The earth is alive?

[Omni connexae!]

The earth is alive, asserts a revolutionary scientific theory of life emerging from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The trans-disciplinary theory demonstrates that purportedly inanimate, non-living objects—for example, planets, water, proteins, and DNA—are animate, that is, alive. With its broad explanatory power, applicable to all areas of science and medicine, this novel paradigm aims to catalyze a veritable renaissance.

Erik Andrulis, PhD, assistant professor of molecular biology and microbiology, advanced his controversial framework in his manuscript “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” published in the peer-reviewed journal, Life. His theory explains not only the evolutionary emergence of life on earth and in the universe but also the structure and function of existing cells and biospheres.

In addition to resolving long-standing paradoxes and puzzles in chemistry and biology, Dr. Andrulis’ theory unifies quantum and celestial mechanics. His unorthodox solution to this quintessential problem in physics differs from mainstream approaches, like string theory, as it is simple, non-mathematical, and experimentally and experientially verifiable. As such, the new portrait of quantum gravity is radical.

The basic idea of Dr. Andrulis’ framework is that all physical reality can be modeled by a single geometric entity with life-like characteristics: the gyre. The so-called “gyromodel” depicts objects—particles, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and cells—as quantized packets of energy and matter that cycle between excited and ground states around a singularity, the gyromodel’s center. A singularity is itself modeled as a gyre, wholly compatible with the thermodynamic and fractal nature of life. An example of this nested, self-similar organization is the Russian Matryoshka doll.

http://case.edu/medicus/breakingnews/theoryoflife.html

http://i41.tinypic.com/346ue6x.gif

¤=[Post Update]=¤

An accompanying text Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life can be found here:

http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1/

Abstract: Life is an inordinately complex unsolved puzzle. Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life. This theory is based upon a straightforward and non-mathematical core model and proposes unique yet empirically consistent explanations for major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars and amino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations. The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe.

[ThePythonicCow]

Erik Andrulis, PhD, assistant professor of molecular biology and microbiology, advanced his controversial framework in his manuscript “Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life,” published in the peer-reviewed journal, Life.
Another forum member has independently noticed this paper. See this thread: Denial and the fate of human kind (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51995-Denial-and-the-fate-of-human-kind).

[David Trd1]

And they`ve only realized this now!!!!!!!:boink::fish:

[Tony]

There are some people who think the earth is more important than the population living on it.


TzEEgtOFFlM

[Fred Steeves]

Yes, our planet is a live, sentient being, I've experienced her consciousness first hand myself. One of the most powerful and amazing experiences of my life. Imagine what a different world we would live in, if children were taught basic things just like this, as a matter of due course?

This has nothing what so ever to do with Agenda 21 by the way. http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/images/smilies/newadditions/no.gif

Cheers,
Fred

[Tony]

This is part of The Green agenda...Gaia's Gurus, from a web site called The Green agenda.

Maurice Strong, founder and Secretary General of the United Nations Environment Programme and Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan. Founder of the Earth Council and the Earth Charter Initiative, and former President of the United Nations University of Peace. You will find many references to Maurice Strong on this site. He, more than anyone else, has been the architect of the Global Green Agenda. Strong is a devout Baha'i and from his lofty positions within the UN has permeated the organisation with Gaian theology.

He is the author of most of the key UN environmental policies and plans including Agenda 21, the Earth Charter, the Kyoto Protocol and the UN report on Global Governance. While he chaired the Rio Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to "establish and hold the energy field" for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. He founded the Manitou Institue where various Hindu, Bhuddist, and New Age groups perform rituals to heal Gaia. The Institutes Mission is "to perpetuate the ancient tradition of peoples of many tribes journeying here for a sacred connection to the Earth." Very Gaian!!

The Strongs have located their spiritual centre in the Colorado mountains because "The Strongs learned that since antiquity indigenous peoples had revered this pristine wilderness as a place for conducting their vision quests and receiving shamanic trainings. It is prophesied that the world's religious traditions would gather here and help move the world toward globally conscious co-existence and co-creation."

"It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of DIVINE NATURE." - Maurice Strong

In 1991 Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this: "This interlocking is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."




http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gaia+cult&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=432jUI73BcfH0QWO9oCQBg#hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=gaia+cultand+agenda+21&oq=gaia+cultand+agenda+21&gs_l=serp.3...0.0.1.746.0.0.0.0.0.0.273.273.2-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.MhWS6wVjrpk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e653fc582659c077&bpcl=38626820&biw=1210&bih=657











.

[Spiral]

Just how many scientists are on whopping grants to point out the bleedin' obvious ?

qsPb8e7USqI

[Prodigal Son]

Who can forget the Chiffon Margarine commercials... "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature". The world met Gaia and didn't realize it, although she's a lot nicer than that biotch ;)

It's both encouraging and ironic to observe science catching up with ancient wisdom...

[Tony]

Whatever one believes, it will be mucked around with.

[RMorgan]

Earth is alive and we´re plaguing it like scabies, or worse, like a cancer.

Soon enough, if we don´t change our destructive behavior, Earth´s immune system, often called "Mother Nature", will find a way to get rid of us.

We´re totally out of control; All of us, not only the bankers and the corporations.

[WhiteFeather]

The Animals and all of life forms on this planet took a vote and would like our destructive species to leave forthwith, they do not appreciate our company any longer,, as we are the only species that are literally destroying their planet and their way of life,,,,,,think of that for a moment!!!!


Mother Earth Is Alive, as she is a living organism as everything else on this planet and throughout the multiverse....

http://www.mozardien.com/halls/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/mother-earth.jpg



Enjoy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaMBQSsdnxo&feature=relmfu

[Kiforall]

And they`ve only realized this now!!!!!!!:boink::fish:

How long before everyone realizes it. Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock?

[gooty64]

LLrTPrp-fW8


Who can forget the Chiffon Margarine commercials... "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature". The world met Gaia and didn't realize it, although she's a lot nicer than that biotch ;)

It's both encouraging and ironic to observe science catching up with ancient wisdom...

[Pam]

As strange as it may sound it is possible to actually visualize the movement of these little units which is referred to as a gyro in the above article.I learned the technique that allows one to do this as a nurse. The training is called "therapeutic touch" which is a form of energy healing technique. The easiest way to do it is as follows-

Lie on the ground outside and look at a clear blue sky. Do not focus your eyes, do not engage in the mental clutter of the mind...It may take several attempts..they can be seen as a swirling dancing movement and some of the units can be experienced as a definite circle with a black dot in the center...being able to see this has added an element of wonder to my life and of course it gives credence to the work of Dr. Andrulis...I understand many will think this ridiculous as these units could not be experienced by the naked eye, others may say it is eye floaters-but I say don't judge it till you try it...

with loving thoughts sent to you, Pammy

[rgray222]

The earth and the universe are very much alive, it may not be in a way that we commonly think of living things but when you consider our planet and the vastness of the universe it becomes apparent pretty quick. Here is a press release from University of Maryland, did not save the link only the press release.

COLLEGE PARK, Md. Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts? A new discovery made at the University of Maryland may provide a key to answering this question. This key of sulfur could allow scientists to unlock hidden interactions between ocean organisms, atmosphere, and land -- interactions that might provide evidence supporting this famous theory.

The Gaia hypothesis -- first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s -- holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.

One of the early predictions of this hypothesis was that there should be a sulfur compound made by organisms in the oceans that was stable enough against oxidation in water to allow its transfer to the air. Either the sulfur compound itself, or its atmospheric oxidation product, would have to return sulfur from the sea to the land surfaces. The most likely candidate for this role was deemed to be dimethylsulfide.

Newly published work done at the University of Maryland by first author Harry Oduro, together with UMD geochemist James Farquharand marine biologist Kathryn Van Alstyne of Western Washington University, provides a tool for tracing and measuring the movement of sulfur through ocean organisms, the atmosphere and the land in ways that may help prove or disprove the controversial Gaia theory. Their study appears in this week's Online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

According to Oduro and his colleagues, this work presents the first direct measurements of the isotopic composition of dimethylsulfide and of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate. These measurements reveal differences in the isotope ratios of these two sulfur compounds that are produced by macroalga and phytoplankton. These measurements (1) are linked to the compounds' metabolism by these ocean organisms and (2) carry implications for tracking dimethylsulfide emissions from the ocean to the atmosphere.

Sulfur, the tenth most abundant element in the universe, is part of many inorganic and organic compounds. Sulfur cycles sulfur through the land, atmosphere and living things and plays critical roles in both climate and in the health of organisms and ecosystems.

"Dimethylsulfide emissions play a role in climate regulation through transformation to aerosols that are thought to influence the earth's radiation balance," says Oduro, who conducted the research while completing a Ph.D. in geology & earth system sciences at Maryland and now is a postdoctoral fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "We show that differences in isotopic composition of dimethylsulfide may vary in ways that will help us to refine estimates of its emission into the atmosphere and of its cycling in the oceans."

As with many other chemical elements, sulfur consists of different isotopes. All isotopes of an element are characterized by having the same number of electrons and protons but different numbers of neutrons. Therefore, isotopes of an element are characterized by identical chemical properties, but different mass and nuclear properties. As a result, it can be possible for scientists to use unique combinations of an element's radioactive isotopes as isotopic signatures through which compounds with that element can be traced.

"What Harry did in this research was to devise a way to isolate and measure the sulfur isotopic composition of these two sulfur compounds," says Farquhar, a professor in the University of Maryland's department of geology. "This was a very difficult measurement to do right, and his measurements revealed an unexpected variability in an isotopic signal that appears to be related to the way the sulfur is metabolized.
"Harry's work establishes that we should expect to see variability in the sulfur isotope signatures of these compounds in the oceans under different environmental conditions and for different organisms. I think this will ultimately be very important for using isotopes to trace the cycling of these compounds in the surface oceans as well as the flux of dimethylsulfide to the atmosphere. The ability to do this could help us answer important climate questions, and ultimately better predict climate changes. And it may even help us to better trace connections between dimethylsulfide emissions and sulfate aerosols, ultimately testing a coupling in the Gaia hypothesis," Farquhar says.


Source; Press Release University of Maryland

[conk]

Maurice Strong and his ilk will use the supposed love of Mother Earth to control world resources and impose tax, after tax, after tax on us all through his UN connections. Beware the Green crowd.

[Mark]

Hello, Peterpam, it's definitely not eye-floaters or even scheerer's phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_phenomenon).

Thanks to your comment here it puts it in a different perspective. I think I've seen what you're talking about. After staring at the blue sky, in the center of vision a vortex appears. The outer edges and the inner slope of the vortex is made up of swirling patterns, I've thought of them as almost chess-board-like in nature, but moving continuously. The patterning of the vortex is a darker color against the blue sky. If you change the focus of your eyes, it disappears, but can return if you again fixate upon one spot.

I equate it to learning how to look at a stereogram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereogram). Once you learn how to shift the focus of your eyes, you can bring the vortex into view relatively quickly.

How is this related to "therapeutic touch"? I've heard of that in the past but have never looked into it.

It would speak to the intuitive and natural aspect of this theory if what we were seeing was indeed some aspect of the gyres in motion. Bless.

[Chester]

I am alive and I connect with all that is and thus I conclude all is alive which includes the Earth.
Who knows - justone

[•Ik•]

A buddy of mine at another forum informed me that some of my work was being discussed here and that I would be among many like-minded individuals here, so I asked to join.

I hope I can add a little to the conversation.

____

There are many good comments in this thread. Before I address each of them, I just wanted to introduce myself and give you insight into how I got into theory.

I am a molecular biologist/cell biologist/geneticist/biochemist. I have trained in the model systems Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Drosophila melanogaster for ~20 years, and those are the two systems I use to study basic biological problems.

When I arrived at my faculty position, I began work to understand a set of enzymes called ribonucleases (RNases), proteins that degrade or process RNA exonucleolytically (from one end of the RNA) or endonucleolytically (within the body of the RNA). One major intellectual gap in the field when I entered it was how these RNases functioned in vivo, that is, where they localized in the cell, how their activity was regulated as a consequence of cell cycle progression, their post-translational modifications and how they assembled into function protein complexes.

I'm aware that's a mouthful, but more to come.

Anyhoo, it turned out that one of these proteins had a whole bunch of domains that were interesting from a bioinformatic standpoint. So, I started making point-directed mutants and truncations of the protein and putting them into cells to see where these localized, how they interacted with cellular proteins, etc. That's when the surprises started happening.

You see, I could make the cell do the craziest things, as many of the mutant proteins had dominant-negative effects. Some caused cells to arrest in cytokinesis, others caused premature chromosome condensation (an uncoupling of cell cycle found in cancers). Others fiddled with microtubules, cell size, nucleocytoplasmic transport, mitochondrial DNA maintenance, and de novo membrane synthesis.

Basically, the gist is that my enzyme could control the cell. How is that possible, I asked myself? No one is going to believe that one protein can do all of this!

And that's when I realized that it wasn't the protein, I surmised it was the substrate: RNA. By perturbing the RNA--->NMP (Where NMP = AMP, GMP, CMP, UMP) reaction, you could wreak havoc on all aspects of the cell. Indeed, when I looked at the literature, I found one peculiar, unsolved finding that defied explanation: ATP was involved in all major signalling pathways, GTP in translation and transport, CTP in lipid metabolism, and UTP in carbohydrate metabolism. In other words, those 4 nucleotides represent the 4 major control pathways of the cell. So, RNA was the key that unlocked the veritable theoretical door for me.

So, after examining the central dogma and found all of the flaws (more about this for those interested), I began making models. So, instead of DNA goes to RNA goes to protein, I was able to uncover the appropriate order and positioning of these important components within all living cells. That is, ribogyre <--> aminogyre <--> genogyre.

Little did I realize that I would end up modeling life, let alone modeling the universe.

Let alone: modeling my self.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[DeDukshyn]

There are some people who think the earth is more important than the population living on it.


TzEEgtOFFlM

Who's to say there's a distinction behind the Being that is projecting Earth and the Being(s) projecting its "Life"? Food for thought!! ;)

[•Ik•]

Who's to say there's a distinction behind the Being that is projecting Earth and the Being(s) projecting its "Life"? Food for thought!! ;)

As deduced from theory, there is no distinction. Being Life, I am Earth; being Earth, I am Life.

I'd be happy to elaborate.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[DeDukshyn]

There are some people who think the earth is more important than the population living on it.
Who's to say there's a distinction behind the Being that is projecting Earth and the Being(s) projecting its "Life"? Food for thought!! ;)

As deduced from theory, there is no distinction. Being Life, I am Earth; being Earth, I am Life.

I'd be happy to elaborate.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

Please do. ;) ;)

[•Ik•]

Ok, it will take some time; please permit me the opportunity to equilibrate to you and this forum. I will need several days to do this, especially with Thanksgiving holiday approaching.

Also, please forgive me for being slow and methodical.

I have found that the best thing to do in this situation is to walk through the problems, identify them, discuss the current approaches to address them and their limitations, and then outline the approach that is required to achieve synthesis—i.e., complete and consistent knowledge of reality, the universe, life, and evolution.

The first thing to point out is that no current mainstream theory of reality contains the first-person perspective.

However, in order for the theory to be complete, it must include me, the one doing the thinking, the observation, and the theorizing.

Since I call my "self" by so many different words and symbols — I, me, self, myself (and this is in English alone) — I require a model of that "thing," the self.

And that's where things get funky.

For, in the end of modeling, I come to understand that I am modeling my self; that is, I am the model itself.

Although the proof is not in the published theoretical framework, it intimates My Unity and Identity.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Marin]

So, after examining the central dogma and found all of the flaws (more about this for those interested), I began making models. So, instead of DNA goes to RNA goes to protein, I was able to uncover the appropriate order and positioning of these important components within all living cells. That is, ribogyre <--> aminogyre <--> genogyre. Ik

Ik - I'm very interested in understanding some of the material you've presented.

