/fringe/ - Fringe

Did they do anything useful with their godly knwlegde?

>>135845

They masturbated to lolis in the astral.

this ties together a lot of stuff I have been interested in in a coherent way.

Very interesting find. Do you have the rest of the series?

>>135860

You can find the rest of the series on libgen

With this type of shit there are infinite ways to invent new systems that 'explain' and 'fit in' with the current scientific world view. You can rewrite the bible to remove the contradictions and make it fit in with the current science view of the world. The new bible will make perfect sense with no contradictions, however it'll have no evidence or proof. That won't mean that it's true.

Same with this type of shit. It perfectly makes sense, there are no contradictions. But there's no proof or evidence of any kind. Okay they say that you can't prove it with normal science, and to give them the benefit of the doubt maybe that's actually the case. This also means you can't disprove this using normal science. Well okay, so you can't disprove it or prove it. Where does that leave us? Nowhere, same territory as believing in Jesus since you can't disprove or prove it.

>>135872

t. non-INTJ, INTP, INFP, or ISTP

>>135872

Positivism is gay, useless and boring.

>>135829

I stopped reading seriously when he started talking about Myers-Briggs personality types in the second chapter. Having very casually skimmed through it, it seems to me that this is your typical new-age pseudo-Gnostic poorly assembled syncretic hodgepodge except with a 'rational' slant (fetishization of mathematics, reason, science, truth, etc.).

As with everything the proof is in the pudding, writing books is easy -wake me up when these people provide some tangible examples of their accomplishments.

>>135889

>-wake me up when these people provide some tangible examples of their accomplishments

Maybe the point of writing anything esoteric isn't to provide proof, but to provide an example of what is possible if you put some effort into it yourself, on your own. The proof of someone else doing whatever really has no value if you can't repeat it, and you probably can't because of individual differences. But you can be inspired by it and get new ideas. If you didn't, the book wasn't for you, nothing to get hung up on.

Someone may give an inspiring speech about a possible future, before a crowd, and if you believe this is possible or not is up to you. It's a strange view to then say

>but can you prove it?

in this situation. If you don't do anything, nothing happens, and being so critical that you don't act will naturally not lead to any results.

>>135890

>Maybe the point of writing anything esoteric isn't to provide proof

Then don't except me to care or take it seriously. Bookstores the world over are filled with fiction novels, add another one to the pile if you must, but I don't care.

I don't need pep-talks, speeches or to be inundated with supposed 'new' and 'interesting' ideas; talk is cheap as they say. Thankfully I'm beyond that sort of nonsense at this point.

Another thing:

>If you don't do anything, nothing happens, and being so critical that you don't act will naturally not lead to any results.

This a very common tactic you types use, as soon as someone is critical of whatever it is your peddling you insinuate that the other party must necessarily be somehow unsuccessful and unable to produce results themselves. Believe it or not, people can already be doing things and getting results before that person comes along to give his little speech about 'a possible future' or what have you.

Delegitimizing others does not legitimatize yourself.

>>135891

What exactly are you after when you're asking for "proof"? A logical evidence based on certain scientific criteria which themselves must be accepted for it to be a valid evidence? Proof to me is when I can make use of what I read and get the results I wanted. That means the writings were valid to some degree. Nothing else matters.

Your type seem more interested in the person than the message.

>Delegitimizing others does not legitimatize yourself

A person does not need to be "legit" to say something you find useful. Information does not have to be understood or applied in the manner or context intended by the author. Once you realize this, criticising the person is irrelevant, unless you are engaged with the person in some way where your criticism of them may be beneficial to them or yourself.

It's as if being anonymous is no longer a thing on imageboards, the phoneposting egoists took over and it's all me vs you and the message itself seems irrelevant apart from for gaining political points.

>>135829

>trying to overthrow the elitist Old-World Order.

Well then screw them. I support elitism and the old order.

>>135829

>muh proof

You guys will raise the goalposts every time you're provided proof. Plenty of parapsychologist research done, lots of testimonies, lots of youtube videos, but none if will be good enough. As far as I'm concerned there's enough evidence of "something going on" to merit investigating, figuring out the principles of how it must work, and doing your own personal experiments.

>>135829

>saying "woo woo"

kill yourself

>>135896

This is exactly it. The amount of people who believe magic exists, warrants personal investigation. Seeing people talk about something you thought to be impossible, and not checking it out firsthand, is not skepticism.

The attitude these people show is that of a cult. Find someone who presents a concept you believe to be ridiculous, then bash away in order to boost your pathetic little self-esteem, while ignoring the piles of evidence available and presented.

Replicating parapsychology experiments is absolutely trivial. The fact that none of these "skeptics" even try to do it, is very telling.

>>135893

>What exactly are you after when you're asking for "proof"?

I clearly said:"[…]provide some tangible examples of their accomplishments". Pretty simple. I'm not asking for you to validate the book via double blind, rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific research, that's not the point. But the situation here is as such that you've essentially presented me with a fantasy novel, and except me to take it seriously. If I could tangibly verify that the supposed organization behind this book was powerful and wealthy (let alone that it existed to begin with) I would be more inclined to take it seriously. If I could verify that the author was an accomplished man in his personal life I would be more inclined to take it seriously.

