The 7 Hermetic Laws of the Universe.

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

None of the stuff in here are facts, just theories. If there were absolutes we'd have a much better understanding of life.

Take the "everything has a cause" what says that A caused B? Is it based on past experience?

Not necessarily. That statement can be based off of life experiences stand point not just dealing with the past. It's fairly pragmatic. I should add just because we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean it doesn't have one. But anyway even if it were based off past experiences....

Past experience speaks nothing on the future. Just because I have missed 100 shots int he past, doesn't mean I'm going to miss the next 100 shots. a simple example to prove that the past has no barring on the future, thus there is no proof to this causality except what we think to be causality. What says that because I throw a brick through window, the window has to break? A doesn't have to cause B we just assume it does, thus there is no proof to causality thus can't be a law.
The empirical argument states otherwise. Experience are just our senses; sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste. If you're looking to "know" something for certain but if you're just generalizing nvm. What was stated is every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. I don't know if you worded it wrong but throwing a brick through something and at something are two different things, even so you're assuming that all bricks threw windows break. In an example like that there other possible causes. Same for the 100 shots. You're skipping over things that are vital to cause and effect. Ofcourse there's nothing concrete to back up that if you missed a 100 shots you will miss the next 100. The factors of practicing and getting better, probability, and even the possibility that you purposely missed all 100 shots are part of cause and effect.

Anyway like I said though none of this is factual they're basically theories falling under philosophy. When discussing metaphysics and epistemology there are no absolutes. If there were there would be no discussion and this would all be a waste of time.

None of this stuff should be talked about in a sense of "I believe" and "I don't believe" more like "I think" and "I prefer this idea" There all theories that should be considered and then you choose which areas you'd like to further investigate.

I'm not sure your understand what I was saying. What I'm saying is that causality isn't certain. Experience can't prove causality,because it happened before doesn't mean it's going to happen in the future is the point that I was making. What I'm saying is nothing may have acause it just be a bunch of coincidences, that appears to be causality. Whether throwing a brick through or at something, in either case the window doesn'thave to break. I could practice everyday and never make a shot, or never practice and make 1 million shots. Causality is the "everything happens for areason" type idea, but in reality things may not happen for a reson, things may just happen. It's hard to swallow because we like to think theuniverse has order, has purpose, but it is just as logical, if not more logical, that the universe has no order no purpose, the only laws it adhears to are thelaws of math, and thast only because that is how humans are constituted to understand thigns.

 

[korto]

Originally Posted by The Yes Guy

Calculus is a provable form of mathematics. I may have questioned its methods but never its validity. This is baseless mumbo jumbo. I want someone to break down one of the concepts for me in simple English, with logical reasoning behind it, not blanket assumptions of truth.

Everything I have said, I have confirmed myself through my own experience. I can't prove it to you with logical reasoning, because itssomething you know beyond logic. I could give you instances where logically it makes sense, but I can't prove itto you using logic. It's like trying to prove physical world phenomenon inside of a video game. You can't prove to me that electricity is real on aWorld of Warcraft server, but when I see in the physical world that electricity exists, the existence of video games makes logical sense. Too many peopledemand logical proof of something before they believe it, they don't know how to know anything other than knowing it logically. Logic is just a tool youuse to make your life a bit easier, it should not be something you base all of your beliefs on. Often these "logical people" criticize religiouspeople for blindly following their religion while forsaking everything else, yet these same "logical people" blindly follow their logic in the samemanner without even realizing it.

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Take the "everything has a cause" what says that A caused B? Is it based on past experience? Past experience speaks nothing on the future. Just because I have missed 100 shots int he past, doesn't mean I'm going to miss the next 100 shots. a simple example to prove that the past has no barring on the future, thus there is no proof to this causality except what we think to be causality. What says that because I throw a brick through window, the window has to break? A doesn't have to cause B we just assume it does, thus there is no proof to causality thus can't be a law. David Hume $@%!%!

Nothing says that throwing a brick at a window will cause the window to break. Just that throwing a brick will have some effect on something.

