You're openly agreeing on the existence of an aether yet deny its requirement for wave propagandation. It's contradictory. How else do waves propagate? How is "entanglement" explained in this context?...
You know, I took the effort of going point by point in an organized manner, also providing exact quotes and responding to them.
This format is incredibly burdensome. I tried to make it easier on you with formatting and quotes. Can you please follow suit? I didn't do that for no reason.
Also, I don't have time to respond to every part of this right now but, I'm going to respond to a few things.
1. I'm saying the EMF soup IS the ether, and EM waves don't need a medium through which they propagate so they tie nothingness to somethingness. That's the mother fucking ether...that which ties nothingness to somethingness. That's the fucking EM soup.
Read Bentov to understand entanglement.
Also, you're wrong about nothing being alive without water. Everything is conscious. Pantheism is valid. The difference is the range of possible responses that something can use to respond to external stimuli. The difference also is in the chakras that are activated. Non self-aware entities only have the red and orange activated. Self aware beings like humans or lesser animals who have, in this lifetime, achieved self-awareness, have red, orange, and yellow activated. Those facts explain some of the differences in consciousness levels too, but yeah, everything is alive and science doesn't understand that because science has decided upon bad definitions that are devoid of esoteric understanding long ago. That's the kicker here, and I have it in my back pocket because my esoteric understanding is on point. You need to start from there. It is what it is.
Skipping to the end, for now, (I'll have to circle back...I have my weekly study group to attend to) you don't get to say this:
"If you found something others have missed and you understand it, it shouldn't take more than a few paragraphs to explain."
That's an arbitrary purity test you've imposed upon something you're ignorant of. That's absolute bullshit. What I'm doing is investigatory work. You find what you find as you find it. I've collected about 250 pages worth of relevant content in my book and none of it is AI generated. I know how to teach better than most teachers. I know how to present.
My perspective, in a word, is perennialism, but, the thing is, as soon as I give you that word, you're going to either look it up and read some other people's ideas of what perennialism is, or you're going to use whatever definition of that you already have in your head and either way, there's bound to be some distortion in your understanding of what my research contains. My research is unique. I have never even read another perennialist thinker's work before. A lot of it contains personal insights. Also, here's something you didn't consider in your one-size-fits-all claim: the perspective my research has distilled is supported by consilience. Consilience is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources "jumps together" to form a unified, robust conclusion. Coined in the 19th century, it asserts that if multiple different methods of studying a problem arrive at the same answer, the underlying truth is highly reliable. I've got tons of puzzle pieces that all connect and all point to the same conclusions.
Don't tell a detective how long he has to solve the case. Don't tell the investigative reporter how long they have to crack the story. Don't tell me how much space it takes me to lay out my findings especially from a position of ignorance on what I have and what my history of experience includes as far as knowing how to teach and how to present. You can get right the fuck off my lawn with that bullshit claim about brevity.
This format is incredibly burdensome. I tried to make it easier on you with formatting and quotes. Can you please follow suit? I didn't do that for no reason.
Also, I don't have time to respond to every part of this right now but, I'm going to respond to a few things.
1. I'm saying the EMF soup IS the ether, and EM waves don't need a medium through which they propagate so they tie nothingness to somethingness. That's the mother fucking ether...that which ties nothingness to somethingness. That's the fucking EM soup.
Read Bentov to understand entanglement.
Also, you're wrong about nothing being alive without water. Everything is conscious. Pantheism is valid. The difference is the range of possible responses that something can use to respond to external stimuli. The difference also is in the chakras that are activated. Non self-aware entities only have the red and orange activated. Self aware beings like humans or lesser animals who have, in this lifetime, achieved self-awareness, have red, orange, and yellow activated. Those facts explain some of the differences in consciousness levels too, but yeah, everything is alive and science doesn't understand that because science has decided upon bad definitions that are devoid of esoteric understanding long ago. That's the kicker here, and I have it in my back pocket because my esoteric understanding is on point. You need to start from there. It is what it is.
Skipping to the end, for now, (I'll have to circle back...I have my weekly study group to attend to) you don't get to say this:
"If you found something others have missed and you understand it, it shouldn't take more than a few paragraphs to explain."
That's an arbitrary purity test you've imposed upon something you're ignorant of. That's absolute bullshit. What I'm doing is investigatory work. You find what you find as you find it. I've collected about 250 pages worth of relevant content in my book and none of it is AI generated. I know how to teach better than most teachers. I know how to present.
My perspective, in a word, is perennialism, but, the thing is, as soon as I give you that word, you're going to either look it up and read some other people's ideas of what perennialism is, or you're going to use whatever definition of that you already have in your head and either way, there's bound to be some distortion in your understanding of what my research contains. My research is unique. I have never even read another perennialist thinker's work before. A lot of it contains personal insights. Also, here's something you didn't consider in your one-size-fits-all claim: the perspective my research has distilled is supported by consilience. Consilience is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources "jumps together" to form a unified, robust conclusion. Coined in the 19th century, it asserts that if multiple different methods of studying a problem arrive at the same answer, the underlying truth is highly reliable. I've got tons of puzzle pieces that all connect and all point to the same conclusions.
Don't tell a detective how long he has to solve the case. Don't tell the investigative reporter how long they have to crack the story. Don't tell me how much space it takes me to lay out my findings especially from a position of ignorance on what I have and what my history of experience includes as far as knowing how to teach and how to present. You can get right the fuck off my lawn with that bullshit claim about brevity.
2