Some questions about TP

General discussion about the two books by Michel Desmarquet. Please ONLY post questions that do not fit in any of the available specialized forums.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Aisin
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:36 am
Location: Malaysia

Post: # 5642Post Aisin »

The mentioning of the appendix suddenly made me curious. On earth almost everyone is born with an appendix I presume. If we apply the observation to the theory in the book, it would mean that everyone on a first category planet would have an appendix, regardless of skin colour.

If it was an accident, it just shows how precise our body generation mechanism is, to the extent that even erroneous parts are replicated exactly. In the case of human body mutation, I can only guess that the external influence has been too forceful to even mess up our in built mechanisms.

If Thiaooubans can re-generate their body cells at will, logically they won't have something useless in their body. But this doesn't answer whether they have an appendix each. Do Jews have appendix?
User avatar
ShahKorR
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:49 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Post: # 5646Post ShahKorR »

Seafury your dissapointing and also a good example of why the world is the way it is.
If anyone was expecting me to jump up and down hehehe your wrong. Everyone is entitled to there own opinions!
Love and Light
Chao
When goodness grows weak,
When evil increases,
I make myself a body.
In every age I come back
To deliver the holy,
To destroy the sin of the sinner,
To establish righteousness.

~ Bhagavad Gita
User avatar
Alisima
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 5659Post Alisima »

anonymousbeing wrote:Everyone has built-in success mechanism. Your 'sucess mechanism' must have a goal or target. The target of Great Intellect is to maximize the number of souls returning to the ocean of consciousness.
The G.I must have made numberous mistakes (there are not failure or at best it is just a temporary failure) in terms of its evolution. It is the only way of achieving a goal by negative feedback, or by going forward, making mistakes and immediately correcting the course.

GI MUST have a goal if not goals.
The notion of an GI having a goal is nonsensical. Firstly, the GI has invented the concept goal, so how can he use that concept before it was created?? In other words, with what goal has he created the concept goal?? None, since the concept of a goal was only there when the concept of a goal was created, never before. Secondly, is there something outside the creator?? Outside the GI?? If that where so, he wouldn't be a true creator/GI. So let's just assume the GI includes all, including the 'space/time' in which he includes all. The question, ofcourse, would be: what kind of goal does a 'being' has when he includes all?? His goal can only have meaning if it points to something outside himself, but since there isn't something outside himself, there is no meaning to any of his goals. Thirdly, the creator doesn't have to sustain itself. Again, this is because there is nothing outside of him. No 'virus', nothing lethal. He need not sustain himself since there is nothing that can 'undo' him. Even if there would be a virus, he would be that virus. Fourthly, a goal has a 'objective' part (something you do), a 'resultant' part (the effect of the undertaken action), and a 'motive' part (the reason for choicing this particular goal). Why would the creator want to "maximize the number of souls returning to the ocean of consciousness"?? Souls that never even left, only appeared to do so. What is his motive?? I guess it's motive can be described in yet another goal, but then again, what is that motive...

A goal is possible only in a context. When the context falls away the goal falls with it. A feasible goal would be, for instance, to want water to quench your thirst. Or, in more longer terms, to save money and buy a much needed car. Those are indeed feasible goals. Although if one keeps on asking 'why?' - "why does one need a car?", "why does one need to drive to work?", "why does one need money", "why does one need to eat?", "why does one need to live?", "why does one need to return to the ocean of consciousness?", "why has one ever left?", "why does the creator need 'earthly experience'?", "why doesn't the creator make everything fine?" - one eventually ends up with questions without answers. 'Why?' is indeed a philosophy-killing question... why? Because the question 'why?' results in a search for meaning, a meaning which isn't there. Which can't be there since there is nothing 'there'.

So, instead of saying "[the] GI MUST have a goal..." one should say: the GI can't have a goal because there is nothing outside of him. Instead of having a goal the creator simply creates. As a child playing with toy's. No meaning, no goal. Pure joy.

‘You should always bear in mind this main point: An Astral body, in all cases, must conform to Universal Law, and, by following nature as closely as possible, it can achieve the ultimate goal by the fastest path.’
And then? He eternally sits in full lotus with unimaginably amounts of pure bliss?? Why don't do it right now?? I can do it right now, you too. No need for a path or goal, fast or short.
‘Certain Tantrists on Earth have attained this point, but it isn’t common amongthem, for still their religions, with ridiculous rituals and prohibitions, create a real obstacle to attaining this goal
Tantra isn't a religion. Tantra actually means 'technique'. Instead of having a religion or doctrine with states what to do or not, tantra gives techniques so that people can discover what to do or not to do on there own. Although I have to admit that there are followers who misinterpret Tantra, often for sex. But that isn't Tantra's problem, more the problem of the followers.
Don't read my signature.
User avatar
Rezo
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:28 am
Location: usa

the appendix

Post: # 5660Post Rezo »

Yes, you know, actually ---

the book is incorrect here. Too bad the $1000 offer to 'prove any word untrue' is overwith -- I could use a little cash [who couldn't, we need it to survive]....

But getting back on topic the human vermiform appendix:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp
http://www.geocities.com/gcalla1/appendix.htm

-secretes a mucous-coating to help lubricate stool in passing to large bowel from small bowel [where stool has less fluid after being absorbed by SI], this mucous also has IgA, IgM immunoglobulins, which have antibacterial properties.

-The human appendix is rich in lymphoid tissue, which may keep the colons infection-free: functions as a type of sift filtration against other infections agents -> [my opinion here:] perhaps when overburdened, to save the colon, it kills itself instead [people w/appendicitis dont have it spread to colon...if it bursts of course then you have peritonitis, not so fun, kinda deadly at that point, fortunately if one needs surgery it is there].

-A very interesting book I would love to get is called “Vestigial Organs are Fully Functional,” - in this book Dr. Howard Bierman did a study on lack of appendix and contraction of diseases, and found that out of the "hundreds of his patients who suffer from Leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries, 84 percent of them had their appendices removed in their childhood."

While the last point is not definitively conclusive, it sheds light on what may possibly be a sgnificant role of the appendix.

The foreskin of the penis, is also thought to be vestigial, as is the coxxyx, tonsils, wisdom teeth...[another thread in future?], the point I want to make is, maybe the purpose of organs such as these 'vestigial' are to test our faith in ourselves: have them designed as very subtle and integral parts of the body, but seem out of place enough to not be significant and warrant removal - when they may be important, and should never be removed.

Now that we have generally speaking a much better disease care system in emergency situations, surgeons must reexamine the concept of preventive surgery, if an organ is functioning normally....and more importantly, our health care systems should provide education on how to keep them working [maintenance]...of course its up to us as individuals as well. Dependance upon authority is giving up of freedom of choice.
Frozn
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post: # 5664Post Frozn »

Rezo wrote:Yes, you know, actually ---

the book is incorrect here. Too bad the $1000 offer to 'prove any word untrue' is overwith -- I could use a little cash [who couldn't, we need it to survive]....
Thao says that the appendix has "no use whatsoever". I always took that to mean no function, or better yet, no job to do. Perhaps it sits around and does something when it feels the need. Regardless, Thao should have made a better mention on it if the articles about the appendix aren't just medical speculation covered in big words and chemical names. Remember that when there was NO reason needles could have disappeared around Earth's orbit, some expert was paid to say something about it.

I think that if you take a so-called expert, and hand him a mystery and some cash, he will come up with some explanation. Whether or not it's correct is irrelavent because as far as I know, none of us here have the experience to double-check it.

I suppose it isn't a secret that I'm not a fan of the medical establishment. Doctors these days can be likened to swindeling auto mechanics, selling treatment rather than cures. But then, any system rooted in money seems to end up just as corrupt.
Rezo wrote:in this book Dr. Howard Bierman did a study on lack of appendix and contraction of diseases, and found that out of the "hundreds of his patients who suffer from Leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries, 84 percent of them had their appendices removed in their childhood
This one gives me the most concern over the validity of Thao's statement on the appendix, yet I have found another possible explanation of the statistics. Consider how many cuts it takes to remove an appendix, whether any surrounding tissue is left, or how well the inscisions are caudorised etc. I think that having a chunk of yourself chopped off will have consequences down the road. Thats purely speculation.

I realize that this is way off topic, but I have answered my own questions, and hopefully someone elses too.
Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. - Gospel of Thomas
User avatar
Robanan
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post: # 5665Post Robanan »

anonymousbeing wrote:Everyone has built-in success mechanism. Your 'sucess mechanism' must have a goal or target. The target of Great Intellect is to maximize the number of souls returning to the ocean of consciousness.
The G.I must have made numberous mistakes (there are not failure or at best it is just a temporary failure) in terms of its evolution. It is the only way of achieving a goal by negative feedback, or by going forward, making mistakes and immediately correcting the course.

