What if I told you ... the Mandela Effect was real?
Not heard of it? Well, the astonishing part about it is that the name itself is derived from a phenomenon
that so many share - ... ... the thing is: Many remember that Nelson Mandela died somewhen in the 80s or 90s
... and not ... just as of recent ... (2000+). Should ring a bell. I mean, to me it was so: All of a sudden
Mandela was in the news "again" and I was like: What? I thought that guy was dead!
Whats right: Looney Tunes or Looney Toons?
Or: What if I told you that the words "What if I told you ..." never occured in the Matrix?
Sex in the Citiy or Sex and the City?
(However, Hashiish is still around ... so, ... whatevah! ... right?)
But so I went through the Matrix movie again, because I would have said 'yes' ... that "What if I told you"
... is in the movie. I wasn't sure though. But the thing with me and the Matrix is ... I've seen the movies
a lot. There was a time where I knew every speech by hard. At least in reloaded. The Smith talking to Morpheus
about the Dinosaurs --- not so much. And Morpheus introducing himself to Neo ... neither. Reloaded was my thing.
I would have even been able to verbally continue the movie at any point you stopped it. At least sure enough
that I would have taken the bet!
But then, no. The speeches in the Matrix are correct! The "What if I told you" line ... never happened! The
way I recolect that is that any piece of information Morpheus delivers to Neo is attached to some rhetorics,
and if "What if I told you" would replace any of those, that one would be missing. And I might not even notice.
So I would however noticed any rhetoric that seemed out of place.
Looney Tunes? Yea - I ... think thats correct too. Implying also that there are certain places where it is
"still" Looney Toons - but ... to jogg 'your' memory: When remembering ... try to remember the time and place
too. I mean, a moment ... not just the "Jpeg". I believe I remember that 'Tunes' always seemed a bit off to
me - while - here in germany while I was watching a lot of cartoons, Tiny Toons were the bigger thing.
Mandela? I ... think there should be some News footage of that time where people think he died - I wonder.
I mean ... was he locked away and called dead - then somehow got free and then some coverup happened? I'm not
sure - but I wouldn't have been a 100% on whether or not he was dead either!
Sex 'in' the City is however one of those ... I'm '100%' sure things. And ... yet I've seen some guy on YouTube
showing 'real' Sex 'in' the City labelled products. Yea, some Chinese fake factory not remembering correctly?
But yet they remembered the Font Layout and such?
I'm dead sure though that my heart was always in the center. I mean - I do remember that there was this
misconception that I had - in my childhood - like the heartshape itself being unreal. But also that it was
left. I do remember that, but I also remember having been corrected. And yea - I'm sure that in the Matrix
Reloaded the heart was always in the middle too! I'm also 100% that our ribcage was broader at the bottom,
since, that always struck me as odd ... aesthetically. And I realized that it makes sense though, for, where
the ribcage is thinner, the breast muscles come in. I'm not sure if I would wanna see Arnold Schwarzenegger
with double the chest size. Johnny Bravo!
And yea - if the heart were on the left - how would that work out with the Loungues?
If 'someone' changed anything, then yet damn sure not our anatomy!
Deja Vues? - ...
As with that - I would want to quote Neil deGrasse Tyson on that. He called it 'the God of the Unknown' -
where, whenever we don't understand something, we call it 'God'. Newton did that at the end - phrasing a
few open questions and saying it must be Gods work. But still - we always usually found a 'sane' answer.
I want to iterate on Tysons understanding - and impose that the neo Gnostic understanding of God does not
fall into that same category. First of all. Well - kindof - as, some would call it 'the original singularity'
or 'singularity of the origin' - where things are however ... we don't know. So we might want to pop in
'the God of the Unknown'. But we still know Consciousness, Spirituality, ... as well as the Minds superiority
upon 'Mass' (our Body) and 'Matter' (our Imagination). But then is this "pointed" Understanding of God a
limitted one. That is how we comprehend - for sure - as we are inherantly incapable to relate to the infinite
as good as to the finite. We can understand infinity within the finite - as - we can grow - imagine - add -
with an infinite 'potential'. But so is there the 'first insight' - which we might compare to the 'original
singularity' - which to us, as far as we can 'comprehend', were 'the beginning of time'. But what came prior?
How can anything exist without infinity?
So did scientists however came up with this fascinating discovery: That time 'began' somewhat 'after' the
big bang. Works with me - consciously. First there is the first insight - then consciousness reacts to it and
through this causality something happens that then "scales" time into reality.
Thats the + in 1+1.
