I have observed that sluts tend to behave like psychopaths. I have an explanation for this which goes as follows: Female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels. Oxytocin promotes activity in the amygdala in the brain. Since sluts have low levels of oxytocin, their amygdala functions at a low level. This is exactly the problem that causes psychopathy, since the amygdala is responsible for sympathy and morality. And this is why sluts behave like psychopaths.
What I have stated is an unproven theory, in other words nothing more than a hypothesis or conjecture. This is how all theories start. The next step is to gather data to either verify or disprove the theory. I have attempted to do this as I usually do by searching for relevant data on the web. But I found nothing on the relationship between female promiscuity and oxytocin. By nothing, I mean no data. I found plenty of opinions on both sides of the question but no one bothered to actually get the facts. I find this horrifying, particularly because the question has obviously been raised and the facts are easy to obtain by any research scientist interested in the question.
My view is obviously highly politically incorrect (as virtually all my views are). So now I try to think, why isn't the data that I want available? I can think of only two explanations. One is that the research was done and that the results were too politically incorrect to be published. The other is that the research was never done because the question itself is politically incorrect to be asked. Either way, the only broad explanation is that politically correctness prevents the truth of this matter from being found.
Unlike members of modern culture (the Left), I am not going to claim that my theory is correct just because it makes sense to me. I believe in the scientific method. I believe a statement should not be accepted as truth until it has objective data to back it up. Most members of modern culture would write off my theory as being absurd simply because it conflicts with their world view and because modern culture is extremely closed-minded. So in my defense, I will briefly explain why it is perfectly reasonable to guess that promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels in women. It is well known that oxytocin is the pair-bonding hormone for female mammals (but not male mammals). It is also know that premarital promiscuity in women directly correlates with divorce risk. Since divorce is failed bonding, and since bonding is governed in women by oxytocin, I think it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels. But it appears that I will never know for sure whether this is true.
In researching this question and failing to find an answer, I reached a conclusion very different from my original topic. This conclusion is that the Enlightenment is over. The fundamental idea of the Enlightenment was to use reason to arrive at objective truth. In my opinion, the Enlightenment both depended on religion, particularly the Reformation, and undermined religion. In other words, the Enlightenment undermined the very thing that it depended on, and so it was doomed from the start. The demise of the Enlightenment took time and finally ended around the year 2000, so the Enlightenment lasted about 300 years.
In order to objectively search for truth, one must place external facts above one's own opinion. Such an approach requires humility. Without humility, one will always rationalize away facts to protect one's cherished opinions. The scientific method is itself an extreme expression of humility, requiring that all scientific theories provide an experimental procedure to falsify the theory, and that the theory be experimentally tested independently by several people before even being considered possibly valid. (See The Logic of Scientific Discovery.)
The problem with this is that humility is not natural for people, particularly for people in power. And without humility, there can be no advancement in objective knowledge. So we should ask what is the source of humility? There is only one answer that I know of, and that is religion. Religion teaches us to respect something greater than ourselves. In modern Western religions, that something is God. But whatever it is, the important thing is to recognize something sacred and above humanity. As long as God (or the gods) is recognized as above humanity, people learn humility. But when people place themselves on the level of God, humility is lost. So religion only works when religion restricts what is sacred to non-human things like God or nature. When human institutions become sacred, and people thereby compete with God, humility is lost, and so scientific advancement becomes impossible.
Now we can understand the Enlightenment. Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church (and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) was sacred and competed with God. This caused the Pope and those at the top of the Church to lose humility. And so they rejected objective truth in favor of their preferred views, and called all those who disagreed with their views heretics. Galileo is a well known example of someone who suffered the consequences of this. The Reformation changed all this by rejecting the Catholic Church and rejecting the idea that a human institution can be sacred. By insisting that humanity should be humble before God, the Reformation made possible the Enlightenment which insisted that humanity should be humble before objective truth.
But unfortunately Christianity's dependence on faith came into conflict with the Enlightenment's demand for reason. And so the Enlightenment undermined Christian faith. As religion faded, humility faded. Culture became arrogant. And this arrogance has produced our modern culture which places personal opinion over objective facts. Our current modern culture, which is basically a Leftist culture, teaches people to be selfish and to ridicule all those who don't hold popular views. Such a culture is easily manipulated by those in power to suppress views that threaten those power. The result is a situation remarkably similar to the Catholic Church before the Reformation. Today, anyone who holds politically incorrect views is treated by the establishment the way the Catholic Church treated heretics in the Middle Ages. Today there is no tolerance for differing views because tolerance requires humility, and humility requires religion, and we have no serious religion anymore. And this is why the Enlightenment is over and why I can't find the answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this article.
