Adjunct to Philosophy

Philosophy is the branch of human knowledge that deals with boundaries through definition.  A good philosophical debate is one that is had with basic questions of being and just paradigms.  What version of the universe sounds correct essentially.

Basic questions in philosophy include questions about the cosmic paradigm about what is fair and just.  This is where religion and atheism clash the most.

A just question would be such as this: is reincarnation just and fair?  So then a debate would be had about this idea.

I'm going to list a few more fundamental questions, but keep in mind all of these questions have an ultimate answer that is right.  That is the quest of the philosopher, to find the answer for everyone and to present it to them.  Proof is in the argument, because some things don't require evidence to be proven, only a perfect argument.

Is the afterlife real?
Do we come from somewhere before we are born?
Do we reincarnate, and if so, where?
What is the nature of the afterlife and why should we care?
Are there divine beings in higher dimensions?
Are there any higher dimensions?
Should anyone even ask any of these questions openly?
Is it safe to be philosophical?
Should we have open inquiry or closed inquiry?
Should anyone be allowed to be philosophical?
Is philosophy dangerous to a sound mind and able disposition?
When should someone be allowed to study philosophy?
Who should make the decision (any decision really)?

As you can see philosophy can lead you to some pretty dangerous places.  These are just a few of the thousands if not millions of questions that make up the bulk of what we call philosophical reasoning.  Every one of these questions has an answer that requires no per-conception to know (that's when you are born knowing the answers).  You can reason your way through anything really.  But we must always be aware that philosophy has it's time and it's place and again I generally feel no one under 50 should get terribly philosophical much less metaphysical.   This world takes precedent over whimsical musings even if they happen to be right on.

Astrology: The Analysis of Energy

You are a vibration.
Vibration is acted on by cosmic vibration through cosmic force.
When acted upon by force vibration evolves.
That is the essence of Astrology. 

There are many metaphysical subjects which are highly questionable when taken too seriously.  Astrology is the least so because it has the most physical in nature of the metaphysical topics.  I don't, in fact, really consider astrology a metaphysical topic at all in fact.  The reasons for this are relatively easy to explain.

When anyone or thing is born the planets, Sun, and Moon are aligned in a very precise way that is determined by a data reading from a chart called an ephemeris.  This physical reality is recorded by the thousands of years old tradition of keeping track where celestial objects are related to the constellations which are the background.

The constellations are the signs of the zodiac, a 360 degree wheel where the planets move around the Sun as they orbit it.  There are 12 signs associated with certain particular themes of existence based on basic psychological numerology.  In this respect, because it is rooted in basic philosophy and advanced psychology, the arguments for astrology are sound.

Beyond this there is a physical understanding of astrology.  Everything is a vibration down to its mathematical certainty in creation.  Behind the mathematics are the physical structures which surround us at all times, the magnetic fields of the Earth, and the larger and very vast magnetic field of the Sun.  These two structures are constantly under the influence of each other.  In addition the planets are moving through the Sun's field creating waves in it that are no doubt detected by Earth's magnetic field because of the huge size of these structures. 

This is a pattern that is force and energy in combination to produce vibration upon you, another vibration.  That is the physical explanation as to why astrology works.  However the interpretation of astrology is a matter that is actually entirely debatable for the nature of the field transformation effects of the planets, Sun, and Moon are subject to considerable debate among astrologers.  Most astrologers are either too positive or too negative in their interpretations.

What we are most looking for in astrology is the timing of energetics, the proper use of energy at particular times that are least resisted by collective pressures from society and the world.  This is what the primary branch of astrology works with when we talk of transits.  Transits are caused by the change in position of the planets relative to the time you were born.  There are specific energetic triggers caused by geometric alignment that lead to resistance being born especially of sensitive individuals to the shift in position of the systems of cosmic alignment, which are the planets, Sun, and Moon again.

Astrology allows one to analyze the energy of a particular person or situation and guesstimate an outcome based upon the energetics of the person, the place, and the celestial objects.  The predictability is high for simple situations and correspondingly lower for complex ones, but the feeling is always the same for those experiencing the situations described by transit astrology.  A second form of astrology exists called the progressed school of astrology.  This one looks at the internal dynamics a person's soul development as a human.  There are additional ways of looking at astrology including vedic, solar return chart, and several other commonly used methods.

What a person needs to know is that astrology gives them information about the best time to do things and the best time to sit back and reserve their energy until a better time.  In addition the challenges of life can be prepared for better with astrology as the timing of events are more often then not linked to the emergent property of the astrological situation.  This emergent property appears magical but is rooted in basic mathematical synchronicity.  Relationship dynamics are similarly governed by another mathematically structured system called synastry.  All of this is governed indirectly by the symmetry of coincidence, the mathematical principle behind unexpected events.  Thus there is a structure and order to the completion of projects that allows for the flow of energy in accordance to the astrological timing.

