1.
Collective (CSU)
When more than one SU is present and
involved in any society or problem situation, it
should be obvious that no two of them will coincide,
both in terms of subconscious “reality perception”
and conscious values, desires, and actions applied.
Hence both human society and human history
is most accurately understood as attempts by the
involved humans to reconcile their conflicting SUs
- 120 -
into one or more community-approved Collective
SUs (hereafter “CSU”).
Sometimes this is possible through peaceful
means such as education, reasoning, or argument.
In other instances where conscious SUs are too
passionate, or when subconscious SUs are too
inflexible and intolerant, the individuals/groups
may resort to coercion - aggressive and intensive
indoctrination, conditioning, and reinforcement,
along with the suppression or extermination of the
offending “competitors” - to achieve the desired
“reality”.
In modern society, unsurprisingly, such
coercion and intolerance are invariably attributed to
“the enemy”, domestic outlaws, insurgents,
revolutionaries, or other “alien” individuals or
groups. It is assumed, without any need for
argument or justification, that the community CSU
into which its members have been conditioned since
birth, is not just one among many options, but is
“reality”. Questioning it thus goes beyond acceptable
curiosity to “heresy”, “treason”, or “insanity”.
This was most famously caricatured in George
Orwell’s novel 1984, in which failure to accept the
Party’s CSU not just at the conscious but at the
subconscious “reality” level was condemned as the
worst of all possible sins: “thoughtcrime” -
correspondingly requiring not just punishment but
“curing” by destroying the offender’s ability to see
“reality” other than through the Party’s CSU.
- 121 -
C. Dimensions47
1.
Ding Nicht An Sich
Time by itself does not exist at all. It is
something which exists only apart from itself, in the
eyes and intelligence of a distinct consciousness
(D5). It is the language by which that D5 detects,
estimates, measures, and compares the changes of
and between existential phenomena displacing the
three dimensions (D1-3) of physical extension in OU
space. In principle, if there were no such changes,
time would, and could, not exist.
2. Kant
This interpretation of time was most famously
articulated by the German philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804), who in his Critique of Pure
Reason (1781) contended that space (D1-3) and time
(D4) are independent of, yet dependent upon one
another in order to make them sensible concepts.
Summarily:
• Different times are successive, not
coexistent.
• Different spaces are coexistent, not
successive.
In other words, time is necessarily an arbitrary
measurement of elapse, which can exist only as
a sequence, a continuum.
47 In this discussion “#D” refers to the dimension(s) proper,
while “D#” refers to an item or event of such dimension(s).
- 122 -
As for spatial objects or defined areas [of
emptiness], they necessarily displace a single “point
in time”, more precisely a “moment without time”
in order to be absolute in themselves: Two D3s
cannot displace the same 3D locus simultaneously.
3D space, Kant argued, is objective, that is
independent of external perception.
Time, on the other hand, is subjective: It
exists only in the mind of an external perceptive
consciousness (D5), as an arbitrary, convenient
means of demarcating changes in D3s themselves,
and/or compared to other D3s.
That time has the illusion of objectivity is
(CSU) establishing a common standard of such
measurement, such as a “minute” or “hour” based
upon the Earth’s solar orbit.
3. Einstein
This simple and self-evident distinction of
Kant’s would be attacked by Albert Einstein in his
confusingly-named “theory of relativity”, in which
he insisted against all sanity that time is not a
subjective relationship but an objective constant,
thus mandating rigidly-calculated absurdities such
as an everywhere-fixed velocity of light: leading to
such derivative preposterities as “curved space” and
“black holes”.
Eventually Pavlovian science will extricate
itself from this tar-baby, or so one can only hope.
4. Noumenon
Since time is an arbitrarily-assigned valuation,
Kant continues, it is not empirical: It is not gained
- 123 -
or learned from observation of NL phenomena.
Rather it is a priori; it is assigned to OU
phenomena, including, significantly, before and
after they occur. Such concepts would not be
possible in a genuinely-empirical environment.
5. Objective Universal
a. D1-3
Length, width, height: These measurements
establish the existence of an OU substance, whether
matter or energy, that exclusively displaces empty
space.
Nothing else of the OU can occupy the same
space simultaneously.