And so do I come to my second point, the one intended per se, which is that the 'infinite Universe' provides
us with a foundation that allows us to correlate to 'the Eternal' more objectively. For what do we find -
once we consider 'this all' ... "the Matrix" ... Gods creation? Imagine it as a parabolic projection wherein
God mirrors His immensity in a way - well - like an artist who conceptualizes a Universe. The 'founding
thought'? 'Atheistic'? I mean - we may stop here for a while and think about what we would consider a logical
creation, or 'creation' in that sense, ... . What we may have on mind once thinking about heaven is a 'Theocentric'
world, wherein creation 'honors' God - where everything is "reminded" of Gods presence - where God compared to
a living sun for instance. That is however not what we have. We live in an 'Atheocentric' Universe - wherein we
can however find "a footprint of infinity" within the immense scale and complexity ... and magnitudes ... of
the world around us. But more to the point - this is the iteration itself - is Tysons 'God of the Unknown'
simply the 'wall' of our own knowledge - to say that the 'infinite projection' of an atheocentric reality cannot
"end" with God. As for "superstitions" ... as to say 'fate' and 'destiny' (... the most relevant ones ...) ...
that is where we on the other end of any reality must wonder: What is yet Gods position in it? Why are we here?
Is it a prison? Is there a way out? How atheocentric is it?
It is maybe this question where modern sciences fail! It presumes an atheoistic conclusion - while - that is
so the purpose. Or point. For, if the conclusion were theistic, we were to 'resume to the source', or in a more
scientific understanding: Remain pending until we get an expansion. "Resuming to the Source" means as much as
... theology ... and that, my dear Friend, 'can only be a uniform pan-universal truth'. Ultimately at least.
To express it in a simple pyramid: 3 rows, from top to bottom: 1, 2 then 3 balls. 'If there is a 'God'' -
we can now play that game: Which ball were he? But more to the point: What is the 1? If not infinity?
And what is infinity? Or, if 1 is infinity, how can there be a 2? If 1 is not infinity - what else could 1 be?
So, if 1 can only be infinity, then, can 2 be infinite? If it were so, then 2 and 1 were both infinite - and
yet - 1 were 3 for 1 were where 2 and 3 come together. So, what again is 1? Can anything but 1 be infinite?
If not - then 1 must however come with the potential for 2, for otherwise 2 could never be.
If 1 is capable of 2, ... 2 is capable of 4 - lets say - and 3 of 6 - and 5 is ... "the golden apple" - and
what is 3? What is 2? For that matter? What is 1?
If 1 is consciousness - then we might be 3, where 2 is any ... "figmental" creation. Figments in that sense
were now structured imaginary constructs - ranging from quantum/nuclear physics to chemistry and biology -
(no free will and no free thought ... hmm ... thought. Can quantum states - and so the random within biology -
be driven by consciousness?) ... anyway. Angels, Demons, ... Animals - that were now 2, our siblings, or -
a category in and of itself where we then again can say 3 - for - we don't know how that mixes and it is all
in some way dependent on 1s procreative constants - ... well.
So we get to figments - and what figments there are ... well, ... isn't all so simple anymore.
See - when telling it so, we live in a figmental world - and it is based on Quantum Mechanics. As far as we
can tell. Thereby we imply, that Quantum Mechanics is driven by God - where the mechanics themselves are the
figment. We may discover how there are deeper figments, following their own routine, where again the driving
'force' is God. So, what are Quantum Mechanics? We could say: The way 'sub-atomic processes' are acting as
'fluid' and are 'randomized'. And more. Though, maybe we want to exclude particle-entanglement from quantum
mechanics. As Einstein showed: Sometimes the Devil is in the Details.
I mean - adding the idea of "crumpled" space to the concept of gravity - that changes a bunch of stuff! But what
am I saying? I've ... lost myself.
Sorry - now I forgot what I was up into.
But yea ... Deja Vues. I had to close that topic earlier and moved on to something else. The thing is - there
are a variety of possible explenations that are ... 'sane'. By 'sane' I mean: They don't lead on into further
speculation. Or, when dragging Deja Vues into a topic such as the mandela effect, you take one unsupported item
to support another. The conclusions might be right - as a matter of chance though.
But so yea - I wanted to write about: The absurd in physics. Uhm ... or ... the 'fantastic'. Like time travel.
In a way of saying: if fantasy or sci-fi became reality, what would we fantasize about?
Or to simply think about: Is physics ultimately going to end boring?
That would decide whether or not interstellar travel is a thing, and how deep the rabbithole goes?
Do we live in a multiverse? Well - I am the 'one' - so, I'm something like an anomaly - in that I am the guy
- in this world. So, is this 'my' world? Are you 'there'? Or am I 'alone'? Like, 'in Hell' or so?
Like, in theory, everyone could be 'the One' - or 'were' the One. Unless maybe I for instance were the eldest,
maybe, and through that attained properties that I thereby subtracted from a finite pool of something - but ...
what does that even mean?
If we applied our contemporary society onto a theocentric concept of a universe - what could we expect to happen?
Perhaps that it turned upon us? Well, think about it this way: Adam and Eve were born into a Garden named Eden.
There everything was fine - as made for them. There though was one tree - the tree of 'knowledge of Good and
Evil' - from whom they should not eat. Now they then yet came to eat of it - thus coming to a knowledge of good
and evil. Saying: God no longer with-held that knowledge from us. However. Now that knowledge spread within our
minds - as further so perpetuated by God, so through exiling them/us from Eden - bad things started to happen.
