|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
ADVENT 984 ADVENT
I SAY IS THAT RABBITZ WHITE THAT RABBITZ IS WHITE
I NAME THAT HOLY NAME HAT HOLY NAME I NAME AH ME AND YOU AND I AND YOU AND ME AH ME NAME THAT HOLY AMEN AND AMEN THAT HOLYNAME
THREE ANGLES THREE ANGELS THREE ANGELS THREE ANGLES TRY ANLES ANGELS O ANGELS TRY ANGLES
Anamnesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In philosophy, Plato uses the term anamnesis in the epistemological and psychological theory that he develops in his dialogues Meno and Phaedo, ... Philosophy - Religion - See also - Notes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis - Cached - Similar
Anamnesis Anamnesis (Ancient Greek: ἀνάμνησις = "recollection, reminiscence" (literally "loss of forgetfulness") is a term used in medicine, philosophy, psychoanalysis and religion. Contents [hide] [edit] Meno Meno: And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?[1] Socrates' response is to develop his theory of anamnesis. He suggests that the soul is immortal, and repeatedly incarnated; knowledge is actually in the soul from eternity (86b), but each time the soul is incarnated its knowledge is forgotten in the shock of birth. What one perceives to be learning, then, is actually the recovery of what one has forgotten. (Once it has been brought back it is true belief, to be turned into genuine knowledge by understanding.) And thus Socrates (and Plato) sees himself, not as a teacher, but as a midwife, aiding with the birth of knowledge that was already there in the student. The theory is illustrated by Socrates asking a slave boy questions about geometry. At first the boy gives the wrong answer; when this is pointed out to him, he is puzzled, but by asking questions Socrates is able to help him to reach the true answer. This is intended to show that, as the boy wasn't told the answer, he could only have reached the truth by recollecting what he had already known but forgotten. [edit] Phaedo Secondly, he makes clear that genuine knowledge, as opposed to mere true belief (doxa), is distinguished by its content. One can only know eternal truths, for they are the only truths that can have been in the soul from eternity. Though it can be very useful to have a true belief about, say, the best way to get from London to Oxford, such a belief does not qualify as knowledge; how could the human soul have known for all eternity a fact about places that have existed for less than 2,000 years? [edit] Neoplatonism Porphyry's short work De Antro Nympharum (ostensibly a commentary on the brief passage in Odyssey 13) elucidated this notion, as did Macrobius's much longer Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. The idea of psychic memory was used by Neoplatonists to demonstrate the celestial and immaterial origins of the soul, and to explain how memories of the world-soul could be recalled by everyday human beings. As such, psychic recollection was intrinsically connected to the Platonic conception of the soul itself. Since the contents of individual "material" or physical memories were trivial, only the universal recollection of Forms, or divine objects, drew one closer to the immortal source of being. Anamnesis is the closest that human minds can come to experiencing the freedom of the soul prior to its being encumbered by matter. The process of incarnation is described in Neoplatonism as a shock that causes the soul to forget its experiences (and often its divine origins as well). [edit] Religion For example, in the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, the anamnesis begins with the words: Remembering, therefore, this command of the Saviour [i.e., to eat and drink in remembrance of him] and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father and the second, glorious coming...[4] In most western Christian traditions, on the other hand, the anamnesis comes after the epiklesis.[5] An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church says of the anamnesis: "This memorial prayer of remembrance recalls for the worshipping community past events in their tradition of faith that are formative for their identity and self-understanding" and makes particular mention of its place in "the various eucharistic prayers".[6] [edit] See also
THE ATLANTIS SECRET A COMPLETE DECODING OF PLATOS LOST CONTINENT Alan F. Alford 2001 Page 21 "Men, too, were said to have had supernatural size and strength. In the Odyssey, Homer describes the god-like Otus and Ephialtes as follows: ... those short-lived twins, the god-like Otus and Ephialtes, famed in story, the largest men Earth ever nourished and finer by far than all but the glorious Orion. In their ninth year they were nine cubits across the shoulders and nine fathoms tall."