How important is this?  It depends on what you want to get done.  I view the matter as a question of divine timing built into the charts specifically to give credence to the power of those things which are greater than ourselves.  Such a reason and logic is a subtlety, something which bespeaks of a sensitive and receptive character.  Such people can make the most out of astrology and energetic alignment concepts.  People who are more bullish don't have use for astrology, but they run the risk of challenging a will greater than their own in society most often that represents the power of the Sun, Moon, and planets are representatives of cosmic order.  Rebels are great till they blow up the grain silo.

This sort of reasoning was never going to have universal appeal in this day and age.  But, as we recognize our place in the universe as being sentient and least in importance compared with the bigger picture represented by the celestial objects (really we should call them beings) we take into account the true measure of our humanity.  For such a delicate and receptive age to come into being would go far to advancing the cause of consciousness on this Earth.  Indeed it is my opinion that Aquarius is the true sign of astrology and as we enter into the Aquarian Age more fully astrology will probably be the only school of thought in the metaphysical arena that will be much tolerated by the atheist majority.  As such it can expected to have a strong influence on many societies as we move forwards in time.  

Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Politics

What is what and where, how, and when does it go?  These are the questions of science and metaphysics.  Philosophy asks why does it go?  Psychology asks is it all in your head?  And there is the ground for the Great Debate between four (technically psychology is a subset of the three) schools of thought on the nature of reality.

What we know so far from the New Science is that the universe is made of electrons of all the same size and mass which expand at a certain rate determined somehow, most likely through fourth dimensional etheric density changes in my version of the New Science.  None the less, what follows from that is the paradigm of reality that the majority will study in the future of science itself.

There will still be a massive debate with the old quantum school of thought called Standard Theory.  I personally have no interest right this second in personally debating anyone as my level of trust in my fellow humans is a bit dim at the moment and I'm not interested in being personal attacked for being right.  Some other people I know are in a similar dilemma about psychology and that part of the Truth.

Still the questions remain and there will be those who have the time necessary to attempt to solve the unanswered questions that the theories suggested pose.  My metaphysical writings have been removed from this website except for what was left in the philosophy of knowledge essay though that is mostly philosophy and defining boundaries between things which is the primary purpose one should study philosophy.

I will add a few thoughts in this essay about science now because I want to primarily.  I believe electrons are created and destroyed under certain conditions.  I believe that parallel dimensions (not the time traveling or multiple versions of the same universe ones) exist in some capacity but I'm not sure if they exist on the same infinity physical plain or are co-axial through the 4th dimension existing in different nodes within that dimension.  Not that it matters that much for the ultimate question of why does any of it matter?

Much of my metaphysical work attempted to answer that last question by saying the cosmos is a giant infinite grab bag of stuff where beings get more and more and more over time through the work they do in their lives but everything is more or less programmed into the system dependent on the consciousness to wake up and do what it needs to do to fulfill the promise of eternal life in the living moment of their existing one.  If it sounds tough, it is a bit.  You can't both stare into infinity and live on the ground floor for too long without infinity getting to becoming a problem.

At the same time knowing of the infinite is a self provable philosophical series of reasoning that says your stuck with the infinite stuff but more importantly the people who are there sharing (what's that word mean says the vast majority) eternity with you.  These people are here to stay no matter what their condition in this life.  The eternal connection exists but outside of their consciousness because of the condition of their lives.

With the idea of eternal infinite connection, gridwork as it should be called, comes the idea that we should be doing good to each other because that connection exists everywhere and in everyone.  The catch is that we have a right to withdraw if we are unacknowledged.  Rejection exists to prove the right of assertion and the right of me or you.  The boundary is based on the problem of full knowledge.

Full knowledge is the idea that one must truly fully recognize another person before the gates to a real relationship can be created.  This applies interestingly enough to the contents of science, metaphysics, and philosophy.  Treat your teachers with kindness or watch all the content disappear and you are the one now who must create you own gridmap through science, metaphysics, and philosophy.  I did it.  I've left probably 50% of my original essays up especially the science ones.  The rest are gone due to lack of support and attacks.  I did alot of work to get where I am in my understanding of the universe.  The response to free content is not to attack the one giving it.  And so it is gone.

The questions still remain.  But those subtle enough to pursue the great answers again will have to realize that there is a game that unfortunately trumps free inquiry.  That game is politics.