Note, however, that for D1-3 to have meaning,
this displacement has to occur at a moment or
during an interval of time. This is where D4 comes
in.
b. D4
D4 is popularly called “time”, but as previously
noted, that is a very ambiguous term. So D4 is better
defined as duration, meaning the endurance of the
existence of a D1-3 OU item.
D4 is still a function completely within the
OU, and this is crucial to its correct appreciation.
Duration - “extension in time” - requires a
point of comparison, a benchmark. A 3D item
persists against/when compared to another 3D item,
creating the function of measurement.
Thus if the Earth existed alone in space, it
would be impossible to ascertain or state that it is
stationary or moving. The moment that you add the
- 124 -
Sun and measure the Earth’s orbit around it in
terms of an arbitrary standard like “miles” and
“hours”, it becomes possible to state that the Earth
is traveling 70,000 mph relative to the Sun.
So 4D requires at least one other OU item
besides the 3D one being described.
Here we also se the correct and only use of the
concept of “relativity”. By its very name and
intrinsicality, “relative” is a comparative
measurement; it has no absolute existence.
So when
Einstein stated that the velocity of
light is an OU constant at 186,000 mps, he was
asserting a conceptual impossibility. And it was this
absurdity that generated the entire procession of
derivative absurdities, from “curved space” and
“wormholes” to “black holes” and “string theory”.
Procrustes’ bed, which all of his visitors “perfectly
fit” by having their extremities rack-stretched or
amputated as appropriate, has become the office
furniture of “accepted” physics.
6. Subjective Universal
a. D5
Rod Serling got it right in his cutenigmatic
welcome to the original Twilight Zone television
series:
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which
is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space
and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground
between light and shadow, between science and
superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s
fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the
- 125 -
dimension of imagination. It is an area which we
call the Twilight Zone.48
Again, 1-4D exist within and are functions of
the OU.
But for a D3 OU item to be significant, it must
be encountered or perceived by another D3 OU item
or items, thus establishing 4D relationship potential.
Hence in the illustration above, the Earth’s
orbit & speed around the Sun have a direct OU
significance to both in terms of the various NL
forces involved: climate, electromagnetic fields, etc.
The distinction between self-conscious
intellects [such as Man] and merely instinctive
stimulus/responses is - as illustrated by the “Garden
of Eden” myth - the ability & prerogative to assign
meaning to phenomena; this is an attribute of
divinity.
“Meaning” includes but is not limited to
morality, so Adam & Eve’s “sin” was not being able
to recognize Good & Evil where decreed by El49, but
assigning such values in disregard of his.
“Meaning” is not an OU-function. It is assigned
by an intelligence from a necessarily external 5D
perspective. Such a consciousness-generated reality
is called a SU.
Each SU can exist wholly independent
(Serling’s “imagination”) of the OU, or it can serve
as a “lens” to perceive and meaning-assign OU
phenomena.
Because of the uniquely-different perspectives
and meaning-assignments of each SU-generating
48 Serling, Rod, original narrative introduction for The
Twilight Zone, 1959.
49 The original & true name of the Canaanite god adopted by
the Hebrews.
- 126 -
externality, there is no such thing as “objective
perception” of the OU. What SU-externalities may
call “objective reality” is actually an agreed-upon
and/or enforced CSU. CSUs may be supported by
anything from opinion popularity to instruments to
establish the appearance of objectivity.
Thus NL exists authentically in and of the OU,
but humans habitually perceive, interpret, and
dogmatize it through the currently-dominant CSU.
“Established” CSUs may be the result of
anything from institutional-academic cliques to
social or religious agendæ and taboos. What is
essential from a propaganda standpoint is that an
agenda-driven CSU never be acknowledged as
such, but insisted to be objective, scientific OU-
reality. “Heretics” are duly silenced and punished -
more politely but just as effectively as being burned
at the stake.
7. “Higher”?
There are no OU dimensions beyond 1-4, and
to be precise D1-4 items are identifiable by such a
label consequent to being assigned this meaning by
a D5 intelligence.
Einsteinian CSU may imagine and attempt to
OU-include not just misinterpretations of D4, but
“string theory” D5+ mathematical nonsense
proceeding from such factually-false premises.
Completely within a SU, of course, a
“dimension” may be reconceptualized as freely and
artistically as desired as in H.P, Lovecraft’s or Clark
Ashton Smith’s tales, with no explanation or OU-
substantiation either needed or pretended.
Entertainment is intended; ulterior-motive
deception is not.
- 127 -
10: Time
A. Frame
So we’ve established that D4 is a measurement
of duration or elapse between two or more OU D3
phenomena. And that as a D5 you have the option
and the power to orient or tie yourself to the OU, or
to exist wholly within your D5 SU, in which case you
completely control any D1-4s in that SU. Of course
you may also be either voluntarily or forcibly
involved in CSUs affecting your incarnate body and
mental conformity.
So what does this “simple” situation have to do
with “time” and “religion”: the topic of this chapter?
Well, it’s like this: Conventional (OU-aligned)
religions not only assign you slave-tasks; they give
you a time-limit (your incarnate lifetime) in which
to accomplish them. Even if you’re not entangled in
such a religion, you may find yourself in varying
levels of similar time-limits from powerful CSUs
intentionally or ignorantly in step with them.
The best way to bring this into manageable
focus is to introduce the concept of the Two Paths:
- 128 -
1.
The Two Paths
The terms Left-Hand Path (LHP) and Right-
Hand Path (RHP) refer respectively to the goals of
recognizing and emphasizing one’s individual
separateness from the OU, or rejecting that
separateness in favor of [re]union with the OU. 50
To put it another way, the LHP seeks individual
divinity, while the RHP seeks [re]absorption in
existing OU divinity.
The paradox of the RHP is that it prescribes
increasingly stronger individual coherence and
effort to successfully meld with the OU; it is this
same personal coherence that strengthens and
emphasizes separate individuality. The closer the
RHP initiate comes to comprehending the essence of
the OU and thus enabling immersion or dissolution
within it, the stronger the definition and assertion of
his distinction from it.
In short, the only way the RHP initiate can
qualify to merge with El without corruption is to
become a complete mirror-consciousness of
El, at which stage melding or absorption is
seamless.
50 Historically the terms LHP & RHP originated in Tantrism, a
school of Vajrayana Buddhism in northern India which taught
that Buddhahood can be realized through various theurgic
practices. For mantra and mudra ceremonies the female was
positioned to the right of the male; for erotic rites she was
positioned to the left. Theosophy’s H.P. Blavatsky felt sex-
magic to be immoral and perverse, so she subsequently
employed the term “LHP” to characterize the magical systems
she didn’t like, and the term “RHP” the ones she did, i.e.
Theosophy. As used herein the two terms have no moral
connotation.
- 129 -
But ironically that presents a new paradox: Is
the “new” El the original or the copy - and, after all,
does it even matter?
The LHP is often accused of arrogance, of
rebellion. But the LHP initiate does not seek to
replace or eliminate the OU/El, while that is
ultimately what the RHP initiate aspires to do: so
perfectly that the synthesis will be not just
undetectable but indistinguishable.
2. Conventional/RHP Religion
Conventional religions incorporate one of two
concepts of time: linear or cyclical. 51
What all Western religions have in common is
the linear time of Judaism. Jewish mythology
posits a “Genesis” of creation, followed by a time-
unidirectional, everything-&-everyone-inclusive
forced-march to a final “Apocalypse”. 52
This linear-time scenario is microcosmed in
each human’s lifespan: It has a beginning, an
incarnate-life ordeal of trial and obedience, and an
end/consequence. You’ve got just one shot at
existence, so you’d better make it come out in
Anaheim.
The principal Eastern religions - Hinduism and
Buddhism - are cyclical, not linear. The line of time
51 In Satanic/Setian initiation there are two different time-
concepts: circular [per Egyptian metaphysics] and timeless.
For discussions of these see my books MindStar and FindFar.
52 Even in a cultural climate of materialist deism, this linear-
time model is reflected in the “one-way” Big Bang image of
cosmology. Theoretically it would be just as possible to
envision a cyclical universe of endless expansion/contraction
oscillation.
- 130 -
keeps moving onward in a “Great Mandala” 53, to
which souls keep returning in endless up/down
reincarnations, until/unless they’re nirvan ically-
perfect enough to escape it into Eternal Bliss