Originally Posted by bboy1827

All Knowledge isn't innnate. You learn most things through experience. Not to knock these, but you guys really need to think about things for a second. How can you know a stove is hot or even further how can you know what hot is without experiencing it? Like the more and more I read this thread, I really think that that a lot of people on here are truly "sheep" and need to pick up some Philo books. Not knocking you or anything but how can you sit here and actually think that ideas are innate within us? The only thing that we can know without experiencing it is math and thats only because of the way we are built.

Intelligence is innate, and when you combine that innate intelligence with experience, you obtain trueknowledge. Of course, a child still needs to learn that stoves are hot. But the fact that stoves are hot is not true knowledge (a person's recognition oftruth), but more of a practical knowledge that is necessary in our lives. And in regards to this type of knowledge, you are right. But innate intelligencecombined with general experience results in the ability to recognize absolute truth, and many different experiences will result in the same recognition of thistruth, because the truth is real. I can keep going on this but it probably won't make sense if you don'talready know what I'm talking about, since again it's not really something you can know intellectually alone.

Originally Posted by swyftdahoe

No offense because I come from a math/science background as well. But no one is going to be able to convince you of any of this. If you're looking for a formula or an equation to prove any of this, you're not going to find it. If you come at people with the tact that they've gotta convince you, well, you'll never be convinced. Just saying.

Exactly. I tell you that honey is sweet, but you don't believe me. I tell you to just put the honey in your mouth and the sweetness will beobvious, but you insist on using your fingers to find out whether honey is sweet or not. Not tasting any sweetness, you tell me I'm making up psuedointellectual mumbo jumbo nonsense and you're convinced that honey isn't sweet. Clearly noone would ever do this, yet so many people are doing the samething with their life (honey) and their logic (fingers).

Originally Posted by DaNiKeRhiNo

All I'm seeing is speculation and people talking out of their +%#+$. I'm not close-minded or anything but where's the cold-hard facts to all this +#%% some of you guys are saying.

Same as above. There are no cold hard facts, but if you really want to know the truth you are capable of finding it for yourself.

Originally Posted by Master Zik

None of the stuff in here are facts, just theories. If there were absolutes we'd have a much better understanding of life.
[...]
None of this stuff should be talked about in a sense of "I believe" and "I don't believe" more like "I think" and "I prefer this idea" There all theories that should be considered and then you choose which areas you'd like to further investigate.

No, it is neither fact nor theory, it is the truth. There are absolutes, the truth is absolute, and I do indeed have a much better understanding of life. Of course if you use your logic to try and understand this without having the actualexperience behind it, it won't make sense to you. And yet instead of the possibility that what I'm saying may have the slightest degree of credibilityto it and perhaps trying to experience it yourself, you shrug it off as nonsense because it is not compatible with the very logic that I'm telling you isholding you back from understanding it.

 

[Master Zik]

No, it is neither fact nor theory, it is the truth. There are absolutes, the truth is absolute, and I do indeed have a much better understanding of life. Of course if you use your logic to try and understand this without having the actual experience behind it, it won't make sense to you. And yet instead of the possibility that what I'm saying may have the slightest degree of credibility to it and perhaps trying to experience it yourself, you shrug it off as nonsense because it is not compatible with the very logic that I'm telling you is holding you back from understanding it.
What is the truth exactly then? What may be the truth to you is not the truth to others. You're arguing what's the truth on a completelysubjective standpoint. You think you have a better understanding of life because you believe this new found information has truth in it. It is nothing but a theory because you're/we're are searching for a solution that is the most logical and satisfactory tous. If this were the truth you would be able to prove it. Not only that the very fact that it is absolute would deem all other alleged "truths"unnecessary, would it not?

Also what truth is absolute? The truth only goes as far as people remember it. Even if the truth were absolute, there would be no way you could actuallyknow that. Like I said before dealing with metaphysics and epistemology there are no absolutes, they revolve aroundunprovable and yet disprovable theories for the most part. Go read some Socrates or something man. Talking about it is the truth.

