Reincarnation

Gisteron your first mistake is trying to define matrix with only one definition you cherry picked. There are more including an area in which something develops. My conclusions are not pre drawn, they get derived from that very same matrix of space time. I have explained the 12 realms to you before. That is the complicated part. Maybe go look up previous conversations?

All these numbers are built into our matrix. 2 people create life and make 3. The trinity. 7 is sacred because of the 7 wandering bodies in space. 12 is significant because it's a multiple of 3, the trinity and 1+2=3. Also there are 12 constellations the sun travels through each year. 13 is sacred because of 13 cycles or full moons the moon goes through each year. All of this is derived from observation of nature. It's just intuitive deriving of natural law.

Fyxe wrote: Gisteron your first mistake is trying to define matrix with only one definition you cherry picked.

Oh, if only that was my first mistake... Fair enough, though, I had conceded earlier that there is this other usage. I first went with the one I was more (or at all) familiar with, both in English and the other two languages I speak that use that word exclusively the way I thought at first you meant. Personally I wouldn't call that cherry picking since it did nothing to serve any narrative I was weaving and I didn't pick one very obscure or rare usage on whimsy alone, but I shall not ask for charity here. I can instead point out that at the very least I did pick a usage that actually exists and is common. Matrix actually is often used to refer to grid-like arrangements of objects in both colloquial and technical settings. Is it also used to refer to "the process of ascending the worlds through choice", though? Ever? Even once? It is safe for me to leave it to the judgement of the reader whether or not I was picking proverbial cherries. Cherries, at least, are delicious. What you picked, though, I'm not even sure is safe to eat.

I have explained the 12 realms to you before. That is the complicated part. Maybe go look up previous conversations?

Alright, let's see. Hey, do you care to point me to the one where you explained twelve realms? All I see is how you have "explained" seven realms, i.e. "levels of consciousness", and - after an inquiry regarding the consistency of your numbers - ten "dimensions of consciousness". That final distinction, with a clear reiteration of the presumably correct numbers was in your post #345705 if memory serves. Didn't you want to tell us about physics from back in that thread, by the way? No rush, I guess. Be that as it may, so far, twelve is a completely new number of realms, not consistent with the seven from before. Though maybe now "realms" is something different again and it is another counting mistake on my part, and when you only "explained" seven or ten, it really was twelve after all. Oh, and of course, you only ever declared (as opposed to explained) vague conceptions about the realms anyway. You never explained the "actually quite complicated" "process of ascension". There is no pathway, no mechanism by which any of this works, there is just some highly time-of-day-dependent number N of "realms" that just so happens to fit every context and somehow explain every mystery on your mind that minute.


But yes, I think I can safely rest my case, for you are demonstrating once again exactly what I mean. Any number you are given, you'll find a way to interpret in the context of this idea of yours. It's almost like it is not deduced from premises, or induced from observation. It's almost like little to no time was spent actually formulating the model for consistent reference, because it was never designed to say anything specific or useful, rather to be a one-sized shoe that fits any foot you present it with. It's almost like - dare I say it, contrary to what you insist - you make it up as you go along!

All these numbers are built into our matrix. 2 people create life and make 3. The trinity.

Two is sacred because that's how many it takes to generate life... At least without cloning, that is. With cloning it takes only one, so one is a special number, just like two is. Many plants and animals do reproduce on their own. Hive insects consist of mostly clones of their queen who only requires seed to produce fertile offspring, but not drones. And of course some insect queens can spawn hundreds of thousands of drones, so all those numbers I guess must be sacred. Moving back to the lab, we can synthesize DNA from broken up chunks, soon enough if not already even from non-genetic chemicals. At that point zero will become a special, sacred number, too. But for now, we look at two. Two can make one child. Two can also make two children in one go, or three, as luck would have it. So I guess four and five are special, and I'm sure there is some way to combine and weld your process-of-ascension-realms to make exactly that many, too, if the need shall arise. Domestic cats and dogs can spawn something like half a dozen, so all up to those numbers are sacred by your metric. And that's just sticking with sacredness through reproduction.

