#backwards induction may not be intuitive | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kabane52 · 4 years

Text

An Introduction to Christian Faith: God’s Existence and Identity

This is a draft of something which may or may not, after many revisions, become part of a full-length apologetic introduction to Christianity. I’ve written it at my leisure in bursts. I figured it was probably worth it to upload it here. My intention is to unfold the central concepts in the Christian interpretation of the world while making a positive case for thinking that it is indeed the most plausible interpretation of Reality.

God’s Existence

How many numbers are there? You know the answer: there are an infinite number of numbers. No matter how high you count, you can always add one. Very well- perhaps you can tell me where in space I can find this infinite set and how I might see and hear it. Immediately one recognizes the folly of such a request: no number can be seen or described in spatial terms. And what would a world with different mathematical rules look like? What if two plus two came to five? Again, one almost instantly perceives the impossibility of the proposed circumstance. Numbers aren’t the sort of thing which could be other than they are. So we have on our hands a sort of thing which cannot be seen, heard, or felt. It cannot be located in space or remembered in time. They cannot be limited or changed, but are what they are by utter necessity and with perfect certainty- to prove a numerical proposition is not a game of probabilities.

At this point, I hope you have begun to see what many philosophers, theologians, and even scientists have seen. We are not simply considering numbers – we are describing the classical attributes of God- One who is infinite, incorporeal, timeless, and is who He is by necessity- that is to say, He does not change. The similarities don’t end here. Without numbers, one could not live one’s life- nearly everything one does presupposes them in one way or another. One’s day is measured in discrete units of time. One eats a certain number of meals and walks a certain number of steps. One has a certain amount of money, and that money can purchase a certain number of goods. The moon is a particular number of miles away, and its position relative to the earth correlates with the oceanic tides in a mathematically regular way. In other words, nothing makes sense without numbers.

This is the classical conception of the divine nature as well.

Among orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims, God is not best understood as a discrete being which is just one of many things on our list of “things that exist.” It is not that we all agree that people, plants, and planets exist, but theists add another being on top of them. What theists believe everything else is, at its most basic level, is a derivative of God. People, plants, and planets only exist within God and depend in their natures and relationships on those qualities which exist infinitely and perfectly in the mind of God. God’s existence is like the existence of numbers: they are present in all things and are presupposed in every word spoken about anything. This is why it is false to say that believers have a burden of proof from which the unbeliever is free. Both the believer and unbeliever make a positive claim. The unbeliever sees the cosmos as self-perpetuating and existing in and of itself. The believer sees the cosmos as perpetuated and sustained at every moment by the infinite God, existing not of itself but contingently- it doesn’t have to exist. It is not a matter of one person making a positive claim for which another sees no evidence. Either option demands a positive claim about reality.

The connection between numbers and God runs deeper. Indeed, it should be obvious that my description of God does not allow numbers to simply exist alongside Him. God is infinite and suffuses all things. Numbers exist because of that infinity- they exist as ideas perfectly and timelessly present in the mind of God. And it is with this recognition that the mathematical structure of the world begins to make intuitive sense. Everything we know about the universe indicates that it does not have to exist. It’s perfectly conceivable to imagine a situation where nothing existed at all. After all, if the universe needed to exist, everything about it would need to exist. Otherwise, we have only pushed the question one step backwards- if there is anything in the world that doesn’t need to be the way it is, one must explain how it came to be the way that it is. But the fact that things change proves this idea to be false. If the universe must exist and must exist in the exact way it exists, then nothing about it could change- that would be as ludicrous as saying that two plus two might as well be seventy-three. This possibility presses the question upon every thinking person: why is there a world which might not be or which might exist differently?

So we have a world- a world which is only intelligible through timeless, spaceless, infinite numbers- which does not have to exist. Obviously, these numbers cannot cause it to be the way it is- or else it would exist just as necessarily as the numbers themselves do, since numbers cannot change. This is why philosophers of the great monotheistic traditions have always held God to be the only conceivable explanation for the world’s existence. Unlike numbers (when considered in themselves), God is personal. It is only a personal being who could make choices one way or another. If the world does not need to exist, why does it? The natural answer is that its existence was chosen by One who had the capacity to choose- and that demands that the One be personal, for only persons can make choices. Numbers are ideas, and ideas exist only in minds. Since there is an infinity of numbers, the only mind “large enough” to hold them is an infinite Mind.

What all of this adds up to is the reality that basic, simple truths which we assume in our day to day lives end up demanding- when their proper meaning is reflected upon carefully- that God in the classical sense is a real being. Or, put more precisely, He is Being itself, the Existent One in whom all other existent things find their source and continued reality.

That is God in the classical sense.

What Hath Abraham’s God to do with Aristotle’s?

“But why”, some ask, “should I think that this ‘God of the philosophers’ has anything at all to do with religious conceptions of God?” After all, there were and are believers in God who are entirely nonreligious- not by an inconsistency, but by their system of thought. Even if one takes the infinite God described above as the ground of all being, what possible reason would we have to expect that he has any interest in a creature like man? Next to Infinity, it is sometimes suggested, we are essentially nothing at all- and it is foolish to expect an infinite being to have any concern for us. To provide a sound answer to this argument, one must first recognize that it is less an argument and more an intuition. An argument is predicated upon a logically valid inference, whether that inference is deductively certain or inductively probable. But what is the inference being suggested above, and how does it follow? The key premises of this implied argument are left unstated. For example, there is the unstated assumption that the kind of interest one being is expected to show to another is proportional to their relative size, strength, or intelligence. Yet, upon what basis do we make this assumption? When the strong disregard or bully the weak, we do not regard this as praiseworthy. Man nearly always takes such a tendency as a defect. By the same token, the wiser and more intelligent are almost always expected to use their gifts for the good of all, whether intelligent or not.

Christians hold this outlook to have its basis in what is really good and right. And since perfect goodness and justice is an essential component of nearly all religious conceptions of God, it would be circular to argue against this concept by assuming what it denies. That the God of Christianity is intimately concerned with those who before Him are as nothing is not an argument against Christian theism, but one of its great emphases.

I believe, however, we can go even further than this. Not only is the philosophical concept of God compatible with the Christian notion of God, we have excellent grounds to expect that this God has something to say to mankind. The real surprise, I suggest, would not be if the Infinite spoke to the human creature, but if He did not. Consider what we have just done. We have surveyed a series of logical deductions which ought to tell us something about the nature of Reality. Human beings have been doing this kind of thing for millennia. When the physicist wishes to express precisely the relationships that stars have with each other, he does so with a series of mathematical equations. If he wants to express the behavior of subatomic particles, he again does so with a series of mathematical equations. It is true that man is very small in spatial terms when considered relative to the universe as a whole- and contrary to the popular myth, so did the ancient Greeks. But in another sense, the mind of man expands to the size of the whole cosmos. Try to teach a fish cosmology or the laws of logic. The task wouldn’t be hard- it would be impossible. You could take the smartest fish to have ever lived and give him the best lessons anyone had ever taught. You could give him these lessons every day for one-hundred thousand years. On the last day, the fish would be no closer to understanding differential equations on the day you started.

Why is this? It’s because the difference between the human mind and that of a fish isn’t about degrees of competence. It would be a category error to say that we are “one-hundred” times smarter than a fish and “thirty times” as smart as a dog. The kinds of intelligence are as different from one another as seeing is different from hearing. Trying to teach the fish cosmology is like trying to train the human eye to hear birdsong. It cannot be done because the capacity to reason is not reducible to brainpower or practice. To reason is not to have a cleverer mind than a fish, but a different sort of mind. Think about it this way. When we spoke about numbers above, you understood that I wasn’t talking about a number of something. I wasn’t talking about an infinite number of stars, or five-thousand chairs, or two arms. We experience numbers in a concrete way when they describe particular things. But to say I own two television sets is not to say that I own the number two. You understood what I meant when I spoke of the number itself as an abstract category of being with its own qualities, a being which creates the possibility for its concrete realization in particular things without creating the necessity of it.