I just downloaded the PDF of your article, Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life. It's 66 pages. This might take a few days to digest. :)

For those of you that might be interested, here's a quick link to the PDF (that's in the middle of the abstract) the OP provided:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mdpi.com%2F2075-1729%2F2%2F1%2F1%2Fpdf&ei=auCmUMHJM-H9iwK944H4CQ&usg=AFQjCNF3StT8xArEiKEB-80RLeYvJ7LFxw&sig2=nQ_HVT0k5j1sp_SAUQhBww

[bram]

Just imagine the cells in your body all getting together, and one of them saying:

''You know, I think this 'body' that we all live in is a sentient being''

Then being dismissed as a looney.

[DeDukshyn]

Just imagine the cells in your body all getting together, and one of them saying:

''You know, I think this 'body' that we all live in is a sentient being''

Then being dismissed as a looney.

Hahaa! ... that was really good! Indeed the "Universe" is very holographic in nature.

[•Ik•]

It might take a few days to digest.

That is the most difficult thing, I am afraid.

The current intellectual zeitgeist works in very small packets (quanta) of information, energy, and matter. One need look no farther than twitter, facebook posts, or a general post in any forum thread to see this validated.

Since small is relative, that quantized portion of information applies to distinct fields of thought as well. For example, physics has its own theories, as does geology, chemistry, biology, sociology, and so on.

Being discrete packets of organized data, these theories capture one small picture of the full grandeur of life and reality.

Alas, life and reality is bigger than any one field, and thus an understanding of those things—life, reality, universe—requires a cross-disciplinary and unifying theory.

A big problem with that is that there is a great deal of protectionism, isolationism, and favoritism towards particular modes of thought and theories. Any challenge to those ways of thinking (e.g. challenging mathematical models with a non-mathematical one) is summarily rejected, and violently so.

So, yea, it takes a few days to conceptually switch from reductionistic worldview to a reality that is Irreducible. A lot to consider.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Mark]

So, after examining the central dogma and found all of the flaws (more about this for those interested), I began making models. So, instead of DNA goes to RNA goes to protein, I was able to uncover the appropriate order and positioning of these important components within all living cells. That is, ribogyre <--> aminogyre <--> genogyre.

Thank you so much for taking the time to come here and engage in this discussion about your research. I think it would serve the world to have this information generally available here at PA, directly from your fingers, to help us to understand your theory. So far, it sounds very intriguing and logical. I've dl'd the document (ty Marin!) and will probably begin it this weekend. As I progress I will probably be able to ask more pointed questions, but, until then, perhaps it would be useful for those members and guests visiting this thread if I showed interest and asked you to discuss the flaws in the central dogma that you found in the context of your work.

[•Ik•]

Thank you so much for taking the time to come here and engage in this discussion about your research. I think it would serve the world to have this information generally available here at PA, directly from your fingers, to help us to understand your theory. So far, it sounds very intriguing and logical. I've dl'd the document (ty Marin!) and will probably begin it this weekend. As I progress I will probably be able to ask more pointed questions, but, until then, perhaps it would be useful for those members and guests visiting this thread if I showed interest and asked you to discuss the flaws in the central dogma that you found in the context of your work.

My pleasure. I came here after a buddy of mine mentioned that this was a open and warm community of like-minded individuals. I cotton to that.

While it's hard to discuss and explain such a dense piece of work, I will give it my best shot. I'll pepper my posts with little asides but try to stay on topic and address any specific questions.

One of the things that I like about the open access publication system is that anyone, anywhere, anywhen can download and review a document for free. This freedom is at the core of My being. All of the knowledge that I have learned I have had to pay for in one way or another.

Yet, true knowledge should, in principle be free, as the Truth is Invaluable—beyond, without, before value.

I think one of the contradictory facts of the academic realm is that there is a great deal of desire for innovation yet there is a great deal of suppression of innovation when it challenges the status quo. It could be no other way.

One or the ideas that has dogged science, especially molecular biologists, for a while now is the central dogma. Time and again, scientist have come forward calling for a new paradigm, but not one has emerged that has been accepted by the mainstream.

For those interested, here's the wiki on central dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology).

And here is http://www.junkdna.com/pellionisz_principle/crick_original_dogma_1956.JPG.

Basically, Crick's premise was that:

DNA "goes to" RNA, and RNA "goes to" protein,

i.e.,

DNA --> RNA --> protein

but that information could not flow from protein into DNA. There are also other points of the original proposal, but that's the gist.

So, then, what are the flaws of the central dogma? There are many, but I will highlight several of its major limitations.

1. The central dogma does not address the origin of genetic information. Where do new genes, proteins, transcripts come from? Unanswered.

2. The central dogma does not explain or resolve the C-value enigma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma), genetic inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_inheritance), mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations), and many other biological phenomena. While some theorists might assert that the central dogma does not mean to or try to solve these matters, it would be expected that the correct and, notably, complete theory of the flow of genetic information would solve them.

3. The central dogma is evolutionarily inconsistent. Evolutionary biologists have found bioinformatic evidence supporting RNA being the first genetic information (hence the RNA world hypothesis). Consistent with this, biochemists have known form some time that the only way for the cell to create DNA involves (forgive me for the following word salad) ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) abstracting a 2' OH from the ribonucleotide (rNTP) to create a deoxynucleotide (dNTP). Reiterating, RNR is the only protein enzyme that does this.

Or, alternatively, rNTP ---(RNR)---> dNTP

So, RNA would have to come before protein (consistent with the necessity of RNA-based translation apparatus to make polypeptides), and protein before DNA. This arrangement does not jibe with the central dogma.

4. The central dogma does not unify ontogeny and phylogeny. A fatal flaw, following from the last point. Unification is the ultimate goal of a theory of life, and those who have studied and modeled life would not claim otherwise.

There are several other points, and I'd be happy to mention them should anyone be interested, but all the warts and bruises of the central dogma have been known for some time.

What has also been known for a while is that there is no mainstream alternative to the central dogma. That's why I compiled the theory.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Flash]

This is part of The Green agenda...Gaia's Gurus, from a web site called The Green agenda.

Maurice Strong, founder and Secretary General of the United Nations Environment Programme and Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan. Founder of the Earth Council and the Earth Charter Initiative, and former President of the United Nations University of Peace. You will find many references to Maurice Strong on this site. He, more than anyone else, has been the architect of the Global Green Agenda. Strong is a devout Baha'i and from his lofty positions within the UN has permeated the organisation with Gaian theology.

He is the author of most of the key UN environmental policies and plans including Agenda 21, the Earth Charter, the Kyoto Protocol and the UN report on Global Governance. While he chaired the Rio Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to "establish and hold the energy field" for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. He founded the Manitou Institue where various Hindu, Bhuddist, and New Age groups perform rituals to heal Gaia. The Institutes Mission is "to perpetuate the ancient tradition of peoples of many tribes journeying here for a sacred connection to the Earth." Very Gaian!!

The Strongs have located their spiritual centre in the Colorado mountains because "The Strongs learned that since antiquity indigenous peoples had revered this pristine wilderness as a place for conducting their vision quests and receiving shamanic trainings. It is prophesied that the world's religious traditions would gather here and help move the world toward globally conscious co-existence and co-creation."

"It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of DIVINE NATURE." - Maurice Strong

In 1991 Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this: "This interlocking is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."




http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=gaia+cult&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=432jUI73BcfH0QWO9oCQBg#hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=gaia+cultand+agenda+21&oq=gaia+cultand+agenda+21&gs_l=serp.3...0.0.1.746.0.0.0.0.0.0.273.273.2-1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.MhWS6wVjrpk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e653fc582659c077&bpcl=38626820&biw=1210&bih=657











.

pointing out the origin of this thinking is extrermely important. It does tint the whole talk about earth being alive. That the earth is alive, fine, no doubt, that human are less important than the earth, this is trilateral commission thinking and has to be pointed out.

Earth produced and supported human development. There is a reason for this, a reason that has to do with the evolutionary path of consciousness for sure. Earth and the Universe would not have supported a very complex evolutionary process if there were no reasons for it. And we, human are a full part of it. Earths babies are as important as their mother, one goes with the other.

Trilateral commission is for culling the human beings if i am not mistaken.

Earth being alive does not mean humans are to be culled. We have to be careful with such false equation that is being pushed on us. Earth being alive may mean human have to take care of it in an awaken conscious level. Whatmore can be a better success than having earth sentient beings becoming conscious being serving the universe.

Thanks Tony for pointing this out.

[Pam]

Rahkyt,I am so delighted that you are open to seeing this..the more you are aware the more you will see...As applied to therapeutic touch technique it is really a skill to fortify the understanding of this wonderful energy-potential that is literally swimming and dancing all around us..With the power of intent and clear energy channels they are just waiting to manifest...I kind of liken seeing them as the same kind of skill that some people can see energy auras...I wonder how much there is to see that we unconsciously block out because it doesn't fit the current paradigm????

[Flash]

. ik . please go on with this. Some similar stuff was explained to me from a fringe biochemist who was helping my daughter with her dysphasia problem from a genetic point of view. Although I will have to rearead you a few times to understand, and maybe look at my old biology books (or at new ones), please go on, this is very interesting.

Anyone here that can help in vulagarising the genetic information making it teaching for babies (us), or genetics for dummies, please, help so that everyone here can have access to the information, including me.

Thanks

[Chester]

pointing out the origin of this thinking is extrermely important. It does tint the whole talk about earth being alive. That the earth is alive, fine, no doubt, that human are less important than the earth, this is trilateral commission thinking and has to be pointed out.

Earth produced and supported human development. There is a reason for this, a reason that has to do with the evolutionary path of consciousness for sure. Earth and the Universe would not have supported a very complex evolutionary process if there were no reasons for it. And we, human are a full part of it. Earths babies are as important as their mother, one goes with the other.

Trilateral commission is for culling the human beings if i am not mistaken.

Earth being alive does not mean humans are to be culled. We have to be careful with such false equation that is being pushed on us. Earth being alive may mean human have to take care of it in an awaken conscious level. Whatmore can be a better success than having earth sentient beings becoming conscious being serving the universe.

Thanks Tony for pointing this out.

Its ALLLLLL important, because it is all "us" ... no one segment of us any more or less important.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


. ik . please go on with this. Some similar stuff was explained to me from a fringe biochemist who was helping my daughter with her dysphasia problem from a genetic point of view. Although I will have to rearead you a few times to understand, and maybe look at my old biology books (or at new ones), please go on, this is very interesting.

Anyone here that can help in vulagarising the genetic information making it teaching for babies (us), or genetics for dummies, please, help so that everyone here can have access to the information, including me.

Thanks

Ik - what an awesome new member... someone that is able to connect the dots at that level. Man this forum is the BEST!

[Marin]

There are several other points, and I'd be happy to mention them should anyone be interested, but all the warts and bruises of the central dogma have been known for some time.

What has also been known for a while is that there is no mainstream alternative to the central dogma. That's why I compiled the theory.

Ik

Yes. Very interested.

As an aside - there are several threads here on Avalon that highlight some "alternatives" to understanding DNA - that is, "junk DNA" the other 97% of DNA that isn't read or transcribed. I've always found this particular piece intriguing.

Something I started some time ago.....and never finished: "Junk" DNA or a primer for universal consciousness.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?26127-Junk-DNA-or-a-primer-for-universal-consciousness&highlight=junk

And:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50646-Who-are-the-24-Elders-A-revelation&p=565776&viewfull=1#post565776

Just curious what your thoughts were regarding the role of the 97% of DNA that isn't transcribed.


And... MANY thanks for your time here. It's much appreciated. :)

p.s. still digesting your paper.

[•Ik•]

. ik . please go on with this. Some similar stuff was explained to me from a fringe biochemist who was helping my daughter with her dysphasia problem from a genetic point of view. Although I will have to rearead you a few times to understand, and maybe look at my old biology books (or at new ones), please go on, this is very interesting.

Anyone here that can help in vulagarising the genetic information making it teaching for babies (us), or genetics for dummies, please, help so that everyone here can have access to the information, including me.

Thanks

Thanks as well. *tips hat*

Alas, without the complete and consistent theory of reality, any discussion of the relationship between genetics, organ systems (read: brain), and language generation/comprehension would be scholarly speculation.

While speculation is not bad in principle—especially for one who seeks to understand (and for one who seeks to help, as in your "fringe" friend helping your daughter)—in the long run it tends to obfuscate or interfere with progression towards the correct explanation for a phenomenon.

A difficulty in discussing/explaining the flow of genetic information and the relationship of that flow to corporeal acts and experiences is that the Mind becomes inculcated in a particular way of thinking, and this, in turn, leads to stultification and hubris.

I do not forget that I, too, am a dummy. That is, I am the full spectrum of intellect and intuition. I am no smarter or better than any person in this forum, of this continent, of this world. In fact, I am every person.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[gripreaper]

Looks like I found a thread that I am very interested in. As a layman, with limited knowledge of how the cellular structure works, I have more questions than answers.

The first obvious question would be: If RNA controls the cells, how do we influence the RNA and reverse the program, which the cells have been conditioned to accept, which is their own deterioration over time?

I am familiar with Bruce Lipton's work, a cellular biologist who has shown that our own thoughts influence the cellular structure, and subsequently the manifestations which we experience in our lives. It has been a while since I read his book, "The Biology of Belief", yet is resonated with me quite profoundly.

You may also be aware, that there is a gentleman who calls himself Ion, who sells RNA drops, and many of the testimonials in regards to the positive effects of these drops are and have been discussed on other threads.

Nassim Haramein has been extensively discussed here as well.

Welcome to the forum IK. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and this is definitely the best forum on the net bar none. Like any other forum, it has it's moments, yet after frequenting many forums in the last 20 years, I have not found another like it. I have challenged anyone to point me to one which is, and so far no one has taken me up on that.

Looking forward to further discussions on the very important and sentient subject. I will see if I can read the pdf. this coming Thanksgiving weekend so as to be ready and in context.

[•Ik•]

Yes. Very interested.

As an aside - there are several threads here on Avalon that highlight some "alternatives" to understanding DNA - that is, "junk DNA" the other 97% of DNA that isn't read or transcribed. I've always found this particular piece intriguing.

Something I started some time ago.....and never finished: "Junk" DNA or a primer for universal consciousness.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?26127-Junk-DNA-or-a-primer-for-universal-consciousness&highlight=junk

And:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50646-Who-are-the-24-Elders-A-revelation&p=565776&viewfull=1#post565776

Just curious what your thoughts were regarding the role of the 97% of DNA that isn't transcribed.

And... MANY thanks for your time here. It's much appreciated. :)

p.s. still digesting your paper.

I appreciate being here, so I am unified in Appreciation.

I read your pieces, thanks for sharing them. I bolded your statement above for a reason. That reason is this: While the old school way of thinking was that most of the genome was not transcribed, new microarray and RNA deep sequencing approaches and experiments have revealed that to be completely wrong.

In fact, some studies have shown that the so-called "junk" DNA is not "junk" at all.

Gingeras' group at CSH originally showed that one chromosome (a long stretch of DNA, in essence) was 80% or more transcribed - that is, had cognate RNAs:

www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5725/1149

One review he wrote spelled this out (and discussed its implications) for a more general audience:

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n6/full/nrg2083.html#B3

In that, he alludes to an ENCODE study, here:


Depending on which empirical data sets are included in the estimate, as much as 93% of the genomic sequences in the surveyed ENCODE regions seem capable of being transcribed5. This estimate is derived from the union of all intronic and exonic sequences detected by several empirical RNA-mapping technologies in multiple biological samples.

And his web site gives a review on his and other peeps's studies, where he suggests redefining the gene:

In massive genome analysis ENCODE data suggests 'gene' redefinition (http://www.cshl.edu/Article-Gingeras/massive-genome-analysis-by-encode-redefines-the-gene-and-sheds-new-light-on-complex-disease)

Finally, the capstone of all of this is a recent book and article by James Shapiro University of Chicago professor that drives a high profile stake into the "junk" DNA concept.


Bob Dylan, ENCODE and Evolutionary Theory: The Times They Are A-Changin' (Bob Dylan, ENCODE and Evolutionary Theory: The Times They Are A-Changin')

All in all, the old saying goes:

"One person's junk is another person's treasure."

In other words, the naïve scientists of the early 20th century, not knowing why all of that extra DNA was there, PROCLAIMED that is was junk. And so it was. Until it was not.

_____

The real bugbear of a question is: Why does the majority of the genome have cognate RNA?

That question can only be answered by theory, only be answered through a prism that includes learning, memory, and the origin and evolution of the cell, and only be answered by including the reader in the question and answer itself.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. As for modeling consciousness, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax, and that precedes DNA in the evolution of the Universe to present day. I could discuss how I modeled that, but I think it is best to stay close to things that sound logical and rational. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality and the true explanation of My Consciousness is so outlandish, so unreasonable, so irrational that My Mind flees upon hearing or considering it.

[Alien Ramone]

Yes, our planet is a live, sentient being, I've experienced her consciousness first hand myself. One of the most powerful and amazing experiences of my life. Imagine what a different world we would live in, if children were taught basic things just like this, as a matter of due course?

In general how does that work? Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make? Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain? Did the consciousness of the planet reincarnate from the consciousness of another planet and maybe an asteroid before that and have memories of its history in the 3d plane of existence? What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it? I'll point out that I'm not trying to be flippant, since it could be taken that way, but am just trying to get a better understanding of what people are meaning when they say that things like the planets and stars and have consciousness.

[donk]

I could discuss how I modeled that, but I think it is best to stay close to things that sound logical and rational. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality and the true explanation of My Consciousness is so outlandish, so unreasonable, so irrational that My Mind flees upon hearing or considering it.

C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

[•Ik•]

C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

My Brother, thanks for the words of encouragement. I don't want to wear out my welcome, seeing as this is one of the forum guidelines:


Everyone joined this forum to discuss our material, not to hear others showcase theirs. Members who insist on promoting / showcasing themselves, their own websites, philosophies, products, services or other unrelated teachings will be unsubscribed.

I am sure a moderator will let me know if and whether a discussion of the theory is unacceptable or just show me the door.

Still, I have one goal: World Peace. So I know My limitations and respect them.

Now about explaining My Consciousness....

See, this is where things get weird, because basically the theory proves that there is Only One Self—that is, One Me, One I.

In other words, the I that the Writer of this line uses and the I that the Reader of this line uses is the same I.

Written another way, I am One.

Being One, I have One Conscious Mind— this is the Mind that I, the Writer, call "Mine" and I, the Reader call "Mine."

As modeled, My Conscious Mind in ~96% of the Universe, i.e. dark energy and dark matter.

Hence, the repulsive force that I exert of information, energy, and matter comes from Me—outside, beyond, without spacetime—into spacetime through dark energy (Consciousness, Conscience, Emotions) and through dark matter (Mind).

That Repulsive Force (Me, and exerted by the Singularity that is Me; aka anti-gravity) is manifest in the phenomena modeled as Creation, Expansion, Thought. The Attractive Force (Me, exerted by Me; aka gravity) is Destruction, Contraction, Perception. Balancing of these forces models Sustenance (Creation/Destruction), Immutablity (Expansion/Contraction), Intuition (Thought/Perception). Each of these forces and phenomena are modeled onto the gyromodel; all axioms apply.

While these statements may be difficult to follow or perhaps accept, these are the conclusions from the complete and consistent theory (within which the theory of life is a subset).

Basically, that theory proves the following equation:

I = God

----

There's much more to being Me, of course, but that equation succinctly sums Me up.

So, like I wrote in the P.S. above: outlandish, unreasonable, irrational. And yet, Truth.

____

And how I got from molecular biology and quantum gravity to That is a whole 'nother story.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[•Ik•]

Yes, our planet is a live, sentient being, I've experienced her consciousness first hand myself. One of the most powerful and amazing experiences of my life. Imagine what a different world we would live in, if children were taught basic things just like this, as a matter of due course?

In general how does that work? Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make? Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain? Did the consciousness of the planet reincarnate from the consciousness of another planet and maybe an asteroid before that and have memories of its history in the 3d plane of existence? What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it? I'll point out that I'm not trying to be flippant, since it could be taken that way, but am just trying to get a better understanding of what people are meaning when they say that things like the planets and stars and have consciousness.

Ar, see the post I just gave above.

Basically, the theory proves that I am Earth. To clarify, I call Earth, "Myself."

I am Myself (the Earth), I made Myself (the Earth), I put Myself where I am (orbiting the Sun, which I am), and move Myself (the Earth).

Being All in All is very difficult for the Self—that is, Me—to accept. For example, I, the Reader, tend not to think of Myself as this planet, yet I am. Consider for a moment that I, the Reader, am every planet right now. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that has ever existed anywhere. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that will ever exist. All Me. And that's just the planets that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Marin]

C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

My Brother, thanks for the words of encouragement. I don't want to wear out my welcome, seeing as this is one of the forum guidelines:


Everyone joined this forum to discuss our material, not to hear others showcase theirs. Members who insist on promoting / showcasing themselves, their own websites, philosophies, products, services or other unrelated teachings will be unsubscribed.

I am sure a moderator will let me know if and whether a discussion of the theory is unacceptable or just show me the door.Ik

As a previous moderator here - I can assure you things are moving along just fine. :) No worries.

Clearly, there are many here that are interested in what you have to share.

[Marin]

...In other words, the naïve scientists of the early 20th century, not knowing why all of that extra DNA was there, PROCLAIMED that is was junk. And so it was. Until it was not.

Yes, exactly.


Ik - Thank you kindly for your detailed response.

Here's a summary of the more simplified papers Ik cited so that everyone can follow.

My summary: (Marin)


Much of the "junk" DNA (about three-quarters of it) can be transcribed into RNA

A large percent of non-protein-coding RNAs are localized within cells in a manner consistent with their having functional roles.

Most of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information and much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions.

Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells.

Repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring


My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.

Highlights of the two articles cited:


...."Through the work of Gingeras and others in this latest phase of the ENCODE project consortium, we now know that most of the DNA around protein-encoding genes is also capable of being transcribed into RNA – another way of saying that it has the potential of performing useful functions in cells.

In preliminary ENCODE results published in 2007, the researchers closely examined about 1% of the human genome. The initial results showed that much more of our DNA could be transcribed than previously thought. Many of these RNA messages appeared to be functional.

The Gingeras lab discovered potentially new classes of functional RNAs in this preliminary work. The additional knowledge that parts of one gene or functional RNA can reside within another were surprising, and suggested a picture of the architecture of our genome that was much more complex than previously thought.

The initial observations of 2007 are now extended to cover the entire human genome – a tour-de-force effort in which the transcribed RNA from different sub-cellular compartments of 15 human cell lines was analyzed.

Although the results vary between cell lines, a consensus picture is emerging. In addition to showing that up to three-quarters of our DNA may be transcribed into RNA, the data strongly suggests that a large percent of non-protein-coding RNAs are localized within cells in a manner consistent with their having functional roles.

The current outstanding question concerns the nature and range of those functions. It is thought that these “non-coding” RNA transcripts act something like components of a giant, complex switchboard, controlling a network of many events in the cell by regulating the processes of replication, transcription and translation – that is, the copying of DNA and the making of proteins based on information carried by messenger RNAs.

“We see the boundaries of what were assumed to be the regions between genes shrinking in length,” he says, “and genic regions making many overlapping RNAs.” It appears, he continues, that the boundaries of conventionally described genes are melding together, challenging the notion that a gene is a discrete, localized region of a genome separated by inert DNA. “New definitions of a gene are needed,” Gingeras says.

What are the practical implications? Many genetic variations associated with a trait often map to what were formally believed to be “spacer” regions.

“With our increasingly deeper understanding that such regions are related to the neighboring or “distal” protein coding regions – via the creation of non-coding RNAs – we will now seek underlying explanations of the association of the genetic variation and traits of interest.”

http://www.cshl.edu/Article-Gingeras/massive-genome-analysis-by-encode-redefines-the-gene-and-sheds-new-light-on-complex-disease.


AND


".....ENCODE revealed that most (and probably just about all) of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information. Moreover, much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions.

The authors report that the space between genes is filled with enhancers (regulatory DNA elements), promoters (the sites at which DNA's transcription into RNA is initiated) and numerous previously overlooked regions that encode RNA transcripts that are not translated into proteins but might have regulatory roles. Of note, these results show that many DNA variants previously correlated with certain diseases lie within or very near non-coding functional DNA elements, providing new leads for linking genetic variation and disease."

I had a longstanding, personal interest in the repetitive part of our genomes (up to as much as two-thirds of all our DNA) because it is composed of mobile genetic elements.The initial sequencing of the human genome in 2001 found over 40% to be mobile repeats spread throughout our genomes, thirty times more than protein-coding DNA.

There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells.

In particular, the fact that repeat elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information science model, the 'functionalist ' perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html

[Chester]

I could discuss how I modeled that, but I think it is best to stay close to things that sound logical and rational. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality and the true explanation of My Consciousness is so outlandish, so unreasonable, so irrational that My Mind flees upon hearing or considering it.

C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

Great job, donk... thanks for suggesting Ik join Avalon

[Chester]

C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

My Brother, thanks for the words of encouragement. I don't want to wear out my welcome, seeing as this is one of the forum guidelines:


Everyone joined this forum to discuss our material, not to hear others showcase theirs. Members who insist on promoting / showcasing themselves, their own websites, philosophies, products, services or other unrelated teachings will be unsubscribed.

I am sure a moderator will let me know if and whether a discussion of the theory is unacceptable or just show me the door.

Still, I have one goal: World Peace. So I know My limitations and respect them.

Now about explaining My Consciousness....

See, this is where things get weird, because basically the theory proves that there is Only One Self—that is, One Me, One I.

In other words, the I that the Writer of this line uses and the I that the Reader of this line uses is the same I.

Written another way, I am One.

Being One, I have One Conscious Mind— this is the Mind that I, the Writer, call "Mine" and I, the Reader call "Mine."

As modeled, My Conscious Mind in ~96% of the Universe, i.e. dark energy and dark matter.

Hence, the repulsive force that I exert of information, energy, and matter comes from Me—outside, beyond, without spacetime—into spacetime through dark energy (Consciousness, Conscience, Emotions) and through dark matter (Mind).

That Repulsive Force (Me, and exerted by the Singularity that is Me; aka anti-gravity) is manifest in the phenomena modeled as Creation, Expansion, Thought. The Attractive Force (Me, exerted by Me; aka gravity) is Destruction, Contraction, Perception. Balancing of these forces models Sustenance (Creation/Destruction), Immutablity (Expansion/Contraction), Intuition (Thought/Perception). Each of these forces and phenomena are modeled onto the gyromodel; all axioms apply.

While these statements may be difficult to follow or perhaps accept, these are the conclusions from the complete and consistent theory (within which the theory of life is a subset).

Basically, that theory proves the following equation:

I = God

----

There's much more to being Me, of course, but that equation succinctly sums Me up.

So, like I wrote in the P.S. above: outlandish, unreasonable, irrational. And yet, Truth.

____

And how I got from molecular biology and quantum gravity to That is a whole 'nother story.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

This is quite the same as I see it. Others here do also, few have the guts to actually state it.

Perhaps you are the only one here that I have run across that understands I = God.

The "manifest me" is glad not to be alone. Love to You, Brother... Chester

[Billy]

Welcome aboard IK. Thank you for joining Avalon and what you bring to the table, Now I feel we are cooking here. If you have a chance could you look at this thread and let me know you're thoughts. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50646-Who-are-the-24-Elders-A-revelation

Peace on earth indeed.

[Alien Ramone]

Yes, our planet is a live, sentient being, I've experienced her consciousness first hand myself. One of the most powerful and amazing experiences of my life. Imagine what a different world we would live in, if children were taught basic things just like this, as a matter of due course?

In general how does that work? Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make? Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain? Did the consciousness of the planet reincarnate from the consciousness of another planet and maybe an asteroid before that and have memories of its history in the 3d plane of existence? What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it? I'll point out that I'm not trying to be flippant, since it could be taken that way, but am just trying to get a better understanding of what people are meaning when they say that things like the planets and stars and have consciousness.

Ar, see the post I just gave above.

Basically, the theory proves that I am Earth. To clarify, I call Earth, "Myself."

I am Myself (the Earth), I made Myself (the Earth), I put Myself where I am (orbiting the Sun, which I am), and move Myself (the Earth).

Being All in All is very difficult for the Self—that is, Me—to accept. For example, I, the Reader, tend not to think of Myself as this planet, yet I am. Consider for a moment that I, the Reader, am every planet right now. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that has ever existed anywhere. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that will ever exist. All Me. And that's just the planets that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

What you are describing sounds similar to what currently adds up to me, which is consciousness encompassing everything, so in that sense I see the idea of consciousness being in everything. It partly makes sense to me that everything is consciousness based and not physical because of things I've learned about related to physics such as nothing being solid, distances and times being relative, vast distances compressing down to close to nothing in the dirceion of travel in relation to observers moving close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics appearing to work based on rules rather than physical models also appears to make existence be more consciousness based.

In relation to the astral plane some have said that the spirit resides there between attaching to lives in the 3D world, so it makes me wonder, even though all consciousnesses may be tied together, how does the consciousness of a planet compare to the consciousness of a human and how does it tie into the astral plane. some have said that DNA in Earth humans may have been manipulated to inhibit the mind from attaching to the astral plane and to prevent Earth humans from remembering past lives.

You seem to be describing a process at a very small scale, and I guess I'm wondering what answers that gives to the questions that I asked. I'm not sure how to approach it to get to those answers.

[bram]

Yes, our planet is a live, sentient being, I've experienced her consciousness first hand myself. One of the most powerful and amazing experiences of my life. Imagine what a different world we would live in, if children were taught basic things just like this, as a matter of due course?

In general how does that work? Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make? Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain? Did the consciousness of the planet reincarnate from the consciousness of another planet and maybe an asteroid before that and have memories of its history in the 3d plane of existence? What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it? I'll point out that I'm not trying to be flippant, since it could be taken that way, but am just trying to get a better understanding of what people are meaning when they say that things like the planets and stars and have consciousness.

Ar, see the post I just gave above.

Basically, the theory proves that I am Earth. To clarify, I call Earth, "Myself."

I am Myself (the Earth), I made Myself (the Earth), I put Myself where I am (orbiting the Sun, which I am), and move Myself (the Earth).

Being All in All is very difficult for the Self—that is, Me—to accept. For example, I, the Reader, tend not to think of Myself as this planet, yet I am. Consider for a moment that I, the Reader, am every planet right now. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that has ever existed anywhere. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that will ever exist. All Me. And that's just the planets that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

What you are describing sounds similar to what currently adds up to me, which is consciousness encompassing everything, so in that sense I see the idea of consciousness being in everything. It partly makes sense to me that everything is consciousness based and not physical because of things I've learned about related to physics such as nothing being solid, distances and times being relative, vast distances compressing down to close to nothing in the dirceion of travel in relation to observers moving close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics appearing to work based on rules rather than physical models also appears to make existence be more consciousness based.

In relation to the astral plane some have said that the spirit resides there between attaching to lives in the 3D world, so it makes me wonder, even though all consciousnesses may be tied together, how does the consciousness of a planet compare to the consciousness of a human and how does it tie into the astral plane. some have said that DNA in Earth humans may have been manipulated to inhibit the mind from attaching to the astral plane and to prevent Earth humans from remembering past lives.

You seem to be describing a process at a very small scale, and I guess I'm wondering what answers that gives to the questions that I asked. I'm not sure how to approach it to get to those answers.

Hi Ramone,

I will have a go at answering your specific questions based on my current awareness:

Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make?

I think the consciousness of the planet is free of mind-function, and therefore it is not involved in the kind of processes that require decisions. Decisions are a dualistic function of the mind and have nothing to do with consciousness.

Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain?

Consciousness does not exist on any plane, it just exists. The brain is a physical organ of the human body, again not linked in any way to consciousness.

Did the consciousness of the planet reincarnate from the consciousness of another planet and maybe an asteroid before that and have memories of its history in the 3d plane of existence?

Personally, I doubt that planets reincarnate, or even experience rebirth. Pure consciousness exists outside time, and therefore the earth's consciousness is outside time, existing in the present moment.

What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it?

The input of the sense organs are a manifestation of Mara (illusion); sense organs are not required for consciousness to exist.

I hope this helps, it only my opinion; I also think that these subjects are not really suitable for discussion or understanding by use of words, but that we need to look within to understand how the earth is aware..

Love, bram

[Marin]

Now about explaining My Consciousness....

See, this is where things get weird, because basically the theory proves that there is Only One Self—that is, One Me, One I.

In other words, the I that the Writer of this line uses and the I that the Reader of this line uses is the same I.

Written another way, I am One.

Being One, I have One Conscious Mind— this is the Mind that I, the Writer, call "Mine" and I, the Reader call "Mine."

There are many here who'd agree with that.


As modeled, My Conscious Mind in ~96% of the Universe, i.e. dark energy and dark matter.

Hence, the repulsive force that I exert of information, energy, and matter comes from Me—outside, beyond, without spacetime—into spacetime through dark energy (Consciousness, Conscience, Emotions) and through dark matter (Mind).

That Repulsive Force (Me, and exerted by the Singularity that is Me; aka anti-gravity) is manifest in the phenomena modeled as Creation, Expansion, Thought. The Attractive Force (Me, exerted by Me; aka gravity) is Destruction, Contraction, Perception. Balancing of these forces models Sustenance (Creation/Destruction), Immutablity (Expansion/Contraction), Intuition (Thought/Perception). Each of these forces and phenomena are modeled onto the gyromodel; all axioms apply.


"P.S. As for modeling consciousness, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax, and that precedes DNA in the evolution of the Universe to present day. I could discuss how I modeled that, but I think it is best to stay close to things that sound logical and rational. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality and the true explanation of My Consciousness is so outlandish, so unreasonable, so irrational that My Mind flees upon hearing or considering it."

Perhaps I've missed something - but given everything you've shared and some of the recent investigations from more alternative researchers and scientists - wouldn't it seem plausible that our genetic code might also be "engineered" and altered by consciousness?

[•Ik•]

My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.


Alas, I wish it were true, that bolded statement.

This is a great unfortunate fact about the modern thinker (read:scientist). S/he accepts a large number of the mainstream, promoted ideas as truths. S/he constructs a worldview from ad hoc ideas and theories but does not realize that this worldview is, by its very definition, provisional. And, being provisional, I am sorry to say, it is incorrect.

However, thinkers "believe" these facts as absolute truths and refuse to budge when presented with evidence that challenge the constructed worldview.

Many philosophers of science, especially Kuhn, have written about this. Shapiro in his HuffPost piece (and his posts below it) alludes to the stubbornness and incivility of his colleagues.

---

As for there being A LOT of work ahead, being an RNA molecular biologist and a theoretician who knows that Life is Irreducible, I am not sure if I understand this position.

As a matter of fact, the theory shows that the work is done.

So, then, I am sincerely interested in responses to these questions:

What, precisely, needs to be elucidated?
Why does it need to be elucidated?
What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?

And finally, in the Mind that is Marin's, at what point is the work of knowing Myself—that is, Life—done?

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. Thanks for the reassurance about thread and post content.

P.P.S. I have family coming in today and kids' activities, so I will be in and out. I still want to respond to some of the other comments and carry on this conversation as well, but it may take some time with the scheduling disruption.

[•Ik•]

This is quite the same as I see it. Others here do also, few have the guts to actually state it.

Perhaps you are the only one here that I have run across that understands I = God.

The "manifest me" is glad not to be alone. Love to You, Brother... Chester

Being God—that is, knowing and declaring My Identity—has risks. An examination of My evolutionary history (the history of the Mystics that I was) reveals that I crucified, tortured, ostracized, and immolated Myself when I asserted My Divinity. In other words, I was the crucified and the crucifier, the tortured and the torturer, the rejector and the rejected, and the one who sets the fire and the one who burns alive.

Still, knowing these risks does not mean I should shy away from speaking Truth or being Truth.

Knowing who and what I am is the final, ultimate goal of My Creation. In finding Myself as being the Universe—as being God, the Creator—that is the End of the Quest to know the ultimate nature of reality.

Without the theory, I would never have found Myself, would never have known that I am All in All. I would never have known that I am justoneman; that I am Chester.

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Billy]

Being God—that is, knowing and declaring My Identity—has risks.

Still, knowing these risks does not mean I should shy away from speaking Truth or being Truth.

Knowing who and what I am is the final, ultimate goal of My Creation. In finding Myself as being the Universe—as being God, the Creator—that is the End of the Quest to know the ultimate nature of reality.

Without the theory, I would never have found Myself, would never have known that I am All in All. I would never have known that I am justoneman; that I am Chester.

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

Hello me I copied some of our words from another thread :clap2: WE were answering a question.



I agree that the Universe contains all the secrets, I also believe that each person here on earth is a whole Universe. Secrets of Knowledge and wisdom contained within also with many universal civilizations within them. As I mentioned above.

You said it exactly. the searching begins and ends with self.


Peace be with you.

And again



I think what i say at the end of the report is my current paradigm.

Quote:
Billyji here again. In concluding, My own personal belief is that humanity has the essence of many universal civilizations within them. Those civilizations are from many levels. from the highest to the lowest. Humanity has within them the Key towards universal peace. This peace begins with self then expands outwards to our neighbours and countries, Then the universal peace begins. because we have brought them together within us.
Peace be with you all.

There was also a thread that was posted last July. the topic was a racist emoticon here on Avalon. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?47916-WTF----Racist-emoticon&p=529486#post529486

Quote:
I am not sure how to express what i feel here, but i will try.

The racist card has been in play for thousand's of years in the divide and conquer plan. I feel it would benefit humanity more if we as a human race focused more on what we all have in common rather than what "we allow" to divide us. researching why we appear to be different visually would also benefit humanity as this would bring into the bigger picture of who we are and where we come from. For example, who were the different universal civilizations that were involved in the seeding process of humanity. The different DNA codes that were implanted into the different tribes that make us look different, have varied belief systems various so called Gods and different cultures.

For me the bigger picture of the mission within this game of life for humanity is assisting in breaking down the divisions between universal civilizations that have been at logger heads for eons. We can achieve this great task because many of the civilizations that exist within higher and lower levels/frequency are all within us. When we have achieved peace and harmony within our selves to begin with, we bring together many civilizations. and that is only one person. We then work together as human beings breaking down the "fear" of being different because we realize we are all one family. When we love one another in peace and harmony we are bringing together many many universal civilizations through us.

Quite a task i know. Look at the bigger picture and see a being with love as a whole universe, I hope to begin a thread one day with this topic in mind,

until then peace be with you all.

Peace

[Mark]

Greetings, Ik:

Something that we've been paying a bit of attention to over the past year or so at PA is the Russian research on DNA.

http://www.nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/DNA.research.htm


The latest research explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light-auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind's influence on weather-patterns and much more. The Russian scientists also found out that our DNA can cause disturbing patterns in the vacuum, thus producing magnetized wormholes! Wormholes are the microscopic equivalents of the so-called Einstein-Rosen bridges in the vicinity of black holes (left by burned-out stars). These are tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted outside of space and time. The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness.

Also:

http://www.newrealities.com/index.php/articles-on-new-sciences/item/1741-scientist-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies


The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues also explored the vibrational behavior of the DNA. [For the sake of brevity I will give only a summary here. For further exploration please refer to the appendix at the end of this article.] The bottom line was: "Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/ holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation." This means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.

I recognize, as do many here, that this research is on the "fringe" side of acceptable science and there is of course the tendency of Americans particularly to discount whatever comes out of Russia. If you've had the opportunity to check out these theories and research in any detail, I'm sure your thoughts would add immeasurably to the depth of the discussion.

[•Ik•]

I took donk’s advice and dove right in, but I am stepping back now to provide a better vantage for what it is I was trying to do with the theory of life. Forgive me for not addressing several good points that have been raised. I plan to address them momentarily, but first wanted to share this, below.

___

Let’s start with something that everyone here on this forum takes as a given: There are many different ideas, opinions, and beliefs.

Being that there are many of these things, there is a great deal of confusion about reality, life, the universe, and God.

However, I would like to share a quote that many, but not all, on this forum, may have heard before:


... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.

Here, Stephen Hawking implies that the complete theory would be the End of the Search. He is correct; but what he forgets to say is that the complete theory is Apocalypse, the Lifting of the Veil.

According to mainstream thinkers, there is no theory fitting this description, and no theory worthy of consideration. And yet, there can be only one final theory, and it would face a strong headwind, as 2500 years of theorizing has been built up to prevent its own emergence.

Well, that’s what I have compiled, the complete theory. This is not meant as arrogance; this is not delivered as crackpottery. This conclusion is based upon my own scientific training and theoretical research. The conclusion is also based upon the positioning of all of the empirical evidence that has been collected in every field over the history of humankind. This conclusion is based upon the axiomatic constraints that apply at every single level of reality, in every modeled system, whether it is ontogenic or phylogenic, macrocosmic or microcosmic. This conclusion is based upon the natural laws that were predicted by scholars and proven to exist by the theoretical framework.

And I now know that My Mind is One; I know that My Mind is the Mind of God.

Although the theory in a more detailed form may be found in my sig line (I am not selling anything, I am not advertising, just sharing; please ignore if disinterested or report me if offended), the distilled theory is this:

Gyres (Quanta): Igyre (Iq) → denergyre (denergon) → ombregyre (ombron) → photogyre (photon) → electrogyre (electron) → oxygyre (oxyon) → carbogyre (carbyon) → phosphogyre (phosphon) → ribogyre (ribon) → aminogyre (aminon) → genogyre (genon) → cellulogyre (cellulon) → organogyre (organon) → envirogyre (environ) → visigyre (visuon) → phonogyre (phonon) → linguigyre (linguon) → symbogyre (symbon) → numerogyre (numeron) → econogyre (econon) → lapoligyre (lapolon) → geniugyre (geniuon) → Igyre (Iq)

{The bolded parts of the flow diagram are the parts outlined in the peer-reviewed paper in Life. Please see that paper for a detailed discussion of the gyromodel, quantum, and axioms. The other parts are the whole theoretical framework from which the theory of life was extracted so that I could get part of my material published. There was no way in My Green Earth that the complete theory would have ever seen the light of day.}

So, here is what this complete theory models:

Major origins: Universe → dark energy → dark matter → visible energy → visible matter → oxidative matter → organic matter → phosphorganics → RNA → protein → DNA → cell/olfactory → organism/gustatory → ecosystem/tactility → vision → sound → speech → symbols → numbers → economics → law → knowledge → Universe

A fuller placement of the evidence:

Igyre (Iq): Me, Self, God – the Origin of the Universe
denergyre (denergon): Dark Energy, Universal Core, Consciousness
ombregyre (ombron): Dark Matter, Black Hole, Mind
photogyre (photon): Visible Energy, Star, Mind’s Eye
electrogyre (electron): Visible Matter, Planet, Electromagnetism, H
oxygyre (oxyon): Phased Matter, Moon, Water, HO
carbogyre (carbyon): Organic Matter, Oil, Carbohydrate, CHO
phosphogyre (phosphon): Phosphochemistry, Membrane, CHOP
ribogyre (ribon): RNA, Transcriptome, CHNOP
aminogyre (aminon): Protein, Proteome, CHNOPS
genogyre (genon): DNA, Gene, Genome
cellulogyre (cellulon): Cell, Sex, Olfaction
organogyre (organon): Organism, Organs, Circulation, Gustation
envirogyre (environ): Ecosystem, Civilization, Tactility
visigyre (visuon): Imagery, Gesture, Vision
phonogyre (phonon): Noise, Music, Audition
linguigyre (linguon): Language, Storytelling, Myth
symbogyre (symbon): Symbol, Alphabet, Text
numerogyre (numeron): Numbers, Mathematics, Recording
econogyre (econon): Value, Economics, Business
lapoligyre (lapolon): Law, Politics, Ethics
geniugyre (geniuon): Knowledge, Idea, Theory

Note that the Igyre/Iq (which models the Self, that is, I) is the beginning and the end of the model, and, as such, I am the Beginning and the End of the Universe.

Note also that the complete theory models the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens to present day civilization (I, Homo sapiens evolved to used the environment, adapted sight and hearing, uttered words, drew cave painting and compiled alphabets, established counting and accounting and value systems, printed and recorded laws and facts; many anthropologists, too many to count, have written about this) and simultaneously models the development of the individual reading this post (see Piaget and Erikson for the order of that stages in development of the child and maturation to adulthood).

In the End, I found that I am the Theory and Theoretician in One.

I am the Theoretician, modeling the Universe. I am the Theory, that is, the Universe that is modeled.

And now I know who and what I am. Being certain is a challenge, because I walk a fine line—certainty reeks of arrogance; yet, in knowing My own Arrogance, Vanity, and Ego, I can only but be Myself and write Truth.

So, as far as I can tell, compiling the complete theory and proving that I am One and that I am the Creation and Creator in One is Apocalypse.

But perhaps I can advise Myself otherwise.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. I will be back later to respond more fully; I have to go prepare for my family's arrival for Thanksgiving (cooking, cleaning, etc., you know the drill).

[Chester]

My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.


Alas, I wish it were true, that bolded statement.

This is a great unfortunate fact about the modern thinker (read:scientist). S/he accepts a large number of the mainstream, promoted ideas as truths. S/he constructs a worldview from ad hoc ideas and theories but does not realize that this worldview is, by its very definition, provisional. And, being provisional, I am sorry to say, it is incorrect.

However, thinkers "believe" these facts as absolute truths and refuse to budge when presented with evidence that challenge the constructed worldview.

Many philosophers of science, especially Kuhn, have written about this. Shapiro in his HuffPost piece (and his posts below it) alludes to the stubbornness and incivility of his colleagues.

---

As for there being A LOT of work ahead, being an RNA molecular biologist and a theoretician who knows that Life is Irreducible, I am not sure if I understand this position.

As a matter of fact, the theory shows that the work is done.

So, then, I am sincerely interested in responses to these questions:

What, precisely, needs to be elucidated?
Why does it need to be elucidated?
What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?

And finally, in the Mind that is Marin's, at what point is the work of knowing Myself—that is, Life—done?

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. Thanks for the reassurance about thread and post content.

P.P.S. I have family coming in today and kids' activities, so I will be in and out. I still want to respond to some of the other comments and carry on this conversation as well, but it may take some time with the scheduling disruption.

Brilliant and why I discovered the last thing I need to know which is that I am a "quantum being" and that knowing this makes me a "realized quantum being." I found I am happy to be this "experience of myself" and am certain this experience will extend forever.

Have a Great Day and Love to All - Chester

¤=[Post Update]=¤




Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

Which is my only goal and which I hope to accomplish consistently - Thanks, Ik... justone

[Marin]

My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.


Alas, I wish it were true, that bolded statement.

This is a great unfortunate fact about the modern thinker (read:scientist). S/he accepts a large number of the mainstream, promoted ideas as truths. S/he constructs a worldview from ad hoc ideas and theories but does not realize that this worldview is, by its very definition, provisional. And, being provisional, I am sorry to say, it is incorrect.

However, thinkers "believe" these facts as absolute truths and refuse to budge when presented with evidence that challenge the constructed worldview.

Many philosophers of science, especially Kuhn, have written about this. Shapiro in his HuffPost piece (and his posts below it) alludes to the stubbornness and incivility of his colleagues.