I will not go further into that information as it is simply too dangerous to actually explain how politics works with people in its psychology but I will describe a bit on how it works in general.  Simply put, with politics, the devil is in the details.  It is because of politics that the personal becomes the political.  Truth is attacked!  Why, you might ask?  Because politics is about keeping the balance of power and maintaining privilege over the all important access to resources such as free information.  Formalists run this world, even if they are not so great at protocol, logic, or law.  But they do know one thing much better than the majority, that is how to silence dissenting voices efficiently using force, manipulation, and countervailing opinion.

Can we see past that pattern of relating?  This is the great question of consciousness.  Will we become consciousness enough of the game to stop it before science, philosophy, and metaphysics are gone?  And the game doesn't stop there we could lose art, music, and journalism too for all three of these are ideally representing science (journalism), art (metaphyiscs), and music (philosophy).  The game could also get rid of mathematics.  Where nothing is sacred, nothing is safe.

Will we live in a world where free inquiry exists?  More importantly will we live in a world where people can exist free from the threats of global warming, nuclear proliferation, nuclear reactors, and thought police?  Can a consensus be built without the later?  Increasingly the answer seems to be no.  Everyone must have their thought police because the stakes are everything.

This is where we stand.  Universalism is a doctrine that is created out of the fusion of globalism and multiculturalism in all its variants.  Yet without a final judgement on the question about what about the rest of everyone that doesn't agree, it represents just another version of the endlessly reemerging political beast in another form.  For this to work there must be no separation between anyone and anyone else.  We are all each other.  There is no middle ground.

Time is against universalism as it has too few adherents for right now.  The opposite schools of thought are anti-universalist.  Nationalism in all its forms is an example.  But so to is parochialism, tribalism, racism, classicism, and various sundry religious and ideological groups,   The battle is between division and unification and division is winning.  No amount of dividing will result in a unification.  Yet to get to unification requires philosophy and a tiny bit of metaphysics added for clarity.

Science is held up by politics, and metaphysics and philosophy are held up by the lack of interest in refined explanations of being caused by real life on Earth.  Hunger is the great adversary of meaningful conversation.  Today it seems as through cell phones are the new great adversary.   None the less, this is as far as we've gotten with the problem of everything as it stands.

Tomorrows debates may be my own, but everyone will need to find out what it is that they are going to do to save themselves and the planet.  That's really what it all comes down to.  The planet must be saved.  The people must learn to save themselves.  Will anyone give a shit enough for the real processes to start or is everything just too damn complicated now?  The time to start doing this work was 20 years ago when it was going to be easy.   Procrastination further pushes us towards the planetary end game, the end of the human species itself.  We are getting close to the end.

Humanity does not have any time left to talk about timetables.  Action is the only thing that matters now.  We've been through the bullshit plan stage of the science of climate change.  It's a delay tactic to prevent action so someone can milk it into a paper asset creating device.  Is that the future of the Green Front?  I think not.  What sort of weirdness is this?  How does anyone of those people who signed onto another version of "money making" schemes sleep at night?  No conscience, no problem?  Apparently no one confronts the current environmental "leadership" with their failures.  We don't have time for this crap anymore.  The first thing serious people should do is clean up the left.  The right has no clue though they'll have to understand eventually.

That's the science of it funnily enough.  The science of political art if you will.  Let's just paint them off the canvas.  Get rid of the old leadership, they suck.  Been holding that in for awhile.  The results of a clean house will be great.  What we should do is simply keep firing leaders if they don't take action within a timeframe.  I'm an unreasonable man about this I'd just do all the actions myself without bothering to fire them and then send them a memo or something if they wanted me to advice them.  No what everyone needs to do is basically set a one week action timetable and just do it (and if no action in one week fire the whoever it is).  And once they have done it, keep doing it.  Do that till the world is on renewable energy, the nuclear stuff is all gone in the best way possible, the Amazon is a protected parkland in its entirety with full native rights guaranteed by an effective UN (or even the US can do it), and no fossil fuels are used ever again.  In addition we have to technologically revert the CO2 in the atmosphere back to something reasonable I've suggest 375 ppm, others have suggested 350 ppm.  Whatever works from those two options.

So that's an action oriented do it now anti-plan.  It's easy, you just keep firing the jerks in charge until you get non-jerk who do things.  You can tell their good because they do things and get things done.  There are no excuses.  You don't wait till the next election, you get your collective voice together and say now, now, now.  And after you are done saying now, you say now again.  And after they attack you, you keep saying now.  And after they deny you, you keep saying now.  Together say now.  Together say do it now.  You do this until they get it.  That's the whole "plan".  As you can see it's very simple and easy.  The rest is up to you.