GI MUST have a goal if not goals.
:) what exactly is the success mechanism you have observerved in everyone? by your statements I guess you imagine the intellect to be designed as a success mechanism since you say it must have a goal or target. In my view only intellect has the ability to define and/or identify a goal or target that the individual would tend to achieve.
As much as the intellect gives the individual an opportunity to define and learn how to achieve goals it doesn't necesseraly mean that the autonomous progress of every individual intellect existing in this universe is bound to succeed on any scale (personal, social, universal...) since it all depends on the overall ability of the intellect to understand.
Then...
Would you also explain what exactly do you mean by saying "souls returning to the ocean of consciousness"? Why would GI want or need to do that?
Alisima wrote:The notion of an GI having a goal is nonsensical. Firstly, the GI has invented the concept goal, so how can he use that concept before it was created?? In other words, with what goal has he created the concept goal?? None, since the concept of a goal was only there when the concept of a goal was created, never before.
You can read from my previous remarks to anonymousbeing that my view is there needs to be intellect before any concept or definition of a goal could appear first place.
Alisima wrote:Secondly, is there something outside the creator?? Outside the GI?? If that where so, he wouldn't be a true creator/GI. So let's just assume the GI includes all, including the 'space/time' in which he includes all. The question, ofcourse, would be: what kind of goal does a 'being' has when he includes all?? His goal can only have meaning if it points to something outside himself, but since there isn't something outside himself, there is no meaning to any of his goals.
Mindplay? don't play games Alisima, specially when other individuals are concerned. First, your question is not clear and it burns a lot of brain calories before one could make an attempt to give a guess to what you are saying. Second, by now you are supposed to know very well that the whole universe is created around therefore outside of the GI.
Alisima wrote:Thirdly, the creator doesn't have to sustain itself. Again, this is because there is nothing outside of him. No 'virus', nothing lethal. He need not sustain himself since there is nothing that can 'undo' him. Even if there would be a virus, he would be that virus. Fourthly, a goal has a 'objective' part (something you do), a 'resultant' part (the effect of the undertaken action), and a 'motive' part (the reason for choicing this particular goal).
Nothing lethal? Think again, start from decay of matter up to pollution and damage.
Alisima wrote:one eventually ends up with questions without answers. 'Why?' is indeed a philosophy-killing question... why? Because the question 'why?' results in a search for meaning, a meaning which isn't there. Which can't be there since there is nothing 'there'.
Or in your case Alisima it sounds to me more as if you are dirctly saying to me "I don't want to search for any meaning at all, I've long given up searching for any meaning whatsoever, who cares about nature? there can't be a magnificent design behind nature anyway."
Alisima wrote:So, instead of saying "[the] GI MUST have a goal..." one should say: the GI can't have a goal because there is nothing outside of him. Instead of having a goal the creator simply creates. As a child playing with toy's. No meaning, no goal. Pure joy.
I agree that behind creation there is fulfillment in joy, as the reason behind experiencing such joy seems to be because of intellectual fulfillment (in the case of creation of the universe it is spiritual fulfillment), you seem to be pulling the strings to your own ends in an extremely subjective manner.
Alisima wrote:
‘You should always bear in mind this main point: An Astral body, in all cases, must conform to Universal Law, and, by following nature as closely as possible, it can achieve the ultimate goal by the fastest path.’
And then? He eternally sits in full lotus with unimaginably amounts of pure bliss?? Why don't do it right now?? I can do it right now, you too. No need for a path or goal, fast or short.
I advise you to rethink your position regarding this statement from the book by taking what I just said into consideration, you are utterly wrong in saying that there is no need for a path or goal. Do you really think that following nature is sitting in lotus potion forever?
Alisima wrote:
‘Certain Tantrists on Earth have attained this point, but it isn’t common amongthem, for still their religions, with ridiculous rituals and prohibitions, create a real obstacle to attaining this goal
Tantra isn't a religion. Tantra actually means 'technique'. Instead of having a religion or doctrine with states what to do or not, tantra gives techniques so that people can discover what to do or not to do on there own. Although I have to admit that there are followers who misinterpret Tantra, often for sex. But that isn't Tantra's problem, more the problem of the followers.
I don't know about Tantra but that statement of the book is not as baseless as you imagine it to be, as you say there are many who call themselves tantrists to make money and enjoy sex with the other individual intellects who submit themselves to such cartels (I've seen that on TV) as there are also others who engage in practicing religions with ridiculous rituals and prohibitions, and of course except the very few tantrists who are elevated the rest create real obstacles to attaining this goal.

You just ran a search for the word "goal" in the book and decided to attack every sentence related to it didn't you? Next time please note which of the text you are quoting is from the book, if you want to copy it to the forum. And instead of using your own misunderstandings to attack words, try to make the less and more productive effort to understand and promote coherency and accuracy in your exchanges with others.
Frozn
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Post: # 5675Post Frozn »

I was trying very hard to give honest input to help with the disagreement you two were having, yet it was all off-topic clutter. I don't even see why you two bother. What future reader would be satisfied with the contents of this thread?
Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. - Gospel of Thomas
User avatar
Yothu
Posts: 439
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Europe
Contact:

Post: # 5677Post Yothu »

I do not see a constructive point in debating here further. This topic is locked for revisal.
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always got.
Locked