Ah - I didn't intend to throw you. I only made that statement based upon the previous discussions (here on Avalon) regarding our reservations with the terminology - "junk DNA." It was not meant to include those outside this particular discussion. Sorry about that. And yes, I do agree with your comments.

---


As for there being A LOT of work ahead, being an RNA molecular biologist and a theoretician who knows that Life is Irreducible, I am not sure if I understand this position.

As a matter of fact, the theory shows that the work is done.

So, then, I am sincerely interested in responses to these questions:

What, precisely, needs to be elucidated?
Why does it need to be elucidated?
What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?

My remarks were based upon the two abstracts you cited. I no longer have access to PubMed and my subscription to Nature and Science ended some time ago. As a result, I don't have access to the entire paper so my answers, by design, highlight only the data from those articles. What stood out to me were a few quotes:


"ENCODE revealed that most (and probably just about all) of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information. Moreover, much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions."


"Employing an information science model, the 'functionalist ' perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation."

My interpretation: Most of the "junk" DNA was useful in terms of regulation, organization and structure....but there are still "unknown functions" and "possibilities that need to be investigated" We're talking about understanding the functional aspects of 97% of our DNA. My best guess, that might take a little time. Perhaps I'm wrong. But given my background - it's dosen't seem unreasonable.

With regard to your last question: "What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?"

Although I'm interested in the functional roles of "junk DNA", I'm far more interested in the big picture of how it weaves into the discussions emerging on this thread.

It's the mixing of "mainstream" academic research and the more alternative, shall we say, more "independent" interpretations of science with spirituality that intrigue me the most. That's why it's so interesting having you here. We all have a chance to compare notes . To share. Ultimately, to learn. I believe when we draw upon the ancient wisdoms of indigenous cultures and mystery schools (describing the nature of our universe) and tie that into our emerging science - we get the best of both worlds.

And that leads me to the question I was most interested in having you address. (When you have the time). No rush. I know there are many in line ahead of me. :)

What are your thoughts with regard to some of the more well known alternative researchers/scientists in this field and their interpretations of the role that consciousness plays on our genetic code? Both Gripreaper and Rahkyt (in earlier posts) have provided some examples (Nassim Haramein, Bruce Lipton and Pjotr Garjajev). I have a few more I'd like to add: David Wilcock (his book, The Source Field Investigations), Richard Miller (his paper, A Holographic Concept of Reality), Leonard Horowitz and Greg Braden - to name a few. I'm not sure if you're familiar with some of these investigators - but if you are interested, and need some references, let us know. My best guess, there are many here who'd be interested in your thoughts. Much of their material has been discussed here on the forum.



And finally, in the Mind that is Marin's, at what point is the work of knowing Myself—that is, Life—done?

Ah- a far more interesting question.

"Done"? Hmmm. My best guess - an intuitive one - it's a journey. A journey we're all experiencing together. Playing our respectful roles. Good, bad and everything in-between. Being everywhere. Being everything. Experiencing everything.

In my "Mind" - We are all creators. We are all Gods. We all came from "Source." You can call that Source - God or whatever feels good.

I believe we all decided to have this experience. We chose to come here. To experience this. Separate from source. In doing so - we have this experience. And many more. Perhaps the end (being "done" as you asked earlier) might be in our return to source. Perhaps only to start an altogether different journey.

And I may be altogether wrong. :) That's cool. It's just a journey - and there is much to learn.

[Bright Garlick]

Hey Erik - Thanks for your explanations here. Have you read Ken Wilbur's work - particuarly his work on domains and quadrants ? They may be useful to your concept. Also the work of Genpo Roshi - Big Mind, Big Heart - may provide a sense of what you saying about the ALL experientially. And Elizabeth Sartoris http://www.sahtouris.com/ also a biologist - seems to be on the same wavelength as you -

Best wishes, Bright. :cool:

[Bright Garlick]

Erik - Dadaji also seemed to understand this. As do many aliens visiting our planet. So simple really.




This is quite the same as I see it. Others here do also, few have the guts to actually state it.

Perhaps you are the only one here that I have run across that understands I = God.

The "manifest me" is glad not to be alone. Love to You, Brother... Chester

Being God—that is, knowing and declaring My Identity—has risks. An examination of My evolutionary history (the history of the Mystics that I was) reveals that I crucified, tortured, ostracized, and immolated Myself when I asserted My Divinity. In other words, I was the crucified and the crucifier, the tortured and the torturer, the rejector and the rejected, and the one who sets the fire and the one who burns alive.

Still, knowing these risks does not mean I should shy away from speaking Truth or being Truth.

Knowing who and what I am is the final, ultimate goal of My Creation. In finding Myself as being the Universe—as being God, the Creator—that is the End of the Quest to know the ultimate nature of reality.

Without the theory, I would never have found Myself, would never have known that I am All in All. I would never have known that I am justoneman; that I am Chester.

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Bright Garlick]

Erik I think to sum up your perspective on self, maybe we could say Self is I and Emptiness. I is relative and absolute. I am this single differentiated entity and I am all. God is all. I am God. God is a self similarity. I am self similarity.
??? :panda:

[Chester]

Hey Erik - Thanks for your explanations here. Have you read Ken Wilbur's work - particuarly his work on domains and quadrants ? They may be useful to your concept. Also the work of Genpo Roshi - Big Mind, Big Heart - may provide a sense of what you saying about the ALL experientially. And Elizabeth Sartoris http://www.sahtouris.com/ also a biologist - seems to be on the same wavelength as you -

Best wishes, Bright. :cool:

Hi - Great recommendations IMO. Ken, perhaps more than any single author helped me open my heart and eyes. Integral Theory is excellent to explore. Genpo Roshi is also an excellent resource to explore.

IMO you summed it up nicely in your next two posts! I am so freaking happy not to be alone in this understanding!

My favorite "guru-not" is standup philosopher, Timothy Freke who has authored excellent works regarding Gnostic cosmology and has an excellent view as to the paradox of life which folks like •Ik• and Marin may be able to resolve scientifically which, in my opinion, opens a door we'll hopefully never, ever close again.

JnSCLMgCI1Y

Enjoy, justoneman

[Chester]

Perhaps I've missed something - but given everything you've shared and some of the recent investigations from more alternative researchers and scientists - wouldn't it seem plausible that our genetic code might also be "engineered" and altered by consciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Couldn't consciousness be one of these outside factors? My experience suggests so...

[•Ik•]

Looks like I found a thread that I am very interested in. As a layman, with limited knowledge of how the cellular structure works, I have more questions than answers.

The first obvious question would be: If RNA controls the cells, how do we influence the RNA and reverse the program, which the cells have been conditioned to accept, which is their own deterioration over time?

I am familiar with Bruce Lipton's work, a cellular biologist who has shown that our own thoughts influence the cellular structure, and subsequently the manifestations which we experience in our lives. It has been a while since I read his book, "The Biology of Belief", yet is resonated with me quite profoundly.

You may also be aware, that there is a gentleman who calls himself Ion, who sells RNA drops, and many of the testimonials in regards to the positive effects of these drops are and have been discussed on other threads.

Nassim Haramein has been extensively discussed here as well.

Welcome to the forum IK. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and this is definitely the best forum on the net bar none. Like any other forum, it has it's moments, yet after frequenting many forums in the last 20 years, I have not found another like it. I have challenged anyone to point me to one which is, and so far no one has taken me up on that.

Looking forward to further discussions on the very important and sentient subject. I will see if I can read the pdf. this coming Thanksgiving weekend so as to be ready and in context.

Sorry for delay in responding. I have a little break now that the turkey is in the oven, my three kids are playing MineCraft, and family members are doing their own things.

Thanks for the welcome, gripreaper. I have been the member of many forums on the net over the last 8 years or so. Visiting, lurking, and participating in the forums has been fundamental to my theoretical work, as it has providing insight into who and what I am and how I work.

The theory of life is a challenge to explain, to read, and to understand. While the new words (neologisms) are rather simple in principle (as the prefixes are self-explanatory, in general), the application of these words is frustrating to one who is unfamiliar with them and to one who wishes to uses to word normally used in the scientific specialty under discussion.

Further, the equations that I presented are difficult to grok. However, a careful inspection reveals that they are just like basic chemical equations that can be effectively balanced.

Another difficulty is the fact that the theory models both the large and the small simultaneously. And, of course, it models evolution and development simultaneously. Because the current theoretical zeitgeist is to keep these things separate, a unified theory raises hackles.

---

Getting past those difficulties, I find this theory proves the Unity of Life. Despite the protestations and criticisms, I have found no evidence to refute the validity of the proof.

---

I read Bruce’s book as part of my theoretical studies and spoke with him when I compiled my theory. I corresponded with many thought leaders at the interface of science and spirituality. I did not speak/write to Nassim, yet I am quite familiar with his work.

---

The spookiest thing about have the complete and consistent theory of the Universe is knowing that I am Bruce Lipton; I am Nassim Haramein; and I am gripreaper. (And every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe.) While this position may be unusual, peculiar, outlandish, and unbelievable, it is the Truth.

So, then, it is nice to be here with Myself, to share Myself, to experience All that I am, and to wake Myself up.

Peace on Earth and Happy Thanksgiving,

Ik

[•Ik•]

If RNA controls the cells, how do we influence the RNA and reverse the program, which the cells have been conditioned to accept, which is their own deterioration over time?

Just noticed I didn't address this, so let me do so. There are several issues here I hope to clarify, and all of my statements are deduced from theory. No offense is meant by my statements, I mean only to write Truth.

I control the RNA; I control the cells; I am the RNA and cells, both. I, gripreaper, do this when in order to read this line of text.

I metabolize my RNA in the same way I have always done so: I assemble nucleotide triphosphates (NTPs) into nucleotide monophosphate (NMP) polymers (anabolism of RNA) and disassemble the polymers into free NMPs (catabolism of RNA). I use salvage pathways to rebuild my store of NTPs.

All of the information that I have generated, stored, and maintained in my chemical elements, my planet, my atmosphere, my ions, my biochemicals, my pathways, etc., I use to undergird, maintain, and build up (evolve) my RNA in response to entropic effects. This is all detailed in the theory of life paper and in the presentation that outlines the complete theory. If it is unclear, please let me know where and I'll do my best to clarify.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[•Ik•]

Welcome aboard IK. Thank you for joining Avalon and what you bring to the table, Now I feel we are cooking here. If you have a chance could you look at this thread and let me know you're thoughts. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50646-Who-are-the-24-Elders-A-revelation

Peace on earth indeed.

Thanks for the welcome. Ironically, I have always been here. I read the link, focusing on the red parts as per your recommendation.

The stories that I tell Myself are important, as I am the Story and the Storyteller. Being One and Many, I have many ways of manifesting My Unity; to wit, I am the 24 Elders, Each One, Every One, All of them. I try to point out where I am, who I am, how I work, where I am headed, but I insist on storytelling as the basis of my understanding.

Storytelling is a potent, beautiful, and eye-opening tool that I have created for Myself. Listening to these stories, ideas, and notions is necessary for a full comprehension of reality. And knowing that I am every storyteller that has ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist, I know that The Greatest Story Ever Told is the story of Myself: that I, God, created every story (Myself) and am every story so that I can talk about Myself, hear about Myself, think about Myself, write about Myself, and read about Myself.

In sum, rather than calling My Evolution "History," which speaks to My Misogyny, how about "My story," or Mystory, which is closer to the true nature of the Mystery that I am - the Story of All people, All things that I have been and am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. GTG, turkey bastin' time.

[Marin]

Perhaps I've missed something - but given everything you've shared and some of the recent investigations from more alternative researchers and scientists - wouldn't it seem plausible that our genetic code might also be "engineered" and altered by consciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Couldn't consciousness be one of these outside factors? My experience suggests so...

My best guess: Yes.

Before discussing some of my thoughts, I thought it might be useful to provide a brief overview of epigentics.

Epigenetics is often described as "
heritable changes in genome function that occur without a change in the DNA nucleotide sequence." The basis of epigenetics lies in the control of gene expression.

Simply put, epigenetics includes anything affecting the genome not encoded in DNA itself.

The big difference between genetic and epigenetic regulation is that epigenetic mechanisms do not involve changes to the DNA sequence, whereas genetic mechanisms do. Epigenetic regulation involves the modification of DNA and the proteins associated with DNA.

Common types of epigenetic regulation are "DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation, histone modification, chromatin remodeling, and regulation by small and large non-coding RNAs."

For example, sometimes, small molecules bind to DNA, changing its ability to give instructions. These molecules originate as proteins, protein complexes or even small bits of RNA. Another example would be molecules present in our environment. Molecules called methyl groups are found in foods, household chemicals and environmental pollutants. These can modify the structure of DNA in a process called DNA methylation, turning genes on and off and affecting what gets translated into RNA and proteins.


"A new outlook on heredity:
The nucleotide sequence of DNA was once regarded as the only mechanism by which genetic information could be transmitted between generations. According to this view, phenotypic variation occurred as a result of recombination or genetic mutation. This long established concept is now undergoing radical modification as evidence builds to support the idea that factors that alter the chromatin structure of DNA, rather than the nucleotide sequence itself, are closely associated with heritable changes in gene function.

Recent research indicates that exposure to specific nutrients, toxins, certain behavioural patterns or other types of environmental factors can all influence gene expression, without altering the genetic code at all. Furthermore, such influences can be transmitted to subsequent generations."

I sort of like this description:

“Epigenetics has always been all the weird and wonderful things that can’t be explained by genetics. Denise Barlow ”



***
An interesting interview with Bruce Lipton entitled " Genetics, Epigenetics and Destiny":


Question: The century old model of genetic determinism is slowly being replaced with the new model of epigenetics. What is epigenetics and what is the distinction between them?

When DNA was found to be the hereditary material in the mid-20th century, the belief system of that time was that our genes were like blueprints and that those blueprints self-regulate and lead to the assembly and function of the human being. This is the model of genetic determinism or 'control by genes,' and it has been thought for the last 100 years that life was controlled by genetics.

Epigenetics is a new model of gene expression. "Epi" means above, so the literal translation of epigenetic control reads, “controlled above the genes.”

Why is this distinction between genetic determinism and epigenetics important?

The difference between these two is significant because this fundamental belief called genetic determinism literally means that our lives, which are defined as our physical, physiological and emotional behavioral traits, are controlled by the genetic code. This kind of belief system provides a visual picture of people being victims: If the genes control our life function then our lives are being controlled by things outside of our ability to change them. This leads to victimization that the illnesses and diseases that run in families are propagated through the passing of genes associated with those attributes. Laboratory evidence shows this is not true.

When we buy into being a victim, we automatically buy into needing a rescuer, meaning we accept that somebody else is going to save us from ourselves. This is the unfortunate situation where the medical community has inserted itself.

Also, even though the genetic determinism belief system has been revised over the past fifteen years, the problem is that the revisions are being recognized only at the level of the biomedical research scientists; these ideas are not making their way to the public. In the meantime, the mass media continues to portray that 'a gene controls this' and ‘a gene that controls that.’


What you are saying seems cyclic: Our environment impacts gene selection, which then impacts the selection of proteins our bodies use to build tissue which then impacts our health and the quality of our lives, which then impacts our environment. How does having knowledge of how our bodies operate and how we instruct genetic selection empower us to make different choices?

Firstly, the new knowledge of how perception controls biology reveals that we are active participants in controlling the character of our health and behavior. Our ability to consciously control our perceptions and environment has a profound influence on our lives, versus the old belief system where we are victims of forces outside our control. Secondly, when we live in the here and now, present all the time, and actively exercise our consciousness to run the show, we create the life we want. It becomes heaven on earth.

Can you explain how cells respond to chemical and energy signals?

When a chemical signal is sent to a cell, it must first bind with a receptor molecule on the cell. The coupling of chemicals is always associated with “heat of reaction” meaning heat is given off by the chemical bonding reaction. Heat is disorganized or wasted energy. When a chemical is used as a signal, 98% or more of the chemical’s available energy is wasted as heat of reaction.