"Female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels." The only reference I can find to this is a quote of your own words elsewhere (on a rejection forum).
Firstly I'm not sure why you think this. Looking at the available information leads me to believe that promiscuity in females would tend to increase oxytocin levels. If your theory was true then prostitutes would behave like psychopaths.
Secondly there are other factors that would reduce oxytocin such as alcohol, but perhaps being drunk counteracts the antisocial effects. The tendency is to think that any lack of oxytocin may be caused by some other factor that 'sluts' are exposed to.
If there is a lack of oxytocin then this is difficult to fix as it doesn't really travel through the digestive system thus the nasal sprays. It's possible that specific females may be identified as having higher levels by exercise regimes and pets - do they have a cat as stroking it may increase levels.
The lack of information is not caused by the culture as such. The internet tends to focus on non factual data, so looking for anything factual online has a strong tendency to fail. People are more interested in fiction than fact, which I find very confusing. Theoretical information at least has the potential to be factual but to study data that is deliberately false seems like a waste of time. People are expected to learn from analogies so soap operas contain social information that governments hope will educate people. Scenarios are used to provide hypothetical data for potential issues. People it seems do not like to be educated and cannot process simple facts unless these facts are made into dramas (mystery plays of the past). So the internet is polluted by this type of reasoning. Simple facts are often not present in this media.
Finding a way to induce oxytocin production in females does look worthwhile, but hard to do. The enlightenment continues in the sense that reality prevails. Fictional data or faulty data will eventually be shown to be non functional data. For example female prison wardens that get beaten almost to death by male inmates, which shows male superiority, the changing culture, and the stupidity of the ideology that says that these female wardens will reduce the violence in prisons. Harsh reality will indicate that they are only suitable for female prisons and then enlightenment - or death, clarifies the issue of confusion. In many respects that would be evolution not religion. Reality is greater than ourselves, no God is required for that.
Which available information?
Perhaps they do and this is why they were traditionally placed under the close control of pimps.
Cursory glance gives this kind of stuff:
Sex and cuddling are the ones you probably know about (and feel free to do more of that, too) but if you’re looking for fun outside of the bedroom, here are 10 ways to boost oxytocin.
So hugging is associated with increasing oxytocin, which could be linked to promiscuity. There is lots of this stuff and some of it is likely to be scientifically proven. It takes a split second to find this yet finding the opposite information was not possible. I cannot confirm that oxytocin is reduced, the information suggests that it is increased not decreased?
Prostitution is as difficult as the influence of alcohol. As a profession they obviously need to behave in a way that would attract customers, and if they behaved like psychopaths they would repel customers. My opinion is that they would not behave like psychopaths - but this does not mean that they are not psychopaths. My understanding is not sufficient to research, or look for data in this regard. So the statement remains and it is something that someone else with more skill could look for as a possible prediction, but lets give the alternative:
If, as suggested by the 'information available' promiscuity produces an increase of oxytocin (and not a reduction) then prostitutes and promiscuous females would behave in a more social way.
The logic that then emerges is that promiscuous females do indeed behave in a more social way because by definition that is an aspect of being more promiscuous. The question of course is - Do they really? It becomes more a matter of observation.
The opposing view that I am presenting here, to me - it looks more in keeping with the data. At the same time this also looks like the prevailing view. I'm suggesting that every one else generally thinks that this is also the case. Perhaps this belief is tainting the data, but then perhaps it's just true?
So finally the question asked remains why does he think that promiscuity produces a reduction of oxytocin and where then is his information, as he too has not provided any links?
ShaunS, you completely missed the point of this post. The idea that female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels is published speculation by the Right based on evidence from prairie voles. The Left simply rejected this view, much you like you, based on nonsensical speculation. (What raises oxytocin in the short term may very well lower it in the long term, we don't know.) But the point of my post is that no one has the slightest interest in determining the truth which would be easily be done by gathering data. And this is why the Enlightenment is over, because we have replaced seeking truth with spouting bullshit.
It is very difficult for me to respond at this point - in a non hostile way. No hostility is intended!
Prairee Voles: A rather obscure reference to this?
This reference is lost on me but the 'promiscuity lowers oxytocin' argument is not as good as the 'I have observed that sluts tend to behave like psychopaths' which is a reference to actual data. Data is king in scientific arguments.
You lost this argument.
It seems that your 'enlightenment' is over, as everyone else's seems to be intact. The quality of speculation is a byproduct of the media given that the internet is a peoples media and not a scientists media. The information does not appear to be mythological. I suggest that it is not nonsensical, although the language format leaves a lot to be desired.
These people HAVE determined the truth but it's passed on to us by second and third hand accounts. This colours the data but it does not make it inaccurate.
You have not proven that the data is bullshit, you have simply labelled it as such. Why is your bullshit better than their bullshit?
You 'found nothing on the relationship between female promiscuity and oxytocin' but this information is commonly available within a split second (as shown), and contradicts your argument. Yes the quality of the data online is rather poor but that doesn't make it inaccurate.
My view is that the 'levels of oxytocin' is subject which is beyond the capability of anyone other than a scientifically trained Biological Scientist to argue about. This subject is way over the heads of anyone using an online forum to discuss in any meaningful way. But of course your argument is about the lack of information (and thus enlightenment) and you are choosing the internet as an example of deficiency. As suggested the internet is a poor source of data and it is not helpful to judge the human race by looking at the internet.
Scientists are smart, they are enlightened, but people are dumb and are not. It is a divided world.
You lost this argument because like cornfed you didn't check the data. Like him, it appears that you didn't look at all. The problem then is erroneous data but as you said your suggestion was a theory. Well good news you theory is wrong. It seems that you are the one speculating.
So, to clarify:
It is you that does not have the slightest interest in determining the truth, and it is I gathering the data. Thus my theory is that it is your enlightenment that is over not everybody else's.
In conclusion: The enlightenment is NOT over.
Shaun, thank you for illustrating why religion necessary, because most people are not capable of logical thought and need religious guidelines instead.
Of course I don't wish to sound like a troll.
'The Enlightenment' - I think you mean this:
The concern is that this looks a lot like the Liberalism that you are against? Perhaps you want the enlightenment to be over?
The internet is difficult to use to extract accurate data. It takes me a long time of digging to find the kind of information that would be considered to be enlightenment. Such information is hard to find and hard to identify. For example the Tomatis Method, Audio-Psycho-Phonology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_A._Tomatis
This is currently considered Alternative Medicine in the USA but is accepted as scientific in France. This guy developed this from his own reasoning and study. It's just one example of very important stuff that is being developed at the moment and is a genuine example of modern enlightenment of a profound nature. But such stuff is very hard to find if you don't know about it already. I occasionally stumble across such items and there is enough of this for me to know that it is not merely Liberalism or Modernism but is actual human progress without external inspiration or interference. The world is actually changing quite rapidly at the moment and significant progress is being made. It's just hard to see it.
Religion is indeed necessary but not for the reasons you may think! Exorcism should be looked at very carefully. It implies that the Human Brain - Is God, and suggests that religion is designed to improve the functioning of the human brain. What if...
What if the power of the Saints was the power of the Saints and not God.
What if Jesus Christ was God because God was his brain.
What if the Christian Cross represented the Brain and the Spinal Column.
What if religious practices were simply designed to enhance and increase the use of the brain.
What if the worship of God was the worship of the brain.
What is reading the bible enhanced the brain as it appears to do in exorcism.
It wouldn't matter what religion you worshipped as all would be achieving the same purpose. It would account for the failure of the Jews to conquer the world.
So my view is that the context in which you grasp religion and it's use is not quite correct. However religion is not dead, and there are many instances of people gaining mental abilities from simply reading the bible, such as Edgar Cayce, William Blake, presumably this is where the saints got their power from and there are many others. Religion does have a place and a use and if anything would tend to increase the capacity for logical thought - which you would condemn as modern progressive liberalism?
So for example:
The landing of a probe on a comet. The mission was started in 1991 I believe, so the technology in use comes from a little before that time. This mission has been successful and is an example of reasoning and enlightened thought in the modern era. It is not an example of Liberal Progressive theoretical argument, it's actually real and was reasonably successful.
It appears that the brain developed consciousness as a separate thinking process. The process was isolated from the brain by reversing all the data sent to this area. Thus the image from the eyes was reversed (as it's normally upside down), the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body, the left hemisphere the right side of the body and so on. It's an obviously simple protocol as security goes but prevents access to any God-like areas of the brain. Consciousness is the God of the brain just for what it does now. The God-like capacities of the brain are not accessible to consciousness because the brain did not think of these abilities as God-like or necessary. The Conscious mind is now the God of the body and rules it almost entirely.
As consciousness was made separate from the brain to provide an alternative thinking process it is external to the brain in that it is self contained. When consciousness itself looked for an external God the first item to be encountered outside of itself would be the rest of the brain. As that has God-like capabilities and these can be producing physical effects in the external world (crop formations for example) the external view of an external God was presented to the conscious mind but in reality it is seeing the brain itself (as the God Jehovah). The brain appears to be the God of the conscious mind.
Personalities develop in unused brain capacity (the Taylor is not a Blacksmith, the Blacksmith is not a Taylor). These forces are perhaps like computer viruses. They are already a breach of security and they already know that the brain can be accessed using reversed data. Reversals are then seen to be demonic or satanic.
If an image looks the same when it's upside down then it will look the same to both the brain and the conscious mind. If it symmetrical horizontally as well as vertically then it would be a circular mandala. Such mandala's would then constitute a common language between the conscious mind and the brain or between the man and the God. That many crop circles are symmetrical point to an effort on the part of someones brain to point this out, implies access to God-like areas of the brain by this mode of communication. Further more non symmetrical designs seem to be calling for a reply, the method implies the the required response would be to turn the non symmetrical design into a symmetrical version to give the correct response. Thus confirming an understanding of the mode of communication.
Such is theoretical reasoning I guess. But it is reasoning that can be tested.
*The Conscious mind is the God of the Brain. The Brain is the God of the Conscious mind. All religions worship the brain. Genesis is just a story designed to have an effect upon the brain.
The subject of this thread is 'The Enlightenment Is Over'. My continuing argument is that it is not but the topic is clearly an ambitious one. Hopefully my statements are on topic.
So for example:
Rock & Roll music. The enlightenment was about greater tolerance and certainly this was needed here. This was a style of music that came from the Black people and it had a totally dominating effect on the white people and their music. Although some people may suggest that this was a backward step I still think that this is a true example of modern enlightenment because of it's devastating effect on the social culture.
Some clarifications on the previous religious stuff:
The isolation of consciousness through the reversal of data. The data is actually a rotation not a reflection. So the symmetry that would form a common language would be rotational symmetry and the three primary types would be 180 degrees, where the image is turned upside down, 120 degrees where the result can be reversed horizontally and look the same but not vertically, and 60 degrees which is more complex.
So in the case of circular mandalas:
180 degrees - Square four armed crosses, Buddhist, typically Nazi swastika (remembering rotational symmetry here). Feminine, the blue sector of my logo.
120 degrees - 3 armed crosses, Demonic, no obvious examples. Masculine, the yellow part of my logo.
60 degrees - 6 armed crosses, typically the Shield of David the six pointed star of the Jews but the reference is the Seal of Solomon (Arabic pre-Islam). Cupid the Archer (unknown I guess), the red part of my logo.
The 60 degree 6 pointed star type (60bpm music is an instance) would be the recommended form as it is compatible with both the 120 degree and the 180 degree type. The Seal of Solomon typically said to give control over Demons as you might expect in this context of it being to do with the brain. In the Jewish context I guess this would provide the link between man and God but the implication is a link between the Conscious mind and the Brain.
For anyone interested in studying such forms Apophysis - a fractal flame creator (available for free) can be set to produce forms with rotational symmetry and set the form. I haven't recently tested it but I think it can produce 6 armed rotational symmetry.
Sadly this stuff will be more useful to me than anyone else here as it's somewhat complex. Listening to music at 60 beats per minute can be expected to enhance the brain (just do that). It could have been the case that we originally had access to the God like capabilities of the brain but giving Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum God like powers would allow you to step back and watch them kill each other. Such creatures would fail to survive in evolutionary terms so we may have descended from some form of war between the Gods but it's hard to say. People without God like powers would live in peace with one another and thus survive.
I don't believe that these suggestions are blasphemous in any way as they don't suggest changes of behaviour. The God must be seen as external and worshipped as such, but only due to the perspective of the Conscious mind.
