Stealing

[Kuroiban]

TeaDidikai

Maybe we could just throw the item in question and cleanse it via kenetic energy.

That...is the most awesome idea ever conceived. eek  

[Ishtar Shakti]

TeaDidikai

You keep making these assertions.

There are a number of traditions that say you're full of s**t. Traditions with sacred language concepts that, within those traditions, state that gods gifted words containing mysteries within them to mankind.

Norse, Irish and Hebrew languages come to mind.

Oh I believe that, but then god gave the languages shape in that case. Still they were given shape and meaning. And you wouldn't speak them unless you had the will to speak them.

There is a very fascinating study about the inherent power in words and the structural consistencies of words and sounds which lend certain meanings to them. Though I'm fairly certain most of the deeper meaning and structure has probably been lost to time and lack of internalizing. Still its interesting.

Like how the Aramaic people lost the proper pronunciation of god and many other of the proper pronunciations and some of the original meanings and translations have been lost. The deeper meaning in such a case might be lost.

There is also some debate concerning the translation and meaning of certain phraseology there. Whether you would interpret it as language is a gift of god, would be literal, or that you should be thankful for god gifting you the ability to speak and process.

Like all of life is a gift of god in one framework

Still you internalize the words give them meaning. Your internalization's alter them slightly. When using the words you are shaping the sounds... and this is a process which happens almost instantaneously by our perception but is filled with all sorts of interactions. You have will to shape the sounds, you have thought in order to understand what the sounds should be, and you say the words through this process of will and shaping.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

CuAnnan

Ishtar Shakti

Usually psychic energy isn't as dense as physical objects

Energy is the ability to do work.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Any use other than this is wrong.
Energy does not have density in the same way matter does.
Matter density is due to the mass/volume parity of properties.
Energy has no mass.
Ergo energy has no physical density.

The amount of energy or ability to do work that is required to influence things that aren't physical is generally less.

Physical objects are a construct of energy? Oh wait someone already made that point

Ambient energy is generally considered bereft of most associations (binds/connections) and thus is less dense. Spell work is as far as I can tell creating associations and shaping ambient energy, making it more dense (i.e. psychic energy) but this is still not as dense as a physical object. The amount of energy that is given off by an atomic bomb (only by the first initial splitting not by the chain of affects that is caused by the initial splitting) is the amount of energy you'd need to control in order to make an atom. You would have to be able to in some way affect that amount of energy to truly manipulate an object. I'm pretty sure that most manipulations are more a cascade affect then actually affecting the object. By relying on already existing flows... the lesser the associations the more easy it is to manipulate it (thats why waters easier then a rock) that is also why a rock is denser right?

I gauge the average strength of the normal human being as the amount of activity that's going on in the brain that would be needed to induce movement.

This is just a rough estimate but it gives me a good ball park to work in concerning what would be required to do certain things.

So I would define a persons relative strength and power by how many associations they can make, or how much work that they can do/how much influence they have in relation to how much energy is released in the splitting of an atom. Thus there psychic energy isn't nearly as dense... as a physical thing. The associations that are created seem a bit paltry in comparison.

This is just a very rough estimate though
People's either subconscious knowledge (innate knowledge) or experience can facilitate what a person can do as they know how and what to do to induce a reaction. Its much like riding a bicycle... or exercise or well anything. The more you practice the better you become because you learn all the subtle intricacies that exist within.  

[Collowrath]

Ishtar Shakti

There is a very fascinating study about the inherent power in words and the structural consistencies of words and sounds which lend certain meanings to them. Though I'm fairly certain most of the deeper meaning and structure has probably been lost to time and lack of internalizing. Still its interesting.

I've seen some study into sound symbolism - it's anything but universal, but it's interesting none-the-less. I disagree that we've all lost the deeper meaning of language and the words.

Quote:

Like how the Aramaic people lost the proper pronunciation of god and many other of the proper pronunciations and some of the original meanings and translations have been lost. The deeper meaning in such a case might be lost.

There is also some debate concerning the translation and meaning of certain phraseology there. Whether you would interpret it as language is a gift of god, would be literal, or that you should be thankful for god gifting you the ability to speak and process.