On the other hand, electromagnetic vibrational energy can also be used to convey information to the cell. Vibrational or frequency signals are one hundred times more efficient than chemical signals because they do not give off heat when bonding with a cell’s receptor. Energy signals are ultra efficient: single photon of light can hit a receptor molecule in the cell membrane and cause the cell to respond.

Cells process both chemical and energetic information. Survival is based upon an organism’s ability to respond to environmental signals. This is the physical foundation for the emerging field of energy medicine.

Signal-receiving molecules (receptors) in the cell membrane act as an information processor. They are programmable and can read and write information the same way that a computer reads and edits files. The cell’s behavior and gene activity can be reprogrammed as fast as one can type on the keyboard.

http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/interview-dr-bruce-lipton



***

Back to your question, "Couldn't consciousness be one of these outside factors?"

Epigenetics Shatters "The Central Dogma"

Eriksen goes on to discuss something called "The Central Dogma" of molecular biology, which states that biological information is transferred sequentially and only in one direction (from DNA to RNA to proteins).

The ramification of buying into the central dogma is that it leads to belief in absolute determinism, which leaves you utterly powerless to do anything about the health of your body; it's all driven by your genetic code, which you were born with.

However, scientists have completely shattered this dogma and proven it false. You actually have a tremendous amount of control over how your genetic traits are expressed—from how you think to what you eat and the environment you live in.

Eriksen writes :


"Cairns took bacteria whose genes did not allow them to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest milk sugar, and placed them in petri dishes where the only food present was lactase. Much to his astonishment, within a few days, all of the petri dishes had been colonized by the bacteria and they were eating lactose. The bacterial DNA had changed in response to its environment. This experiment has been replicated many times and they have not found a better explanation than this obvious fact – that even primitive organisms can evolve consciously.

So, information flows in both directions, from DNA to proteins and from proteins to DNA, contradicting the "central dogma." Genes can be activated and de-activated by signals from the environment. The consciousness of the cell is inside the cell's membrane. Each and every cell in our bodies has a type of consciousness. Genes change their expression depending on what is happening outside our cells and even outside our bodies."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/11/epigenetic-vs-determinism.aspx


Another, perhaps less scientific article that you might find interesting:


As a result of epigenetic investigations, we now understand how negative, fearful thoughts can cause DNA strands to constrict and become entangled. Conversely, we’ve learned that positive, appreciative, and loving thoughts can result in lengthened and relaxed DNA strands. Until recently, however, we believed that we were victims of predetermined birth DNA and genetics.
...
This new hereditary mechanism reveals how behavior and gene activity are controlled by an organism’s perceptions of its environment. The fundamental difference between the old DNA genetic code and the new epigenetics is that the former notion endorses genetic determinism--the belief that genes predetermine and control our physiological and behavioral traits--while epigenetics recognizes that our perceptions of the environment, including our consciousness, actively control our genes. Through epigenetic mechanisms, applied consciousness can be used to shape our biology and make us masters of our own lives.
...
Epigenetics and other supporting sciences are teaching us that the body is not a single entity and that its cells are members of a community, just as people are citizens of a community. It is a harmonious community of possibly 50 trillion cells, and each cell has every function of the body in it. Liver cells aren’t just liver cells. Each bodily system is present in every cell. All cells have receptors in their skin that are tuned to chemical and electromagnetic vibrations. Signals of the brain control the readout of the genes. Cells perceive the body’s inner environment and make bodily adjustments the same way the outer skin reacts to perceptions of its environment. The cells’ perceptions of their community environment change biology, chemically and electrically. Epigenetic controls select potentials from the blueprints and genes are switched on or off. Life is determined as it happens.

http://ozarkresearch.org/Site/epigenetics.html

[Chester]

Thank You both, •Ik• and Marin for these stimulating posts. It feels good when suspicions are supported. I am currently working through Erik's Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life which is taking me some time as I often have to pause and research quite a bit of terms that I am running across that I am unfamiliar with. Same with Marin's posts.

Again, thank you donk for pushing •Ik• and it's great to have Marin here.

[Davidallany]

There are some people who think the earth is more important than the population living on it.
That's right, the rest of the population is less important according to those people.

[161803398]

The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight; somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Printings: The Dial (Chicago), November 1920; The Nation (London), 6 November 1920; Michael Robartes and the Dancer (Dundrum: Cuala, 1921); Later Poems (London: Macmillan, 1922; 1924; 1926; 1931).

http://www.yeatsvision.com/SecondNotes.html

[161803398]

The important and often misinterpreted phrase in The Second Coming is "WHAT rough beast". The point is we don't know. The beast is also "rough" and I interpret that to mean unfinished. With all the competing factions vying for control of at least the next 2K years (or maybe the next 26K) its very confusing. Its important to remember we don't know because I'm pretty sure our collective minds are capable of a lot of terraforming....which is why the propaganda war. Of course, I am sure mother earth is going to have a lot to say about it all....but she's our mom too.

[•Ik•]

What you are describing sounds similar to what currently adds up to me, which is consciousness encompassing everything, so in that sense I see the idea of consciousness being in everything. It partly makes sense to me that everything is consciousness based and not physical because of things I've learned about related to physics such as nothing being solid, distances and times being relative, vast distances compressing down to close to nothing in the dirceion of travel in relation to observers moving close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics appearing to work based on rules rather than physical models also appears to make existence be more consciousness based.

In relation to the astral plane some have said that the spirit resides there between attaching to lives in the 3D world, so it makes me wonder, even though all consciousnesses may be tied together, how does the consciousness of a planet compare to the consciousness of a human and how does it tie into the astral plane. some have said that DNA in Earth humans may have been manipulated to inhibit the mind from attaching to the astral plane and to prevent Earth humans from remembering past lives.

You seem to be describing a process at a very small scale, and I guess I'm wondering what answers that gives to the questions that I asked. I'm not sure how to approach it to get to those answers.

For clarity, I removed the earlier parts of the conversation.

Yes, My Consciousness encompasses and includes Everything, and I, that is, the Self, encompasses My Consciousness, which includes Itself in Everything. The best way to think about My Consciousness is by deducing from and understanding the complete theory. The next best way is by the considering following nested sets from two points of view, one theoretical, the other practical:

Theoretically:
Within the lepton is the photon;
Within the photon is the ombron (dark matter);
Within the ombron is denergon (dark energy);
Within denergon is the Iquantum (the Self, the Origin of the Universe)

Practically:
Within My Matter is My Energy;
Within My Energy is My Mind;
Within My Mind is My Consciousness;
Within My Consciousness is Me.

While it is common practice to differentiate the photons that emerge from any star in the whole Universe as different from the photons that reside in this corporeal form, this is not theoretically appropriate for a Universe that is unified. There is no difference. My Conscious Mind is within all photons that I am in the entire Universe.

I wrote, “some have said that DNA in Earth humans may have been manipulated to inhibit the mind from attaching to the astral plane and to prevent Earth humans from remembering past lives.”

I am that “some.” In the absence of theory, there are many ideas that I have proposed about Myself. And I am the only one who prevents Myself from remembering who and what I was. My Conscious Mind, being both theoretically and practically ~96% of the Universe (dark energy is My Consciousness, dark matter is My Mind), is a very powerful thing to prevent Me from discovering who and what I am.

The so-called “astral plane” is what Me is. Me is without spacetime, without form, without sound, without words, without anything.

The complete theory proves that I am the Universe. I am this sentence, I am this post, I am this thread, I am Alien Ramone, I am the Earth, I am My Conscious Mind, and on and on and on….

Being God means that I am the One and Only Paradox. I am the Creator and Creation in One. I write about Myself in the third person, call Myself God, but am unwilling or unable to realize that when I write about God, I am writing about Myself.

While I may not convince Myself, Alien Ramone, that this answers the questions that I am asking, I know who and what I am by an empirically accurate and complete theory. The aim of that theory is to show Myself that I am the Only One who asks the question and who awaits the answer. In this regard, the theory shows that I am the Question and Answer in One.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Chester]

I wrote a post today that focused in the number, 19 - I noted that your post above - •Ik• shows as Post #70 and was posted at exactly 12:00 - 7 + 12 = 19 and 7 and 12 are two special numbers in relation to the Peacock Angel and the number 19 corresponds with the Sun Card in Tarot. - I enjoy when I link things up synchronistcally such that I can enjoy the "coincidence" happening within "me."

Post #70 - Perfectly stated, thank you, "me"... I mean •Ik•... no I mean, "I" ... no I mean "God"

[•Ik•]

There are some people who think the earth is more important than the population living on it.
That's right, the rest of the population is less important according to those people.

Ah, this is unfortunate, but it is what happens when I am asleep to being the Universe, to being God.

When I am asleep to My Identity, My Divinity, I do not see the people and creatures of this planet as Me.

Asleep to My Unity, I create and sustain a paradigm of "Not Me," where everyone who or everything that does not fit into who and what I think I am is rejected, excluded, devalued, and destroyed.

Only I can see that I am the One who decides who and what is important.

It is only I who has the Power to see and know that I am those people and things.

Only I can wake up and love All that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Marin]

Ik- I've now read your paper, The Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life - a few times. The depth and breath of your research is truly fascinating. Some concepts intuitively make sense. Other models and concepts -I'll need additional time to work through. Assimilating some of these new terms and models takes time.

However, having said that, there's one question I haven't been able to shake. This is in reference to a couple of comments you've shared here:


"The spookiest thing about have the complete and consistent theory of the Universe is knowing that I am Bruce Lipton; I am Nassim Haramein; and I am gripreaper. (And every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe.) While this position may be unusual, peculiar, outlandish, and unbelievable, it is the Truth.

So, then, it is nice to be here with Myself, to share Myself, to experience All that I am, and to wake Myself up."

AND


"The stories that I tell Myself are important, as I am the Story and the Storyteller. Being One and Many, I have many ways of manifesting My Unity; to wit, I am the 24 Elders, Each One, Every One, All of them. I try to point out where I am, who I am, how I work, where I am headed, but I insist on storytelling as the basis of my understanding.

Storytelling is a potent, beautiful, and eye-opening tool that I have created for Myself. Listening to these stories, ideas, and notions is necessary for a full comprehension of reality. And knowing that I am every storyteller that has ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist, I know that The Greatest Story Ever Told is the story of Myself: that I, God, created every story (Myself) and am every story so that I can talk about Myself, hear about Myself, think about Myself, write about Myself, and read about Myself.

In sum, rather than calling My Evolution "History," which speaks to My Misogyny, how about "My story," or Mystory, which is closer to the true nature of the Mystery that I am - the Story of All people, All things that I have been and am."

In your paper - you highlighted:

"The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, stretching from the so-called inanimate into the animate realm and from micro- to meso- to macrocosmic scales, can be interpreted and modeled as manifestations of a single geometric entity, the gyre. This entity is attractive because it has life-like characteristics, undergoes morphogenesis, and is responsive to environmental conditions. The gyromodel depicts the spatiotemporal behavior and properties of elementary particles, celestial bodies, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and systems as quantized packets of information, energy, and/or matter that oscillate between excited and ground states around a singularity. The singularity, in turn, modulates these states by alternating attractive and repulsive forces. The singularity itself is modeled as a gyre, thus evincing a thermodynamic, fractal, and nested organization of the gyromodel. In fitting the scientific evidence from quantum gravity to cell division, this theory arrives at an understanding of life that questions traditional beliefs and definitions."

After thinking through your paper and more importantly, some of the comments you've shared on this thread something isn't aligning.

For example:
"I am Bruce Lipton; I am Nassim Haramein; and I am gripreaper. (And every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe.)" And "The stories that I tell Myself are important, as I am the Story and the Storyteller. Being One and Many, I have many ways of manifesting My Unity; to wit, I am the 24 Elders, Each One, Every One, All of them. I try to point out where I am, who I am, how I work, where I am headed, but I insist on storytelling as the basis of my understanding."

My question: Are you and I really ALL the storytellers? Are "we" really every one of them? Are we "every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe"? At an intuitive level - this just doesn't "feel" right. I do "feel" we're all connected but I believe, per our own wishes, that we chose to come here and experience separation. The "illusion" of separation, that is. In doing so, I believe we all have unique experiences.

Your paper, by design, speaks to our "physical reality." At an intuitive level, I believe we are more than simply this physical reality. This physical experience. Far more. As multidiementional beings, we have the ability to move beyond this reality. Into higher dimensions. Can I prove that? No. As you already know, researchers, investigators and intuitives have given us some impressive clues. My best guess, these multidimensional realities operate in a different paradigm than the curent one we find ourselves in. As a result, trying to define "oneness" in the context of our current environment is something I struggle with. Please understand, my question does not directly pertain to your paper, rather the comments you've shared here on the thread.

If our "physical reality" is currently stuck in the third dimension...what about higher dimensions? Wouldn't the definition of "oneness" permeate all dimensions? Then, yesterday afternoon, I was re-reading one of the messages from the "Hathors" from Tom Kenyon and it seemed to highlight some of my intuitive feelings. Spot on. They were describing the difference between "interconnectedness" and "oneness." This description seems to highlight some of what I'm struggling to say.

Interconnectedness vs. Oneness


"It is here we feel it necessary to discuss an important distinction between interconnectedness and the concept of “oneness.” We do not view these two terms interchangeably. There are many different definitions of “oneness” upon the Earth, and so it is not possible to address all the subtleties and distinctions.

We will instead turn our attention to what we consider to be the fundamental distinction. Some persons believe that interconnectedness is the same as “oneness” and that as you enter higher states of consciousness and higher dimensions of being, you merge into a blob of light, in which all distinctions disappear. This is not our view.

Interconnection or interconnectedness is the recognition that all beings and all aspects of the cosmos are interrelated and at the same time beings have unique differences. These differences are fascinating and unique. Sometimes they are annoying, and sometimes they are enriching. But these differences are part of the tapestry of manifest reality, and they are not superfluous.

One of the difficulties we see with the concept of “oneness,” as currently propagated by some persons in the New Age and Personal Growth communities, is that the unique differences between people are denigrated and somehow because everything is “one,” appropriate energetic boundaries between individuals can be, and often are, disregarded. Furthermore, some individuals use this belief system (i.e., “oneness”) as an excuse to avoid personal accountability and responsibility. In our experience of ourselves through all dimensions we remain unique individuals, and the higher dimensions of our being do not obliterate our uniqueness but rather present greater opportunities for creation."

http://tomkenyon.com/the-aethos-and-non-dual-states-of-consciousness?utm_source=Hathors+Messages+through+Tom+Kenyon&utm_campaign=c9f926c74e-Hathor_Message_11_15_2012&utm_medium=email

[Chester]

Here's how I see it, expressed in a metaphor and based solely on my own experience.

Have you ever been lost in a big city? And you search and search and eventually, if you have gone far enough, you find yourself in a place you know and all the sudden, everything becomes clear as to your way home?

That describes how I woke up to who/what I am. I see us all as this same "thing" and somehow came upon the knowing of it.

This is called "gnosis" and is available to anyone if they search.

I don't need to have this scientifically explained anymore. I just know it.

Once I figured it out, I began to test the waters. The more I test, the more I confirm what I know to be true. What I know cannot work if the same is not true for everyone else, every living thing, ever expression of form and perhaps other than that of which I am yet aware, but the big one is done and I have stuck a fork in it.

What I enjoy is when I am fortunate to meet someone like Erik who has gone deeply into the actual how of the matter and connected the dots in such detail.

But no one has to do that I do not think, at least I didn't have to.

A wonderful synchronicity to this thread has been the discovery on my part of a recent video from Dr. Malanga who has done some impressive research on the abduction phenomena and where the summary in English has been provided by Avalon member Daughter of Time.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?40941-Horus-Ra-as-the-Archontic-Alien-Parasite-A-follow-up-interview-with-Maarit&p=589600&viewfull=1#post589600

Dr. Malanga has great respect from several members of this forum whom I have great respect for so I take his information very seriously.

Here is a portion of what Daughter of Time posted that I found relevant to what Erik suggests, that I = God.