I can go on... so I will!

7 is sacred because of the 7 wandering bodies in space.

There are not just seven wandering bodies in the skies, it's not even close. There are seven bodies classified as "planets" by a very modern and very specific definition that does not begin nor end with "wandering body". Objects that are not planets by the modern definition are still wandering bodies, though, and a few planets were unknown until relatively recently, too. In the count of seven, the sun and the moon are wanderers. They are ones with some significant angular size from our perspective, but with all planets now not even at nine the count ends. There are also the moons of Mars and Jupiter that we can spot even with consumer-grade equipment. Saturn has 21 major moons, and they are major in that we can tell them apart from the countless small rocks that make up its rings. Of course, the Pluto-Charon system is also a system of two wandering bodies, whether we'd classify them as "planets" or not. For the sake of generosity and brevity I shall spare you the pains of going through the comets we know about. Considering how slow their orbits are at their respective aphelions, bare in mind, it is entirely conceivable that there are more comets that just never fell down close enough for us to know about their existence. Then there are asteroids. There is an entire ring of the buggers between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, and there are fields of yet more of them wandering ahead of and behind Jupiter. Discount any of them on accident as done here with almost all, and we can make every single integer up well into the thousands sacred.

12 is significant because it's a multiple of 3, the trinity and 1+2=3.

If twelve is significant as a multiple of three, can the same be said of 1, 6, 9, 15, 18, 21, 24, 56841354039, and literally every third other number? If no, why not?

Also there are 12 constellations the sun travels through each year.

Constellations are made up subdivisions of the night sky to help some of us tell seasons and navigate the seas, and others to woo people into giving them money. Nothing about the galaxy enforces the number or the shape of constellations, which goes some way to explain why different cultures are free to and have defined completely different constellations from the Babylonian ones you refer to. By the Chinese tradition, for instance, the sun travels through some 28 constellations during the year. Another non-coincidental, sacred number, no doubt. Go figure...
That being said, if we are going to use the modern definition of planets, I might as well point out that by the modern definitions of the constellations, the sun actually travels through 13 of them, not twelve. In fact, it spends more time in Ophiuchus than it does Scorpio. Astrologers just prefer to use outdated maps and definitions, possibly because twelve is such a convenient number in general and with some usage tradition behind it. Needless to say, their insistence on ignoring modern astronomy and night sky mapping might go some way to explain why their timing is off by something like an entire month.

13 is sacred because of 13 cycles or full moons the moon goes through each year.

Most years, you mean. The orbital ratio is something like 13.32. So most years there will be 13 full moons, and almost every third year, but definitely once or twice in four years there will be 14. We can make 13 sacred, or 14, or the range of non-integer numbers between them wherein the ratio of the Earth's orbital period against the moon's happens to be. We could even go on making sacred all sorts of other orbital ratios. That's the problem with woo, it's completely arbitrary and whimsical, is based on nothing, and offers nothing useful as that would make it potentially falsifiable and woosters can't have that.

All of this is derived from observation of nature. It's just intuitive deriving of natural law.

That's the point. It isn't. Derivations have some sort of consistent logical linking to the premises, so this is not any kind of deriving. It's based on ignoring observations - like the actual number of wanderers, or ecliptic constellations, or orbital ratios, or reproductive rates in nature - not on making any. If it is intuitive and based in nature, then why is it that you are having such trouble making it not even intuitive, but believable in the first place to someone who barely knows how to do anything else but studying nature? And what part of it comprises any kind of natural law? Where is a single non-trivial prediction any of this ooh-ing and aah-ing at arbitrarily picked (one might say cherry-picked) integers actually yielded? What usable understanding of the way any part of nature works does any of this grant?

Come on Gist, I think you are smarter than that. Do you actually expect me to believe that you had no knowledge of the other definitions of the term matrix? one with 3 languages on their belt and work as a tech guy or whatever? I'm sorry but just not buying that. also you are good at putting words in my mouth because I never said matrix was a process. I said it was a construct in which a process works. so all your fancy shifting of the comments is just crap, mr Cherry Picker.