I think you mean the Hebrews. Aramaic was a later language they adopted, like many other peoples. YHVH is a Hebrew construction - nobody is sure how to pronounce it because it was taboo to pronounce it and they didn't start writing vowels until well after the temple was gone and there was no acceptable place to say it. However, we do know that it is connected to the Hebrew verb to be, which is why many English translations, when God reveals himself to Moses and he asks "What name should I call you?", God replies: "I AM WHO AM," and then adds "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14)

Essentially, we don't know how to pronounce it, but the meaning of it isn't lost - though it's vague. *shrug*

Can you cite some other places where phraseology might be vague or lost? Maybe I or someone else here can help point to some solutions.

Quote:

Still you internalize the words give them meaning. Your internalization's alter them slightly. When using the words you are shaping the sounds... and this is a process which happens almost instantaneously by our perception but is filled with all sorts of interactions. You have will to shape the sounds, you have thought in order to understand what the sounds should be, and you say the words through this process of will and shaping.

Internalization along these lines isn't a necessity. That's what training is for, in some cases. There are times where we might take a role in our community, and if we chose to interpret it in a particular way, we can be corrected. This is why Catholicism has such an extensive training for their priesthood - to prevent incorrect internalizations and interpretations.

There are also some spiritual traditions that would be downright dangerous should you alter them. This might be a major issue for people with a tradition concerning ritual purity should a person, with a particular role in that community, misinterpret an aspect of the tradition - doing something in a way that might be polluting.

I can also see an issue with this and practices surrounding the Norse runes - altering their meaning might have dangerous consequences.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Recursive Paradox

Fiddlers Green

CuAnnan

Ishtar Shakti

Usually psychic energy isn't as dense as physical objects

Energy is the ability to do work.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Any use other than this is wrong.
Energy does not have density in the same way matter does.
Matter density is due to the mass/volume parity of properties.
Energy has no mass.
Ergo energy has no physical density.

Incidentally why I use the term Vis, which might imply matter (or rather, configured atomic bonds) or energy. There is a long explanation of likeness and covalent bond energy application, however, that is very long winded.

I had heard some things from some folk who know more about physics than me that matter could be describe as a form of energy (i.e. a wave where the wavelength is so small as to make it solid) but I dunno how much truth is to that.

Quote:

I wonder where Ether falls on that scale, Poe, you reading? ninja

The Ether is an umbrella term for all spiritual and material energy and matter and other stuff. Literally all of it. Generally Ether is used as a catchphrase for just the Spiritual Reflection of the Mirror (energy and matter and stuff of the spiritual side) cuz well, we're used to the physical so we tend to take it for granted (which really is kind of stupid, corporeality is fleeting.)

The stuff on that end can be energy (which is exactly the same as energy here), I theorize matter (formative things that aren't the ability to do work and have given properties they follow and does appear to have something resembling mass) and ...something else. I don't have a name for it. It's a base sort of interconnective "tissue" that makes up reality on that side. It has no mass, no density (although it does possess other properties) Only it isn't just ability to do work, it uses energy, converts it (down and up) and can be adjusted and changed through energy channeling in ways that boggle me. I seriously am at a loss to describe it. *shrug*

And my experiences are iffy at best on this weird stuff. More UPG testing is needed. I also have only small amounts of evidence of matter being on the spiritual side, it's possible that I'm confusing this weird stuff for matter or vice versa.

hrmm... I call it will? Or well energy is will will is energy is probability. And what we generally call energy is really just a less interconnected version of matter in which case matter isn't a really good term.

I theorize that earth is the product of a very strong will and the will of all those who are on earth through religion is probably bent at helping support the consistency and associations inherent in physicality. Through the paths that we interact with it we also reaffirm the energy and structure of the world in our immediate vicinity.

"Energy" due to its weak associations is generally easier to change... though you can in that realm see visible confirmation of introducing new energy into a system through a single point which didn't exist before and thus not have to rely on already existing channels. That energy though isn't impressive and usually can't be even felt here. Its hard though to prove the existence of that energy as you have to pretty much try to isolate a person from the rest of the energy in there surroundings and then they have to be able to induce it while people are closely watching to make sure they aren't just recycling there personal energy and make up. Its a hard thing to test and can be subject to the debate of where the new "energy" is coming from.