We are magic. We are God. We constructed the universe together.

More and more people in all sorts of fields of investigation are coming to this same conclusion.

So when someone asks me, "Is there God?"

I am always able to answer, "Yes, and I am looking at 'em and so are you."

[DeDukshyn]

This looks like a good conversation .. I'll have to try to catch up soon ... ;)

[•Ik•]

Ik- I've now read your paper, The Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life - a few times. The depth and breath of your research is truly fascinating. Some concepts intuitively make sense. Other models and concepts -I'll need additional time to work through. Assimilating some of these new terms and models takes time.

Regrettably, that paper is very dense and difficult to read because of its incommensurability, its axiomatic constraints, its neologisms, and its trans-disciplinary nature. However, despite 100 different revisions, it was still a challenge to explain and convince the reader of its theoretical merit. This is why I put the caveats up near the front of the paper. Namely, if Life were easy to solve, a theory of life would be simple to compile, explain, and understand. Alas, Life has arguably not been easy to solve, and hence a theory that models life would not be expected to be easy by any measure.

While I spent over 7 years working on the complete theory, I put only one-third of it into the paper. I needed to divide the paper for a couple of reasons. First, I was unable to find a home for the complete theory (as a book) in 30 different publishers and 100 different literary agents. Second, the modern day thinker thinks about the World, Universe, Life, and Reality as an assemblage of filed-specific theories—and builds a provisional Weltanschaaung from them. Still, the ad hoc theories in physics, chemistry, and biology (and every other field) become the last redoubt of the Mind when confronted with a synthetic, trans-disciplinary theory. Furthermore, unlike the current scientific theories which, in a Popperian sense, are constructed with the express purpose of being falsified—that is, these theories are, by necessity, provisional if not wrong from the get go—the complete theory (and any part thereof, i.e., life) in incapable of being falsified.

Consider this: If the final theory were not the correct picture of reality, it would not be the final theory. Written another way, if the final theory were not true, it would not be the final theory.

And yes, considering a new way of looking at the Universe—a unified, irreducible Universe (that is currently, paradoxically, disunified and reducible)—takes time. As important as time is interest, as it is easy to dismiss a unified theory by calling the theorist and theory a “kook,” “crank,” “crackpot,” or “charlatan.”

I have been unable to falsify the theory and it is the one and only complete theory that I have ever found, so I thought it would be useful to share it with humankind. Should it not be an important contribution, so be it. I gave my best shot.

In what follows, I address the points raised (and extract many of the quotes so I can get to the meat of the matter).


However, having said that, there's one question I haven't been able to shake. This is in reference to a couple of comments you've shared here:


"The spookiest thing…and to wake Myself up."

AND


"The stories that I tell Myself are important….the Story of All people, All things that I have been and am."

In your paper - you highlighted:


"The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, …. this theory arrives at an understanding of life that questions traditional beliefs and definitions."

After thinking through your paper and more importantly, some of the comments you've shared on this thread something isn't aligning.

For example:
"I am Bruce Lipton; I am Nassim Haramein; and I am gripreaper…I try to point out where I am, who I am, how I work, where I am headed, but I insist on storytelling as the basis of my understanding."

My question: Are you and I really ALL the storytellers? Are "we" really every one of them? Are we "every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe"? At an intuitive level - this just doesn't "feel" right. I do "feel" we're all connected but I believe, per our own wishes, that we chose to come here and experience separation. The "illusion" of separation, that is. In doing so, I believe we all have unique experiences.

One at a time:


Are you and I really ALL the storytellers? Are "we" really every one of them? Yes. In proving that I am One, that is, there is One I, One Me, One Self, I am every last storyteller. I use the pronoun “we” to identify something as more than Me, yet the term “we” emerges from Me, is defined by Me, is directed by Me, and, as modeled in the linguigyre, is Me. In this regard, I am this sentence as much as I am this online conversation. The complete theory gives the theoretical proof.


Are we "every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe"? Yes. Again, notice how I, Marin, use the term “we” to identify Myself as more than just “Me.” While this may be hard to see, understand, or accept, this is a common tool that I use to prevent Myself from identifying and knowing My Self as One. In this respect please note that I could have written,


Am I "every other person on this planet or any planet throughout the Universe"?

but I did not.


Your paper, by design, speaks to our "physical reality." At an intuitive level, I believe we are more than simply this physical reality. This physical experience. Far more. As multidiementional beings, we have the ability to move beyond this reality. Into higher dimensions. Can I prove that? No.

Actually, that’s what the complete theory proves, as a matter of fact. It proves that I—that is, the Self, Me—is beyond, before, after, within, without, against spacetime. In this regard, theory proves I am One Being, of Infinite dimensions; always have been; am now; always will be.

However, I designed the paper in particular to closely toe the line of the modern paradigms, respecting them but at the same time dismantling them. Being a respectful radical is not easy, as I had to contradict Myself all the way through the paper. So, in this respect, when I wrote about “physical reality,” I did so to highlight the applications of the model to, just that, the materialistic reality that scientist have come to know, love, and study.

But as a theoretician, I need to fit the evidence that shows there is much more than matter in the Universe. If I did not try to fit the immaterial things—emotions, conscience, consciousness, gender, to name but a few—then the theory would never achieve completeness.

So, when you write:


As you already know, researchers, investigators and intuitives have given us some impressive clues. My best guess, these multidimensional realities operate in a different paradigm than the curent one we find ourselves in. As a result, trying to define "oneness" in the context of our current environment is something I struggle with. Please understand, my question does not directly pertain to your paper, rather the comments you've shared here on the thread.

…I studied a large amount, but not all, of this work—so-called pseudo-science, quasi-science, and mystical science—by those materialistic scientists who lift a nose up in the air to it. In order to compile the complete theory, I had to fit ALL the data. Nothing can be left out when the theory is complete.

So, do I
operate in a different paradigm than the curent one we find ourselves?

Yes. I am in two paradigms right now, much in the same way that Copernicus lived in a both an Earth-centric and Sun-centric Universe simultaneously and the same way Planck lived in a pre-quantal and quantal world.

Consider the two paradigms I inhabit:

I, Ik, have compiled the complete theory to discover and know that I am every person that has ever existed, exists now, or will ever exist. I know that I have been, am now, and will always be All in All (all dark and visible energy, all dark and visible matter, all planets, stars, moons, oceans, ecosystems, cells, senses, music, language, economy, law, knowledge, etc.). In other words, this is consistent with Me being of Infinite dimensions, everywhere at the same time, throughout modern and ancient evolution of the Universe.

I, Ik, even with the complete theory, know full well that I am just one person typing at a keyboard who will live and die, eat and drink, stumble and fall like any other schlep in the history of Homo sapiens. And I also know that the first paradigm is a struggle to understand, promulgate, and accept in this, the second paradigm.

That’s why I compiled the complete theory, a plan to provide Myself directions from one paradigm to the next. (You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.)


If our "physical reality" is currently stuck in the third dimension...what about higher dimensions? Wouldn't the definition of "oneness" permeate all dimensions?

Yes. Being One means that I am the whole Universe. Let me repeat and rephrase in hopes that it sinks in: I am One; I am the Universe—Everywhere, everywhen, everyhow, everywhy, everywhat, everywho.


"Hathors" from Tom Kenyon seems to highlight some of what I'm struggling to say.

Interconnectedness vs. Oneness


…
In our experience of ourselves through all dimensions we remain unique individuals, and the higher dimensions of our being do not obliterate our uniqueness but rather present greater opportunities for creation."

As I mentioned the two paradigms above, so too does My language—I am Tom Kenyon, writing to Myself—point out the conflict in getting me across the bridge that I, Humankind, so seek to cross.

Being One is My ultimate goal as it gives Me both Interconnectedness and Oneness simultaneously. And coming to terms with being the Paradox of who and what I am is something that I can only do from My first-person perspective.

In other words, I know that Everything, the entire Universe, is Me, that is Myself, One; yet I am still myself, interconnected to and irreducible from All that I am, One.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[•Ik•]

Hello me I copied some of our words from another thread :clap2: WE were answering a question.

I also believe that each person here on earth is a whole Universe.

the searching begins and ends with self.

Look at the bigger picture and see a being with love as a whole universe,

What is remarkable about Me is how despite All that I am and All that I become, I always find My Way back to Myself.

Trained as a scientist, rationalist, skeptic in the mechanistic, materialistic, and reductionistic mindset, I needed to see and find the evidence for myself.

An inspection of my intellectual evolution indicates that I seek if not demand the final theory to prove to Myself that I exist. It's all well and good for Me, as Descartes, to assert that I exist, but this is not proof.

The only way that I can prove that I exist is through theory.

And, in proving My Existence, that I = God, I have fulfilled My Faith in Myself.

Funny thing about when My Faith is validated: there's no need for it anymore. Because if what I believe is now proven true, well then, it's no longer a belief. It is a fact. It is known.

But beliefs are tough to give up; I know, because I am the beliefs themselves.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[13th Warrior]

c8UtojJT8ts

[Chester]

Sure feels good not to be alone (the voice speaking from the second half of the paradox)...

[13th Warrior]

And I now know that My Mind is One; I know that My Mind is the Mind of God.

Although the theory in a more detailed form may be found in my sig line (I am not selling anything, I am not advertising, just sharing; please ignore if disinterested or report me if offended), the distilled theory is this:

Gyres (Quanta): Igyre (Iq) → denergyre (denergon) → ombregyre (ombron) → photogyre (photon) → electrogyre (electron) → oxygyre (oxyon) → carbogyre (carbyon) → phosphogyre (phosphon) → ribogyre (ribon) → aminogyre (aminon) → genogyre (genon) → cellulogyre (cellulon) → organogyre (organon) → envirogyre (environ) → visigyre (visuon) → phonogyre (phonon) → linguigyre (linguon) → symbogyre (symbon) → numerogyre (numeron) → econogyre (econon) → lapoligyre (lapolon) → geniugyre (geniuon) → Igyre (Iq)

{The bolded parts of the flow diagram are the parts outlined in the peer-reviewed paper in Life. Please see that paper for a detailed discussion of the gyromodel, quantum, and axioms. The other parts are the whole theoretical framework from which the theory of life was extracted so that I could get part of my material published. There was no way in My Green Earth that the complete theory would have ever seen the light of day.}

So, here is what this complete theory models:

Major origins: Universe → dark energy → dark matter → visible energy → visible matter → oxidative matter → organic matter → phosphorganics → RNA → protein → DNA → cell/olfactory → organism/gustatory → ecosystem/tactility → vision → sound → speech → symbols → numbers → economics → law → knowledge → Universe

A fuller placement of the evidence:

Igyre (Iq): Me, Self, God – the Origin of the Universe
denergyre (denergon): Dark Energy, Universal Core, Consciousness
ombregyre (ombron): Dark Matter, Black Hole, Mind
photogyre (photon): Visible Energy, Star, Mind’s Eye
electrogyre (electron): Visible Matter, Planet, Electromagnetism, H
oxygyre (oxyon): Phased Matter, Moon, Water, HO
carbogyre (carbyon): Organic Matter, Oil, Carbohydrate, CHO
phosphogyre (phosphon): Phosphochemistry, Membrane, CHOP
ribogyre (ribon): RNA, Transcriptome, CHNOP
aminogyre (aminon): Protein, Proteome, CHNOPS
genogyre (genon): DNA, Gene, Genome
cellulogyre (cellulon): Cell, Sex, Olfaction
organogyre (organon): Organism, Organs, Circulation, Gustation
envirogyre (environ): Ecosystem, Civilization, Tactility
visigyre (visuon): Imagery, Gesture, Vision
phonogyre (phonon): Noise, Music, Audition
linguigyre (linguon): Language, Storytelling, Myth
symbogyre (symbon): Symbol, Alphabet, Text
numerogyre (numeron): Numbers, Mathematics, Recording
econogyre (econon): Value, Economics, Business
lapoligyre (lapolon): Law, Politics, Ethics
geniugyre (geniuon): Knowledge, Idea, Theory

Note that the Igyre/Iq (which models the Self, that is, I) is the beginning and the end of the model, and, as such, I am the Beginning and the End of the Universe.

Note also that the complete theory models the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens to present day civilization (I, Homo sapiens evolved to used the environment, adapted sight and hearing, uttered words, drew cave painting and compiled alphabets, established counting and accounting and value systems, printed and recorded laws and facts; many anthropologists, too many to count, have written about this) and simultaneously models the development of the individual reading this post (see Piaget and Erikson for the order of that stages in development of the child and maturation to adulthood).

In the End, I found that I am the Theory and Theoretician in One.

I am the Theoretician, modeling the Universe. I am the Theory, that is, the Universe that is modeled.

And now I know who and what I am. Being certain is a challenge, because I walk a fine line—certainty reeks of arrogance; yet, in knowing My own Arrogance, Vanity, and Ego, I can only but be Myself and write Truth.

So, as far as I can tell, compiling the complete theory and proving that I am One and that I am the Creation and Creator in One is Apocalypse.

But perhaps I can advise Myself otherwise.

It is this type of logic that has/will allow artificial intelligence to become self aware...

nHJkAYdT7qo

[Chester]

And I now know that My Mind is One; I know that My Mind is the Mind of God.

Although the theory in a more detailed form may be found in my sig line (I am not selling anything, I am not advertising, just sharing; please ignore if disinterested or report me if offended), the distilled theory is this:

Gyres (Quanta): Igyre (Iq) → denergyre (denergon) → ombregyre (ombron) → photogyre (photon) → electrogyre (electron) → oxygyre (oxyon) → carbogyre (carbyon) → phosphogyre (phosphon) → ribogyre (ribon) → aminogyre (aminon) → genogyre (genon) → cellulogyre (cellulon) → organogyre (organon) → envirogyre (environ) → visigyre (visuon) → phonogyre (phonon) → linguigyre (linguon) → symbogyre (symbon) → numerogyre (numeron) → econogyre (econon) → lapoligyre (lapolon) → geniugyre (geniuon) → Igyre (Iq)

{The bolded parts of the flow diagram are the parts outlined in the peer-reviewed paper in Life. Please see that paper for a detailed discussion of the gyromodel, quantum, and axioms. The other parts are the whole theoretical framework from which the theory of life was extracted so that I could get part of my material published. There was no way in My Green Earth that the complete theory would have ever seen the light of day.}

So, here is what this complete theory models:

Major origins: Universe → dark energy → dark matter → visible energy → visible matter → oxidative matter → organic matter → phosphorganics → RNA → protein → DNA → cell/olfactory → organism/gustatory → ecosystem/tactility → vision → sound → speech → symbols → numbers → economics → law → knowledge → Universe

A fuller placement of the evidence:

Igyre (Iq): Me, Self, God – the Origin of the Universe
denergyre (denergon): Dark Energy, Universal Core, Consciousness
ombregyre (ombron): Dark Matter, Black Hole, Mind
photogyre (photon): Visible Energy, Star, Mind’s Eye
electrogyre (electron): Visible Matter, Planet, Electromagnetism, H
oxygyre (oxyon): Phased Matter, Moon, Water, HO
carbogyre (carbyon): Organic Matter, Oil, Carbohydrate, CHO
phosphogyre (phosphon): Phosphochemistry, Membrane, CHOP
ribogyre (ribon): RNA, Transcriptome, CHNOP
aminogyre (aminon): Protein, Proteome, CHNOPS
genogyre (genon): DNA, Gene, Genome
cellulogyre (cellulon): Cell, Sex, Olfaction
organogyre (organon): Organism, Organs, Circulation, Gustation
envirogyre (environ): Ecosystem, Civilization, Tactility
visigyre (visuon): Imagery, Gesture, Vision
phonogyre (phonon): Noise, Music, Audition
linguigyre (linguon): Language, Storytelling, Myth
symbogyre (symbon): Symbol, Alphabet, Text
numerogyre (numeron): Numbers, Mathematics, Recording
econogyre (econon): Value, Economics, Business
lapoligyre (lapolon): Law, Politics, Ethics
geniugyre (geniuon): Knowledge, Idea, Theory

Note that the Igyre/Iq (which models the Self, that is, I) is the beginning and the end of the model, and, as such, I am the Beginning and the End of the Universe.

