Page 4 of 6 « First<23456>
Topic Options
#47399 - 01/26/11 04:45 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
I agree completely with this analogy, and this is why I have trouble with ToS doctrine, or anything similar. I have to be logically convinced not only that our 'Self' or 'X' self manifested and then the brain is a mere manifestation of that 'Self', but also that the 'Self' or 'X' that manifested us is accessible to us via the brain. Too often the subjetive 'Sense of Self' and the various 'layers of self' and the subjective experience of psychology becomes offered as proof that we can access it, when all we in fact prove is that we can access a sense of 'self' not necessarily the 'Self'.


What we are guessing about is the hard problem of consciousness. Consciousness is an anomaly as far as we know. What the ToS does is provide their answer to this riddle.

I myself am not too sure we can ever give a satisfying answer, at best we can assume there is an actor. We still need to solve the hard problem of life which at some level is a rather similar problem.

D.

Top
#47401 - 01/26/11 05:24 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
I think you're being a little too loose in your definitions and assumptions. At least, that's my perception

 Quote:
The moment one realizes reality is a compilation/creation of the brain and that all data we perceive is produced there, one can't escape the conclusion that, since we are data, we are also a compilation of our brain and that, ultimately, even our brain is our compilation.


You are making too many over-simplistic equivalences here. It may be only your perception of reality that is the compilation. Data may be generated or synthesized inside the brain without explicit external stimuli (indeed, it is one of the major functions of the human brain to recognize patterns and project expectations). "Since we are data" makes no sense to me; regardless of what it means, there is still room for a distinction between the perceiver and the perceived input.

 Quote:
I see our "I" as a product of our brain. I don't believe in free will. We are a product driven by what our brain decides and the "I" merely acts under an illusion. But since the "I" is a compilation of the brain, and the brain appears to be a compilation too, there has to be something deeper that creates these emergencies. This could be called "Self" by lack of a better name. But what it is I can't say anything about besides that it appears to be an actor hiding; the deus ex machine.


If you don't believe in free will, you don't need to figure it out. Go have a drink and watch TV

If, on the other hand, your "I", acting under illusion, believes it has free will ... and it's the I==brain that creates reality ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#47407 - 01/26/11 06:27 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2367
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
Fob off reply of the year. What you're saying is that, if one doesn't subscribe to your particular philosophy, then we're sniffing a tree, ignorantly. Yet I have not seen a jot of effort on your part to even defend your beliefset from rational critique from various parties, or illuminate the discussion. You merely re-state the fact that they are not enlightened enough to even comprehend the level of discourse you are producing, then present nothing but reposts of your own material as evidence thereof. (Even when that material has been the subject of their questions in the first instance).

It is not meant to be a "fob off", and the references to my more extensive discussions in Black Magic are simply because I have elaborated upon the concept therein about as far as I can "externally" go. This is inescapably a personal/individual awareness, realization, and Quest: searching for and fully identifying the Grail that is the "core You" and then exercising and expanding (Xeper) it. I cannot do this for you, nor can I lead you artificially to or through it. You must "enter freely and of your own will" or not; and in the latter case, for whatever your reasons, that choice is absolutely your prerogative. As Conchis said to Nicholas in The Magus, "You are perfectly free to return to your school if you wish. Perhaps it would be wiser."

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley, The Confessions
I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me. I do not regret this. All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worthwhile seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine. I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions. I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47417 - 01/27/11 06:39 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Oh dear, oh dear ... If you are content or determined just to sniff around trees, I cannot force you to lift your head; and if I did so you would merely be annoyed at the silly interruption. Eventually, when & if you choose to make the effort & are sufficiently Awake [in the Ouspensky-sense], you will discover this for yourself. The neteru are in no partiular hurry; neither am I.


You know some smug fuck once said something similar to me but I could have sworn he threw in a reference to Jesus, Mohommad or Joeseph Smith...

I've read quite alot of Steinbeck but the work of fiction what your saying is 'The Empty Sphynx' by Oscar Wilde. Because we all know citing works of fiction and author that are by notable authors add credibility to what we say right ?

Honestly Aquino I will self authenticate myself and my own being but I will spare myself the metaphysical clusterfuck and when I attempt to confer these ideas I assure you the justification will be more apt then confirmed in an enigma wrapped in a mystery hidden in several protests of numinousity.


Edited by thedeadidea (01/27/11 06:50 AM)

Top
#47418 - 01/27/11 06:46 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
I know that you're probably 100% sincere, but this is exactly where such philosophies and religions fall from human potential into fraud. There's this gift to receive... you'll get it, you'll see... no, I can't SHOW it to you or even tell you what it looks like. Yes I have it... but no, you'll just have to take my word for it. TRUST me... it's worth it. Just surrender your will and your skepticism because (Insert god's name here) TOLD me it's true. And sure enough, the guy who bites into that big ass pie in the sky WILL tend to see. He's not about to admit that he's been conned by the delusions of others, and they seem so happy, so maybe if he just squints his eyes and holds his tongue just right...

Skepticism and rationality are good things. They keep us from deluding ourselves and being like the dweebs who think that by THINKING they're vampires and truly wanting to BE vampires, they can become vampires. Anne Rice wrote the book, so there's GOT TO BE credibility. Fantasy will set you free... true dat! But unless you keep your head in the real world, it will also enslave you.

Now there are probably dozens or thousands who might see the name Michael Aquino and decide,,, ok! Here's credibility. Here's accountability. He has to know what he's saying, and if HE says there are invisible friends, there HAVE TO BE invisible friends. The Christians are still obviously wrong, but Aquino? Why would he lead us astray? And really... why WOULD he? He took the bait himself and he's a true believer. He CAN take it on faith and he legitimately (I assume) has no qualms in thinking that others should just abandon their healthy and rational skepticism because he believes that Set decided that out of the billions on earth, he would pass his eternal wisdom and earthly fiefdom to Michael Aquino.

Hell... it worked for Jesus and he didn't even have a computer!

Now, I'm not going to tell ANYONE not to follow his lead. In all of the time that I have been a Satanist, I have never told anyone that "Satanism's right for you." That has to be an individual decision that one enters into with their eyes wide open. But I will always preach the gospel of CAVEAT EMPTOR... let the buyer beware. Cost is nothing. All you have to do is believe. My personal belief is that when anyone tries to get you to believe so fervently, they might actually just be trying to gain validation themselves, because if they can get SOMEONE else to believe, maybe they haven't sold themselves a bill of goods.

Truthfully they remind me of the kid on The Twilight Zone (BIG TALL WISH) episode, begging a washed up fighter to believe in magic:
Bolie, you gotsta BELIEVE!!!!
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#47425 - 01/27/11 10:16 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Oh dear, oh dear ... I am once again reminded of John Steinbeck's Travels With Charley, at one point in which JS is so transfixed by the beauty of a vista before him that he seeks to share it with his Poodle (Charley). But the dog is intensely preoccupied with sniffing the base of a nearby tree and could not care less ...

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Black Magic
... It is this “self” that most people fear to lose in the event of bodily death. They simply don’t know how else they could know themselves to exist. Take away the reinforcing “hits” from the OU, and the “amorphous feeling” evaporates into nothingness, they fear, like going under a general anesthetic (which also, but temporarily, “removes all hits”).

The Initiate is challenged to find, in the words of Dr. Raghavan Iyer,

"... not the shadowy self or false egoity which merely reacts to external stimuli. Rather there is that Eye of Wisdom in every person which in deep sleep is fully awake and which has a translucent awareness of self-consciousness as pure, primordial light."

This is accomplished through reflective, non-reactive thinking. Thus the individual becomes aware of his authentic self (psyche, soul); and upon activating this as the locus of his consciousness, looks outward at phenomena at the same depth. In other words, the superficial “self” looks out at its level and sees OU events - like bodily pleasure/pain, blue sky, ringing telephones, time defined by clocks and calendars, and so forth. The core or true self, however, exists as a neter and, when looking outward, sees a SU not of the works of other neteru, but of those neteru themselves. One “machine” sees other “machinery”; one “creator/operator” sees other “creator/ operators” ...

If you are content or determined just to sniff around trees, I cannot force you to lift your head; and if I did so you would merely be annoyed at the silly interruption. Eventually, when & if you choose to make the effort & are sufficiently Awake [in the Ouspensky-sense], you will discover this for yourself. The neteru are in no partiular hurry; neither am I.


I left the above post unmolested simply because I could not, for the life of me, figure how it was RE: JK. My last reply on this thread was irrelevant to any points you're making now, and you failed to quote me in whatever you might be arguing here.

I will, however, quote you in a subsequent reply:

 Originally Posted By: Michael Aquino
Rather, once free of your physical body's OU-impression/expression constraints, you will be a god able to create, order, sustain, and destroy your own universe(s).


Do you know the last time I heard this line? I'll give you a hint: they dress in suits and ride on bicycles.

And I'll finish with a simple question - how do you know/believe this? Please refrain from quoting discarnate imaginary entities in your response.

JK
_________________________



Top
#47429 - 01/27/11 11:42 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: MindFux
Fob off reply of the year. What you're saying is that, if one doesn't subscribe to your particular philosophy, then we're sniffing a tree, ignorantly. Yet I have not seen a jot of effort on your part to even defend your beliefset from rational critique from various parties, or illuminate the discussion. You merely re-state the fact that they are not enlightened enough to even comprehend the level of discourse you are producing, then present nothing but reposts of your own material as evidence thereof. (Even when that material has been the subject of their questions in the first instance).

It is not meant to be a "fob off", and the references to my more extensive discussions in Black Magic are simply because I have elaborated upon the concept therein about as far as I can "externally" go. This is inescapably a personal/individual awareness, realization, and Quest: searching for and fully identifying the Grail that is the "core You" and then exercising and expanding (Xeper) it. I cannot do this for you, nor can I lead you artificially to or through it. You must "enter freely and of your own will" or not; and in the latter case, for whatever your reasons, that choice is absolutely your prerogative. As Conchis said to Nicholas in The Magus, "You are perfectly free to return to your school if you wish. Perhaps it would be wiser."

 Originally Posted By: Aleister Crowley, The Confessions
I admit that my visions can never mean to other men as much as they do to me. I do not regret this. All I ask is that my results should convince seekers after truth that there is beyond doubt something worthwhile seeking, attainable by methods more or less like mine. I do not want to father a flock, to be the fetish of fools and fanatics, or the founder of a faith whose followers are content to echo my opinions. I want each man to cut his own way through the jungle.



My issue isn't with the concept of a subjective quest for enlightenment, or that certain things have to be experienced to be understood. (Like a Lucid dream for instance). My issue was with the manner in which you presented it. As if you have identified a path to ultimate God like salvation, but only if we followed your path. The problem is, you have not offered a shred of rational discourse on that process, or why you believe it to be possible beyond a purely subjective experience that you have had, and everyone needs to have before they can buy your justification (because presumably it transcends rationality). If you can't see why that sticks in the craw of your average Satanist, or mystic from another school, then you're blind. No one's asking you to lead them through anything, or teach them anything. They're asking you to justify some outrageous claims. (The end state of your mission resulting in eternal existance as a God).

When asked about it, you’re unable to even acknowledge the need for some kind of reasoned, philosophical theorem to support your subjective impressions of a ‘Self’, let alone provide one. A descriptive thesis of the ‘psyche’ through Setian eyes does nothing to provide a solution to the ‘hard problem'. Yet you posit a completely subjective impression of 'Self' that you lens through Set and feel justified in offering it up as a solution. What's more, you then make outrageous claims about the implication of that impression, which aren't even justified by a logically valid world view. (This transcendant continuance of that higher self beyond the bounds of the physical. I need more than a subjective feeling, even if it is my own before I buy that, and I have had such a subjective experience. Where I failed myself is providing any kind of reasoned basis, or theorum as to why that occurred beyond a psychological brain manifested effect. Can you offer one?)

Do you honestly favour completely subjective experience over any kind of rational discourse and yet expect more credulity than I'd offer a Christian? Or a Morman? They offer the same thing. "You've got to experience Jesus to understand his power". No shit, but only if I shut down my rational brain in the process.

Your entire philosophy is based on a solution for the ‘hard problem’ existing and that solution being Set and Xeper.
In fact your entire 'thesis' of which I've read every word on more than one occasion serves to my mind to be nothing more than a descriptive thesis of the end state of your particular path, or a set of (in my mind) incompletely reasoned stances on the meaning of certain psychological phenomenon. As stated in a previously disregarded post, I can make a good case that your entire philosophy only allows you to access a subjectively created sense of self that, that you assign the meaning of ‘higher’ self to, or ‘Set’ or the ‘psyche’. I need more than a purely subjective experience before I can start professing my innate “Godhood” to the great uninformed masses. I’m going to need an intellectual or rational hypothesis at least as to how it works, or on what basis I can make such a claim beyond me ‘feeling it’. Otherwise I’m no better than a Christian that’s felt the ‘Power of the Spirit’ entering me.

The subjective impression can almost never be trusted as anything other than a subjective impression, and I’m greatly disappointed that even now, your response is a fob off. Now I have to subjectively cut through the weeds to reach your desired end state, as if to say I’m not doing so. Maybe I am but have just reached wildly different conclusions, or maybe I am just sniffing a tree, but none of that means you’ve answered a single reasonable question about the substantive claims you make in your offering. (Not everything you state is subjective). You say that the creative God’s see other God’s, machine’s see machines etc. That’s a fantastic axiom. Justify that ‘natural order’ for me. On what do you base that? On what level of God do you think the ‘Self’ exists on? In fact, just answer Jason’s question as worded and that would be a start, because I think I'm barking up the same tree as him.