As far as the shot you're trying to take at me

If you actuallyread my post I consider all possible "answers", "solutions", and theories presented to me. I actually favor this one but because I'mnot taking a side you see fit to condescend because you say it's the truth. It's that very logic that'll keep you in the dark.

Seriously though, I'll wait if you're gonna really tell me how your truth is absolute or how this inparticular is the truth and that it is absolute. If so you'd make abreakthrough man has been needing for over a millennium.

Causality is the "everything happens for a reason" type idea, but in reality things may not happen for a reson, things may just happen.
I get your point then.

 

[dgk3188]

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Originally Posted by DaNiKeRhiNo

All I'm seeing is speculation and people talking out of their +%#+$. I'm not close-minded or anything but where's the cold-hard facts to all this +#%% some of you guys are saying.

85%

"85% wanna know what things mean"

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by Korto


Nothing says that throwing a brick at a window will cause the window to break. Just that throwing a brick will have some effect on something.

Intelligence is innate, and when you combine that innate intelligence with experience, you obtain true knowledge. Of course, a child still needs to learn that stoves are hot. But the fact that stoves are hot is not true knowledge (a person's recognition of truth), but more of a practical knowledge that is necessary in our lives. And in regards to this type of knowledge, you are right. But innate intelligence combined with general experience results in the ability to recognize absolute truth, and many different experiences will result in the same recognition of this truth, because the truth is real. I can keep going on this but it probably won't make sense if you don't already know what I'm talking about, since again it's not really something you can know intellectually alone.



1) Read my posts a couple of posts above about causality and how things may just happen. If I "throw" a brick there is the possibilityof nothing happening, I mean there is no logical link between me "throwing" something and something else happening besides that object being thrown,it may not move it may not do anything.
2) What is "true knowledge" expand on this because that doesn't mean anything; that is just a term people throw around. The only knowledge thatcan come completely independent of experience is space time knowledge.

 

[daytona 5000]

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Originally Posted by blazinjkid

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Another bastardization of Kemeticism.

I don't agree at all. They're both based on the same ancient wisdom and understanding of the universe. How can one be a bastardization of the other?

All knowledge is innate. Neither one of these movements "discovered" anything.

Its a 1000% stolen philosophy.

Hermeticism is a set of philosophical and religious beliefs[sup][1][/sup]based primarily upon the Hellenistic Egyptian pseudepigraphical writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus who is the representation of the congruence of the Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek Hermes.

Y'all seriously need to read this book...

Those ideas were around for thousands of years prior to the period of European antiquity.




So does this make them any less valid?

 

[neekolas]

most metaphysics is a total joke

 

[dgk3188]

Originally Posted by NeekolaS

most metaphysics is a total joke

 

[korto]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

No, it is neither fact nor theory, it is the truth. There are absolutes, the truth is absolute, and I do indeed have a much better understanding of life. Of course if you use your logic to try and understand this without having the actual experience behind it, it won't make sense to you. And yet instead of the possibility that what I'm saying may have the slightest degree of credibility to it and perhaps trying to experience it yourself, you shrug it off as nonsense because it is not compatible with the very logic that I'm telling you is holding you back from understanding it.

What is the truth exactly then? What may be the truth to you is not the truth to others. You're arguing what's the truth on a completely subjective standpoint. You think you have a better understanding of life because you believe this new found information has truth in it. It is nothing but a theory because you're/we're are searching for a solution that is the most logical and satisfactory to us. If this were the truth you would be able to prove it. Not only that the very fact that it is absolute would deem all other alleged "truths" unnecessary, would it not?

Also what truth is absolute? The truth only goes as far as people remember it. Even if the truth were absolute, there would be no way you could actually know that. Like I said before dealing with metaphysics and epistemology there are no absolutes, they revolve around unprovable and yet disprovable theories for the most part. Go read some Socrates or something man. Talking about it is the truth.

As far as the shot you're trying to take at me

If you actually read my post I consider all possible "answers", "solutions", and theories presented to me. I actually favor this one but because I'm not taking a side you see fit to condescend because you say it's the truth. It's that very logic that'll keep you in the dark.

Seriously though, I'll wait if you're gonna really tell me how your truth is absolute or how this in particular is the truth and that it is absolute. If so you'd make a breakthrough man has been needing for over a millennium.

Causality is the "everything happens for a reason" type idea, but in reality things may not happen for a reson, things may just happen.
I get your point then.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to be condescending at all... just trying to get people to see from a different point of view. My bad if it cameoff that way.

I still don't think many people understand a major point that I'm trying to say.. probably cause I didn't say it very explicitly. You wrote"Even if the truth were absolute, there would be no way you could actually know that. " What I'm sayingis, humans do have the possibility to actually know that. But it's not something you can know through logicalone.. it's different from the whole idea of knowing something logically, which is where a lot of people don't get. When a newborn baby gets fed andtastes milk, it knows the taste of milk, right? The baby doesn't logically understand what it tasted.. but it still knows.

As far as what truth is.. you're absolutely right when it comes to relative truth. I'm not really disagreeing with your views on truth as much asI'm adding another aspect to it. I'm saying that beneath all of that relative truth that you see, there is an absolute truth from which it all stemsfrom. And while you can know the relative truth through logic, the absolute truth needs to actually be experienced to be understood... truth on this level isan experience rather than a concept really. This is why I'm not searching for a solution that is most logical andsatisfactory, in fact I'm not searching for an answer using logic at all. I'm saying that human beings are actually capable of knowing this truththrough experience. You think that there are no absolutes, but what I'm saying is that there is an absolute, andmore importantly that human beings can actually know this absolute, albeit through experience and not through logic. Yes, it is very useful information for modern man, however there are dozens and dozens of accounts from people who have experienced it throughout history... soit's not really a breakthrough. The real problem is that people shrug it off as nonsense just because it can't be proven logically.. and so they neverput in the effort to experience it.

Originally Posted by bboy1827

1) Read my posts a couple of posts above about causality and how things may just happen. If I "throw" a brick there is the possibility of nothing happening, I mean there is no logical link between me "throwing" something and something else happening besides that object being thrown, it may not move it may not do anything.
2) What is "true knowledge" expand on this because that doesn't mean anything; that is just a term people throw around. The only knowledge that can come completely independent of experience is space time knowledge.

Just like I mentioned above, true knowledge is knowledge which humans obtain when they are able to perceive the truth beyond logic, but throughexperience. It's not necessarily a knowledge that is independent of experience, because experience is required to bring it into your consciousness. Thereason it doesn't mean anything to you though is because you haven't yet had an experience which would make you conscious of it.

Again, I'm not really saying that what other people think is incorrect.. all I'm saying is that there's more to it than that. And I don'texpect anyone to blindly believe what I said, but I do hope it makes them curious enough to go and try to find out for themselves.

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by Korto

Originally Posted by Master Zik

No, it is neither fact nor theory, it is the truth. There are absolutes, the truth is absolute, and I do indeed have a much better understanding of life. Of course if you use your logic to try and understand this without having the actual experience behind it, it won't make sense to you. And yet instead of the possibility that what I'm saying may have the slightest degree of credibility to it and perhaps trying to experience it yourself, you shrug it off as nonsense because it is not compatible with the very logic that I'm telling you is holding you back from understanding it.

What is the truth exactly then? What may be the truth to you is not the truth to others. You're arguing what's the truth on a completely subjective standpoint. You think you have a better understanding of life because you believe this new found information has truth in it. It is nothing but a theory because you're/we're are searching for a solution that is the most logical and satisfactory to us. If this were the truth you would be able to prove it. Not only that the very fact that it is absolute would deem all other alleged "truths" unnecessary, would it not?

Also what truth is absolute? The truth only goes as far as people remember it. Even if the truth were absolute, there would be no way you could actually know that. Like I said before dealing with metaphysics and epistemology there are no absolutes, they revolve around unprovable and yet disprovable theories for the most part. Go read some Socrates or something man. Talking about it is the truth.

As far as the shot you're trying to take at me

If you actually read my post I consider all possible "answers", "solutions", and theories presented to me. I actually favor this one but because I'm not taking a side you see fit to condescend because you say it's the truth. It's that very logic that'll keep you in the dark.

Seriously though, I'll wait if you're gonna really tell me how your truth is absolute or how this in particular is the truth and that it is absolute. If so you'd make a breakthrough man has been needing for over a millennium.

Causality is the "everything happens for a reason" type idea, but in reality things may not happen for a reson, things may just happen.

I get your point then.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to be condescending at all... just trying to get people to see from a different point of view. My bad if it came off that way.

I still don't think many people understand a major point that I'm trying to say.. probably cause I didn't say it very explicitly. You wrote "Even if the truth were absolute, there would be no way you could actually know that. " What I'm saying is, humans do have the possibility to actually know that. But it's not something you can know through logic alone.. it's different from the whole idea of knowing something logically, which is where a lot of people don't get. When a newborn baby gets fed and tastes milk, it knows the taste of milk, right? The baby doesn't logically understand what it tasted.. but it still knows.

As far as what truth is.. you're absolutely right when it comes to relative truth. I'm not really disagreeing with your views on truth as much as I'm adding another aspect to it. I'm saying that beneath all of that relative truth that you see, there is an absolute truth from which it all stems from. And while you can know the relative truth through logic, the absolute truth needs to actually be experienced to be understood... truth on this level is an experience rather than a concept really. This is why I'm not searching for a solution that is most logical and satisfactory, in fact I'm not searching for an answer using logic at all. I'm saying that human beings are actually capable of knowing this truth through experience. You think that there are no absolutes, but what I'm saying is that there is an absolute, and more importantly that human beings can actually know this absolute, albeit through experience and not through logic. Yes, it is very useful information for modern man, however there are dozens and dozens of accounts from people who have experienced it throughout history... so it's not really a breakthrough. The real problem is that people shrug it off as nonsense just because it can't be proven logically.. and so they never put in the effort to experience it.

Although I understand what you're saying it all seems to be a mash up of empiricism and phenomenology. As for knowing things only afterexperiencing them, whether a baby or a person who's been living in a cave all of their life they can only knowthe taste of milk through the senses (i.e. sensory data) by acquaintance whichis to say they can never truly know the physical object itself. That fact isn't about knowing through logic alone but should be taken as is. Now,you're equating the experience of tasting milk with these 7 Hermetic Laws, right? Working on the assumption that humans "do have the possibility to actually know that" as you say exactly how do you determine or come to the conclusion that eachperson's experiences would be the same? We all know for a fact humans do not have the best senses and amongst ourselves our senses vary in accuracy. To sayall this plainly, if two people were to experience these laws, there is no guarantee both would come out saying that those laws are true, especially assomething not complex but so in depth within the human mind. You make it sound as if humans have overlooked these lawswhich are elementary and that w/e is holding us back as you claim is something we're aware of on a conscious level. Two people can describe an event theyboth experienced and they can be vastly different or different enough that you'd wonder if they did experience the same event and yet both of their truthswould be right. People as individuals experience things differently.

Secondly, I would ask if these can be experienced how does one go about experiencing it? How does one know they had the right experience? or would you simplysay if their experience doesn't lead them to conclude that this is an absolute truth that they did not experience it? or did not experience it correctly?

Originally Posted by NeekolaS

most metaphysics is a total joke

What you just said isn't even being said right.

 

[abeautifulhaze]

Originally Posted by DAYTONA 5000

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Originally Posted by blazinjkid

Originally Posted by abeautifulhaze

Another bastardization of Kemeticism.

I don't agree at all. They're both based on the same ancient wisdom and understanding of the universe. How can one be a bastardization of the other?

All knowledge is innate. Neither one of these movements "discovered" anything.

Its a 1000% stolen philosophy.

Hermeticism is a set of philosophical and religious beliefs[sup][1][/sup]based primarily upon the Hellenistic Egyptian pseudepigraphical writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus who is the representation of the congruence of the Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek Hermes.

Y'all seriously need to read this book...

Those ideas were around for thousands of years prior to the period of European antiquity.

So does this make them any less valid?


I didn't say anything about validity.

I said it was a bastardization of Kemeticism. You asked me in what way and I showed you.

As above so below was the reasoning behind the pyramids being aligned with the heavenly bodies and Pharaohs having tombs build below ground to mimic theirlives above ground.

Duality, vibration, gender consistency...those things had been cemented and taught for centuries before Europe emerged from its last Ice Age....now they areascribed to "Hermeticism". Hermes, who himself was just a bastardization of Thoth:

He was considered the heart and tongue of Ra as well as the means by which Ra's will was translated into speech.[sup][3][/sup] He has also been likened to the Logos of Plato[sup][3][/sup] and the mind of God[sup][4][/sup] (see The All). In the Egyptian mythology, he has played many vital and prominent roles, including being one of the two deities (the other being Ma'at) who stood on either side of Ra's boat.[5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoth#cite_note-4


The validity of any particular ideology, is for the individual to decide, after being presented with a proper body of information and viewed through the lensof personal experience.

So i'm not going to say that it is less valid or more valid....what I will say...is that the scope, level of understanding, cultural lens and results ofthe diverging philosphies are vastly different.

While an understanding of Atum as the ever-moving, ever-living spiritual building block of life, who emerged from nothing and created everything, lead tomillenia of advancement, which was way ahead of its time and produced feats that we still can not reproduce...the rigid European scientific understanding ofthe atom has lead to atomic warfare and the capability to destroy the very Earth that we walk on with the push of a button. Similary, the conversion andseperation of the religious aspect of Atum into Adam...has lead to a global system of religious and gender exploitation.

Just as in Eastern philosophy, things like gunpowder had a spiritual element and was used in celebration and ritual until it fell into the hands of theEuropean and became a tool of murder and global conquest. Look at Qi Gong it is a spiritual understanding of a physical science.

European axiology seems to lend itself to either or rather than as well as.

Wether that is more valid or less valid is for you to decide.

 

[flyjr22]

bookmarked ima put those 7 in my phone

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by Korto

Originally Posted by bboy1827

1) Read my posts a couple of posts above about causality and how things may just happen. If I "throw" a brick there is the possibility of nothing happening, I mean there is no logical link between me "throwing" something and something else happening besides that object being thrown, it may not move it may not do anything.
2) What is "true knowledge" expand on this because that doesn't mean anything; that is just a term people throw around. The only knowledge that can come completely independent of experience is space time knowledge.

Just like I mentioned above, true knowledge is knowledge which humans obtain when they are able to perceive the truth beyond logic, but through experience. It's not necessarily a knowledge that is independent of experience, because experience is required to bring it into your consciousness. The reason it doesn't mean anything to you though is because you haven't yet had an experience which would make you conscious of it.

Again, I'm not really saying that what other people think is incorrect.. all I'm saying is that there's more to it than that. And I don't expect anyone to blindly believe what I said, but I do hope it makes them curious enough to go and try to find out for themselves.

Experience may deceive you thus experience can't be relied on for anything "true". "I can't conceive it because Ihaven't had an experience to bring it to my consciousness" This speaks nothing to what your definition of "true knowledge" This just soundslike another cop out. You really aren't saying anything besides "you aren't smart enough to understand"

There is nothing above logic, because logic is the only real "law" ofthe universe. You can't sit here and tell me something is above logic and give an illogical answer, that means nothing to me. Not only is this attackinglogic, it is being supported with something that makes no sense...to this I must walk away.

 

[mr kuter]

To me, saying that logic is the one "law" of the universe is quite illogical. What is logic for us may not be logic for some other being in theuniverse. In some ways it seems very perspective based. But I'm definitely no genius.

 

[sneakzrus]

jst kick it son
no need to manipulate
ppl fail bcuz ppl stress

besides powers final product is destruction
at least most of the time