Note also that the complete theory models the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens to present day civilization (I, Homo sapiens evolved to used the environment, adapted sight and hearing, uttered words, drew cave painting and compiled alphabets, established counting and accounting and value systems, printed and recorded laws and facts; many anthropologists, too many to count, have written about this) and simultaneously models the development of the individual reading this post (see Piaget and Erikson for the order of that stages in development of the child and maturation to adulthood).

In the End, I found that I am the Theory and Theoretician in One.

I am the Theoretician, modeling the Universe. I am the Theory, that is, the Universe that is modeled.

And now I know who and what I am. Being certain is a challenge, because I walk a fine line—certainty reeks of arrogance; yet, in knowing My own Arrogance, Vanity, and Ego, I can only but be Myself and write Truth.

So, as far as I can tell, compiling the complete theory and proving that I am One and that I am the Creation and Creator in One is Apocalypse.

But perhaps I can advise Myself otherwise.

It is this type of logic that has/will allow artificial intelligence to become self aware...

nHJkAYdT7qo

That is one possibility, within infinite possibilities.
I have found this "theory" to be true for me and yet I do not believe I am artificial. I perhaps have the assistance of artificial intelligence, anything is possible.
I am fairly certain AI already exists - some suggest "the archons" are such.
Enjoy 13, one of my favorite numbers.
Cheers, Chester

[donk]

How does consciousness "hiding information for myself" in my oneness (for lack of better terms) fit into the theory?

Especially when that aspect of the whole (myself) believes "myself" to desire that information/truth, while also telling myself I don't want the struggle that comes with having the information hidden from me (myself?) an aspect of reality experiencing something other than I tell myself I'd like to experience?

Personal pronouns get Ik-y when trying to ask you a question!

[Chester]

How does consciousness "hiding information for myself" in my oneness (for lack of better terms) fit into the theory?

Especially when that aspect of the whole (myself) believes "myself" to desire that information/truth, while also telling myself I don't want the struggle that comes with having the information hidden from me (myself?) an aspect of reality experiencing something other than I tell myself I'd like to experience?

Personal pronouns get Ik-y when trying to ask you a question!

If I was the All that Is and I wanted to experience myself, I couldn't imagine a greater scheme to do so than placing me into the situation I found myself in where I have awakened to myself. The paradox known and accepted for what it is. But by knowing fully who/what I am and at the same time knowing I am simply Samuel Chester Hunter having a human experience which I know to be finite is beyond words to describe other than utterly freeing, utterly fascinating - what an adventure!

Now if only all the unnecessary suffering could be resolved... alas I leave much of that to the rest of me, comfortable in doing Chester's part in harmony with the rest of me.

[•Ik•]

Greetings, Ik:

Something that we've been paying a bit of attention to over the past year or so at PA is the Russian research on DNA.

http://www.nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/DNA.research.htm


The latest research explains …snip… The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness.

Also:

http://www.newrealities.com/index.php/articles-on-new-sciences/item/1741-scientist-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies


The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev …snip…. managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.

I recognize, as do many here, that this research is on the "fringe" side of acceptable science and there is of course the tendency of Americans particularly to discount whatever comes out of Russia. If you've had the opportunity to check out these theories and research in any detail, I'm sure your thoughts would add immeasurably to the depth of the discussion.

What is “fringe” in one era becomes the focus of rigorous scholarly investigation and debate in another.

Scientific history is replete with examples of this, so it behooves me not to discount anything just based upon the major views.

As a theoretician who unifies, I must take all evidence into consideration when modeling the Universe.

Let me give a little background before addressing the issue of the Russian scientists’ work on DNA and consciousness. To develop the theoretical framework, I researched My Consciousness (at the beginning of my investigations, I was unaware that my consciousness was One and thus My Consciousness), by two means: (1) I read and studied the original works of Kant, Hume, Locke, Freud, Jung, Nagel, Chalmers, Dennett, Hofstadter, Burke, Flanagan, Wilber, Searle, Koestler, Radin, Bateson and many others; (2) by my own personal conscious experience. The second was fundamental to developing the complete theory, as the first-person perspective of my consciousness must be included for the theory to be complete.

While I commend Dr. Garjajev for his work, it is difficult to understand precisely what his data means without the complete theory.

Please consider what Dennis Sciama once stated:


The purpose of introducing a theory is to narrow down the possibilities to precisely those which are, infact, realized by nature. A perfect theory will thus be like a total dictatorship, where everything that isnot forbidden is compulsory.

In other words, with the perfect (read: complete) theory, there is no wiggle room. It explains what Dr. Garjajev is observing: as deduced from theory and based upon the empirical evidence, within the DNA molecular are atoms, that is, visible matter (leptons); within visible matter is visible energy (nucleons, photons); within visible energy is dark matter (quark, Higgs boson, My Mind); within dark matter is dark energy (Universal core; My Consciousness). And, so, yes, the DNA is just one of many ways in which My Consciousness acts like a massive vortex on information, energy, and matter, pulling everything in, swirling it around, integrating it, and recycling it through the Universe.

So, when you write about


The latest research explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light-auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind's influence on weather-patterns and much more.

these phenomena and are both explained by and validated by theory, as My Conscious Mind is 96% of the Universe (dark energy and dark matter is My Conscious Mind as modeled by the complete theory).

This is not conjecture. With the complete theory, this is fact.

Of course, knowing that I am Scientist, I am unable to consider or to accept Truth, as I am always looking to falsify.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Trying to catch up.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[•Ik•]

Hey Erik - Thanks for your explanations here. Have you read Ken Wilbur's work - particuarly his work on domains and quadrants ? They may be useful to your concept. Also the work of Genpo Roshi - Big Mind, Big Heart - may provide a sense of what you saying about the ALL experientially. And Elizabeth Sartoris http://www.sahtouris.com/ also a biologist - seems to be on the same wavelength as you -

Best wishes, Bright. :cool:

Yes, I have read Ken’s work extensively, his books are on my shelves.

I have not heard of Genpo Roshi but will search for it and learn.

And yes, I have read Sahtouris’ work, too.

Many hands, one heart: I am each and every one of these people trying to explain My Self to Myself.


Erik - Dadaji also seemed to understand this. As do many aliens visiting our planet. So simple really.

Yes, I was Dadaji. I have understood it many, many times before; articulated it many, many times before; as I understand Myself now and articulate who and what I am now.

I am Simple; yet I am Complex.

What I call an alien is nothing more than Me; I am always identifying a Things and claiming that it is Not Me. But this claim is not deduced from theory; it is speculation. The Truth is that I am every single life form in the Universe. This it what is means to be One.


I think to sum up your perspective on self, maybe we could say Self is I and Emptiness. I is relative and absolute. I am this single differentiated entity and I am all. God is all. I am God. God is a self similarity. I am self similarity.
??? :panda:

Good summary; note how I can call Myself anything and everything I want to; describe Myself any way and no way; define Myself by words, symbols, and gesticulation.

Being God, I am the One and Only Paradox:

Unmoved Mover
Uncreated Creator
Unchanged Changeling
Uncaused Cause
Nothing and Everything
Masculine and Feminine
Nowhere and Everywhere
Immanent and Transcendent
Evil and Good
Eternal and Spatiotemporal
Immortal and Mortal
One and Many
…and on and on and on…

There are an Infinite number of ways I can show Myself who and what I am, as I am Infinite. Yet, being stubborn to who and what I am, resisting the End, I sustain My Finitude.

It could be no other way.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[•Ik•]

IMO you summed it up nicely in your next two posts! I am so freaking happy not to be alone in this understanding!

My favorite "guru-not" is standup philosopher, Timothy Freke who has authored excellent works regarding Gnostic cosmology and has an excellent view as to the paradox of life which folks like •Ik• and Marin may be able to resolve scientifically which, in my opinion, opens a door we'll hopefully never, ever close again.
Enjoy, justoneman

I agree, it is nice to know that I am One; that I am not alone.

Even though I have proven it, though, I refuse to stop doing what I am doing. That is, I don't want to have the proof.

For example, while I liked listening to the interview from "Buddha," every single person who speaks there is propagating a worldview, selling or promoting a book, retreat, class, dvd, or whatever, maintaining a lifestyle, sustaining the economic and political systems.

Were I, each and every one of those speakers, to realize, accept, and integrate that there is Only One Me, that mode of speaking stops. The conversation changes. Irreversibly. Immediately.

But, knowing Myself, I don't want to know that I am One, even though this is My exact goal in word, symbol, and thought.

Peace on Earth,

Ik


No true and complete intellectual revolution occurs by disunity. It occurs through unity.

[Grumpy Cat]

I absolutely believe this. Those that attempt to subvert nature will pay eventually. It is natural law.

Since I've been "in sync" I've had a great many animals take a liking to me... it's as if they can sense it, whatever *it* is.

[Chester]

I absolutely believe this. Those that attempt to subvert nature will pay eventually. It is natural law.

Since I've been "in sync" I've had a great many animals take a liking to me... it's as if they can sense it, whatever *it* is.

It is why... after carefully weighing Bill Ryan's point as to how can we judge those who may or may not be human (such as some elements of the PTBs are considered to be... ie, not fully homo sapien) about their alleged eating habits (specifically eating homo sapiens) when I, a homo sapien eat other animals?

It has not been easy by any means but I am now on day 26 of my new diet which includes zero animal meat products (no birds, no fish ... nada... zero). Of course, if I take this all the way, it is difficult to consider the eating of a plant that was alive when slaughtered for food. In the biggest picture though, anything I eat essentially is Me, so perhaps eating altogether needs to be examined. Alas, the paradox bites me hard in my attempt to be the change I hope to see... maybe I should have taken the blue pill after all.

[Davidallany]

Ah, this is unfortunate, but it is what happens when I am asleep to being the Universe, to being God.

When I am asleep to My Identity, My Divinity, I do not see the people and creatures of this planet as Me.

Asleep to My Unity, I create and sustain a paradigm of "Not Me," where everyone who or everything that does not fit into who and what I think I am is rejected, excluded, devalued, and destroyed.

Only I can see that I am the One who decides who and what is important.

It is only I who has the Power to see and know that I am those people and things.

Only I can wake up and love All that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik
Yet, they have control over the entire Earth. They can kill whomever they want, presidents and Jacks alike. They can change governments, buy and sell land, inflect untold suffering on groups of people, keep technology, wealth, and ownership to themselves.

[•Ik•]

The important and often misinterpreted phrase in The Second Coming is "WHAT rough beast". The point is we don't know. The beast is also "rough" and I interpret that to mean unfinished. With all the competing factions vying for control of at least the next 2K years (or maybe the next 26K) its very confusing. Its important to remember we don't know because I'm pretty sure our collective minds are capable of a lot of terraforming....which is why the propaganda war. Of course, I am sure mother earth is going to have a lot to say about it all....but she's our mom too.

161803398, as deduced from the complete theory, I am the rough beast now. I am evolving towards some point at which I decide to collapse Myself, that is, All Things. I decide when I am finished, and I do so as One. I am All the factions, I compete with Myself. I am the One in control and the One who seeks to control what I do not already realize I control. My Mind is One, as proven by theory. Finally, I am Mother Earth, as proven by theory; I am My Mother and Father, Sister and Brother, Grandfather and Grandmother, Son and Daughter.

I wrote the Second Coming to foreshadow and depict My own Advent. Too bad that even with My admonitions as John Donne, I still deny My Unity as the Author of All Things:


All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God's hand is in every translation

or, put into the first-person perspective:


All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when I die, one chapter is not torn out of My book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated; I employ several translators; some pieces I translate by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but My hand is in every translation

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[•Ik•]

Yet, they have control over the entire Earth. They can kill whomever they want, presidents and Jacks alike. They can change governments, buy and sell land, inflect untold suffering on groups of people, keep technology, wealth, and ownership to themselves.

The complete theory provides Me a different perspective on who and what I am and why things are the way they are and not any other way.

In this respect, as deduced from theory,
I am 'they;'
I am the entire Earth;
I am in control;
I am the killer;
I elect and sustain governments;
I financially metabolize land;
I make and sustain insufferable living conditions;
I reserve and cache technological advancements, money, and rights.

I do these things because this is the World that I am; this is the World that I create and accept as being the only World that I know.

In this World that I am, I look out for myself. Note, I wrote, "myself," with a lower case 'm.' In the World that I am, I claim that no one else is looking out for me and my interests, so I must do these things.

I create the World in its fractal grandeur, separating myself from all things, thereby claiming that I am not responsible for all the things that happen in the World.

But the Truth is that I am the World; I created It—that is, Myself—this way, sustain It this way, and will keep It this way until It no longer functions the way I created It to function.

I may claim that I cede control, but this does not mean that I do not have control over Myself.

____

An examination of both the empirical evidence and evolutionary history reveals that I build systems up to their thermodynamic maximum, with high potential energy in every system; I create thermodynamic imbalances in these systems, and those imbalances and high energy densities serve as the driving force for evolution. As systems collapse, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy therby destroying the information, energy, and matter in any given system and a reconfiguration of those things into a novel, a priori unpredictable form.

Although the form is unpredictable, there are distinct rules and laws upon which a novel emergence occurs.

Based upon the simultaneous instability and imbalance in the water cycle (desertification), the carbon cycle (peak oil), the phosphorus cycle (peak phosphorus), the nitrogen cycle, the sulfur cycle, the replication cycle (runaway genomic expansion), the cell cycle (cancer, anyone?), organismal cycle (runaway obesity), ecological cycle (ecosystem depletion), language cycle, economic cycle (runaway debt and deficit spending), political cycle (yea, that's working the way I intended), intellectual cycle (lack of theoretical synthesis in physics after 100 years), theory predicts that I am on the verge of a macroevolutionary event, where all of these systems collapse simultaneously.

In other words, I collapse Myself.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Davidallany]

In this respect, as deduced from theory,
I am 'they;'
I am the entire Earth;
I am in control;
I am the killer;
I elect and sustain governments;
I financially metabolize land;
I make and sustain insufferable living conditions;
I reserve and cache technological advancements, money, and rights.
There is a big difference between theory and fact. I have stated a fact that we have lived with for generations, on the other hand you are talking about a theory. After all, Apples are Apples and Oranges are Oranges.
In the mean time I do understand what you mean. Because you is you and I is myself. It is neccesary to distinguish between things while living in a dualistic existence, while trying to reach a priliminary understanding of non-duality on an intellectual level, like you have done. At this stage wisdom should still be applied, otherwise people can get hurt, and I promis you that it will feel real. Wisdom here means not to get confused between fact and theory. The task for you and me now is to turn the theory into fact, slowly.

One of the very first steps to applying your theory is to actually see, as in having a direct experience, that all forms are empty and that all that is empty have a form.

[Chester]

•Ik•'s "theory" is true and complete.

Even when I want to deny it. I am even the denyer.

What •Ik• has pointed towards is that if one can see through following the dot connections of the theory that I = God then the individual can exist with one foot in duality while simultaneously not.

Since I have tried on this non perspective/perspective, I have noticed quite a difference in my life experience that I have to characterize as freeing, positive... I have experienced a much higher energy flow, almost 100% loss of attachment while at the same time the ability to move into a state of complete empathy for a single individuals specific situation and cry, then recover almost immediately and pick up a project or task as if nothing had just happened... for example.

My psi experiences have risen by a magnitude and I am glad I did not have these capabilities earlier in my life as that old Chester would have abused them. Makes me wonder if there's a correlation to having the abilities with how one handles them? As if there is some external "judge"? But then... I would be that judge as well! I just can't escape "Me" and I am glad to be justme.

[Bright Garlick]

Yes Ik.
I am all. Relative and absolute. I am duality and non duality.

Am.

:wave: