Foggy New Age (#9 Love)

The Greeks had three words to talk about love, one to speak specifically of divine love was agape, another for human love philo, and another, the famous Eros which I let you qualify… but caritas is close to agape!

When Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him, He uses agape twice, to what Peter answers Him by philo! The third time Jesus uses this philo which has the effect of making Peter furious: “You know it: I like you”! (philo)

How “Jesus loved us” is obviously agape, which corresponds to the “infinite love” of our new agers, if such a love was likely for them, which gives us a detour by Plato. In the “Banquet”, after a long discussion about love between philosophers before Socrates, he pretends to “confess” his incompetence in front of all these “brilliant” experts and asks shyly if love is not “love of something” rather than a sort of absolute love that has neither object nor source! 25 centuries later, it is not sure that we have progressed… It is the objects and sources of love that cannot make it be any more infinite than the Perception dear to Icke. There is only one Infinite but the Infinite, as there is only Allah but Allah!

But our three friends, on quite different bases, explain that death is a release of our bodily conditions, and therefore a thing to look for us since it would effectively make us infinite beings… And Icke insists on the fact that near-death experiences “prove” that we are in a state of omniscience, as evidenced by many experimenters. No need for such dramatic experiences, a “simple” out of body experience with operational perceptions gives the same impression. In this state, in fact, we no longer depend on perceptions of the body, and we can have the answers to all our questions… if we take the time to ask the indefiniteness of questions we want answers for. I have not heard of people having had such experiences who came  back with universal knowledge… The same thing is also wrong about reincarnation. Before birth, we are dead at the end of our previous life and therefore we should be “infinite” for some time (sic!), released from traps of the universe and all knowing! Why should we lose this knowledge at birth and become as stupid and gullible as we are?

Whatever our release at death, we remain small and limited awareness and Infinity is still far…

But if the new-agers (and Icke is a new-ager like any other, even if he denies it), are convinced that death is so interesting, why do they not suicide to show us their beliefs? Unless their plan is quite different, and they want to persuade us of it. after having convinced us that all our beliefs are due to brainwashing by reptilian aliens? As once convinced of the benefit of death, we would not have to worry about the NWO plans to eliminate 85% of the population to ensure survivors a standard of living comparable to that of the United States (which consume precisely seven times more than they produce, or 85%, about 6/7!).

The plan of the new age is thus to encourage us to suicide or to let us be killed (as theosophists have convinced Hindus), which would avoid them the implementation of a destruction plan, on top of the race to waste, therefore the shortage, in which industrialists and bankers have set us. The need for energy is doubling every 40 years! Where do you think we’re going to find the energy that is supposedly needed in 2050?

This New Age is in fact one of the oldest traps and Neale or Icke are there to give us the proof of the effectiveness of its methods, whether one believes to have understood them as Icke, or not as Neale.

So, let them kill you with a smile for you “freedom”, which is more appetizing than “atonement (at-one-ment) by death” practiced by Mormons at the time of Young, where killing “heretics” (Mormon or not) was done to prevent further sin… Saint Thomas Aquinas himself encouraged civil authorities to put heretics to death for the same reasons (an ancient Hebrew custom forgotten since Jesus…)!

The problem of our authors is to reverse the levels of reality, by considering the “invisible things” as extensions of the “visible things” (physical) and imagining extra “dimensions”, which only complicate the idea that we have of what is Reality.

Would they have simply considered the words “symbolic” and “diabolic” (sym = with or dia = separated) they would have understood much more!

Let’s stop raving for a minute. You are reading, so you can prove “that there is something”; you, your body and the rest of the universe. In other words, to paraphrase Descartes : “I see, so there is something”, which is less adventurous than “I think, therefore I am!”. The “something” that you see, gives you a proof that this “something” is possible, and you have some reason to know that other things are possible elsewhere. You also know that you can move your body, so that other things than what is visible are also possible, and can either be manifested, as your body where it is, or just merely possible, like all other places where your body might be! I suggest you consider EVERYTHING that is possible, whether or not manifested. It will make a hell of a lot! And also include your thoughts and those of others, and many other things, like the fact that you are aware, you can imagine pictures, discuss abstract things, etc., etc. If you take into account ALL the possibilities, you can consider them either individually or in bulk, and then what you have designed is called, for example, the “Universal Possibility”!

Icke also discusses it with the lightness of a mammoth, since his infinite Perfection is the “all-possible”, and as he warns us: “Remember: All-Possible means that everything is possible.” Sumptuous logic! Go Icke: draw a square circle for us! In fact its all-possible simply means that “everything that is possible is possible” which avoids dreaming without smoking the carpet. We are here confronted with one of the bases of the rationalist imbecility that Icke has probably discovered on his own.

Let’s forget this sublime All-possible and return to our poor little universal Possibility. And note that if “nothing is missing”, it is also called Perfection (which is the etymological sense of the word)! In any case it is the name given to it by the Taoists, while possibility is the term the Orientalists use to translate the Hindu concept of Brahma. At the beginning, in his Gospel, Saint John called it the Principle!

But let us return now to our authors! It would be sufficient that their fake infinite can be replaced by the true Infinite: the Universal Possibility, from which all else flows. This Universal Possibility, a “positive determination” of the Infinite, a term which itself looks like a denial: “In-finite” (not finite, not defined). Besides the Perfection already mentioned, most of the terms that relate to the Infinite are negations, which led Christian theologians believe to solve the problem by using “apophatic”, i.e. negative, terms – to speak of “ divine attributes”. I said above that talking about anything Infinite was an absurdity because it excluded from this Infinite that which is not even what we are precisely calling Infinite (such as the term Perception, which forgets that it needs a “collector” and something to collect). Universal Possibility is a kind of counter example since it excludes precisely the impossibility, that is to say absolutely nothing! And something limited by nothing is just a “definition” of the Infinite. The Infinite is the basis of all authentic Traditions starting with Taoism and Hinduism, as we have seen, but also down to Islam, through Genesis and Saint John. All beings are manifestations of possibilities included in the Universal Possibility, which appears to us in two forms: an Essence that defines the being in question (at the universal level, it is the “Active Perfection” of Taoism), and a substance, so this “definition” can be produced (and this is the “Passive Perfection”).

The essence of the objects around you is their “definition”, so they are exactly what they are, and their substance is what allows them to “materialize”. You can also notice the existence of a “mental substance” that allows you to materialize your dreams or the product of your imagination and make them visible, for you.

The first essence is the simplest, it is the Being itself without further qualification. Additional qualifications give the essences of different beings. And of course, this is also the first Universal Being, since it has no specificity beyond simply being.

Since we can see the objects around us, we have the evidence of a second possibility: the possibility that something is manifested, i.e. the Essence can “meet” a substance producing a corresponding result. This second possibility is also universal since it does not specify the details of what can be expressed. And it is thanks to her that “ALL will be done,” which is characteristic of the Word (logos) in the West, the Hindu Vishnu or log (phonetically) in Chinese!

Even if you do not fully understand what I say, you know that you can understand something, for example, that your body must eat to survive (unlike the cyber-body which is just an illusion and does not need food…), and you can also understand that 2 plus 3 are 5. So the understanding is one of the possibilities of your own as well as those of everyone. And as this understanding does not relate to any particular object, it is also universal. It is who “teaches you everything you need to know,” a formula that the Gospels relate to the Holy Spirit!

These first three possibilities clearly depend on each other as already we need the possibility that something just BE before something EITHER be expressed or understood. The Being alone without possibility of manifestation or understanding may be conceivable, but it does not concern us, since the possibilities of manifestation and understanding are real, with observable products. This  hypothetical Being would be equally unknowable (because not shown) as unknown (because not understandable). Any resemblance of our trio to any Trinity would obviously be fortuitous, since the eventual Trinity is a “mystery”!

We can then place the entire catalog of particular essences which can also be arranged according to their type of reality. Be noted that an essence can be a combination of essences, as this combination remains an effective possibility. The essence of a fly can be a combination of a myriad of things, including the ability to move, to fly, to see, to have a body, legs, wings, etc. All these things are compatible because of the fly. But for example, a circle has an essence, a square has another, but these two species are incompatible, so if one can add the two words “circle” and “square”, there will be no essence of  a “squared circle”. That is the nature of impossibilities, no offense to Icke. The “possibility of impossibility” obviously has an essence, but it is the only one that cannot produce any result!