I don't really know some of your terminology so this may be a huge tangent I'm not sure. I just think of it as streams of probability that are slowly building and being shaped by individuals who could be argued to have been constructs of that which they are supposedly shaping.  

[Shearaha]

If I could make a suggestion, Ishtar Shakti, if you haven't already check out some of the Pathways threads. It may give you some insight as to were some members are coming from and the terminology they use. I know it's one of the first places I went when I joined.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Collowrath

I've seen some study into sound symbolism - it's anything but universal, but it's interesting none-the-less. I disagree that we've all lost the deeper meaning of language and the words.

I think you mean the Hebrews. Aramaic was a later language they adopted, like many other peoples. YHVH is a Hebrew construction - nobody is sure how to pronounce it because it was taboo to pronounce it and they didn't start writing vowels until well after the temple was gone and there was no acceptable place to say it. However, we do know that it is connected to the Hebrew verb to be, which is why many English translations, when God reveals himself to Moses and he asks "What name should I call you?", God replies: "I AM WHO AM," and then adds "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you." (Exodus 3:14)

Essentially, we don't know how to pronounce it, but the meaning of it isn't lost - though it's vague. *shrug*

Can you cite some other places where phraseology might be vague or lost? Maybe I or someone else here can help point to some solutions.

Quote:

Still you internalize the words give them meaning. Your internalization's alter them slightly. When using the words you are shaping the sounds... and this is a process which happens almost instantaneously by our perception but is filled with all sorts of interactions. You have will to shape the sounds, you have thought in order to understand what the sounds should be, and you say the words through this process of will and shaping.

Internalization along these lines isn't a necessity. That's what training is for, in some cases. There are times where we might take a role in our community, and if we chose to interpret it in a particular way, we can be corrected. This is why Catholicism has such an extensive training for their priesthood - to prevent incorrect internalizations and interpretations.

There are also some spiritual traditions that would be downright dangerous should you alter them. This might be a major issue for people with a tradition concerning ritual purity should a person, with a particular role in that community, misinterpret an aspect of the tradition - doing something in a way that might be polluting.

I can also see an issue with this and practices surrounding the Norse runes - altering their meaning might have dangerous consequences.

I did mean the Hebrews as my specific example of how the original pronunciation of god was lost but then I've heard the same issues with several of the Aramaic languages and its pretty much something thats easy to point to and say hey look... languages die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_death
At the bottom there are lists of dead dying and shifts in langauge

While there is a process of correction for internalization's and making sure that people don't internalize things in a faulty way that doesn't mean that they aren't being internalized.
Most religions create a rigid frame work and a rigid path system to make sure that what is learned is learned in a very specific way

Communities, schools, peers, and religious figures all form a structural framework which hemms you in so to speak. They reaffirm how you internalize but still don't change the internalization process. Its guidance not control. Things also change over such a long period of time that it isn't until Centuries later that the changes may be noticed.

I think it might be useful for me to post the definition of internalization
"The process starts with learning what the norms are, and then the individual goes through a process of understanding why they are of value or why they make sense, until finally they accept the norm as their own viewpoint."
Yet through this process... no matter how rigid the structural system the meanings are altered and change if only slightly because an external framework can't be completely internalized due to the massive amounts of variables that are implicit in existence.
I want to give an example but I don't have time.
quickie:
If you review the evolution of catholic Dogma... or the evolution of religion in general you can watch it change as new persons internalize the old traditions and bring them into their current framework. Many current issues have to do with a breach of context from that which is written in the original manuscript. Like what does "you may not cook a young in its mothers milk" really mean? There are all sorts of sects of religions that are bred by slight variance in definition and internalization.

If you go around asking people what a single word means you will find soo many different variations and people will have huge arguments based off which definition is more relevant and arguing the deeper meaning or context that is implicit. I mean... I've seen it here with my own situation and with many others. What does it mean to eat Kosher? Why do we hold cows as sacred? Why do we believe water is turned into wine?

Arguments... wars... all sorts of things are started due to differences in definitions and internalization's. Within all religions... I would have to say there is some evidence of this... what day to have mass whether to eat fish. It exists within... almost every context and society and any situation where in you have more then one person interacting.