Maybe 'shame' was the trigger - the first 'issue'. Why would there be shame? Eve saw God, and she found herself
guilty, and in this condition the harmony was broken as consequences had been announced. Good or bad? Well -
thats history. Think about now! Our knowledge - our freedom - ... think about Theists and Atheists. In a sense
are they each others evil. To say: Our 'knowledge' of good and evil, warm and cold, healthy and unhealthy - this
positive-negative binarity - it sets us up so we create our own demons - and it goes on and on. We setup rules for
fair play, and some consider that unfair. We demonize each other - ... - and attaching to the divine is our way
out, to enter a union wherein we stop hating each other.
There are many stages of love though. What I did was in deed to dedicate my existence to God - attaching myself
to Him - yet there was always some place in my heart that was somewhere else. But, in a bad way?
Well, how can we love each other, if all we could love were God?
Jesus didn't only speak pleasant words. Amongst the unpleasant things he said was something about - well - he
doesn't like what I in german read as 'kleinglaeubiger' - so, 'small-believer' - people who don't believe enough
to take Him seriously, I would say. In the old testament the contra-point to that is 'God-fear'. It is one of
those words that adds - for me - credibility to the bible.
"Evil tries to cover the truth" - why? "Because it can"? Why would bad guys know what they are doing? What 'gift'
had they to know better than us what "evil forces" are here for? If anything - aren't they driven by egoism,
blindsighted, selfish, ... turning against their bretheren for a personal gain ... - I mean, how considerate is
that? Considering that we might as well get somewhere together, in peace.?
I mean - there is a flaw in the idea of peace with evil - in which sense - I do suppose that it is time to also
mention that for a long time its now been on my mind that I shouldn't forget to mention that in a lot of cases
'we' "are to be identified as the bad guys" - like, even Zombies works ... in a sense. "The living Dead". As it
also helps to project the good guys as the bad guys and try to therefrom see how well our concept of good sticks
together. The problem is that they set themselves aside - and yet try to conquer us, whereby, moving away from
that - so, supporting the divine - is "bad", at the very least it is 'opposed'.
Whatever the heck though, ... the issue with the Mandela effect is that ultimately ... well, I cannot tell whether
it is real or not. I mean - I can believe in the absurdity of time travel. It wouldn't be 'real' time-travel, but
a ... sotospeak 'figmented' - and consequences can theoretically 'merge over' ... as, at babel God showed that
He can totally equip us with memories - or at least, give us the impression ... like, in a dream. In a vivid dream
we live as though we had always lived there - it is normal - until we eventually consciously grow to the point of
recognizing that we are dreaming. Practicing the art of lucid dreaming were thus a matter of conditioning the mind
to grow to that insight. And this makes sense once perceiving ourselves into an 'utterly' atheocentric universe -
at which point there also were an 'Anti-God' - where, the questions for what and why ... maybe also wonder: Is this
Is this world as it is, and are we here for how it is, because of fun? As of Christianity there also is Baptism and
as of me/here/neo-Gnostic Christianity also Unification - and it is my Testimony as 'the One' - that Mormon Baptism
is 'real baptism' and 'Unification' is 'real' Unification with the All-Surrounding spirit.
A story I don't tell so often is that I was pseudo baptized by a friend short before my mormon baptism. My Nazirites
vow was to end with Baptism or Death - and I felt as though my hair wanted to go off. I'm not sure if I was explicit
about it to end with any baptism or only the right one, but as the story went on I felt like - instead of while
baptizing me - also something of a curse was put on me. I felt like in a cage - and I didn't feel like it was real,
I was confused - I needed clarity. With Mormon Baptism that changed. It was 'clear as daylight'. I also started
to feel different when drunk. A complete cognitive transformation ... basically, embracing an absolute certainty
over salvation. And it is here already that we may ask in how far the 'Anti-God' then matters. Or what power hE
holds - and in which regards. Like, Matthew 23:9 is a thing. Why is it there?
Footwashing, in my understanding, were a way of refreshing that state of clarity. So, why is it "forbidden"?
Unification is however an entirely different issue. It is like - everything all of a sudden becomes transparent.
I mean, yea - and yea, kindof - in a sense of unitedness. This is however not entirely valid ... in terms of
intimate connections for instance ... there's a clear barrier, but still - human beings are a lot more
And while the ... well ... yea - you could compare it to falling into a black hole ... though, rather think of a
whirl of of light. And so the 'Anti-God' stops being an issue at all. Its pointless ... hE is ... there is no
Whatever the Anti-God is, Unification is the counter, ... problem, solved.
The situation isn't as simple as 'if you aren't with God you are entirely bad' - but it is certainly so that this
reality is as it is - everything is complex, compounded, ... as in "we're in this together" - so, as far as we
aren't in union with God there is always some influence of the Anti-God.