Reality is...

MIND CONTAINS MATTER

Evil is self-delusion or delusion created by others. There can exist a mind of pure negativity on the material level of reality. There is only one question we must ask ourself "who am I?" If we fail to answer this question we will fail ourselves. In reality we are, not in delusion. You must realize yourself as limitless in this universe. Limitlessness is what permeates matter, which is supposed to include mind. Reality is a set consisting of information (matter) and cognition (what contains and therefore exchanges it, if there is no separation then mind must be limitless). Evil is something that "just happens" without God in man's hearts.

There are human beings who are cannibalistic because they do not believe that matter contains mind. They instead believe there is no matter and no God. Any imbalance of the mind creates evil. We view the world through both the left and right sides of our bodies in an equal manner. The balance in perception between left and right eyes results in 0 = f[(-1)+1]), the I AM THAT. This is how matter must contain information and the knowledge of your mind results from the limitlessness of mind. An imbalance in the left and right hemispheres of the brain results in opposition to the limitlessness of the one mind beyond oneself and becomes subject to anything given by perception as a result of the lie, perception. Pure determinism fills the mind as a result and reality and perception are twisted by this lie. There is an evil out there that has resulted from the belief that matter contains no mind and therefore human beings have no mind. If the shortest distance between A and B is a straight line, then it is only logical to act on what we perceive to be reality. Hence, if only the senses bring reality, cannabilism and self-destruction is as logical as taking the shortest distance between A and B.

Only the limitlessness of mind can bring free will.
 
By finding that (the non-conceptual) "void" that passes through matter (energy scientists are still clueless about, as much of the analytic approach of the west has devolved to). As non-conceptuality is the reality thought contained in mind (along with what your senses "tells" (believably so) you, one non-ceptually understands that self - reference = void and self-referentiality = reality, where a non-belief x becomes reality in place of the s - r = v0id, 1 is a number, a conceptuality of the de-evolution, we must translate the SCSPL (self configuring self - processing Language, a far more powerful scope than our present sciences and other primitivities permit (I smell a resolution to how our mistaken observation of dimension as the concept of 3 only persists if it is of self - conceptual self = self-reference with God.
 
non nWhen the sun sets in the saucer of milk the cat will sing to the cuckoo clock.
Seriously what do you mean.
Perhaps start by showing how one can conceive something that is conceptual.
And which god Thor perhaps.
He got me good once knocked me out in a flash and for a while my ability to conceive was absent.

Alex
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
Spellbound, why don't you put in a common language, so it is easily accessible to anyone.
Click to expand...
He has struggled to put Langan's CTMU into plain language ever since he joined this forum, and this is just more of the same: another glorious "insight" into the work of his Messiah.
 
Sarkus said:
He has struggled to put Langan's CTMU into plain language ever since he joined this forum, and this is just more of the same: another glorious "insight" into the work of his Messiah.
Click to expand...

Has anyone succeeded in putting Langan's CTMU into plain language? Langan, famously, has not.

If one did, would there be anything there?
 
exchemist said:
Has anyone succeeded in putting Langan's CTMU into plain language? Langan, famously, has not.

If one did, would there be anything there?
Click to expand...
Let me give it a go:

*Ahem*
[tap tap tap]
Is this thing on?
Right, here goes...

Reality is what it is and encapsulates everything, nothing more and nothing less.

I thank you.
 
I congratulate Spellbound on being responsible for me awarding my first ever "Like" to Jan Ardena, a member whom - under normal circumstances - I am not at one with.

Spellbound, as others have noted in various ways, do you actually think what you wrote made sense? Really? It was gibberish. Indeed calling it gibberish gives the word gibberish an undeservedly bad reputation.

So, I ask you in all seriousness and in genuine hope a coherent answer, do you actually think you made sense and, if so, do you glimpse why the rest of us think you are talking drivel?
 
exchemist said:
Has anyone succeeded in putting Langan's CTMU into plain language? Langan, famously, has not.
Click to expand...

I've never made much effort to study his writings, which seem incomprehensible, probably intentionally so, so as to hide the many non-sequiturs.

But my impression is that he observes that that reality consists of a multitude of things, interacting in various ways. His big 'insight' is an analogy between physical reality on one hand, and linguistic syntax on the other. Parts form wholes, just like words form sentences. And just as physical law describes how the parts of physical reality interact, linguistic syntax describes how words come together to form meaningful expressions. So Langan believes that he has somehow intuited that all of reality is actually a language. ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God", John 1:1. I suspect that's Langan's master-text and the source-point of all of his speculations.)

A language seemingly requires a mind that uses it, speech requires a speaker. Hence the existence of God and God's status as a sentient being. The one who speaks reality into existence.

I'm a little fuzzy on the next step, but Langan seems to insist that the universe is not only the 'linguistic' expression of the divine, but is God himself. ("the Word was God".) That's the implication of the "self-configuring, self-processing language" SCSPL stuff. So Langan seems to be promoting a kind of pantheism, where the universe is imagined as a sentient language that somehow generates itself.

If one did, would there be anything there?
Click to expand...

I'm personally inclined to think that the chances of that are vanishingly slight. I don't find Langan's ideas (or Spellbound's restatements of them) helpful in my own philosophical quest. I don't even think that they are very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Mod Note

Aaaannnnndddd another Reality thread to join the rest of the Reality pile.

Spellbound, you have been warned about these threads.
 
Yazata said:
I've never made much effort to study his writings, which seem incomprehensible, probably intentionally so, so as to hide the many non-sequiturs.

But my impression is that he observes that that reality consists of a multitude of things, interacting in various ways. His big 'insight' is an analogy between physical reality on one hand, and linguistic syntax on the other. Parts form wholes, just like words form sentences. And just as physical law describes how the parts of physical reality interact, linguistic syntax describes how words come together to form meaningful expressions. So Langan believes that he has somehow intuited that all of reality is actually a language. ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God", John 1:1. I suspect that's Langan's master-text and the source-point of all of his speculations.)

A language seemingly requires a mind that uses it, speech requires a speaker. Hence the existence of God and God's status as a sentient being. The one who speaks reality into existence.

I'm a little fuzzy on the next step, but Langan seems to insist that the universe is not only the 'linguistic' expression of the divine, but is God himself. ("the Word was God".) That's the implication of the "self-configuring, self-processing language" SCSPL stuff. So Langan seems to be promoting a kind of pantheism, where the universe is imagined as a sentient language that somehow generates itself.



I'm personally inclined to think that the chances of that are vanishingly slight. I don't find Langan's ideas (or Spellbound's restatements of them) helpful in my own philosophical quest. I don't even think that they are very interesting.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You, at least, I can understand, if not Langan himself. So he may be trying to expand The Last Gospel into a metaphysical system. I see.

Seems a huge stretch to equate parts vs. wholes in nature with the structure of man-made code systems used for communicating. But I thought "logos" also had a connotation of "rationality", rather than just "words" i.e. for communication. I can see it could make sense to equate the "rational" behaviour of things in nature (i.e. the ordered, or rationalise-able, way they behave) with some sort of pantheistic entity, if one were so inclined.

But trying to read extracts by Langan, I get the impression of someone rather pleased with his own cleverness, who has become wrapped up in the skeins of his own bullshit.

P.S. I see this got moved to Pseudo while I was typing, merged with Spellbound's other efforts. I'm now spending more time in Pseudo than is healthy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top