The systems developed are maintenance systems... and they can be effective but they aren't perfect.

There are plenty of instances where the alteration of the meaning can be dangerous... and inevitably if its dangerous enough that definition might be "wiped out" so to speak. Like if someone interpreted red as green, ran a red light and died... well they wouldn't be spreading that definition anymore now would they? Generally speaking... meanings are reaffirmed because old definitions work and still have proper context and can be easily translated into other people's view points. Ones that fail to do this... will inevitably fail to spread and will die.

Lack of spiritual purity, is a consequence. But a person wouldn't know unless someone else told them and they had reason not to use that particular definition, or reason to change there internalization. There will be contradictions within there internal frame work that might inhibit internalization of another framework.

In anycase its a messy complicated thing that relies alot on biofeedback loops and is at the root of flaws within the educational process.

Heaven forbid that something someone learns through the general consensus that is actually wrong... thats even more of a mess and ends up being the cause of most mental problems... Hurrah mental problems...

In anycase... its a mess  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Shearaha

If I could make a suggestion, Ishtar Shakti, if you haven't already check out some of the Pathways threads. It may give you some insight as to were some members are coming from and the terminology they use. I know it's one of the first places I went when I joined.

I'll give it a look later, thank you for the suggestion  

[Collowrath]

Ishtar Shakti

I did mean the Hebrews as my specific example of how the original pronunciation of god was lost but then I've heard the same issues with several of the Aramaic languages and its pretty much something thats easy to point to and say hey look... languages die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_death
At the bottom there are lists of dead dying and shifts in langauge

Good, I'm glad I wasn't misunderstanding. smile

Although, the status of the Aramaic language isn't really pertinent to the discussion, since we were actually talking about Hebrew. wink So what I said still stands, they didn't lose the name of their God, just how to pronounce it. The meaning is still there, regardless.

Just a cool factoid, Aramaic is still spoken by Assyrian Christian communities in the Levant. It's mostly liturgical now, but at least it's there.

Quote:

While there is a process of correction for internalization's and making sure that people don't internalize things in a faulty way that doesn't mean that they aren't being internalized.
Most religions create a rigid frame work and a rigid path system to make sure that what is learned is learned in a very specific way

I never said things weren't internalized, I just said that they don't have to be changed to be internalized. Hence all the training and guidance you go on to talk about.

Quote:

If you review the evolution of catholic Dogma... or the evolution of religion in general you can watch it change as new persons internalize the old traditions and bring them into their current framework. Many current issues have to do with a breach of context from that which is written in the original manuscript

If the old tradition or teaching is either a) in error, or b) not viable in a modern setting, it can be changed as far as Catholicism is concerned. That's the nature of rational, Thomistic thought - not "new people internalizing old tradition." According to the definition you posted, this evolution could not happen, because those new people would accept the old tradition as correct.

Also, please post where you got the definition from.

Quote:

Like what does "you may not cook a young in its mothers milk" really mean?

Perhaps not to cook a young animal in its mother's milk?

Quote:

If you go around asking people what a single word means you will find soo many different variations and people will have huge arguments based off which definition is more relevant and arguing the deeper meaning or context that is implicit.

That's when you break out an authority, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, and be done with it.

Quote:

There are plenty of instances where the alteration of the meaning can be dangerous... and inevitably if its dangerous enough that definition might be "wiped out" so to speak. Like if someone interpreted red as green, ran a red light and died... well they wouldn't be spreading that definition anymore now would they?

That's not really a problem of definition, that's a problem of someone not knowing the difference between red and green. Red and green are objectively different colors and you can be corrected when you assert that red is green. Granted, if you're colorblind, it's a different issue because you don't perceive those colors in the same way most people do. That doesn't change it though - green is green and red is red, and asserting that green is red is incorrect.

Quote:

Generally speaking... meanings are reaffirmed because old definitions work and still have proper context and can be easily translated into other people's view points. Ones that fail to do this... will inevitably fail to spread and will die.

Not necessarily. Words mean what they do because the people who speak the language the word belongs to agree upon that meaning. Yes, there are shifts in meaning, but that is an organic process.