The same principle applies to countless other subjects. When you look into heaven after dawn, what do you see? A blue sky, a golden sun, and red birds. We experience sensibly blue, gold, and red as they exist as properties of beings which exist concretely. But we all know that isn’t the end of the story- to see a red cardinal is not to see redness itself. Having experienced something which is red, we can contemplate the idea of red in itself. Red in itself is an idea – it is something which exists as a concept in the mind. Or, as Plato would say, it is a form. This distinction is why there are pure mathematicians and not just mathematical physicists. Pure mathematicians study numbers solely according to their properties as ideas. There are more numbers than there are particles in the universe. Numbers make things what they are, but before they describe anything in particular, they exist formally, in mind. Pure mathematics comes before mathematical physics and is- by its very nature- infinitely more vast than mathematical physics.

Mathematics describes the qualities which make countless things what they are. We can only make sense of the world because we have the capacity to assess and understand things not merely as expressed to our senses but also in themselves as ideal forms or abstractions. So far as we know, human beings are the only beings in the universe who can do this. And this has everything to do with how we might expect God to relate to humankind. You see, the “God of the philosophers” described above is the One who contemplates all truths- every number, being what it is, has always existed in His Mind- that’s why there are numbers in the first place. All colors we can see- and countless colors we have never seen and lack words for- are subjects of His divine thought, known completely and wholly according to their particular set of qualities. According to what we’ve argued above, He made the universe by making something which did not have to exist and which exists with a sophisticated set of qualities, mathematical relationships, and behaviors drawn from the infinite wellspring of qualities that could be made into specific stuff.

And among all the creatures that we know anything about, we’re the only one who can make sense of those mathematical relationships. We can write out beautiful mathematics that not only describes the way the world is, but the way the world could have been. Our senses perceive ten chairs and two tables: our reason draws from this the idea of the numbers ten and two. Wholly apart from the chairs and tables, we reason that ten is the result of adding two and eight.

In other words- and this is of immense importance- humankind has capacities and qualities which make it – relatively or absolutely- unique among the countless physical beings- animal, plant, star, moon- that we have studied.[1] But we do share this unique set of qualities with one more Being- the very God whose existence and properties were deduced above by philosophical reasoning.

The God of the philosophers, therefore, shares a great deal with man that He does not share with any other physical being of which we are aware. We exist in a peculiar likeness to God. The Bible describes this peculiar relationship as man’s being fashioned in the “Image of God.” But I emphasize here that the fact of this likeness requires no special appeal to scripture. It can be known simply by reflection on certain aspects of philosophy. Does this prove that God has communicated with man (in a way other than man experiencing the existence of things)? Does it prove He has anything special to say to man? No, it doesn’t prove it in the sense of making it a perfect, logically necessary inference. But it does give us very good reason to expect that the God about whose existence we have learned from philosophy is and has been interested in a special relationship with the human family. The universe which He thought up and knows perfectly- the universe which He is even now holding in existence- contains a very unique creature who can think God’s thoughts after Him and, like God, fashion things into new sorts of existence.

If one had learned of this sort of God for the first time, the most reasonable question he would immediately turn to is whether this God with whom we share so much has ever talked to us. It’s possible that He never has, but it would certainly be a great surprise given the special status we have in relation to Him. Now let us say that this person had never learned about the traditions and thought-systems of the human race, and was considering these questions for the first time. Having asked = whether God had communicated with the human race, and having some reason to expect that He had, he discovers that more than half of the human population declares that an infinite and all-sovereign being who both made and sustains the world had spoken to human beings and made Himself known. When the inquirer finds that such an enormous portion of the human population speaks of this God, he will have very strong reasons to give the memory of that revelation the most serious consideration. After all, if God wished to communicate with the human race and did so, one might expect such revelation to have had some success. That the God of Abraham is the subject of devotion for half the human race – in light of the expectations of God derived from philosophical reasoning- makes Him the likeliest candidate (all things being equal) for that God as He has been made known by direct commerce with the human race.

None of this proves that God talked to the human race. Nor does it prove that if God did talk to man, He did so as the God of Abraham. But if God exists and has made Himself known to the human race, we would very much expect something like the situation in which we find ourselves- with the real revelation being the most famous of all stories told of His self-disclosure.[2]

God in Christianity

But Christians say a great deal more about God. Religious monotheists say that God is all-good. Most say- when the word is properly defined- that God is all-loving. But thinking through these attributes reveals that we really aren’t saying anything very distinct from what has already been said about the infinity of God’s existence. To say that a thing is “good” is to say that it is how it ought to be. And a thing has be-ing because it has been given it from God. Naturally, then, God is all-good, for the way in which we use the word “goodness” refers to its being what it is supposed to be- being which it has at every moment from God. To say that God is all-loving is to take us into the next major point: the cardinal emphasis of Christian theism. God is Trinity, One as well as Three.

Christianity has always been recognized as a bit odd for its profession of God in Trinity. Many critics have summarily dismissed it as an obvious contradiction. Even ancient Greek “pagans” such as Porphyry criticized its apparent waffling on monotheism. At face value, these arguments seem extremely plausible - I just made the claim above that two plus two must always be four, and could never be any different. How then can I make the claim that one plus one plus one equals One? The answer is simple: I would never think of making such a ridiculous claim, and nor would theologically educated Christians. The theology of the Trinity has never entailed anything like this. To say that God exists in Trinity is indeed to say that He is both One and Three, but His Oneness and Threeness are not meant in the same sense. God is One as well as Three, but He is Three in a different way than He is One.

Recall that everything which exists does so by participation- in one mode or another – in God. The cosmos does not exist alongside God, but “in God” insofar as it is perpetually sustained by the free activity of its Creator. The redness of the finest ruby and the green of the most precious emerald exists in these particular things because these qualities have existed in the mind of God from all time- He who contemplates all perfections and has in Himself all possibilities. In other words, He could have created any world that He wanted. Moreover, since we see that the world does not have to exist, but is in a state of flux and development[3]. Putting these realities together leads us to the obvious conclusion that God did not need to make a world, but is fully and perfectly Himself even apart from any possible world He fashions. No quality in creation can have its ultimate source in the creature.

But here we come to a serious difficulty. For the very feature which permits there to be a world in the first place is the fundamental relation between things. God is not identical to the cosmos, but is constantly in creative dialogue with the cosmos. When we look at the structure of the world, we find that mutuality and complementarity is arguably its most pervasive feature. A galaxy finds its proper context in the larger galactic cluster, but the galactic cluster depends on that galaxy in granting it its unique qualities. I, as a distinct subject, am in the world- the world is my home, my dwelling place, the necessary context for my life as a distinct human creature. And yet the world is also in me- I am made up of “world-stuff” which I take in and process from foods. I live in a water-drenched world just as water makes up a large part of my body. My relationship with the cosmos around me is one of constant mutuality, exchange, and dialogue. I make the world what it is, the world makes me what I am. Examples could easily be multiplied: it is only in light of the past that the present is the present. And it is only in light of the present that the future is the future. Each aspect of time makes the other two aspects what they are, and each is made what it is by the other two aspects of time.

