Inner Paths to Outer Space

Here, an example of a total loon, who when asked by me (in the comments) what he saw in the film in question that made sense - is completely unable to explain it.

[link]

But he totally believes it makes sense, and is deeply significant.

I find that people are either off their heads like that blogger, who's now censoring any of my comments there because he can't handle engaging in any discussion (or the reason for the censorship is worse than that), or they completely ignore the spirit altogether and say it doesn't exist.

As well as that, it's not only that the view you're talking about isn't proved, it's that in actual everyday mundane reality itself - nobody has a fucking clue what they are doing, and they certainly never behave rationally or appear to be able to hold conversations that make sense, they can't communicate, and they're just insane and really really bad at what they do.
So, it's also that - if you for example had to put up with the kind of stuff I do in life, the idea of people believing in things like reincarnation and invisible elves made of sweeties is nothing special. You should see what people actually act like, in terms of what they seem to think is true.
I wish they were as easy to deal with, as people that believe in magical fairies and intradimensional aliens.

There are way, way worse mental states that absolutely cannot be proven to have any basis reality than thinking paranormal things are all true. And the worst part is that those who mentally live in those non-existant astral worlds make decisions as to who is allowed to have a job, and who gets what in the physical material world.
That's why the reductionist view is so insulting to the intelligence - it leaves out things that very likely are real, and completely ignores just how insane people are in general, and what really governs the decisions they make.

I wish it was invisible elves telling them what to do & not those 'voices' that really control them; at least then they'd be harmless. And I hope you never have to find out what I know, because no-one should ever ever have to see that. 'multiple alien dimensions' doesn't even come close to beginning to describe what they live their lives by.

That's the point I was making - some people, who choose to ignore facts as you are doing yet again, presume that you can know that people see, for example, the colour blue differently from one another.
They do not see it differently at all of course, and things like cameras and buying paints prove that beyond any doubt. Blue is always blue; we can all agree. Take a photo with blue in it - ask anyone to point out the blue - everyone points to the same thing.
Some people see more than just colours and so forth, they can see the likes of magnetic fields.

The mistake you keep making is that you think a very limited scientific method has all the answers for everything already. You say there's no elves and so forth - and you have zero proof of that. None whatsoever. All of human history disagrees with you, except for the very very recent part of human history - which co-incidently has ruined the planet.
It's built an urban nightmare because it has no comprehension of what reality actually is at all.

Your science has nothing to say about the most obvious things, they all remain completely unanswered by science. Nobody has proof of how the first cell or the first protein formed, they cannot explain logically how even if it did so - how was it able to make copies of itself, and keep that going long enough to make complex organisms with stable structures.
Nobody has proof that anyone is just existing as a body and that they cease to exist when that body dies.

There's not proof either way that there is existence of the eternal being beyond the body, however what there most definitely is is enough evidence that it's exceptionally unlikely that there's no intelligent entities other than the few humans left incarnate who are able to think coherently.

There are 'aura cameras' - not just the military has them to view people's magnetic fields. There's a different model invented by Harry Oldfield, and it has picked up beings 'living' in crystals. There's also Kirlian photography. There's a ton of photos out there that show similar energies to what Kirlian plates pick up, for lifeforces emanating from plants, and water of different structures.
There's more again, in the areas of orgone researches and the heat/infrared photos taken by Trevor James Constable.

And 'sorry' again, but of course dreams and thoughts can be read by machines. There's even a commercial game controller coming out soon that is using thoughts to control onscreen events. I will likely go through some betatesting by the public who buy it, but it'll be more refined as a result of that.

Where the hell do you get shit like that from, thinking a limited science has explanations for the usual fundamentals in the way you say. That doesn't even begin to be true, it's ridiculous to even suggest it.
Views like that, ironically tend to mean you are mind-controlled at best by some cult that gets its power from the ideas of things like doing deals with evil demons.

Bob, I love these comments, very well reasoned. However, my definition of mind is rather limited. A baby is born with a brain but it takes a human being many years to formulate a functioning mind. A functioning mind needs logic structures and some kind of language or symbol system for manipulating persistent thought and memory. These are physical things, not abstract concepts. You can have perception without mind (camera), and logic without mind (computer), and memory without mind (paper, hard drive), but you must have perception, memory, and logic before mind can fully exist, otherwise you are not talking about mind, you are talking about something else which you cannot define or measure in terms of physical systems, so you might as well call it "ether" or "the force" or "juju" instead of "mind" and it would mean the same thing. However, mind in the classic sense already has a definition, which is a system that can perceive, analyze, manipulate, and store symbols in a persistent logical fashion. When a human is no longer able to perform these basic function, we correctly say that they have lost their mind. If mind is everywhere you can never lose it, but people lose their minds all the time. Mind is a fragile physical thing that will disappear if enough of its parts are damaged.

I have a 4 reasons to suspect that there is more to this than we are currently aware:

1. Western thought tends to encourage the belief (just like catholics do with jesus) that the mind exists within the brain. I have not been convinced of this belief. They tell it like it is a fact, but if they do not understand the mind fully how can we accept that as being an undeniable fact, instead of a dogmatic and potentially fatally incorrect assumption?