Quote:

Lack of spiritual purity, is a consequence. But a person wouldn't know unless someone else told them and they had reason not to use that particular definition, or reason to change there internalization. There will be contradictions within there internal frame work that might inhibit internalization of another framework.

Yes, it is a consequence. A consequence of someone not internalizing properly according to their tradition.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Oh yah sorry >_< I've been feeling fuzzy brained.
I was reading on that.

Definition? Which definition?

I was mostly trying to explain how people change definitions based on internalizations and why they might change there definitions and how. Why wouldn't an old tradition be viable in modern society? Who would be perceiving this as not viable.

Pretty much the clergy may have been indoctrinated from birth but unless they were cloistered and kept off from contact with anything not in the canon there perceptions will be influenced? While they may go through great lengths to keep the doctrine "pure" and to make sure that it isn't altered the doctrine changes when conflicts arise or it dies. The meanings change gradually over time. Its easier to point out when you don't have a room full of people saying the same words and the same phrases put in the same frame work. Its much more difficult to explain internal processes from an internal perspective.

Still ... lets say you have a person memorize a poem. Or well lets say a group of 20 people. Each one is taught over and over again the words till they have them memorized. Each one is given a thorough lesson in what each word means until they memorize everything. The people might be able to give all the same answers to your questions but in the tone of their voice in the look in there eyes. In the way they emphasize certain things and de-emphasize others. This is... I guess the deeper meaning. Its learned not from mass data collection but from talking to individual people.

What god is, what it means. This can change. It changes for every person... its not just a generational thing but variance exists on all levels.

It was a very quick example because I didn't have time... it was an example where in it would be obvious to see why a definition didn't work because it wasn't congruent with the definitions set forth by others

I'll finish this latter  

[CuAnnan]

Ishtar Shakti

Physical objects are a construct of energy? Oh wait someone already made that point

That would be me. I mentioned that E=mc^2 and that there is the higgs field.
Energy and matter have a duality.
Energy and matter are not the same thing. Energy and matter can be converted into each other.
You were talking about energy densities and matter as though what you were saying had something valid about it as opposed to being nonsensical new age claptrap.
Please stop trying to wriggle out of your having been wrong, it is making you look like a troll. The appropriate response would have been "I was wrong". The absolute worst response you could have made was your one.
Reason being, I have studied experimental physics and theoretical physics for years formally in the education system (both at second level and third level, with our second level being similar to your college).
I have explained why your "matter is denser than energy" statement is claptrap and I am getting rather offended at having to post this much text to reply to what amounts to "la la la, I'm not listening".

Ishtar Shakti

Ambient energy is generally considered bereft of most associations (binds/connections) and thus is less dense.

No it is not.
Density is ONLY m/V.
Any other meaning you attempt to ascribe to density is new age bollox and will make you look like a ranting moron to anyone who has the vaguest idea of what energy, density and matter actually are.

Ishtar Shakti

Spell work is as far as I can tell creating associations and shaping ambient energy, making it more dense (i.e. psychic energy) but this is still not as dense as a physical object.

*head desk*
Take a physics elective somewhere. In fact, even just sit in on one.
When you've done this, and you recover from the embarrassment of remembering this sentence, I will be here to accept your apology for attempting to sell this nonsense to me.

Ishtar Shakti

The amount of energy that is given off by an atomic bomb (only by the first initial splitting not by the chain of affects that is caused by the initial splitting) is the amount of energy you'd need to control in order to make an atom.

This is nonsense. This is so many shades of nonsense I don't know where to begin.
Do I begin with the critical mass of fissile materials? Do I begin with E=mc^2
Or do I simply ask why u235 deposits randomly explode, like happened in Africa after heavy rains.
Nothing heavier than iron is created in a sun. U235 is created by supernovae. Do you now have some concept of how much energy is needed to create it?

Ishtar Shakti

that is also why a rock is denser right?

No, rock is denser because water is a liquid of di-hydrogen oxide at ambient temperatures. Water can be made just as dense as rock through a combination of freezing it and applying pressure to it.

Ishtar Shakti

This is just a rough estimate but it gives me a good ball park to work in concerning what would be required to do certain things.