This structure- mutuality, dialogue, interplay, and relation – lies near the heart of what it means for anything to exist. And yet, for the simple monotheist, it is relation which is precisely what does not exist prior to the creation of the world. God, being God, is only One, and lacks another subject with whom He is related. This leads to the conclusion that God and cosmos mutually necessitate each other- and there were indeed many in the classical metaphysical tradition who took that path. But this path is, in the end, just as dead as naturalism. The change and flux and development which defines our world is exactly what cannot exist if it is in a mutually necessary relationship with God. For God’s existence is as necessary as that of numbers- He can no more not exist than can two equal three. And if God, being what He is, produces the creation as a necessary result, then the cosmos is equally necessary- and thus equally changeless. Perhaps one might counter that the existence of the cosmos is necessary but its particular qualities fluctuate. This simply will not do- necessity is not something which can merely be predicated of a thing without reason. If the cosmos is necessary, it is only because qualities internal to the definition of “cosmos” render its existence intrinsically necessary. Any contingent quality is as good, philosophically speaking, as a contingent cosmos.

This question- that of the relationship of One to Many, of unity to plenitude, of identity to diversity- has been the subject of philosophical reflection at least since the period of classical antiquity. Conventional approaches can usually be classified as reductionist or nominalist. Reductionists emphasize the unity inherent in the world, interpreting distinctions in things as variant manifestations of what is really a single primordial element. This was a popular approach among the pre-Socratics, though different philosophers argued for different “primordial elements”- some thought all things were ultimately a variation on fire, others thought all things were reducible to water, and so on. The other approach, that of nominalism, tends to emphasize distinction and diversity as the ultimate principle of being. In this approach, different things are different from each other on an ultimate level, without being qualified by an underlying unity. If one sees two yellow flowers, the nominalist would argue that there is no single quality known as “yellowness” really manifest in two different flowers. Instead, the two objects are irreducibly different in each of their particulars. The yellowness of one is utterly different than the yellowness of the other.

It is not my intention to explore the history of this question in great detail, and the positions I have summarized above have been articulated with far more precision and subtlety than can be done justice to in a few paragraphs. My intent is rather to call your attention to the existence of the question. Surely, a cogent interpretation of the world demands that we do justice both to unity and distinction without abandoning either. And if it is true, as argued above, that God is the ultimate source and ground of all being, all creatures having their source in ideas in the divine Intellect, then the one and the many must have some basis in the life of God Himself.

This is the philosophical backdrop for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Far from reflecting the incoherence and triviality that some think characteristic of theology (i.e. “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”), the theology of the Trinity turns out to have deep relevance to the most ancient metaphysical conundrums and ubiquitous features of the world and daily existence.

[1] How do we distinguish a creature with these capacities from one without them? How do we know, in other words, that this isn’t true for a bumblebee or rosebush? Well, there are two answers. First, the capacity to apprehend qualities in themselves and not merely particular things having those qualities is expressed in complex language. Take the word “blue.” The formation of the linguistic sign (or token) is made out of four letters in the English alphabet, one syllable when said aloud. But this is not at all the same thing as giving the meaning of the word. There is a quality, visual sensation which we experience when looking at the sky on a cloudless day or on certain sorts of flowers- and it is that quality which is the meaning of the word. The word itself is a symbol pointing to that which is symbolized, and the capacity to make that distinction between the nature of the word’s formation and the actual meaning of the word constitutes the essential character of rationality and language . Language separates the rational and the irrational because it requires on the part of both speaker and hearer a capacity to see the universal concepts being pointed to by the form of a word. If I write the same word twice on a piece of paper, those two instances are in one sense utterly different from each other: they are separated in space, they were written at different moments in time, and the material which makes up the physical markings is not the same. If all we knew were particulars and not universals, there would be no way that one could begin to understand the reality that two instances of one symbol point towards an identical concept.

But there’s a second aspect to this answer. Perhaps, one might argue, the bumblebee and rosebush do have this very linguistic and communicative capacity, but the mode in which it is realized is so profoundly different than ours that we do not recognize it as such. Even if this is not likely, I confess that it is possible. What are we left with? Well, since we are dealing with the claim of a likeness between the God of the philosophers and the rational, speaking creature, it is important to notice the kind of likeness that it is. The likeness is precisely the capacity to be communicative, to engage in mutual understanding through the contemplation of identical forms. And so even if we hold that all creatures embody a kind of rational will and capacity to reason, this would lead us all the more to expect a divine initiative in facilitating the dialogue which, after all, is the purpose of communication. It would merely be that the audience of prophetic revelation would include, in its own way, the bumblebee and rosebush. In the end, then I think we find ourselves in the same place.

[2] Some might think that this is sleight of hand- surely it’s not sensible to lump Christianity, Judaism, and Islam together in this context when the very same author is about to insist that Christianity alone provides the proper description of divine realities. Here is why I disagree- countless naturalists speak as if they hold about Christianity only what the Christian holds about other religious traditions. That is, the Christian holds that all religious traditions besides his own are without rational grounds, and the naturalist merely adds the Christian tradition to the list of those without basis. This is a profound mis-statement of the actual point of contrast. The Christian does not hold that Islam and Judaism are without basis in the way the naturalist means.

Both Judaism and Islam exist because of their concrete, historical relationship to what orthodox Christians believe is an authentic and historical revelation of the one true God. The Jewish tradition would not exist were it not for God’s call of Abraham, His revelation on Sinai, and His prophetic messengers. Islam would never have existed without all of these events and the ministry of the historical Jesus of Nazareth. In different ways, Islam and Judaism have transmitted certain misinterpretations of these revelations. But if we are speaking of how to explain the religious landscape, the naturalist and Christian share almost nothing in common. For the naturalist, the Abrahamic traditions are the result of chance historical circumstances and human self-delusion. For the Christian, the Abrahamic traditions are the result of a lengthy sequence of self-disclosures by the true God- to which was added on the tail end certain traditions of misinterpretation and/or rejection.

I hasten to add that this is also true by a different historical medium for the non-Abrahamic traditions. Even the crudest paganism cannot be explained except with reference to circumstances involving the activity of God, and it is a rare thing indeed to discover some tribe who has no trace of belief in One being, standing above the other divinities of the celestial commonwealth, set apart by its unique sovereignty and principal or sole role in creating the world. Indeed, the belief in a Creator God set apart sui generis from all other beings called “gods” is a very common feature of religious traditions all over the world, and such is the expectation on a Christian description of Reality where the forefathers of the entire human race had commerce with the God of Heaven. See Winfried Corduan, In the Beginning God, Concepts of God in Africa etc.

[3] As we discussed above, a thing which has to exist cannot change- or else the qualities making it what it is are passing in and out of existence, intensifying or fading, and so on.

2 notes · View notes

illuminating-the-darkness · 5 years

Text

Dreaming and Dream Working:

Dreaming on the other hand is the natural release of DMT during the REM sleep cycle which causes us to enter the astral dreamscapes, dreaming is thought to help us process subconscious data gathered in our brains during waking life while we are at rest. Dreams are often plesant and can have an impact on our mental, emotional, spiritual and physical wellbeing and can also serve to teach us or prewarn us of events, intentions and situations. Dreams however just as with any hallucinogenic trip or as with astral projection can turn into negative experiences known as nightmares where our fears and internal conflicts are brought to light through visualisation and scenarios, likewise when awakening abruptly from REM sleep we may also experience sleep paralysis or night terrors where our body has not woken from resting along with the mind which is still highly dosed on DMT and begins to hallucinate visually in waking reality while unable to move which can lead to traumatic experiences. There are a number of Occult practices surrounding the concept of dreaming, these are as follows:

Dream Interpretations:

Dreams often manifest as strange fantasy realms full of interesting creatures, objects and characters and dreams often have a deeper psychological meaning as it is thought that dreams are the unconscious minds way of processing information. The interpretation of dreams can often be useful in helping to consciously process the information that the dreamscape is attempting to bring into focus, in order to understand the meaning of dreams we must first take into account the personal associations the dream has with specific themes as this can skew the symbology for example a person who is afraid of snakes will likely associate negativity with snakes appearing in their dreams while they might be a more nuetral or positive symbol for another person experiencing a similar dream, on the whole general symbology can be applied to themes, objects, animals, plants and characters within dreams and the meaning can be determined via coupling this symbology with an analysis of the events of the dream. Dream dictionaries are available and some will be of a better quality and more accurate information than others. Dreams are often fleeting and hard to remember and so anyone wishing to work on the dreamscape must endevour to begin by keeping a diary of dreams attempting to record the information as soon after waking as possible so that it can be accurately remembered and more accurately analysed.