The Soul: Mortal and Immortal

Where does it begin?  Where does it end?  What makes sense in logic and reason?  If we begin with the premise of Love as the deciding factor in our equation, then logically and rationally what follows may not be what would follow if we choose something else.  Yet to believe in Love is not necessarily the belief you would find in the world in general for few truly do.

Existence is something that proves itself.  Life does not need an explanation to exist.  But death demands an explanation because it is a finality.  It is the end of a life.  This is why death is the heart of philosophy.  Death is what demands an answer, not Life.  

It is in death that we truly are faced with the facts of mortality and immortality.  In endings there is fear.  No one knows what lies beyond, so terror comes as well.  Philosophy would cease to exist if the political machinations of the dialogue of Life itself as it is lived in the world were to make the decisions of what is possible and what is not.  And so there is resistance to the idea of death being the end in philosophy.  It is abhorrent to believe otherwise.

From this arises two forms of thought police.  The first seeks to destroy philosophy in order to end the dialogue of possibility that life after death exists (see the life of Socrates as the example).  The second seeks to destroy the idea of death itself being the ending.  From this war can only arise two different viewpoints on the nature of reality.  The first would call itself realism and would be atheist in nearly all instances.  The second would call itself spiritual and seek to preserve the logic and reason of the individual in the face of death.

Idealism would die by the hands of the realist, so romantics must preserve it.  This is a question of Justice, the Justice of Truth that lies at the heart of the idea of immortality of the soul.  For without Immortality of the Soul, the whole of Life shall become meaningless.  And of course, it would appear to be a great injustice against the created.  Death cannot be the end of the soul even if it is the end of body.

While this common dialogue goes into the beginning of a nearly endless debate about what is real and what is not real about Life, the most important point I would prefer to make is that all ideas must be grounded in fundamentally provable hypothetical arguments.  An example of this is that the end of the soul is unjust or the end of the spirit is unjust or the end of the being is unjust.  Each of these three related arguments speak to a simple concept that is itself provable by reason of hope.  

Hope provides the final argument.  Of course the being will live on in whatever form, and the spirit and the soul will live on unless they are evil.  This sort of argument requires no physical proof because the proof takes the form of a spiritual cause and effect question.  Nearly everyone can agree to the idea because it must be so if Love or God/Goddess are real.

What about the individual?  The individual is singular in their nature connected to all others by all their relations.  As such the individual is within a divine network of relational grid patterns linked by light line logic.  Their entire reality spiritually is that while the majority of their experience on the Earth is controlled by the dark, the absence of the significance of the light in day to day interactions with people who see them as something other than what they are.

There are a series of arguments that follow proving every Truth there is about every individual.  Logically the arguments exist.  Logically all the relationships also exist.  What follows is the reason for why.  Why what you may ask?  For why Love is eternal.  The bounds between individuals are their relationships.  All relationships will perfect in time.  Reincarnation provides for the opportunity to correct the relationship.  Everyone ultimately wants to correct their relationships when they understand.  All relationships are eternal and in a state of perfecting.

These Truths also do not require physical proof.  These Truths are part of spiritual proofs.  Alternative ideas fall under one lifetime and atheist concepts of reality.  An atheist may believe in all this just not in any ultimate Goddess.  Such an atheist would be called a spiritual atheist.  The proof is in the romantic nature of the idea.  Death may kill us, but it cannot kill our the consequence of our Faith acted upon before we die.  What we choose to believe is what we choose to believe.  This is the romantic glory of idealism.  We die, but we believe.

It is a mathematical perfection the logic and reason of the gridwork, the map of all my relations.  Understanding it is easy.  If you understand that you are here on Earth doing work because you must work for the perfection of creation, then you also understand that the ultimate perfection of creation is displayed in our relationships to those closest to us.  Those relationships and their state of perfection are a reflection of what stage of spiritual development the individual soul is at.

I could continue with this dialogue, but I have merely wished to reflect on the true state of ideas and what is real and what is not.  I measure my temple in Innocence, for all true answers will respect Innocence as the final solution.  I judge my temple by Love, for Love is the essence of all.  For if it is true, then all my relations are favored by the will of my own hand to perfect them for eternity.  This standard is the standard for right action.  Let hope guide your philosophy in the days ahead even as we remain uncertain as to what shape those who protect ignorance over Justice will take.  It all winds up the same Truth in the end.

Is permadeath fair?  No.  There are no other possible answers.  Is Love fair?  Yes.  What rules the cosmos?  Love.  The argument has ended.  Romance wins.  Do we still have to die.  Yup.  Is that fair?  We don't know.  And that's where the other argument starts.  For another time perhaps.