No it doesn't. It's a random watermark that has no basis in neurology, neurochemistry or science at all.

I'm not going to continue shredding your post (this is not because it becomes any more valid, it's just because it would be shredding the same positions again). The long and the short of it is that you are 100% wrong and, if anyone here is ever going to take you seriously, you need to openly and earnestly admit that you're wrong.
In future, whenever someone corrects you and you do not have the education neccessary to support your position, either concede the argument until you do (publicly stating that this is what you are doing) or accept that you are wrong (publicly stating that this is what you are doing).

This is called "intellectual integrity" and it is something that we value here.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Ishtar Shakti

Recursive Paradox

Fiddlers Green

I wonder where Ether falls on that scale, Poe, you reading? ninja

The Ether is an umbrella term for all spiritual and material energy and matter and other stuff. Literally all of it. Generally Ether is used as a catchphrase for just the Spiritual Reflection of the Mirror (energy and matter and stuff of the spiritual side) cuz well, we're used to the physical so we tend to take it for granted (which really is kind of stupid, corporeality is fleeting.)

The stuff on that end can be energy (which is exactly the same as energy here), I theorize matter (formative things that aren't the ability to do work and have given properties they follow and does appear to have something resembling mass) and ...something else. I don't have a name for it. It's a base sort of interconnective "tissue" that makes up reality on that side. It has no mass, no density (although it does possess other properties) Only it isn't just ability to do work, it uses energy, converts it (down and up) and can be adjusted and changed through energy channeling in ways that boggle me. I seriously am at a loss to describe it. *shrug*

And my experiences are iffy at best on this weird stuff. More UPG testing is needed. I also have only small amounts of evidence of matter being on the spiritual side, it's possible that I'm confusing this weird stuff for matter or vice versa.

hrmm... I call it will? Or well energy is will will is energy is probability. And what we generally call energy is really just a less interconnected version of matter in which case matter isn't a really good term.

None of this makes any sense at all. Will is a measure of mental force and endurance. Not a solid material. Probability is a measure of the chances of occurrence in a given system. Not a solid material.

Neither of them are equal to energy or even similar. And energy is not a less interconnected matter. I'm not even sure how you're using the word interconnected. Are you just repeating me without any idea what I'm talking about?

I use "interconnective tissue" because it seems to connect things to things. That's it. Like cells in a body that connect one organ to another. What the hell are you using it for? o_O

Quote:

I theorize that earth is the product of a very strong will and the will of all those who are on earth through religion is probably bent at helping support the consistency and associations inherent in physicality. Through the paths that we interact with it we also reaffirm the energy and structure of the world in our immediate vicinity.

So your religion is basically White Wolf's Mage The Ascension. Do you invoke Paradox when you violate the ideals that other people create in their minds of reality?

Quote:

"Energy" due to its weak associations is generally easier to change...

Just... stop. Stop calling it energy. It clearly isn't. We clearly need a new word. The quotes are just annoying.

And if you're talking about the stuff I'm talking about, then no, it doesn't have weak associations. And if you're talking about energy in our world, then you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Although honestly, if you're talking about things in the Spiritual Ether, you also likely have no clue what you're talking about either.

Quote:

I don't really know some of your terminology so this may be a huge tangent I'm not sure.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about to begin with. Are you discussing the Spiritual side of The Ether? If so, you're way off. Are you discussing something else? If so, you need to summarize and explain a bit.

For more on my terminology

Quote:

I just think of it as streams of probability that are slowly building and being shaped by individuals who could be argued to have been constructs of that which they are supposedly shaping.

Yeah that's absolutely nothing like what I've noticed. So are you just describing your own belief structure? Or is that what you think mine is?  

[Recursive Paradox]

I made updates in my pathways thread cuz I was using energy foolishly in parts of it. XD

Thank you, Cu. Also thank you, physics 101 elective last year.  

[CuAnnan]

Recursive Paradox

Thank you, Cu.

No worries, isn't physics wonderful?  

[Recursive Paradox]

CuAnnan

Recursive Paradox

Thank you, Cu.

No worries, isn't physics wonderful?

It hurts my brain but in very good ways. As opposed to ways that involve tentacles and nameless eldritch horrors.