Skynet is Real: Alchemists, Exemplarism and Techgnosis (Update)

The sphinx which appeared in Wells' Time Machine. The sphinx is the cherub who guards and controls space and time.

By: Jay

UPDATE Below!

———————————————————————

At the end of H.G. Wells’ Outlines of History, he speaks about the “rise of the machines” and their ability to allay the toils of men, granting them more leisure for scientific products, art, and other harmonious progressive pursuits.  Education will become universal, and a better world will ensue.  Wells was, to be fair, spot on with many of his sci-fi predictions.  One can’t but notice that this article confirms his claims from The Time Machine concerning the devolution into “stunted pig-goblin creatures” to quote Alex Jones, likened to the Morlocks, while the elites will become like the Eloi.

However, the rise of the machines has been wilder than even Wells could have imagined, and will probably not be the universal utopia Outlines imagines, but something closer to the dystopia of The Time Machine.  In fact, we have reached the point where A.I. is nearing the ability of what we see in many science fiction films and novels, yet I agree with the affirmation of Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach that we will not achieve self-awareness.   Even if this did occur, there is no certain test to determine the existence of “self-awareness,” and the modern scientists who argue to no end against the soul or mind must also take their dogma of the inability to “prove consciousness” and apply it to the golem.  On their basis, you could no more prove one than the other.   So the reductionists who think consciousness is merely matter have no problem identifying humans as “more complex” computers (like Daniel Dennett).  Nevermind that they are all guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.

In effect, this is a Prometheus situation, and is precisely the goal the occultists, alchemists and “scientists” have sought for millennia.  Don’t be fooled by the propaganda of the “new atheists” and sciencey labcoaters: the real secret is that the mysteries are real.  Granted, many of the “Illuminists” are of an atheistic and rationalist bent (and the actual Illuminati were Enlightenment rationalists), but there is a definite esotericism behind the creation of the golem.  Atheism itself can become a form superstition, as I’ve written many times on this blog.  I want to make clear, though, that I’m not anti-technology, nor am I saying I disagree with these goals.  Clearly the Enlightenment thinkers were right–in fact, some of them are central to the mathematics behind all this, as well as to religion and metaphysics and esoterism, such as Leibniz.  Newton, too, was an esotericist, and other examples can be given such as Nikola Tesla and Wolfgang Pauli. Read more of this post

Plato, Aristotle, Egypt and the Structure of Reality

Plato Vs. Aristotle

Aristotle, Plato, Egypt and the Structure of Reality

Immanuel Kant wrote at the close of his Critique of Pure Reason as follows:

In respect of the origin of the modes of ‘knowledge through pure reason’, the question is as to whether they are derived from experience, or whether in independence of ex-experience they have their origin in reason. Aristotle may be regarded as the chief of the empiricists, and Plato as the chief of the noologists. Locke, who in modern times followed Aristotle, and Leibniz, who followed Plato (although in con-considerable disagreement with his mystical system), have not been able to bring this conflict to any definitive conclusion. However we may regard Epicurus, he was at least much more consistent in this sensual system than Aristotle and Locke, inasmuch as he never sought to pass by inference beyond the limits of experience.1

In that paragraph Kant summed up the history of the division of philosophy into two camps with rival focii: the empirical tradition, descending loosely from Aristotle, emphasizing the immediate present, and the Platonic “noology,” stressing the permanence and eternality of the transcendent beyond, mirrored in the mind itself, which reflects the world’s own inherent, ideal structure.

However, which of these two thinkers, if either, is more correct? Is it possible to posit an external, essential structure to the world that supersedes the immediate, empirical experience?  How would such a realm be demonstrated?  The nature of these questions certainly extends beyond the scope of this paper, yet what I will claim is that Plato was more correct that Aristotle.  In fact, though Aristotle’s pioneering work in ethics, logic, politics and aesthetics cannot be overlooked, some of Aristotle’s own insights actually work to make the case for the claims of Plato, as I will argue.  This becomes particularly apparent when one considers the question of the infinity of God and numbers, which Plato and the Pythagoreans appear to have inherited from Egyptian Memphite and Hermetic traditions.  Interestingly, modern mathematical theorists and quantum physicists are coming to the very same conclusions the ancient Egyptians posited: that reality is, at base, much more than is visibly present, including higher and lower dimensions, as well as possibly a base, inherent mathematical essentialism behind the world we experience.  In effect, this means Aristotle’s empirical left turn from the Platonic Academy was in error.

Aristotle’s empiricism becomes most problematic when dealing with mathematical entities.  Aristotle argues against mathematical objects having a separate existence as Plato claimed, as follows: Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers