It hit me. There has to be a way to figure out if any modern-day wisemen exist. I mean, if there were 3 who visited the stable when Jesus was born, that would lead one to the assumption that there may be others like those three, and oh boy the things we might be able to learn from them!
What classified those 3 as wisemen? Were they wise because they knew of God? Were they wise because they were very skilled in a particular trait? Perhaps they were wise because they called themselves wise, and by definition anyone who calls themselves wise must be wise, right? Maybe they are wise because others chose to think that they knew what they were doing, but they really had no idea. Maybe they knew that they had no idea and that is what made them wise, or perhaps they knew that they knew nothing and would continue to know nothing for eternity, because the wonders of existence are likewise infinite. So then the they may be called wise because they understand the nature of reality, and they understand the power of choice, and the power of destiny.
Perhaps they are wise because they do not believe that all *men* were created equal, but instead they believe all life to be created equal. Perhaps they understood things about the way the universe works that other people did not understand.
Let's think about this for a second: If there were 3 who traveled to witness the birth of Jesus, then it would be safe to assume that there are hundreds, if not thousands more of them by now.
Where are they? Completely gone? Hidden? Are they members of secret societies? Illuminati? Or elusive occult sects? My answer would be yes....and no. An important question would be: where are all the wisewomen? All jokes aside, they must exist too, although i have never heard the term wisewoman before. No offense meant to any, just pointing that its not a term used commonly when discussing the nature of reality or existence, it is certainly not an impossibility to start using the term.
What if they were wise enough to know the answers to nearly any question you could ever ask, but they had no way of delivering the answer in a way that would be understood by those they told the answers to? Looking at the paradoxical nature of everything, it might be possible to understand the concept, but be inexplicable to anyone else who didn't already understand the same thing.
Well, its certainly food for thought. And I'm very hungry for answers.
I've determined that I am going to call myself a wiseman. I'll let you know that I don't really know much about anything. But perhaps that's what awards me that title. I mean, I didn't get the idea to self-determine wisdom because I was confident, no, only because I'm pretty humble. Anyway, I'm getting a little lonely out here in the wonders of cyberspace so:
If you find yourself, and you are humble enough to be wise, let me know, we could have a great many conversations.
Peace and Love,
Matthew
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
In Case of Confusion: Why 1 = 0
So in an attempt to explain the logic behind the equation 1=0=1, I've decided to submit a new post concerning the original concept, that when concerning existence, 1 really does equal 0.
Lets concern ourselves with the beginning of all of everything. The universe, life, and everything had to have some point of origin. If we equate the two concepts, everything and nothing to be absolute values, then we could say that everything = 1 and that nothing = 0.
Now assuming that there are an infinite number of possibilities in this reality, and that there are no possibilities in non-reality, that would lead us to say that, according to their actual numerical value (which is infinite) that the two numbers are equal.
Basically, in regards to the numerical value of infinity, it will always be equal to itself, even if the concept is opposite. Absolute light, absolute dark. Absolute heat, and absolute cold. All of these things appear to be opposite, but because they are only different expressions of the same phenomenon, it ought to be said that they have to equal their own opposite, because they are a part of the same universal system.
Now to take this a step further:
Because something actually exists, it leads us to complete the equation with another (=1) on the end, provoking the eqaution I am so fond of: 1=0=1.
I understand that my original post detailed this, but as I was trying to explain the idea to a friend of mine, they were horribly confused and I thought I would post it on the net in the hopes that I could explain it to him more efficiently when I show him this blog. Thanks for putting up with the redundancy.
Lets concern ourselves with the beginning of all of everything. The universe, life, and everything had to have some point of origin. If we equate the two concepts, everything and nothing to be absolute values, then we could say that everything = 1 and that nothing = 0.
Now assuming that there are an infinite number of possibilities in this reality, and that there are no possibilities in non-reality, that would lead us to say that, according to their actual numerical value (which is infinite) that the two numbers are equal.
Basically, in regards to the numerical value of infinity, it will always be equal to itself, even if the concept is opposite. Absolute light, absolute dark. Absolute heat, and absolute cold. All of these things appear to be opposite, but because they are only different expressions of the same phenomenon, it ought to be said that they have to equal their own opposite, because they are a part of the same universal system.
Now to take this a step further:
Because something actually exists, it leads us to complete the equation with another (=1) on the end, provoking the eqaution I am so fond of: 1=0=1.
I understand that my original post detailed this, but as I was trying to explain the idea to a friend of mine, they were horribly confused and I thought I would post it on the net in the hopes that I could explain it to him more efficiently when I show him this blog. Thanks for putting up with the redundancy.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Creating Chaos
Is it wrong of a person, who is in the middle of a fued between friends to fuel both sides with ammunition?
I mean seriously, if they want to drag me into the middle, instead of staying out of it, is it wrong to make up horrible lies about what he said or what she said? Is it wrong to make them hate each other so much on false assumptions simply because they insisted on bringing me into the middle of it?
I mean honestly, I'm sitting here laughing my little ass off. Its not like i didn't try to tell them to leave me out of the whole thing, and it was something both had trouble doing, so whatever i guess. I'll just help fuel the chaos, because if i'm smart enough to stay out of the whole thing, I'm certainly smart enough to get into it.
Consider this a modern day social experiment, I'll let you know the outcome when its finished.
Always remember, deal with the right people and the right problems, otherwise you get a wrong reference and a wrong answer.
A mild-mannered disclaimer:
My original intention was to stay out of the situation all-together, but when that proved impossible due to the relentless attempts of both parties to involve me, I determined that both wanted me to be involved and I would be less of a friend if I sat this one out. Now the only way for me to prove my point is to let them both rip each other to pieces in the hopes that they will thank me for it later. There is only so much talking I can do before I have to start showing. Seriously? They want to fight, so I'll just help them out a bit. Besides you've heard the old saying, "Teach a man to fish..."
I mean seriously, if they want to drag me into the middle, instead of staying out of it, is it wrong to make up horrible lies about what he said or what she said? Is it wrong to make them hate each other so much on false assumptions simply because they insisted on bringing me into the middle of it?
I mean honestly, I'm sitting here laughing my little ass off. Its not like i didn't try to tell them to leave me out of the whole thing, and it was something both had trouble doing, so whatever i guess. I'll just help fuel the chaos, because if i'm smart enough to stay out of the whole thing, I'm certainly smart enough to get into it.
Consider this a modern day social experiment, I'll let you know the outcome when its finished.
Always remember, deal with the right people and the right problems, otherwise you get a wrong reference and a wrong answer.
A mild-mannered disclaimer:
My original intention was to stay out of the situation all-together, but when that proved impossible due to the relentless attempts of both parties to involve me, I determined that both wanted me to be involved and I would be less of a friend if I sat this one out. Now the only way for me to prove my point is to let them both rip each other to pieces in the hopes that they will thank me for it later. There is only so much talking I can do before I have to start showing. Seriously? They want to fight, so I'll just help them out a bit. Besides you've heard the old saying, "Teach a man to fish..."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Religious Compatability
There was a woman the other day who came into the restaurant where I work. She was pushing a friend of her's in a wheelchair, and she was very kind as I walked them to their seat. As we were rounding a corner, I noticed the necklace that the woman had on.
At the bottom of the necklace was an upside-down jesus-fish whose tail lead into the star of david, which had a menorah sprouting out the tip of the star. Something like the picture below:
Now, when I noticed that necklace I said to the woman: "Oh what a nice necklace you have! Where did you get it?"
"In a jewelry store of all places," She chuckled a bit and said, "Are you Jewish?"
I explained to her that I was not an adherent to the Jewish faith or practice, but I let her know that I liked her necklace and I told her it was interesting because it linked a whole bunch of symbols together, from numerous faiths, and I proceeded to explain what the symbols meant to the different people who used them.
To this she replied: "Well its best that you pick a side," And she sent me an angry glance, corrected herself, regained composure, and then leaned in and whispered to me, "...Especially the way the world is going these days."
"You are absolutely right!" I said this to avoid argument. In the game of good versus evil, the only way to win is to avoid playing. I wasn't going to tell her that, because then I would assuredly get a lecture about being lukewarm or something along that line. I told myself that it was alright to forgive the woman for being so horribly judgmental toward my open and accepting attitude toward faith.
Quickly I shot a glance to the front of the store, where there were others waiting to be sat and I let her know that I wanted them to enjoy their meal, and that it was wonderful that we'd gotten a chance to meet.
The point behind the entire story is that it does not matter how accepting you can be towards others. They will always accept the people that they want to accept, and cast out those they want to cast out. And they are perfectly alright with doing that, and I am perfectly alright with letting them, because that's their choice. But after explaining this brief situation, I had a question: Is it better that I follow her advice and pick a side? Or is it best that I refrain from details and love all people equally, despite their beliefs?
I know which answer God would choose.
At the bottom of the necklace was an upside-down jesus-fish whose tail lead into the star of david, which had a menorah sprouting out the tip of the star. Something like the picture below:
Now, when I noticed that necklace I said to the woman: "Oh what a nice necklace you have! Where did you get it?"
"In a jewelry store of all places," She chuckled a bit and said, "Are you Jewish?"
I explained to her that I was not an adherent to the Jewish faith or practice, but I let her know that I liked her necklace and I told her it was interesting because it linked a whole bunch of symbols together, from numerous faiths, and I proceeded to explain what the symbols meant to the different people who used them.
To this she replied: "Well its best that you pick a side," And she sent me an angry glance, corrected herself, regained composure, and then leaned in and whispered to me, "...Especially the way the world is going these days."
"You are absolutely right!" I said this to avoid argument. In the game of good versus evil, the only way to win is to avoid playing. I wasn't going to tell her that, because then I would assuredly get a lecture about being lukewarm or something along that line. I told myself that it was alright to forgive the woman for being so horribly judgmental toward my open and accepting attitude toward faith.
Quickly I shot a glance to the front of the store, where there were others waiting to be sat and I let her know that I wanted them to enjoy their meal, and that it was wonderful that we'd gotten a chance to meet.
The point behind the entire story is that it does not matter how accepting you can be towards others. They will always accept the people that they want to accept, and cast out those they want to cast out. And they are perfectly alright with doing that, and I am perfectly alright with letting them, because that's their choice. But after explaining this brief situation, I had a question: Is it better that I follow her advice and pick a side? Or is it best that I refrain from details and love all people equally, despite their beliefs?
I know which answer God would choose.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Philisophical Exploration
Somewhere, a long time ago, someone wrote: "You reap what you sew." The following is a philosophical look at what that means, and why it has proven to be so important to the minds of men for 2000 years.
The actual sentence can be likened to a farmer tending his crops. You plant a seed, water it, and over time the plant grows until its harvested. The harvest is then sold, eaten, wasted, or used and the process is repeated over again.
It seems to be a simple truth, everyone knows that plants grow, people grow, life flourishes everywhere. Farmers are people who chose to make a living by exploiting that small fact of life. Agriculture itself has helped humankind just as much as did the discovery of fire, or the invention of the wheel. Without it, we would still be a nomadic society, moving from place to place fighting for survival.
But if this little phrase only applied to farming, then only farmers would have heard of it. So what is the verse really saying?
I suppose I could venture a guess as to say that it references karma, or it is karma, for those who acknowledge the validity of that theory. For those who don't it must mean something else. Perhaps it means that if you are a good person, then good things will happen to you. You just might wind up in heaven after all, right here on earth. For many more its a much more physical sentence. If I place my hands on a guitar and strum the strings with the strings depressed in a specific way, then I will hear a specific sound, say a C chord. Perhaps that is what this little phrase was attempting to say. Could it be something else? Absolutely, apart from action, let's look at mentality: If you believed that red roses were the best smelling flower ever to grow out of the earth, then for you those red roses are the best smelling. They may not be for someone else. In fact if they wanted to they could call you a moron for thinking that roses actually smelled good and that they had a purpose to grow at all. Perhaps those men and women prefer yellow tulips, and because of that their houses are filled with luxurious white vases brimming with yellow tulips.
I suppose when you put it all together it leads one to think: What am I sewing? How am I looking at life? And is it working the way I want it to? Trust me, its going to work how it works whether you're alive or not, born or unborn. You can get all defensive and try to disagree if you want, but there really isn't much denying that fact: Life goes on.
So it begs the question: "Do you know what you are weaving?"
The actual sentence can be likened to a farmer tending his crops. You plant a seed, water it, and over time the plant grows until its harvested. The harvest is then sold, eaten, wasted, or used and the process is repeated over again.
It seems to be a simple truth, everyone knows that plants grow, people grow, life flourishes everywhere. Farmers are people who chose to make a living by exploiting that small fact of life. Agriculture itself has helped humankind just as much as did the discovery of fire, or the invention of the wheel. Without it, we would still be a nomadic society, moving from place to place fighting for survival.
But if this little phrase only applied to farming, then only farmers would have heard of it. So what is the verse really saying?
I suppose I could venture a guess as to say that it references karma, or it is karma, for those who acknowledge the validity of that theory. For those who don't it must mean something else. Perhaps it means that if you are a good person, then good things will happen to you. You just might wind up in heaven after all, right here on earth. For many more its a much more physical sentence. If I place my hands on a guitar and strum the strings with the strings depressed in a specific way, then I will hear a specific sound, say a C chord. Perhaps that is what this little phrase was attempting to say. Could it be something else? Absolutely, apart from action, let's look at mentality: If you believed that red roses were the best smelling flower ever to grow out of the earth, then for you those red roses are the best smelling. They may not be for someone else. In fact if they wanted to they could call you a moron for thinking that roses actually smelled good and that they had a purpose to grow at all. Perhaps those men and women prefer yellow tulips, and because of that their houses are filled with luxurious white vases brimming with yellow tulips.
I suppose when you put it all together it leads one to think: What am I sewing? How am I looking at life? And is it working the way I want it to? Trust me, its going to work how it works whether you're alive or not, born or unborn. You can get all defensive and try to disagree if you want, but there really isn't much denying that fact: Life goes on.
So it begs the question: "Do you know what you are weaving?"
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Spark That Started a Fire
Anti-Christianity: My own personal 'Non-religion'
Christians predict the coming of an Anti-Christ. This guy or girl can't be that bad really can they? Anti-Christianity doesn't refute the validity of the concept about the absolute. It does however refute the faith used to understand that absolute by followers of religion. You cannot have faith and expect to understand, because faith is belief without Knowledge. You must have only Knowledge.
Logic
If one can truly understand the concept of an absolute- a religion may form because of the inability to explain that concept to those who have not experienced it. Logic leads ultimately to a knowledge of an absolute existing, but being illogically based. Because of that I have adopted an anti-religious philosophy that acknowledges the existence of an absolute. So lets break it down in order that the dis-logic becomes logical:
if everything contained within reality and everything not contained within realty is summed, it is equal to the absolute (0+1=1). However this makes a distinction between 1 and 0 that does not technically exist because neither have an actual value. the inability to fully explain the entire concept mathematically (so that it makes sense) leads one to the knowledge that the inability to do so is only evidence of an absolute because mathematics do not operate in non-reality.
So has it occurred to anyone that all the great men who brought religion to the earth were not sons of god, they were not prophets or kings or anything more than men that truly understood the concept of an absolute (which I'll show you in just a sec)? They were birthed on earth and operated within the same confines that you yourself operate. I mean this on an astronomical scale, if you can understand EVERYTHING (not every detail, or component, or aspect, but the concept of EVERYTHING itself, then its clear as day that religions exist because we are an intelligent species who cannot be taught to think outside our own Self and that inability is a part of reality stemming from absolutes (not created by absolutes) which cannot possibly be confined like our bodies are.
UNDERSTANDING INFINITY:
The absolute is all things contained AND all things not contained.
