's word". And that is also why I created RM, so that individuals, without billions of dollars of equipment and education can find out for themselves what is principally true.

When it comes to the principles of the universe, anyone who can logically deduce, can know what must be true, without being told by mainstream anything.

[Arminius]

When I say "according to the current physicists“, you don't accept that, do you? Not seldom you seem to overread the term "according to the current physicists". I mean the statements of the current physicists, although they are mainstream physicists, „exist“, don't they? This mainstream physicists say that the gravity is probably the most important force, you say that affectance or electromagnetic force is most important. Why should they always be "wrong"? They say a mass of 3.2 masses of our sun are needed for forming a "black hole", you say: "What it takes to cause a black hole is not a huge star, but rather merely a high concentration of energy into a small space, larger than a monoparticle could sustain". Who is right?

"Who is Right" has become a critically important question, even more important than "What is right". I have found that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream. And that is why Science was founded on "Nullius in Verba", "take no one's word". And that is also why I created RM, so that individuals, without billions of dollars of equipment and education can find out for themselves what is principally true.

When it comes to the principles of the universe, anyone who can logically deduce, can know what must be true, without being told by mainstream anything.

I also have found (for a very long time, b.t.w.) that there is a large gap between truth and mainstream, and I am interested in what you have created.

[Arminius]

Which religion or religious confession would or should be appropriate for your sam corporations, James?

[James S Saint]

Which religion or religious confession would or should be appropriate for your sam corporations, James?

SAM doesn't care. SAM allows for and expects learning. In the long run, Reality is what it is and will be leading the way. Although more altruistic people would be far more comfortable learning to be intimately honest.

[Arminius]

"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communical particle" remains very low.

[James S Saint]

"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communal particle" remains very low.

True. It cannot grow large and still be a SAM corporation, communal particle.

To get a large gathering, one must have very many relatively independent SAM corps. who network together for trade. This constitutes a "molecule of particles" that grows into the body of Man.

[Arminius]

"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communal particle" remains very low.

True. It cannot grow large and still be a SAM corporation, communal particle.

To get a large gathering, one must have very many relatively independent SAM corps. who network together for trade. This constitutes a "molecule of particles" that grows into the body of Man.

The biggest challenge is the self-containedness, the sufficiency, the autarchy (autarky).

[James S Saint]

"SAM" works only when the number of population of the "communal particle" remains very low.

True. It cannot grow large and still be a SAM corporation, communal particle.

To get a large gathering, one must have very many relatively independent SAM corps. who network together for trade. This constitutes a "molecule of particles" that grows into the body of Man.

The biggest challenge is the self-containedness, the sufficiency, the autarchy (autarky).

With proper use of technology, that isn't the issue that it used to be.

Actually the Greeks with their "city-states" and Moses with his regional Pharisees, had the right general idea, but lacked precision and required too many people. Technology resolved both of those concerns and allows for the freedom of the city-state method by using extremely small "cities", SAM Corporations.

Jesus had everything right but didn't mention the issue of momentum (too much quite peace void of the necessary momentous harmony). The Catholics then compounded that concern by trying to establish single a world order, the "Holy Roman Empire" - went the wrong direction, just as the Globzis of today.

Man keeps trying to bring it ALL under one rule, not understanding that the only "supreme ruler" has to be Reality itself and that requires what we call "localized democracy and culture".

[Arminius]

With proper use of technology, that isn't the issue that it used to be.

Actually the Greeks with their "city-states" and Moses with his regional Pharisees, had the right general idea, but lacked precision and required too many people. Technology resolved both of those concerns and allows for the freedom of the city-state method by using extremely small "cities", SAM Corporations.

Jesus had everything right but didn't mention the issue of momentum (too much quite peace void of the necessary momentous harmony). The Catholics then compounded that concern by trying to establish single a world order, the "Holy Roman Empire" - went the wrong direction, just as the Globzis of today.

Man keeps trying to bring it ALL under one rule, not understanding that the only "supreme ruler" has to be Reality itself and that requires what we call "localized democracy and culture".

The rulers (Glozis) can forbid the access to the technology!