But as it stands this appears to be your dime a dozen 'self-actualization' project. This one has it's one flavour (fuck Christianity, muh mathematics, etc) but ultimately it's nothing special. There's hundreds of wannabe cult leaders laying out their hodgepodge beliefs in self published Kindle books on Amazon.

>Your type seem more interested in the person than the message

Yes, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good and thing and I wish more people thought the same. Words are easy to come by. Throughout history there's been thousands of charlatans that befuddle people with their tall tales. I only care about actionable results. You could write a thousand books and as far as I'm concerned it doesn't amount to a single thing if you've got nothing to show for it.

>>135901

What I'd be more interested in is how anon learnt about this supposed secret society in the first place.

For stuff like the cabal/NWO, it's easy to infer that something along those lines exists, based on how the elites interact, especially with the recent mainstream validation of pizzagate and such through Epstein.

It's much harder to believe that there's a powerful organization opposing them. All of their errors and conflict, very obviously happen between each other, with different dynasties pursuing their own goals. If there really was an organization as OP describes, the world wouldn't be in as much shit as it is today.

>>135908

>Zanoni and Vril

Aha, finally one person read these books here.

>>135829

>>135905

Dude, you've just stumbled upon a cult-indoctrination trap, not actual tools to find the cosmic truth.

Here's my review and comments of the the first book.

>Ch 1. Illuminati

Okay, I can deal with this, what do you have for me?

>Ch 2. Rules of the Game

Okay, why is the ten-page rant about monotheist religion nessecary? If this were really that much of a logic-minded book, why emotionally bash religions instead of saying "Bibles are the word of god, as heard, transcribed, reworded, retranslated, misheard and misinterpreted by man"? Furthermore, the author seems to confuse faith with belief. Belief is thinking that something divine is real regardless of proof or truth. Faith is the resolve to witness the proof and the truth.

Likewise, Belief without faith is delusion, whereas faith without belief is aimlessness, but synchronicity is the needle that pins faith and belief together.

>Ch 3. Myer's brigg mathematics

And now my bullshit-o-meter hits 4 out of 5 on the dial that says "the author is lying to himself."

A person's intelligence and mathematical aptitude is not consistent with their personality types. I'm an introvert, but I've spent enough time around people to know that just because someone has a social inclination doesn't mean they are mathematically less gifted than a shut in that spends all their time alone on the computer.

"…Gottfried Leibniz, a Grand Master the best world is the one which is 'simplest in hypotheses and richest in phenomena'. This is not just the formula for the best world but for the ONLY world. the world pursues the path of least resistance. it takes the shortest path it can between to points…"

I've noticed that something else follows the path of least resistance: Idiocy. It's mentally easier to do retarded shit than it is to actually think about consequences. For all the philosophical talk about movement, the path of least resistance isn't looking so good after pulling bullshit out of your ass and convincing yourself it's the truth.

>At this point I was like "Fuck it, where's the actual math in this fucking book?"

Looking at the chapters, I tried to search for things that are… You know… Actually math-related?

Theorems?

Algorithms?

Diagrams?

Curves?

Fractals?

Dimensions four and above?

The mathematical significance of numerograms? (Did I spell that right?)\0

The 4D merkabah?

Salavdor Dali's painting of christ on an unfolded hypercube?

The pentagram being a 2D representation of a 4D tetrahedron?

Quantum Physics?

Then, everything came unglued when I found this little nugget in "mythos vs logos".

"If you think you can outsmart the illuminati, you would be asserting that you are more intelligent than intellectual giants such as Hegel, Pythagoras and Leibniz. Hegel's influence over humanity has been astounding, particularly via the distortion of his teaching that found expression in Marxism. Without Hegel, there would have been no Marx. Marx was certainly right about one thing: the dialect is at the core of any possibility of Human Progress…"

You know, after all I've seen throughout this book, if this "marx" dude is indeed, Karl Marx himself. Well then you're really on the wrong place to be posting this. Ideologically, that man's political utopia can only exist among a species that wholely cooperates. Right now, humanity is not the species for that ideology. That's why we have democracy, because it's "good enough".

But seriously, did the author even read "The intelligent investor"? That has what to me, is the best description of intelligence: the application of knowledge, wisdom, and intellect in tandem. The author seems to completely forget about the wisdom and intellect part of the equation of intelligence.

The author also blindly and religiously praises his masters like fundamentalists would praise jesus. What are the odds he would freak out if something cosmic doesn't fit in his worldview?

>in conclusion

I learned nothing about math, or the universe in this book. I didn't find anything I've already learned about math or the universe in this book. This book isn't about math, god, or cosmic knowledge at all, it's a fucking cult indoctrination pamphlet that uses rationalism as it's dogma and selling point.

>>135889

You were right to put it down, there's nothing but ramble in this book. There isn't any information about cosmic math, much less quantum physics.

>>135934

An atheist pseudo-religious cult? Based.

Thanks for reading the book, so that I don't have to.

Good news is, >>135905 can probably make a far better philosophical and occult school if he sets his mind to it, with actual reason, logic, and maths. The Solomonary mystery school explores higher-dimensional physics and hyperspace laws as part of their spiritual progress, you could probably borrow most of your theory from them.