Or in other words
All things contained in Reality AND all things contained in Non-Reality. However non-reality by definition cannot contain anything.
The arrows represent nothingness, because it does not exist it cannot be confined. Existence is confinement regardless of how much it exists.
To further explain:
Mathematics are a symbolic description of reality and it only operates on 1's and 0's. The idea for an absolute truly IS (it does exist) within existence, even if it doesn't exist as a tangible thing (this concept is the first on the antichristians creed). Because of this when programming a computer for instance, one can not program a computer to think for itself without somehow managing to explain the concept the 1 really equals 0 and itself at the same time.
1 = 0 = 1
That is the very simplest way to explain the concept of an absolute. The way to 'believe' in that concept or to have 'faith' in it is by understanding that there are other men who have understood it and simply been unable to explain something that doesn't exist as a part of something that does exist. That faith and belief is not a good thing- because one cannot know the absolute unless they know it, impossible to understand without faith, impossible to understand without knowledge.
That is Heaven AND Hell, because the absolute IS comprehend-able, just not explainable.
On a similar note, simply because you can't explain it, the concept is proven true. But you can't understand why you understand it. That is the question of life, and the answer to the life problem you have to 100% fully understand that you don't understand.
The same things can be seen in every religions beginnings. When compared to themselves the concept of an absolute was best explained in each religions own way. Heaven hell, yin yang, etc. to better explain what those concepts meant they also each went about it in different ways. Becoming 1 with the universe and the not-universe was the goal; 1 = 0 = 1 was the goal. In Christianity, Christ was only a man who understood the concept of an absolute but was unable to explain it to others (and worked 'miracles' most likely by trickery because it was the best to get people to listen to his attempts to explain what he understood), who because of that obviously got the meaning wrong because they were stuck trying to make sense of a mathematical quandary that could not operate. To further illustrate this concept: It is best described as:
1=0=1
and best explained for understanding as:
(1 = 0)=1
and most realistically explained as:
(1 = 0)=1)
Please note the lack of the beginning parentheses, to me this illustrated that the equation cannot be confined to itself. For if it were we would not exist.
And for those of you unfamiliar with mathematics:
The meaning of life is that it has no meaning within itself, it simply is what it is.
that's quite possibly the hardest thing to understand: that you can't understand.
But the problem is for me now, because I comprehend it, is it really possible to explain it? I firmly know that an Anti-Christian religion will one day emerge which would attempt to debunk religion as a practice, but not debunk the absolute itself. I suppose since I believe it I'll be the first one to say it, 'I am an Anti-Christian'
Spin that like a Globe.
So to attempt to define what I am going to do with my understanding is shown below once again.
I just became the an Anti-Christian (a misnomer because there have been many men like Jesus, each just as correct about the state of the absolute as he was). Anyway, i figured out that if one were to operate on this premise, that they would be led to believe the following creed:
The Anti-Christian Creed
Christ was an Anti-Christian
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thought is Dis-Logic
Dis-logic validates Logic
Thought precedes Knowledge
Faith is Fallacy
Knowledge is Truth
Faithing is for those who do not Know
Knowing is for those who do not Faith
The Soul and the Self are the same thing.
1=0=1
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thought is Dis-Logic
Dis-logic validates Logic
Thought precedes Knowledge
Faith is Fallacy
Knowledge is Truth
Faithing is for those who do not Know
Knowing is for those who do not Faith
The Soul and the Self are the same thing.
1=0=1
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 13 Tenets of Anti-Christianity
1. Value the Absolute
2. Value Reality
3. Value Non-Reality
4. Value Life
5. Feel no Greed nor Regret
6. Value Non-Life
7. Value Self
8. Value Non-Self
9. Do not support conflict based on an assumed Reality
10. Do not impose false Reality for personal gain purposefully
11. Value opinion based in Reality
12. Allow Reality to validate your Self
13. Allow yourself to validate Reality
13 cheers for 'Anti-Christians' Hip Hip Hurray!
Peace and Love,
Matt the Anti-Christian
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