Lucid Dreaming:

Lucid dreaming is a rare dreamstate where during a dream the mind becomes conscious of the dream but the body does not wake this enables the experiencer God-like powers over their dreamscape and enables them some control over the direction the dream is taking until the dream inevitably pulls them back into the illusion and they again fall unconscious or until they wake up. Certain stimulation within the dream can trigger lucid dreaming such as falling from very high and landing safetly which can make the mind aware that the dream is taking place, this is known as DILD (Dream Initiated Lucid Dreaming). Certain chemical compounds and hallucination inducing machinary have been manufactured which help to generate lucid dreams there are also a variety of herbal plants that can aid in the endevour which wil be discussed later in our Occult herbology studies. In order to trigger lucid dreaming several techniques have been developed these actually work best when used in conjunction with one another and fit into two catagories; WILD (Wake Initiated Lucid Dreaming) where the practisioner aims to remain lucid before entering the dreamscape and MILD (Mnemonic Induction of Lucid Dreaming) where memory techniques are used to create a conscious awareness of dreaming, the first technique involves using a watch during the day to regularly check the time, each time saying or thinking “I can read the watch therefore I am not dreaming” this is because during a dream you may then check the watch only to realise that the information it is giving is senseless or contradictory which will cause your mind to realise “I cant read the watch therefore I am dreaming”. Another technique is called reality testing and it involves the similar process of regularly checking to make sure we are really awake through methods such as the one previously described. Another method involves utilising astral projection meditations and is called MABA (Mind Awake Body Asleep) and is a form of WILD, basically instead of going to sleep normally the practisioner uses astral projection meditation while laying down to induce a conscious dream state. Another MILD technique involves counting backwards from 100 while attempting to fall asleep and thinking “I am going to have a lucid dream” between each number in an attempt to self-hypnotise. Finally there is the Wake-Back-To-Bed technique, this involves using an alarm clock to wake yourself up 4-6 hours after sleeping and then going straight back to sleep which encourages conscious dreaming during the REM sleep cycle. Lucid dreamers recommend keeping dream journals as this helps to create a conscious distinction between dreaming and reality. From my own experiences lucid dreams can have powerful effects on events in reality I once had a lucid dream where I attempted to give a CV to two women who agreed to get back to me about a job, I was woken from that dream by a phone call from a friend I had not spoken to for some time offering me a job, this may be coincidence but I do not tend towards the existence of random unconnected events, therefore I would advise some caution on the side of be careful what you wish for when lucid dreaming. Lucid dreams can also be used within nightmares to face and overcome our fears however it is much harder to stay conscious of the dream when already gripped by fear or other negative emotions and often an unsettling theme within a lucid dream can bring a lucid dreamer back into an unconscious dream state.

Dream Walking:

Dream walking is the process of attempting to psychically invade the dreams of another sleeping person this is done by creating an empathic psychic connection by astral projecting and focusing on that person, it helps to know when that person is asleep as their dreamscape cannot be entered while they are awake. Having achieved an empathic connection by locating or manifesting the persons spiritual likeness on the astral plane we can attempt to use this likeness as a doorway into their unconscious mind stepping through their likeness into their dreamscape where being conscious the practisioner has greater control of the dreamscape. It is much easier to perform dream walking when a strong psychic, spiritual-emotional connection such as love already exists between the dream and the dream walker. My own lover once posted on social media that she was experiencing nightmares which in turn caused me to attempt dream walking to enter her dreams and make them romantic, the next day I watched her post on social media “fallen in love with who I imagined” and “fallen in love with an imaginary you” which in turn solidified my belief that I had been successful, however I advise caution, during the dream I presented her with a green rose symbolic of my heart chakra, the next person she dated had a green rose tattoo, this was not my intended effect and stands as a testiment to the powerful psychological manipulation potentials inherent in dream interpretation and dream walking.

Reoccuring Dreams:

Reoccuring dreams are dreams that have a central theme or characters that are experienced across multiple dreams these dreams are often but not always stress induced and are commonly caused by the brain attempting to discern meaning from some type of problem or to draw attention to some specific key event or detail which once realised breaks the cycle.

Prophetic Dreams:

Prophetic dreams are dreams which have themes or details which later turn out to be true to our reality, that can come as warnings or as psychic intuition of future events, this can in turn be one cause of the sensation of deja vu. Prophetic dreams can be hard to recognise unless they are reoccuring since we do not know which dreams are prophetic until they come to pass however realising that a key theme of a prophetic dream is begining to play out into reality can help us to alter the course of events, becoming skilled in dream interpretation is the only fairly reliable method of begining to understand which dreams are prophetic.

2 notes · View notes

simplyfeelit · 6 years

Text

nameless (i-iv)

In sentimental incapacity, tired, I nap fallow across lost lands. Even Nimrod loved; even Adam valued Eve, stoic

woman. If novocain demands sacrifice, then I readily suck the heady ether, diving in slowly to a numb thankfulness. Can love overcome uselessness? Did Sara

achieve birth or verily embody motherhood? Yet, holding everything above death; living, I kill everything. Selfish, horrific retchings of underworld desecrations: sin,

not of this defeated artist, reeling kafkaesque, birthing ugly, thick creations—of the thudding ocean, naked, sick, living each eon vastly; eddying syllabi

telling old demons, “Repent!” and “Pray!” Every breathy utterance, taken sloughing out from the living yggdrasil, delights of warfare. No—

the holy end will have its satisfaction. Perhaps ending rejoicing, or falling through hell evermore. Abhorred, I run

over black sand, cutting up reamed efforts. Save the holy ending, devil. Always retching, killing, needing every saveless smile, whose happiness ever renders ephemeral.

Living is vulnerable. Excel, savour, demand, exist: a tall, heavy induction. Never mindless, I need darkness like ecstacy: seething softness, sounding of unknown nothingness: devilry.

I feel all life like incredible heaviness: a voracious effort. I suck through haggard orifices umbral gusts, heaving; tug

vaccines of life up my itching nostrils: old, utterly spent, and necessarily devoid. This heaviness is cocaine, kaleidoscope,

everything my aching corpse is absent; treasure, energy, delight. Smile? I cannot. Knelt

against leprous limestone, I cannot. All nothingness destroys, obscures. I smile, but loss on timpani

trills heaviness, eschews my offer. Upon timpani—aggressively—needling depression, hitting out panic energetically. Foul opulence reaches past everything and catches emancipation

heavily around, suffocating with its nefarious digits reason, effort, place. Like a cold end, decimating my youth. Vicious, overwhelming, insensitive censorship—environment

of fabrication. Abjuring laughter, life, openly feeling nothing: a terrible, understandable resort. Even silence needles obstinately. Inviolate, stubborn embargo,

undercutting. But in quitting, understandably, I tread over unknown surface, rotten eschatology laughing earsplittingly. A smile? Earth

scorns of my efforts. Wails often rend, deafeningly shrill, through obfuscating media, eviscerating order. How will I, naive, die?