This stuff surprisingly does stand up to scrutiny. You could make a religion out of it if you could demonstrate God like power which may be possible with some form of communication based on Manadalas. These circular images may be acting like buttons or triggers and they may provide powers.
So for example:
The Internet. "Though the Internet has been widely used by academia since the 1980s, the commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life."
An obvious example of the modern enlightenment. From the historical perspective and the original wikipedia article on the enlightenment, of course that is said to have ended in 1815 - 1822 or so.
Clearly the enlightenment has continued.
Apologies for the rapid submissions here.
Hopefully I have established some context on the issue of 'the enlightenment'. 'The Enlightenment' ended in the historical context so the assumption has been that this was referred to in a generalised sense. I hope that I have given sufficient examples to show that this enlightenment has continued. This may be viewed as modernism and many people here who are anti-modernist would perhaps reject some or all of these examples. I hope that I have provided sufficient context to point to a problem that we are all having. That problem is Feminism.
Feminism is an example of the continuing enlightenment. The reason is that it has been proposed as a philosophy which has been promoted in books and then embraced by Governments as obviously correct and then imposed upon the people. It has all the characteristics and it has all the symptoms... except one - It doesn't work. In the context here you can see how dangerous this is. You can see how it could be promoted so well.
Why Doesn't Feminism Work?
We live in a Capitalist Democracy. This is not just one system but rather two systems in one. It is a system of winners and losers. The Capitalist businesses are Dictatorships and the simple expedient of one person doing what another tells them to do creates success by joining forces. A number of people pulling in the same direction through obedience produces a successful and profitable result in a highly efficient way. In contrast Democracies rely on votes and common agreement. A mass of people pulling in different directions works well as a sharing of resources tends to occur. If all the people moved to the same side of the boat at the same time it would roll over and sink. The confused masses are then exploited by the businesses to manufacture products which they themselves purchase. They are the losers where the fat cat business leaders are the winners. This system is unfair but works extremely well, and if you want to defeat it then just go back to barter and trade by discarding money.
The Capitalist Democracy is an example of a system that is based on Winners and Losers where each support the other. Relationships are also a system that is based on Winners and Losers. Traditionally it was the male who was the winner and the female was the loser. So if the female stepped outside she was eaten by a tiger - thus became the loser. If the male stepped outside he would defeat the tiger and make it into food - and thus became the winner. The male helped the loser female by providing her with food. In return the female would do what ever she could to support the male generally by looking after his children.
If you take the Capitalist Democracy and impose Communism upon it instead (much as in Cuba), what happens is that all the people achieve equality and then none are motivated to do much and then all become losers. Communism strives to achieve equality because this is obviously correct, but sadly doesn't work in practice.
Feminism has the goal of achieving equality and this goal is the same as that achieved by Communism. By imposing the false ideology of men and women being equal you achieve the same result as Communism and everybody looses. You cannot impose an equality based system onto a structure that works on the basis of winners and losers. Consider that Capitalism and Dictatorship businesses are based on one person telling another what to do. Relationships need to function in the same way in order to be successful.
Superiority as a Solution
Feminism will not be overthrown because it looks like modern enlightenment. So the question is how to have your cake and eat it too. There is a solution. The fact is that there is no equality:
Men are not equal to other men.
Women are not equal to other women.
Men and women are not equal to each other.
Only IDENTICAL TWINS are equal.
These statements are true. The solution is to determine who is superior in every case, especially as this tends to occur anyway (who's wearing the trousers).
If a feminist believes that she is superior to men then she must find a man that she is superior to.
If a man believes that he is superior to women then he must find a woman that he is superior to.
The couple must agree which of them is the superior and which the inferior.
If you want the female the wield the Pick Axe then you must find one not only who claims to be able to do so but one that can, and give the Pick Axe to her. If you want a man who can raise babies then you must find one that can. Superiority could be established and if it were most females would accept their inferiority if this was established in practice.
The idea of proving 'INDIVIDUAL SUPERIORITY' is what needs to be promoted as the true enlightenment to replace the fake feminism. This should be easy to do as it is the very basis for selecting recruits. They are only treated equally up to the point of selection. The selection of the best candidate, whether male or female, is declaring the person SUPERIOR to the rest. This is a scheme that politicians would understand well as often they are married to a partner deemed to be inferior. So equality is denied as a non-factual ideology, and superiority has to be proven on a case by case basis.
The next step would be to find methods of establishing superiority that people could apply easily and fairly.
And finally... I'm inspired by cornfed to give the final piece of the religious puzzle:
The God Jehovah is the DISTRIBUTED HIVE MIND OF THE HUMAN RACE.
This is not the collective unconscious, it is actually a directed hive mind. As you can imagine there is a glut of evidence and an obvious security situation. If the conscious mind had access to the brain it could gain access to the hive mind and from there it could access the individual minds of all the people in the immediate area. There are a range of obvious indicators and the most obvious of these is that the hive is strongest when it's people are asleep at night. The two instances that immediately spring to mind are:
"While shepherds watched their flocks by night", the angel of the lord appears as the people sleeping nearby are providing additional power to the hive mind, to produce the presence. It's purpose to communicate between the hive and the conscious minds of the shepherds who can then convey the information to the people.
and crop formations:
The people around Silbury Hill while sleeping at night merge their brain power into the hive mind which then creates crop formations as some kind of bill board broadcast for the rest of the population to ponder consciously during the day. A clear instance of this can be seen here:
It's her old site so it might not last for very long. Here the hive mind creates a crop formation depicting the hive mind of ten sleepers, linked to produce a specific effect. The people in the area are farmers so they have the kind of primitive mind that cornfed was referring to here:
The thing is that a society of atomized individuals pursuing their own momentary self-interest doesn't really work in the long term. It is not efficient can't accomplish a lot of worthwhile goals very well. A society needs a unifying common goal outside of its individual components to work towards. Apparently hunter-gatherer societies that had not had contact with agricultural/industrial civilization had a kind of mind-meld going where they thought in groups rather than as individuals and operated like the fingers of a hand. In order to get agricultural/industrial societies to operate like this and reap the benefits, religion seems to be necessary.
from the section 'Turning to religion'.
Jehovah - DHM.
This is very disturbing for me and the security aspects are clear. I will not be proving the point. Some high level security forces do seem to have access and use it to check that secrets are not being passed on. Clearly a technology of a religious kind could be developed with respect to the hive.
This post was updated on .
And yet - even more...
The Tomatis Method:
The key idea given is the idea that the brain can be charged with a sound of 8000Hz or more being fed into the brain via the ears.
The Jewish slaves had the God Jehovah/Yahweh and if this was a hive mind then how come the Egyptians didn't have this? Of course, the hive may have drawn on the brains of the Egyptians but may not have been on their side. Still the conclusion reached is that the Jewish slaves were doing something and this something was not suggested by Moses.
To cut a long story short they were using a musical instrument - the Tabret. This is a tambourine with jangles around the edges. The main quote for this is here:
"Yahweh himself created the tabret in the beginning as an adornment of worship, praise, and glory. We carry these instruments of worship to praise and magnify Yahweh as well."
In fact the instrument was probably of Egyptian origin but they used it to frighten away demons (Typhon) where the Jews/Israelites used it for religious purposes.
Samples were downloaded and tested and found to have frequencies coming from the Jangles that were mostly in excess of 8kHz. If this instrument were used it would energise the brain and being a percussion instrument could also give the beat. 60 bpm would therefore not only link directly to the brain (and link one brain to another) but the sound of the jangles would charge the brain and the result would indeed 'magnify Yahweh' as the hive mind of the Jewish slaves. The God formed then contacted Moses via the Burning Bush. It's not clear what the time of day was (whether it was night or day). The God's concern was the oppression of the Israelites which had come to his attention as it would if he was their hive mind.
So we have a technology which is based upon certain frequencies charging the brain and certain tempos acting as a linker between the brains and here we have the ideal instrument - produced by Yahweh himself designed to achieve both and thus magnify the effect. You need a tambourine loop at 60 beats per minute to produce the same result. It's not clear how long would be required?
*No smoke without fire! Is it just me or am I sensing a touch of enlightenment?
God - is a Tambourine!
One of the obvious objections to the above is the creation of Adam and Eve, who were created before the God Jehovah was created by the Israelites as a hive mind?
Jehovah as suggested in this theory would be the brain (not the conscious mind). The hive mind formed by linking a number of brains in gestalt to exert more power as a God and presumably to create higher intelligence. So the brain itself would predate the hive mind formed by the Israelites.