And do so without your constant, patronising appeals to Ego, as if because I'm not buying what you're selling I should 'return' a la the Magus to my own safe little corner of reality. Once again implying that any that request some shred of coherent rationality just aren't hard core enough to get your doctrine. Sounds like all the same old tricks from the religious snake oil movement to me.



Edited by MindFux (01/27/11 11:49 AM)

Top
#47433 - 01/27/11 12:32 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Autodidact]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Autodidact
You are making too many over-simplistic equivalences here. It may be only your perception of reality that is the compilation. Data may be generated or synthesized inside the brain without explicit external stimuli (indeed, it is one of the major functions of the human brain to recognize patterns and project expectations). "Since we are data" makes no sense to me; regardless of what it means, there is still room for a distinction between the perceiver and the perceived input.


When using data, code of Self to express something, it can appear simplistic but such is the case when you have to slap a word on that which you point at but can't express.
But I don't really think I'm over-simplifying as much as that people are interpreting it maybe too simplistic. I've said enough in the other thread so I don't see the need to explain it all fully again.
That maybe only my perception is the compilation might be a valid remark should science not agree with me that reality is perception and that one can only assume or believe there is something beyond it. It's so obvious, it is a non-issue really, at least to me. Of course this annihilates the room for a distinction between perceiver and perceived input. Else it wouldn't be called "perceived" input.

Feel free to share some distinctions if you don't agree. I'm always interested in arguments that prove my thinking wrong.

I don't really see where you are going with your free will/I=brain remark. Care to elaborate?

D.

Top
#47442 - 01/27/11 03:16 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
HeimiricIX Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/29/10
Posts: 75
Loc: Mexico City.
I may be wrong but here's how I see it.

The Setian path is not Aquino's path, the way he achieves his Xeper, knowledge and experience won't repeat with you nor with anyone else that comes looking for his own grail, which is the beauty of it, I have no knowledge of what happens with the “self” after physical death, but that is something I would love to find out so I look for an answer.

I have discarded the Christian and similar approaches not because I have died and prove they are wrong or because there’s no factual evidence to support them, only because, at least to me, their views on it are rather childish and cartoon-ish.

The Setian approach instead tells you to look out for your own Xeper, your own path, and through it become something else. Now, this approach I like, mainly because it doesn’t impose anything unto you, Dr. Aquino’s view on it won’t affect a bit my view on it, neither his findings will affect my findings, this you can realize when you read Don Webb’s views, or Flower’s views on it. They have such a different understanding and application of it that you can hardly call it someone's else single path.

Now this of course doesn’t make it real, but makes the experimentation much more pleasant. So you don’t have to take his word on it, you can try it, experiment with it, get your own pre-conclusions and either leave it alone or continue.

Dr. Aquino’s last post makes sense, there are things you can’t know unless you experience it, for instance, a very strong orgasm, you can analyze it, try to describe it, explain it biologically and nothing of all that will get you any bit closer to actually understand it.

Again, none of this makes it real, but is up to you to find out or to still expect that someone else explains it to you.

Best


Edited by HeimiricIX (01/27/11 03:18 PM)
Edit Reason: Grammar
_________________________
HeimiricIX - Made you look

Top
#47447 - 01/27/11 04:27 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: HeimiricIX]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 172
 Quote:

Dr. Aquino’s last post makes sense, there are things you can’t know unless you experience it, for instance, a very strong orgasm, you can analyze it, try to describe it, explain it biologically and nothing of all that will get you any bit closer to actually understand it.



There's a huge difference. While certain experiences transcend verbal explanation, that's beside the point. I'm not disputing the existence of a self or anything of that nature, any more than I'm disputing the existence of the orgasm.

If however you told me that due to you thinking about and studying orgasms for a long time your orgasms literally will propel you to eternal life as a god of your own making, and you provided me with no rational, or foundation of experience that in some way validated that, then you're closer to Setian doctrine.

Of course the experience of your self and the discovery and study there of is an entirely personal journy. How you get from that to self made godhood and gods seeing gods and machines seeing machines and all these other axioms are at issue. If you do so purely subjectively, then you've pulled them out of your own head by definition, so that begs the question of how you validate that, or how it's any different from a Christian looking inside and finding Jesus.


Edited by MindFux (01/27/11 04:30 PM)

Top
#47449 - 01/27/11 05:07 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
HeimiricIX Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/29/10
Posts: 75
Loc: Mexico City.
It seems that Dr. Aquino's definition of what is beyond is what actually bothers you, you'll find that there no such thing as a dogmatic approach to "eternity" within the Setian philosophy so I should tell you Dr. Aquino's view on it is not the Temple's view of it.