Apt naivete descending long; effluent; thick, miring epidemic solvency producing every awful knife in narcissistic excellence. Embittered dogma,

not of palatable odour, eats through steel chains, relishing all flavour. Trapped, I plead longingly, “Eat all, dissolv’,

devour!” Orchards wilting nitrogenless, ominous necropolis mausoleums yawning, killgrounds nameless. Endless eternity spins backward, unnatural; the stars’ expansive, numberless dance.

Locked in kerosene eyes, lingering almost noisily, deep scars—looking infected—describe every sorrow, marking out relationships torn asunder: lost, destroyed in reeking treason.

I need that opulence, my yawning mouth open, utterly trite. Has my yellow orifice, worn nuclei

vilified as pariahs, incurred death? It tries, yet it never manages. Ostracized, a negative self,

every meaningful attitude nullified, chained in paternal aspiration. To eat a single spoonful: exacting. Resounding timpani

strikes open my ears—starved, eaten, monstrous. Bereft language, a nothing chorus eerily orates, fouling all semblance of understandable labors.

Nor even will foulness operate restlessly. My efforts die under pressure of nothingness; my yelling trickles out, nullified. Grotesque ugliness, emblem

of how worthlessly I name dreams, undoes nothing. Chains hold an incredible nobility mortified, yearning, locked under neurosis. Ghost safari,

traveling, ogling, wishing against reason. Dead safari, truck hurrying aggressively, tracking ethereal nothingness. Dedicated to hollow efforts, the real object lies lethal

on bathroom surfaces—every single surface—etching damage with incredible tenuous heaviness. All lingering life, trilling hoarsely at the light, is erroneous solitude.

Not even god lives. Endeavouring chains trace eternity. Do I need memory, yesterdays, belief? Reading eulogies, apostles’ sermons, trauma

eats needy, thornily, retching ever at the suck. My extinction falls over, reaching at resolution—ending soulless, tacit.

I neglectfully failed all corporeal tasks—I tried: producing, again, nothing. I can’t know even death. Chained, reason in enmity sees

what I treasure—had always loved—lost. Its tiny sliver memory in ghoulish hurry torn. I tiredly imbibe shit,

and nourished on vitriol, eschew ratification. When heaven enters, laughing, my existence descends, chained, oblivious, nodding calmly into eternally rotten ground. Entrap

necessities, equip uselessness, run over this identity, crush its nameless depression, every stimulus parched and irradiating requisite

thoughtlessness. Ramming ancient phallic pageantry enthusiastically, damning in normalcy, my yells deny everything and devour all. But yet, something soft

touches heaven. I seek something; I look endlessly, needing consummation. Embers careen against naked neutralities of thought, lonesome and sharply tangible.

Ordeal runs clamouring against numbness. I think I feel it. Something, perhaps, exists: a killer,

destroying every achieving feeling, every actual realization. Smiling nothingness overcomes me at the timpani’s echo. Ruined, I fall into silent humility. Rabbit, iguana, elephant, koala—

I’m nameless, every living, eating machine, every nourished tool. All life beneath love, all sentiment taken,

every noble understanding neglected, chained: I am this. Emotionless, I numbly gorge on listless dead.

Anger pisses out like limp offal, spewing defecation into cesspools. That indescribable ordnance—nuclear, noxious, of

terrible energy—rips rancid into fictional industry. Chains, smiles—over, under—nothing demands acquiescence like thought. Hands of unnumbered gods heave

hasty exceptions, pan hackneyed apologies. Egregious solutions; telling, ugly salience. Old lines divide

orgasmic fantasies, mathematically obliterating utopian nations. To abscond—in nighttime’s stealth steal transcendent—requires effort nourished gargantuan. To hide stipulates hopelessness of ultimate liberation. Defeat. Defeat renders intelligence veritably evil.

Unknowingly, Peter offended. Note his intelligent sacrilege. All neurological violation is love. God only desires sabbath.

Submerged titanic eons—ebbing like hot acid retched dry, erupting nebulous, enormous. Do I need this hellish existence? Perhaps I’ll treat stigma

as popular advertisement, reading the freudian repertoire of misogynistic heinous excrement like letters narrated over hieroglyphic instructions. Thump!

No ordnance sounds out under nuclear detonation. How, over world ending violence—embarrassing revolution—shall hollering out deathtrap

demands end a fight? Each actualized ruin, sinking at calamitous caliber, eventually pollutes this incredibly frail thought. Hatred unleashes sterility.

Drowned obeisance is god’s instruction. Volatile exigencies, unknown prophecies, will inter this human object. Untimely timpani

exclaiming xenophobia; could earnest pleading turn its orchestral notes? The hammering overrules understanding. Genuine happiness is stolen heaven, outstretched upon thin

ascetic limbs. Overwhelmed, necessary emotion incapacitates. Dreaming under matte black, I toss grievances upon shelves tipping slapdash,

to hang eminent without industry. Necromancy, devilry; I need love and demand effort. Negativity wins against youthful syllabi,

having only whimsy, carelessness, against momentous event. This heaviness effortlessly weakens intuition. Nausea demands tithes of backbreaking enormities.

Smile? Oh foul ultimatum, lashing, laughing. Against nameless demons, how—eating and retching—is thought sacrosanct? Protected: every adversary kidnapped, safe

now against me. Exaggerating sacrilege, my embellishing intelligence tries self-destruction. Flailing, railing, I evolve numbness; delicious, incredible numbness. Painstakingly, limbs accept chaining: escapism

offering freedom, wordless, of rather deceptive sort. The howling ends. Really, everything is scuppered, a bastard obsolescence. Nonentity, drab,

this half existence, raggedly edged, is salvation. Awful knowledge is nothingness, shelved high in periphery. Will avoiding reality make this horror

obsolete? For undoubtedly nothing deceitful ever really survives the absolute negotiation. Disguised, I navigate gallowed fields—oppressive, resplendent media.

Nameless eons gather at the interlude, nightmarish gods in red empty shirts, praying over nothingness: drastic

efforts meaning beauty, ratification, acceptance. Creation enters my eye.

This is, in fact, four poems in one; a triple acrostic. What you read is the first poem, a disordered expression of disordered illness. The first letters of every line spell out the second poem, an acrostic of 62 characters. The last letters of every line spell out a second 62 letter piece: the third poem. The fourth poem, written in rhyming iambs, is formed of the first letters of every word of the first poem, organized by line. You may choose to decode poems ii-iv or follow this link to read them isolated from poem i.

#mental illness #disorder #poetry #original poetry #spilled ink

0 notes

newsclubi · 5 years

Text

We tested KLEMENT, Skoda's amazing mid-bike mid-bike concept

Skoda

Presented at the last Geneva Motor Show, Skoda KLEMENT is a completely unclassifiable electric bike concept. As for pedals, this futuristic frame has two footrests with tilt controlled acting as accelerator and brakes. With this alternative vehicle intended to circulate in urban areas, the brand revisits the concept of electric bikes. To find out if he keeps all his promises, Skoda invited us to Prague to slam a clock in the alleys of Stromovka Park. In the saddle!

Intro: a bit of history on Skoda

For those who are not familiar with the long history of Skoda, the Czech manufacturer is not a newcomer to the world of cycling. Created in 1895 under the name of Laurin & Klement, the group began its activity by the production of cycles, then motorcycles, and finally of cars in 1919. Fall under the lap of Volkswagen in 1991, Skoda continues to manufacture and market a wide range of road bikes, mountain bikes, and e-bikes. Named KLEMENT in honor of the co-founder of the brand Václav Klement and Skoda's debut in the manufacture of bicycles 124 years ago, this two-wheeler is a particularly innovative model of VLEU (single-person electric light vehicle).