12 realms exist with the matrix of 7 worlds that house 10 dimensions. Think of the realms as states of being, the dimensions as places of being and the worlds as the ladder of ascension through those places, so same place different world. same things encountered based on realm but different information is given. this is the complex part and I really dont care to go further into it with you. After all why should I? you just make fun anyway, you dont really care what I think as long as you think Im crazy and can make fun of that.

the other numbers are from the anceint world, not modern raelity.; of course there are lots of planets all floating aorund the universe. but in ancient times people could only see 7 things in the sky that moved. so it became important. life was just as important and the idea that girls could bring it forth made them sacred. then men came along and went that is a power we want and so took it from them. and then subjugated them. people like you it seems who cant just accept the opinions and powers of another without trying to tear them down and make yourself look superior in the process.

Fyxe wrote: ... you are good at putting words in my mouth because I never said matrix was a process.

And I never said that you did. You said in your post #348543 that the matrix refers to the process. And that is exactly how I have been consistently taking care to phrase it myself. By all means, if I put words in your mouth, my apologies. I don't think that I have, but I'm happy to leave the final judgement on that up to our readers.

I said it was a construct in which a process works.

Did you? Can you point me to the post where you did? I do not recall you saying that, but perhaps I overlooked it, busy as I was replying to everything you said in such detail...

12 realms exist with the matrix of 7 worlds that house 10 dimensions.

Okay, so... Are you going to acknowledge that back at the time of post #345705 there used to be seven realms in your model that have now changed to twelve realms, leaving room for the seven to be "worlds" instead, or are you going to pretend like this new model is totally what you really meant all along, and that you have been perfectly consistent in presenting it accurately until now and that I'm misrepresenting what you said by quoting you verbatum and providing the reference to back it up?

Think of the realms as states of being, the dimensions as places of being and the worlds as the ladder of ascension through those places, so same place different world. same things encountered based on realm but different information is given. this is the complex part and I really dont care to go further into it with you. After all why should I? you just make fun anyway, you dont really care what I think as long as you think Im crazy and can make fun of that.

If I have been disrespectful in the past, I'm sorry. There is no intent to offend your feelings in my so being. I understand that sometimes, when people keep contradicting themselves, it does take away some respect I might otherwise have for them. Rest assured, it is not personal. I do not mean to make fun of you. But I shall not ask a third time to actually explain rather than declare that at some time in the past you had already. If someone else wishes to share in this secret knowledge of yours, I'm sure they'll find a way to converse with you outside my view, preserving your pride appropriately. I have missed out on many things, I'm sure this wouldn't be the one to end them all.

the other numbers are from the anceint world, not modern raelity.; of course there are lots of planets all floating aorund the universe. but in ancient times people could only see 7 things in the sky that moved. so it became important.

Well, isn't it a convenient coincidence that moving stars the ancients saw with their naked eye just so happened to match in their count the number of worlds/realms/whatevers. It's almost like they threw out wild guesses before knowing any better. And now that we do know better of how many wanderers there are... well, some of us just ignore that part and stick with the old number because it's tradition, pretty, or precious in some other arbitrary way. That's why it looks so made up to me. Literally any number I can dream up there is probably going to be some way to twist into woo, because woo doesn't have any rules it needs to adhere to. That's why it's so profoundly useless as a means to learn things. There is nothing that couldn't be justified by such means.

people like you it seems who cant just accept the opinions and powers of another without trying to tear them down and make yourself look superior in the process.

Never understood what about tearing anything or anyone down makes anyone else look superior by any metric. Apparently it's such a common motivator to do such things, but I never quite got the connection. I'd ask you to explain how that works, but "why should you"... Also never quite understood by what clause any of us are under any obligation to accept anyone else's powers or opinions. I do believe that we are asked to treat each other with decency, and while I'm far from perfect at that, too, I do try my best most of the time. At any rate, if you feel like I have been treating you unfairly, been mean, or obnoxious towards you, feel free to confront me with the instance of wrongdoing on my part, and if I feel sorry I will apologize. If I do not feel sorry, or if you seek no apology from me, feel free to complain to the moderators of what ever subforum you feel I have committed my wrongdoing towards you within. I trust that they will assess the situation within an appropriate timeframe and enact which ever measures they feel are appropriate to contain my misconduct towards you and others in future.

LOL Gist, you are so intent of escalating a situation to the level of complaint so you can add another feather in your troll cap that you dont even respond to my questions or comments. I will ignore your need for conquest and just answer your questions though anyway...

Matrix is the process and the construct. Matrix is the construct of the 7 worlds housing the 10 dimensions and creating the 12 realms. realms being a new dimension I introduced to you here. so no I have not mentioned in the past but now I have. your welcome!

No it was not a coincidence that 7 was picked. it was not picked first but after the observation of 7 wandering things in the sky. see how that works? I dont have to guess, its right there in the night sky every night! so are 12 constellations, already there and I just need to count them. every night I can do this and wallah! still 12 every night! celestial signs from on high and no guessing whatsoever.

what I mean by you being superior is that you are just tearing down but not building up as carlos likes to say. where is the buildup gist? where is the better explanation of how the force works? where is the proof that what I said is wrong and the proof that what you say about the force is right. Afterall thats what we are talking about here right? how the force works?

So tell me Gist, build me up, tell me how the force works?

I totally do!

I was just talking about this today

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Clergy/115769-the-block?start=380#348586

Selfish plug

Fyxe wrote: LOL Gist, you are so intent of escalating a situation to the level of complaint so you can add another feather in your troll cap that you dont even respond to my questions or comments.

No. You'll notice how most of your attacks and personal jabs I let slide uncommented. Escalating it is uninteresting to me, that's why I stay on topic. I was merely mentioning your options in case you felt slighted, seeing as both of us would due to our own biases be unfit to settle the situation if it was serious. Evidently, however, it is not. So you can quit whining about it and get on with the point. If, as well, you find that some specific topical comment of yours should not have been left uncommented by yours truly, feel free to point it out to me for a re-consideration.

Matrix is the process and the construct. Matrix is the construct of the 7 worlds housing the 10 dimensions and creating the 12 realms. realms being a new dimension I introduced to you here. so no I have not mentioned in the past but now I have. your welcome!

You did not introduce realms here, you only introduced the number. Before it was seven realms, and I have linked to that post earlier. In post #345663 it was seven worlds, too, so I guess either there was seven of each and now five more realms grew out of... well, somewhere..., or you just used to use the terms interchangeably and are now trying to draw a distinction between them for some reason; perhaps it is so you can stuff in more "sacred" numbers into it, I wouldn't know. What the relation between the different kinds of... what even to call them... spaces, maybe, until that word is occupied hosting some new number, 51 perhaps... is, is also not consistent. It used to be that the ten dimensions would "span" the seven worlds (post #345663), but now it is twelve realms and they just "exist with" seven worlds, and at least the latter are "housing" ten dimensions (post #348591), but also there is a matrix in the womb sense that is "of" seven worlds that are still housing the ten dimensions and also "creating" the twelve realms (see quote above from post #348596). Also realms here are "a new dimension", so I guess there is now twelve realms being created by ten dimensions and themselves comprising an eleventh.
But this is all somehow one coherent and/or consistent model that is rooted in observation, except still you wouldn't present evidence of it being anything other than made up because you presume that with how much of a meanie I am it wouldn't make a difference. Fine by me. As someone with a bit of an ego myself, I can understand how one'd be too prideful to engage in civil intellectual discourse. Carry on.

No it was not a coincidence that 7 was picked. it was not picked first but after the observation of 7 wandering things in the sky. see how that works? I dont have to guess, its right there in the night sky every night! so are 12 constellations, already there and I just need to count them. every night I can do this and wallah! still 12 every night! celestial signs from on high and no guessing whatsoever.

You could go out and count, I suppose, but that's not how any of your model works. If it was, then your model would update with the discovery of new wanderers. Instead you picked the first that came to mind in the olden days and are sticking with it as though there was a second reason for it beside the ancient's ignorance of just how much there was they didn't see. It's not open minded, it's dogmatic. It's not based in an effort to account for observation, but an effort to discount it. There are far more than twelve constellations, too, and this much even the astrologers who have in the past and currently been toying with the Greek constellations and hence night sky subdivision you are relying on know full well. We can debate of course where exactly to draw the borders of Ophiuchus and Scorpio, and whether the ecliptic crosses twelve or thirteen constellations, but the ecliptic is but one line in the night sky. There are almost entire hemispheres north and south of it full of as many as 48 constellations if we only count the classical Greek ones, and 88 if we go by the International Astronomical Union's official mapping. So much for your going out and wallah-counting - off by a factor of four, if we're being maximally generous.

what I mean by you being superior is that you are just tearing down but not building up as carlos likes to say. where is the buildup gist?

No clue what this has to do with superiority. I'm also - irrespective of how Carlos feels on the issue - under no obligation to build anyone up. I have given you every opportunity to explain yourself, to have us all learn from each other, and I have respectfully explained just what aspects of what of the things you say I find confusing, inaccurate, and, indeed, interesting. If you feel like I have wronged you in some way, you are free to seek settlement. If you do not feel like I wronged you, quit whining and get back on topic.

where is the better explanation of how the force works? where is the proof that what I said is wrong and the proof that what you say about the force is right. Afterall thats what we are talking about here right? how the force works?

No, it is not. This thread was about reincarnation until you hijacked it to talk yet again of this world/realms/dimensions stuff you know so much about but wouldn't share with pretty much the only person who even takes you seriously on this topic anymore - you're welcome, by the way. Just to be clear, none of it really says much of anything about the Force, anyway, does it? Unless all of that information is hidden in the mechanism any of these things work by, which I inquired multiple times only to read you question my motives in asking or speculate about my reaction in case you replied. So far, the only thing I could gather from your "teachings" is that you believe some rather interesting stuff based on personal revelation, but not what use it is, nor what it has to do with the respective topics of many of the threads you infected with it so far.

So tell me Gist, build me up, tell me how the force works?

Weren't you going to teach me something or other about multi-dimensional physics and the Force? I think you sort of agreed to that back in post #345708. How is that thread coming along? Why on earth would I derail a thread about reincarnation with speculations about the workings of the Force, when you are presumably already in the process of composing a dedicated thread for that purpose?

Oh my silly friend, I was actually replying to the thread topic by stating about ascention. it was you that drug this into the weeks to chew on mercellesly much like the rabid dog that has lost its sense. I have clearly stated, over and over, what I mean by the things I say and yet its just become obvious at this point that you are pretending to be stupid and not understand what Im saying. tis a silly game designed only to waste time right?

Well, my own time, then, moreso than yours, let's face it. Seeing as I make the effort to read through your posts, consider what you say in them, consider what you said in previous ones, look it up just to make sure I do not misquote or misremember, look yet more things up about what you say currently, just to make sure I'm not completely wrong in my assessment, and then respond with formulated thoughts to each part, considering even then multiple interpretations of your saying.

But it is, it would seem, indeed, a waste of my time. All you'd do, after all, is dismiss it all, lie about what both of us said, or how either of us conducted ourselves, or both, get hostile and insulting about it, and then play it all up like you are both the victim and the victor.

I'm looking forward to that multi-dimensional physics thread you said was ok to have sometime soon instead of derailing other threads that otherwise wouldn't be all about you. Your latest contribution has nothing more in it that is on topic still, and I'm have no interest to instead debate our forum history. With my part in it as it was I am comfortable to leave that for others to opine upon, if they must.

Perhaps some would love to get the thread back on topic, too, and there'd be more interesting things to read or to say about it still.

Very well my freind. I have started many threads in your honor to discuss such things. however I was unaware that you lacked comprehension skills to the point that you never recognized that. so I shall start a thread just for you and I shall call it exactly what you say so that there can be no misunderstanding, ok?