Quote:
Originally Posted by Initiate
Abraxas,
Do you agree with the comparison to the Thuban material or does the lack of comment indicate a lack of agreement?
|
Hi Andrew!
As you did not directly ask a question in your quoted message before, but stated that the posted video link is in contextual support of the Thuban material, I did not reply to your earlier post.
If I do not reply to something, then either it is not meaningful for me to reply or I am in agreement with the message as stated.
If the former, then the message or post might have been 'ad hominem' or relative to me in my function of a Thubanese messenger, in some manner 'immature or puerile' in 'attacking' some context or answer and so a reply on my behalf would simply exacerbate a 'disagreement' in such context of 'mental immaturity'.
If the latter, as was the case with your video (which I viewed), then I would obviously be in agreement with the stated message.
Again if a question would have been asked, then I would have answered, except if asked in the former 'abusive' scenarios.
Now to answer your question here.
I viewed this video and it is well founded in its generality; especially in its emphasis of the 'circle of nothingness' also being 'everythingness'.
This translates to the Nothing=Nullstate of the Void=Eternity and then becomes 'finitized' in the 12-dimensional supermembrane scenario of contemporary brane theories.
So the only thing I would partially disagree with in your video is the statement, that the 'All That Is' cannot be discerned in some form of finitized comprehensible formalism, namely said omni-physics.
Overall, this video is kabbalistic in its generality and comprehension of the beginnings and orgins of the cosmogony, without indicating the approach to define such cosmogony as the ontology for any then emerging cosmology.
AA