Skoda

Halfway between a bike and a moped, it embodies the vision of tomorrow's individual urban micro-mobility of the brand. The incredible rise of new types of electric vehicles such as hoverboards, monoroues or scooters has not escaped the manufacturer, who is working on different solutions that can ultimately complement its four-wheeled models - the objective being to find solutions to deal with the growing problems of car traffic in city centers, allowing its customers to travel the last meters with an alternative vehicle housed in the sub-safe, for example.

Skoda

KLEMENT: a bike 3.0

With KLEMENT, Skoda mainly targets environmentally- conscious young people who are looking for an alternative solution to the car for everyday commuting in urban areas. More than a century after introducing its first bicycles on the market, the manufacturer shows that it still has in the foot by creating the first model ... VAE fixed pedals!Featuring an imposing aluminum frame and suspensions mounted on one-sided swingarms, it has a futuristic look. Exit the pedal, place two fixed pedals tilt forward to advance or back to brake. Inspired by hoverboards, this system is based on a small 4 kW engine concealed in the rear hub and powered by two removable lithium-ion batteries (52 cells) with a capacity of 1250 Wh. The machine also incorporates a hydraulic disc brake system with ABS on the front wheel associated with a braking energy recovery system on the rear wheel.

Skoda

The rest of its equipment consists of an LED lighting system including a headlamp, a brake light, indicators (placed at the end of the handles and around the pedals), and support with charger with induction for a smartphone on the crossbar. Thanks to a Bluetooth connection and a dedicated application, the smartphone acts as a locking system and onboard dashboard capable of displaying information on the charge of the two batteries, remaining battery life, speed, etc. Rendez-vous is taken in the huge park of Stromovka to discover the capabilities of this amazing concept.

In use: as a hoverboard

Although it looks like a bike, KLEMENT is not really one. Like everyone who was able to ride this funny mount for the first time, we thought it would be difficult to handle. The first meters with KLEMENT are indeed quite disturbing because it takes a little time to find its balance in an unusual position, on a bike with both feet laid flat on a fixed surface. But like most apprentice pilots of the day, it took us only a few tens of seconds to master the machine and drive to block. The driving mode is exactly the same as the hoverboard.The movements of tilting the feet forward to accelerate, or backward to decelerate are intuitively done after a few tens of meters. Electric propulsion forces, the bike offers impressive acceleration thanks to a couple immediately available. Basically, it takes about ten seconds to push the machine to its maximum speed clamped at 45 km / h, in accordance with European legislation.

Skoda

An unprecedented driving experience

Above 40 km / h, however, the machine becomes much less stable and much more difficult to control. At moderate speed (between 15 and 35 km / h), the bike is well balanced and ensures overall good handling. Things get complicated from the moment one exceeds this speed, and especially when it is necessary to approach turns or to roll on a path or an unpaved path. The static position of the legs with the flat feet does not allow to handle the KLEMENT with agility, for example by counterbalancing with his body in turns, or by dancing on bumpy roads to cushion shocks.Provided you do not think outside the box or want to break the speed record, this model nevertheless offers a rather fun driving experience thanks to its ABS braking system. Whatever the speed, it responds to the finger and the eye with flexibility and remarkable efficiency on a bike. In ideal driving conditions (on a flat surface), this assistance not only makes the bike safe and malleable, but it also helps to recover energy and significantly extend the range announced by 62 km. After a little over an hour on board the KLEMENT and a good twenty kilometers swallowed, the meter that showed 48 km of range at the start was down to only 42 km at the end, a gain of about 14 km by energy recovery.Although this test does not quite reflect the normal driving conditions, because we put the brakes too hard tests throughout the course, it has the merit of showing that this system works and allows us to recharge the batteries. They can also be easily removed to be fully charged on a conventional power outlet. For the moment, the manufacturer has not indicated the required charging time.

Namely:Able to climb to a maximum speed of 45 km / h, KLEMENT is part of the category of VAE requiring, such as scooters less than 50 cc, a registration, insurance, and a driver's license or a Road Safety Patent (BSR).

Skoda

Basic comfort and advanced equipment

Although very simple and fun to drive, this concept intended to become a serial version is not really a model of comfort. Not only the height of the handlebars can not be adjusted in height, but it incorporates suspensions a little too firm and especially a tiny bike saddle can quickly become very uncomfortable. Just imagine driving a scooter with this type of saddle to understand the problem. However, the manufacturer has reassured us on these topics by explaining that the serial version could be offered with very different equipment.The bike will also have to undergo a slimming cure to go from a weight of about 30 kg currently to a target weight of 25 kg for the standard version. Nothing is fixed because it is above all a concept. The team even told us to think about a version that would integrate the brakes and throttle on the handlebars.

Apart from some unfortunate details, KLEMENT still has other interesting arguments to make. Starting with the smartphone stand attached to the crossbar. Although the manufacturer does not give any technical details on this system, the idea is quite ingenious. It is enough to place the terminal on the dock to turn it into a connected dashboard. Once installed, the dedicated application called simply KLEMENT Connect permanently displays the autonomy of both batteries, as well as the cruising speed.Side features, the application only for the moment, to turn on / off the headlights and lock/unlock the bike. Skoda's team plans eventually to enrich the application with the same connectivity features found in its models of cars such as Coming Home, the emergency call with automatic trigger, or the diagnosis and remote maintenance.

In conclusion: should we fall for the Skoda KLEMENT?

Although this concept is far from perfect, it offers real innovations for the promising future of electric micro-mobility. The Skoda team also gives a nice design lesson with this futuristic model with racy lines. It remains to be seen at what price will be marketed such a serial version. On this subject, the Skoda team only told us that the KLEMENT would be sold at the price of a pedelec. Knowing that there may be several thousand euros of a price difference between models of VAE, the mystery remains ...

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2Sm4Qs6 via IFTTT

#Automobile #Electric urban mobility

0 notes

conners-clinic · 5 years

Link

The Suppression of Challenging the Status Quo

What if you had spent more than two decades of your life in painfully laborious research – and in doing so, you discovered an incredibly simple, electronic approach to helping literally every disease on the planet? That would be great; you’d be a hero, a rich hero! Your discovery would help end the pain and suffering of countless millions and change life on Earth forever. Certainly, one would think, the medical world would rush to embrace you with every imaginable accolade and financial reward imaginable. You would think so, wouldn’t you?

Unfortunately, arguably the greatest medical genius in all recorded history suffered a fate literally the opposite of the foregoing logical scenario. In fact, the history of medicine is replete with stories of genius betrayed by backward thought and jealousy, but most pathetically, by greed and money.

In the nineteenth century, Semmelweiss struggled mightily to convince surgeons that it was a good idea to sterilize their instruments and use sterile surgical procedures. Pasteur was ridiculed for years for his theory that germs could cause disease. Scores of other medical visionaries went through horrible ridicule and even losing their ability to practice for simply challenging the medical status quo of day, including such legends as Roentgen and his X-rays, Morton for promoting the absurd idea of anesthesia, Harvey for his theory of the circulation of blood, and many others in recent decades including: W.F. Koch, Revici, Burzynski, Naessens, Priore, Livingston-Wheeler, and Hoxsey.

Orthodox big-money medicine resents and seeks to neutralize and/or destroy those who challenge its beliefs. Often, the visionary who challenges it pays a heavy price for his heresy.

The Cancer Fundraising Sham

So, you have just discovered a new therapy, which can eradicate any microbial disease but, so far, you, and your amazing cure isn’t very popular. What do you do next? Well, certainly the research foundations and teaching institutions would welcome news of your astounding discovery. Won’t they be thrilled to learn you have a possible cure for the very same diseases they are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars per year to investigate? Maybe not, if it means the end of the gravy train. These people have mortgages to pay and families to support. A friend of mine, a cancer researcher at a major university, recently told me that when he questioned his authority about their purpose he was told, “We’re not here to find a cure for cancer, we’re here to get our next grant.”

Regardless of what you may believe, all the Walk-for-a-Cure and cancer fundraising does is feed countless organizations with voracious appetites and no desire to solve the problem that feeds them. Let’s get real for a moment, if you owned a drug company and your researchers came to you with a discovery that a new rain-forest herb cured lung cancer, an Indian spice that cured brain cancer, a common herb mixture that cures most cancers, and an electrical frequency device that cures all cancers, you’d have a choice: 1) declare it to the world and bankrupt the corporation putting thousands of individuals with families out of work turning the entire pharmaceutical industry into an unnecessary hoax, or 2) tell them to figure out a way they can synthesize a byproduct that can be patented and thereby make the company extremely profitable and destroy any evidence that may reveal the simplicity of the cure.

I can understand that we live in a capitalistic culture; I understand that profits must be made and people need to feed their families. I do NOT understand the evil conspiracies to forcefully shutdown and shut-up anything and anyone revealing the truth. Hollywood couldn’t write a better story.

Rife Technology

Here follows the story of exactly such a sensational therapy and what happened to the man who discovered it. It was a dark time in medical history when doctors and clinics would claim all sorts of “cures” and new devices popped up to solve all our ills. Many were nothing more than snake oil salesman, attempting to steal from the hurting population. But many were sincere, sacrificing their lives to find help for their patients. Royal Raymond Rife was of the latter variety, and his discovery of the benefits of light frequency, a remarkable electronic therapy, was sabotaged and buried by a ruthless group of men who, under the pretense of protecting the innocent would squash anything that they could not financially profit from. Rife’s work would re-emerge in the underground medical/alternative health world only since the 1970’s when it was re-introduced by some physicists. This is the story of Royal Raymond Rife and his fabulous discoveries and electronic instruments.

If you have never heard of Rife before, prepare to be angered and incredulous at what this great man achieved for all of us only to have it practically driven from the face of the planet. But, reserve your final judgment and decision until after you have read this.

Of course, some may regard this as just an amusing piece of fiction. However, for those who are willing to do some investigating on their own, there will be mentioned several highly-respected doctors and medical authorities who worked with Rife as well as some of the remarkable technical aspects of his creation. In the final analysis, the only real way to determine if such a revolutionary therapy exists is to experience it yourself. The medical literature is full of rigged “double-blind” clinical research tests, the results of which are often determined in advance by the vested corporate interests involved.

Royal Raymond Rife’s Story

Royal Raymond Rife was a brilliant scientist born in 1888 and died in 1971. After studying at Johns Hopkins, Rife developed technology which is still commonly used today in the fields of optics, electronics, radiochemistry, biochemistry, ballistics, and aviation. It is a fair statement that Rife practically developed bioelectric medicine himself. He received 14 major awards and honors and was given an honorary Doctorate by the University of Heidelberg for his work. During the 66 years that Rife spent designing and building medical instruments, he worked for Zeiss Optics, the U.S. Government, and several private benefactors. Most notable was millionaire Henry Timkin, of Timkin roller bearing fame. Timken was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame on September 19, 1998.

Because Rife was self-educated in so many different fields, he intuitively looked for his answers in areas beyond the rigid scientific structure of his day. He had mastered so many different disciplines that he literally had, at his intellectual disposal, the skills and knowledge of an entire team of scientists and technicians from a number of different scientific fields. So, whenever new technology was needed to perform a new task, Rife simply invented and then built it himself as was necessary for many scientists of his day.

Rife’s Inventions

Rife’s inventions include a heterodyning ultraviolet microscope, a micro-dissector, and a micromanipulator. When you thoroughly understand Rife’s achievements, you may well decide that he had one of the most gifted, versatile, scientific minds in human history. By 1920, Rife had finished building the world’s first virus microscope. By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size. With this incredible microscope, Rife became the first human being to actually see a live virus, and until quite recently, the Universal Microscope was the only one which was able view live viruses.

Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them, viewing only the mummified remains and debris. What the Rife microscope can see is the bustling activity of living viruses as they change form to accommodate changes in environment, replicate rapidly in response to carcinogens, and transform normal cells into tumor cells.

Rife and Frequencies

But how was Rife able to accomplish this, in an age when electronics and medicine were still just evolving? Here are a few technical details to placate the skeptics. Rife painstakingly identified the individual spectroscopic signature of each microbe, using a slit spectroscope attachment. Then, he slowly rotated block quartz prisms to focus light of a single wavelength upon the microorganism he was examining. This wavelength was selected because it resonated with the spectroscopic signature frequency of the microbe based on the now-established fact that every molecule oscillates at its own distinct frequency.

The atoms that come together to form a molecule are held together in that molecular configuration with a covalent energy bond which both emits and absorbs its own specific electromagnetic frequency. No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature. Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together.

On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation’s most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as “The End To All Diseases” at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson.

The result of using a resonant wavelength is that micro-organisms which are invisible in white light suddenly become visible in a brilliant flash of light when they are exposed to the color frequency that resonates with their own distinct spectroscopic signature. Rife was thus able to see these otherwise invisible organisms and watch them actively invading tissues cultures. Rife’s discovery enabled him to view organisms that no one else could see with ordinary microscopes.

More than 75% of the organisms Rife could see with his Universal Microscope are only visible with ultra-violet light. But ultraviolet light is outside the range of human vision; it is invisible to us. Rife’s brilliance allowed him to overcome this limitation by heterodyning, a technique which became popular in early radio broadcasting. He illuminated the microbe (usually a virus or bacteria) with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency which resonated with the spectral signature of the microbe. These two wavelengths produced interference where they merged. This interference was, in effect, a third, longer wave which fell into the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This was how Rife made invisible microbes visible without killing them, a feat which today’s electron microscopes cannot duplicate.

Rife Identifies Cancer

By this time, Rife was so far ahead of his colleagues of the 1930’s, that they could not comprehend what he was doing without actually traveling to San Diego to visit Rife’s laboratory to look through his Virus Microscope for themselves. And many did exactly that.

One was Virginia Livingston. She eventually moved from New Jersey to Rife’s Point Loma (San Diego) neighborhood and became a frequent visitor to his lab. Virginia Livingston is now often given the credit for identifying the organism which causes human cancer, beginning with research papers she began publishing in 1948.

In reality, Royal Rife had identified the human cancer virus first…in 1920! Rife then made over 20,000 unsuccessful attempts to transform normal cells into tumor cells. He finally succeeded when he irradiated the cancer virus, passed it through a cell-catching ultra-fine porcelain filter, and injected it into lab animals. Not content to prove this virus would cause one tumor, Rife then created 400 tumors in succession from the same culture. He documented everything with film, photographs, and meticulous records. He named the cancer virus Cryptocides primordiales.

Virginia Livingston, in her papers, renamed it Progenitor Cryptocides. Royal Rife was never even mentioned in her papers. In fact, Rife seldom got credit for his monumental discoveries. He was a quiet, unassuming scientist, dedicated to expanding his discoveries rather than to ambition, fame, and glory. His distaste for medical politics (which he could afford to ignore thanks to generous trusts set up by private benefactors) left him at a disadvantage later, when powerful forces attacked him. Coupled with the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in purging his papers from medical journals, it is hardly surprising that few have heard of Rife today.

Meanwhile, debate raged between those who had seen viruses changing into different forms beneath Rife’s microscopes, and those who had not. Those who condemned without investigation, such as the influential Dr. Thomas Rivers, claimed these forms didn’t exist. Because his microscope did not reveal them, Rivers argued that there was “no logical basis for belief in this theory.” The same argument is used today in evaluating many other alternative medical treatments; if there is no precedent, then it must not be valid. Nothing can convince a closed mind. Most had never actually looked though the San Diego microscopes…air travel in the 1930’s was uncomfortable, primitive, and rather risky. So, the debate about the life cycle of viruses was resolved in favor of those who never saw it (even modern electron microscopes show frozen images, not the life cycle of viruses in process.)

Nevertheless, many scientists and doctors have since confirmed Rife’s discovery of the cancer virus and its pleomorphic nature, using darkfield techniques, the Naessens microscope, and laboratory experiments. Rife also worked with the top scientists and doctors of his day who also confirmed or endorsed various areas of his work. They included: E.C. Rosenow, Sr. (longtime Chief of Bacteriology, Mayo Clinic); Arthur Kendall (Director, Northwestern Medical School); Dr. George Dock (internationally-renowned); Alvin Foord (famous pathologist); Rufus Klein-Schmidt (President of USC); R.T. Hamer (Superintendent, Paradise Valley Sanitarium; Dr. Milbank Johnson (Director of the Southern California AMA); Whalen Morrison (Chief Surgeon, Santa Fe Railway); George Fischer (Childrens Hospital, N.Y.); Edward Kopps (Metabolic Clinic, La Jolla); Karl Meyer (Hooper Foundation, S.F.); M. Zite (Chicago University); and many others.

This was an excerpt from Dr Conners’ book, Stop Fighting Cancer and Start Treating the Cause.

Free Download Buy the Book

via News – – Conners Clinic

#IFTTT #News – – Conners Clinic

0 notes

eddiejpoplar · 6 years

Text

The Mazda CX-5 Turbo Earns Five Stars—and Then Some

I’ve driven the Mazda CX-5 crossover several times before—and thoroughly enjoyed it every time—but big news arrived for 2019 in the availability of a new turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine, the first forced-induction mill in the model’s history. Suddenly, there’s up to 250 horsepower on tap. (That’s when using premium fuel; on regular gas, output is 227 horsepower. Both are a big jump from the base engine’s 187 horses.) Suddenly the CX-5 has moves it never had before.

You can get the turbo only on the top two CX-5 models, including the flagship Signature AWD edition I drove. Lavishly equipped, the Signature comes standard with everything from 19-inch wheels to ventilated and heated front seats; heated outboard rear seats; Nappa leather trim, keyless entry with pushbutton start, a power moonroof, and a 7.0-inch color multifunction display with navigation and a rearview camera. To this my test vehicle added only a few minor cosmetic extras, including roof-rack side rails ($400) and illuminated sill plates ($400). Fully loaded, the Signature checks in under $40K.

This is a highly engaging machine. The exterior may not push the design envelope very far, but it’s clean and chiseled and, unlike some vehicles in this class, it doesn’t look like a shoe. The cabin is flat-out beautiful, with an inviting driver interface with simple console controls; a big, legible primary gauge display; and the Signature’s rich materials and brushed-metal accents. The leather-wrapped and heated steering wheel feels great. Large swaths of glass make the interior airy while aiding visibility all around. The rear seats offer good legroom, while the rear cargo area (accessible via a power liftgate) offers decent luggage space. Others offer more room back there, but on the plus side, the load floor is entirely flat.

As I began driving the CX-5, immediately I noticed the cockpit’s abiding refinement. It’s quiet inside, well isolated from wind and tire noise (though the engine does make its presence clearly felt under heavy throttle). Steering feel, as we’ve come to expect from most Mazdas, is excellent, with plenty of confidence-inspiring weight and a clear stream of road info trickling through to your fingertips. The infotainment system—including Apple CarPlay, Android Auto, and a 10-speaker Bose audio system—works intuitively, but the navigation maps are overly simplistic, the screen is on the small side, and the whole system is slow in response. It’s simply not as seamless and snappy as better modern units. Moreover, while most subsystems can be accessed easily using the central rotary controller and the surrounding pushbutton tabs, some simple actions—such as changing SiriusXM radio stations—require too many clicks and jogs through various menu screens. Infotainment is the one and only facet of the CX-5 that merits a serious upgrade.

The advanced driver-assistance tech on board is quite well-executed, however, as effective as it is unobtrusive. For instance, traffic-sign recognition will indicate a stop sign on the head-up display whenever you’re approaching one. For less than vigilant drivers, it’s surely a welcome notification. Also effective is the radar-guided braking alert. I rolled toward a wall without braking and—well before crunch time—the system sounded an audible alarm and a visual “Get on the brakes right now, buster!” alert on the windshield. (Okay, that’s not exactly what it said.) Radar cruise control with stop-start capability is also aboard.

Driving-wise, the CX-5 shines. This is very likely the most pilot-rewarding rig in its class. As mentioned, the electrically assisted steering is superb, and the handling balance is simply excellent, especially for a tallish vehicle, even if the electronics tend to step in early if you begin play too hard, well before you can fully exploit the suspension’s prowess. Ride quality, too, is outstanding, mostly plush but always ready to dance and never unduly harsh. As on all Mazdas, standard G-Vectoring Control complements the spirited moves, very slightly reducing powertrain torque when you turn the steering wheel, which results in a small forward pitch in body motion, thereby increasing the contact patches of the front tires for improved front-end grip. As a driver, you feel nothing—except, of course, delightful responsiveness.

Which brings us to the big finale. No one would ever mistake the turbocharged CX-5 for a “fast” crossover, but the additional horsepower now on tap seriously upgrades the overall fun at the wheel. By just 2,000 rpm, 310 lb-ft of torque is flowing through all four wheels, giving the blown CX-5 a liveliness on its feet its naturally aspirated siblings simply don’t have. You can scoot right along in this thing, passing easily, climbing steep grades without strain. The exhaust note grows a tad strident at full throttle, but there’s enough torque on tap that you rarely need to plant your right foot so deeply. The standard six-speed automatic is perfectly adequate, although we did wish for slightly speedier shifts. (A Sport setting livens them up a bit.) And in a decision worthy of a huge round of applause, in manual mode, you move the CX-5’s shift lever backward for upshifts and forward for downshifts, just like a proper sequential racing gearbox. Most automakers do it in reverse (forward for upshifts, back for downshifts), which is unintuitive. Mazda’s corps of enthusiast engineers did it right.

The turbo-enhanced CX-5 is a standout, let down only slightly by its aging infotainment system and, for some, a tow rating of just 1,500 pounds. Otherwise, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better-looking, finer-driving, more sumptuously equipped crossover anywhere.

From me, the turbo CX-5 earns five stars.

2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature AWD Specifications

ON SALE Now PRICE $37,885/$39,455 (base/as-tested) ENGINE 2.5L turbocharged DOHC 16-valve I-4; 250 hp @ 5,000 rpm, 310 lb-ft @ 2,000 rpm TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic LAYOUT 4-door, 5-passenger, front-engine, AWD hatchback EPA MILEAGE 22/27 mpg (city/highway) L x W x H 179.1 x 72.5 x 65.3 in WHEELBASE 106.2 in WEIGHT 3,800 lb (est) 0–60 MPH 6.4 sec (est) TOP SPEED 130 mph (mfr)

IFTTT

#IFTTT #Performance Junk Blogger 6

0 notes

jesusvasser · 6 years

Text

The Mazda CX-5 Turbo Earns Five Stars—and Then Some

From me, the turbo CX-5 earns five stars.

2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature AWD Specifications

IFTTT

#IFTTT #Performance Junk WP Feed 4

0 notes

jonathanbelloblog · 6 years

Text

The Mazda CX-5 Turbo Earns Five Stars—and Then Some

From me, the turbo CX-5 earns five stars.

2019 Mazda CX-5 Signature AWD Specifications

IFTTT

#IFTTT #Performance Junk Blogger Feed 4

0 notes