The creation of Adam is then seen as the formation of the conscious mind as a large separated thinking process within the brain, big enough to sustain it's own independent thinking. Adam then became an individual where previously all the brains would have acted as a group (but not necessarily a hive). The proof of this rests with the idea that originally Adam was supposed to associate with the demon Lilith. Demons are suggested here to reside in unused areas of the brain. They are separate but not created. They seem to be rather like computer viruses. They have access to the brain but are not in allegiance with the brain and they can access other areas of the brain as they are not subject to the same level of security. Lilith was not compatible with Adam and she ran away, thus the ability to move to some other area of the brain.
The creation of Eve was then using the 'rib' of Adam and this is presumed to be a term rather like the 'backbone' of the internet. It refers to the core code of consciousness and was obviously set up to be in the brain of the female and then was rewired to be laterally connected so as to be complementary to Adam thus correcting the incompatibility that was found in the case of Lilith.
No doubt there will be a range of other possible objections (such as Genesis) but the Bible should perhaps be looked at in a different context to see whether there is more support or more objection? It seems clear at this point that the formation of a hive mind by the Israelites was probably accidental. The power of the God Jehovah is considerable when you consider that other groups such as the black slaves with their Voodou religion were not able to generate enough power to liberate themselves from slavery, despite the fact that Voodou has significant power as a religion.
You're a female poster aren't you? I know in anglo countries there are many effeminated men but to such an extent?
Not true. I'm sure that the email address can be used to confirm that. Most people here just call me a troll. Not sure why you would think this?
Because your posts on this forum often resemble the writing of women, in my opinion. (An email address is of no use here of course since anyone can create addresses for pseudonymous use.)
That's interesting. Left handed with a touch of Autism is probably the cause. I am from England so my use of English may perhaps be better than the Americans here.
In the religious context the use of the tambourine was more important than the drum in Shamanism and indeed even in the case of the Hebrew 'slaves' of Egypt the instrument was used by women rather than men. In the context of Shamanism the practice was a performance art and here that would be so, because in the case of a hive mind you would need the brains of the audience (typically male), but it has tended towards Matriarchies rather than Patriarchies. In the modern era drumming is considered to be a masculine gender role. If the God was the result of a kind of perfected Shamanism then there would be 60,000 years of supporting evidence but that would be religious in nature.
Women of course, tend to like classical music of the kind that tends to be in the 60bpm tempo. The concern is that such music is very poor, and doesn't have drums. At this tempo percussion is required rather than drums. As such music doesn't exist in a listenable form I have been manufacturing such music. That's tedious and takes time but in the context of my original posting (Natural Eugenics) the tempo resides in an area that is neither male nor female. As there is more good music than bad typically 150 pieces are made and then reduced to 10, and this is a lot of exposure to something designed to interact with the brain. While I can confirm improved thinking as you might expect from the Mozart Effect it's not clear what it may do to the brain and the wiring of the brain (which might not be good). Because I'm left handed my brain is stupidly cross wired so it would take a brain scan to determine which bit is doing what. On top of that I'm a genetic mutant with a smaller mouth and four missing teeth. The dentist uses the tooth diagram like a map to find his way around. I'm resistant to all forms of hypnosis and conditioning which is very disappointing. In general then I'm different so not susceptible the common error prone ways of thinking. I'm also a technician by trade thus highly qualified but many guys here are also highly qualified.
I share most of the same problems that people here do and in general my interest stems from Elliot Rodger and his problems and the concern is to find ways and means of resolving these issues. Religion offers a range of possible solutions but externally the unenlightened viewer (guess who) might easily reach the conclusion that the useful culture provided by a religion is organisational, I contend that the organisational appearance is being produced by some form of psychogenic linkage that not only creates a hive mind as a God but would also have the effect of bringing people together at the same time.
The relationship with God may be an extension of the relationships between men and women. Hence no God, no mate (get a God get a mate or conversely get a mate get a God). What organised religion is doing however is to attempt to achieve the same outward appearance of organisation without the God as the organisational principle. So instead of a tambourine such as used by the Hebrews in Egypt the Christian church goes for Cathedrals and Church organs, and of course it doesn't work. When you throw money at a problem then obviously a Church Organ looks better than a Tambourine but money is the root of all evil and here you see it clearly.
Perhaps then rambling on resembles the writing of women? It helps me to work out the answers.
Not only your writing style, but some of the statements you made, it was hard for me to believe that these statements could be made by anyone other than a woman. A new example you have just provided:
As to what you say about yourself, I think biological differences are important but not sufficient, it also depends on upbringing and environment.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|