2. According to ancient thought systems, including Greek and Indic, there are different types of realities, only one of which is a firm and concrete thing that we all have agreed does exist. In these modes of perception there exists a huge pleroma of akashic ethers which conceptually contains every physical thing that can exist (uncarved block so to speak)? Surely we have to make room for the sea of consciousness! The ancients had thorough and sophisticated examinations of reality which are not devoid of logic and reasoning, in many ways they exhibit characteristics which are superior to what we call Modern Science!

3. Intelligence (LISP-stylized, for demonstrative purposes) (permeates all things in the universe with that (in) mind we (prepare) ourselves (to) find the correct (methodology of tapping into ((networked) consciousness) that which (already) exists)). If the brain is more of a receiver of MIND rather than its actual home, western science is incorrect in its belief (worse though as it calls such beliefs FACTS!). People need to wake up and realize that much of what we call science is modern voodoo. Most of it was known thousands of years ago and only fairly recently again forgotten.

4. Mathematically we can prove that there are more than three dimensions. If perhaps these fourth and ninth MATERIAL DIMENSIONS contain some higher order of geometry which connects all things in the universe through realms of higher mental constructs we would surely have new conclusions about the nature of reality (IE it is fundamentally hyperspacial). Just like those who instilled the flat world doctrine and the geocentric model, we now have the child of those flatworlders that insists that three dimensions are all that exist! Science becomes the new catholic church when it likewise fails to answer the questions which it has caused to be asked. That must be evolution.

At the very least, I suspect that it is easier to move our minds to other places then it is to move our bodies. Once we travel some place mentally then we can bring back the blueprints to create new things physically. But anyone who has eaten LSD can tell you that, just ask Steve Jobs that big acid head... I'm sure he is just as likely as I am to read this book within the next few months! Thanks for LSD, Jesus!

Zupa, the camera is absorbing light from outer reality. It produces a replica of reality, just like our brains do. You think you are seeing outer reality but you are not, it is a very fine reconstruction of only the bits of outer reality you think are important at this moment. The camera has no such subjectivity, every camera sees everything exactly the same way (minus lenses and filters, of course), every human sees things slightly differently depending on biological wetware and what they find most curious at that moment.

Outer reality exists, inner reality exists, but please people, let's not confuse them. They are distinct domains. One exists without imagination, the other exists entirely within imagination. Imagination is a currency that can flow from person to person, that alone is magical enough. But imaginary realms should never be confused with objective reality, no matter how much we wish they could be switched around. Imagination is plastic and whatever you say it is; reality has at least a couple solid rules that cannot be argued, such as cameras can pick up magnetic fields, and there and no anthropomorphic plant spirits or self-transforming machine elves hiding in their folds. We humans made that stuff up, just like Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter. Human imagination is better at creating novelty than reality itself. Why dis your own brain and claim your visions are hiding somewhere in the magnetosphere. Own your own vision.

Zupa, we have cameras that can pick up every known frequency of radiation, way more than the thin spectrum of visible light the eye can receive. If such a thing as an "aura camera" existed it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that psychedelic entities are objectively real. Yet no camera or spectrometer can see what people on psychedelics see, just like no camera can see your dreams. I defy anyone to build a camera that can see into "psychedelic hyperspace". It cannot be done. And don't tell me the eye is a better spectrometer than the ones they use at MIT. I know the photoreceptive limitations of the eye. If the eye can see something we can easily build a camera to see it, but the best we can do to reproduce the psychedelic experience with a video camera is to point it at it's own video output to produce infinite video feedback. The camera "trips" into an infinite regression of the current moment. Mechanical hyperspace achieved, no special filters or fancy gear needed.

I just find it amusing that there's folks that really think all of outer reality doesn't really exist, and is also somehow just imprints experienced on a sensory system....cause it doesn't explain anything about reality, at all.

(this isn't about the book in this article btw)

It'd be like being a camera and becoming aware of what you were doing, but concluding that what you took pictures of didn't really exist and was entirely or partially generated from within the camera.
The makers and users of the camera of course, know it doesn't work that way. They know it's an instrument designed to pick up things that exist already outwith themselves, that show the same things their senses show, but are able to record those things in a way that can be shown to anyone else.

It's all very well to argue with that, but the thing is, if you look at a sunset & also photograph it - the photograph does look the same as what you were looking at with your eyes.

If a photo was wanted that looked like what the sunset looks like to your eyes, on acid, then the camera needs to be changed so it picks up more energies than just the visual spectrum of light.
You need to build like, an aura camera, so you can see magnetic fields and things like that.

zupak: huh??

Or, you could push the notion that because a tiny fraction of biological things have been studied and found to have almost consistent results, though not in the circumstances they ever occur in for real, that it means people have finally proved that anything like God or whatever, they imagined it into being and it's all just a product of some chemicals and brain electrics.
Just like how all the photos a camera takes all exist only inside the camera, and are produced by the camera, and there's no outer reality beyond-outwith the camera.

i reaaaly hope to get a copy of this.

also, what a cool cover.

strassman's DMT the spirit molecule was excellent.