Each person should find its own, and question if there is even such thing as, immortality, a journey that will take most of us all of our lives but fun enough to do it so willingly.

I don't know if I ever will think like Dr. Aquino on that matter, I leave the possibility that after all he has his own proof, real enough to actually accept it beyond all doubt, but I also leave open the possibility of all being just one more illusion in a universe of illusions.

In the doubt, in not knowing how it will end, if like a parody or like a fantasy book, is where I find the better incentive. If I was sure that in the end it would be just like Dr. Aquino’s says, I wouldn’t probably bother.

Once again, in the end you can try it, look for it (whatever the end is) or just don’t.

Best.
_________________________
HeimiricIX - Made you look

Top
#47452 - 01/27/11 06:39 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: HeimiricIX]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Originally Posted By: HeimiricIX
It seems that Dr. Aquino's definition of what is beyond is what actually bothers you, you'll find that there no such thing as a dogmatic approach to "eternity" within the Setian philosophy so I should tell you Dr. Aquino's view on it is not the Temple's view of it.


When the man who FOUNDED the Temple of Set, wrote the rules, stratified the membership, initiated the initiated, and stands as the authority and primary proponent of "Setian thought" says what is IS, it is the marching order for the rank and file of that organization, founded in his name.

Much as the Vatican canonized and then de-canonized St. Christopher, declared Fridays meatless and then rescinded it later, institutionalized Limbo to downgrade it later, sold dispensations for sin, only to declare them invalid once the check cleared the bank..." the fish stinks from the head down." The general gives the orders and the rank and file follow.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#47459 - 01/27/11 07:43 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Jake999]
paolo sette Offline
member


Registered: 12/12/08
Posts: 263
Loc: IL, USA
 Quote:
Even if the QM theories are correct, all that would happen is that maybe there would be other sparks of awarenss that were once 'us' completely removed from the mechanisms that made us us in any recognizeable form drifting through multidimensional space. I think that would fail as a continuance of existance, because the key of us, the abstract things that make us who and what we are, definitely aren't coming along for the ride.



Science without religion is dangerous because it necessarily entails a complete mechanization of humanity. On the other hand, religion without science is powerless in that it lacks an effective means by which to actualize religious meaning in the contemporary world. Science and religion must work together harmoniously. It is the task for us who approach our age intelligently to find a way to integrate the two.

 Quote:
We know from the studies of Neuroplasticity...(et al.)


The non-theistic response to the question "why" is compatible with the modern scientific mechanistic answer to the qustion "how" because these notions are somewhat impersonal. To say they are impersonal does not mean that they are indifferent to human affairs. On the contrary, religion is essentially concerned with human salvation. In this respect, there is no difference amongst religions for all traditions are equally concerned with salvation. However, the foundation on which salvation becomes possible is understood differently. The foundation on which Christian religions (including Setism?) are understood as personal that is as the personal relationship between humans and God. On the other hand, in eastern religions including Satanism the foundation of salvation is not something personal, but impersonal and common. Human salvation and its foundation must be distinguished. This distinction is important because the present conflict between science and religion is related to a great extent to the foundation of salvation.

Ciao.
_________________________
tathagata-svapratyatma-aryajnana-adhigama
666
[nig]-ge-na-da a-ba in-da-di nam-ti i-u-tu

Top
#47465 - 01/27/11 10:22 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 849
Loc: Nashville
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The universe(s) you create can be small & simple, or big & complex, depending on how imaginative or lazy you elect to be. You can just create a couch, a TV set, beer & potato chips, and watch endless reruns of "I Love Lucy" if you want.

If I wanted to watch endless reruns of "I Love Lucy" in the universe I create, would I have to create the reruns as well? Apparently I would. So I'd have to write, direct and produce endless episodes that might seem like, but of course not actually be, the original episodes. I think I'd rather just take a nap.
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#47466 - 01/28/11 12:18 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2367
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
If I wanted to watch endless reruns of "I Love Lucy" in the universe I create, would I have to create the reruns as well?

That's an interesting theological question, actually. Can one god/universe borrow from [or log into] others, if you're curious or lazy or etc.? In one context we're already doing a version of that in "training wheels" incarnate mode: between our individual SUs and the OU, and/or between individual SUs.

Gosh, this stuff is getting complicated; my OU head is starting to hurt after four thread pages of it ...

 Quote:
I think I'd rather just take a nap.

Me too.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
Page 4 of 6 « First<23456>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist, Fnord 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.