GOLIATH OF GATH
THE ATLANTIS SECRET A COMPLETE DECODING OF PLATOS LOST CONTINENT Alan F. Alford 2001 Page 21 "Men, too, were said to have had supernatural size and strength. In the Odyssey, Homer describes the god-like Otus and Ephialtes as follows: ... those short-lived twins, the god-like Otus and Ephialtes, famed in story, the largest men Earth ever nourished and finer by far than all but the glorious Orion. In their ninth year they were nine cubits across the shoulders and nine fathoms tall."
COLLINS GEM DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE Rev James L. Dow 1964 Page 195 "Giant. A race of demi-gods, the Nephilim, comparable to the Titans of classical mythology (Gen 6, 4). Other race names are given to people of remarkable stature who were aboriginal in Palestine before the conquest:" "Goliath of Gath was 9ft. 9 in. tall."
<< Revelation 8 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. 7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up. 8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; 9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. 10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. 12 And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise. 13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!
What is 09/09/09 means? - HypnoThoughts.com
Why 09/09/09 Is So Special | LiveScience """"" Ooo. Don't forget the religious groups whom believe 666 is suppose to be 999 and that tomorrow is the day of the beast. """""
Visitors who arrived via http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/archive.php5?page=13 File :1253435491767.jpg-(51 KB, 416x464, wendys.jpg) Mods shut down the Wendy's thread, but I'm still going. I'm explaining all the things you can get at Wendy's that should cost about 8 dollars, for 99c, or so. Chicken sandwich's cost way more than the grilled shit sandwich also. If you order a single, and ask for a grilled chicken patty on it they'll charge you 99c extra for the grilled patty. It'll cost you 4.99. If you get a Grilled chicken sandwich, and ask for a meat patty on it, they'll charge you 99c extra. It'll cost you 6.99 and you wont get a single vegetable (unless you load them up for free.) It's the same sandwich in every shape and form, just costs more. The basic idea is, Wendy's built their menu around fat mother fuckers who want a quadruple stack, instead of a triple stack. So we added the option of adding a patty of any type to a sandwich for 99c. How do you take advantage of this? Well, if you want a grilled chicken patty, you can pay over 9000 bucks. Or you can get a 99c sandwich, like the crispy chicken, load that shit up on vegetables for free, and get a 99c grilled chicken breast on it. Voila! You get a 1.99 Grilled Chicken sandwich, with an extra bit of crispy chicken on it. And the crispy chicken is just a grilled chicken breast that was fried in it's own breading, instead of grilled. It costs 1/5 as much.
http://cyberconnects.com/forum/index.php?topic=20378.0 Quote from: Vyse Dyne on November 22, 2008, 07:16:32 PMThe word occult comes from the Latin word occultus (clandestine, hidden, secret), referring to "knowledge of the hidden" Or occulti, occulto, occultum, occulto, occulti, occultorum, occultis, occultos, or occultis.
MAD MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION
Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively ... Theory - History - Official policy - Criticism and challengable ...
Mutual assured destruction Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation. Contents [hide] The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace. The primary application of this doctrine started during the Cold War (1940s to 1990s) in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability. Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction certainly continues to be in force. Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state. Since the credibility of the threat is critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital in their nuclear arsenals even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This MAD scenario is often referred to as nuclear deterrence. The term deterrence was first used in this context after World War II; prior to that time, its use was limited to legal terminology. In practice, the theory proved both utterly effective and exceptionally dangerous (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis) through the end of the Cold War. Today, all lesser nations are believed to be keenly aware that any use of nuclear weapons, in any context, is the recipe for their annihilation. Significant nuclear powers, such as the United States, the Russian Federation, and the People's Republic of China (PRC), operate under the deterrent effect of potential retaliation with respect to "first use" in the conduct of brush fire wars and other lesser conflagrations. The U.S., as possessor of the largest and most deployable stockpile of nuclear weapons,[citation needed] continues to exercise its vast nuclear might as a cornerstone of its foreign policy with regard to rogue states and communist nations that currently or may soon possess nuclear weapons technology. U.S. military forces stand on permanent alert in order to deter potential nuclear adversaries. Likewise, non-democratic nations cannot use nuclear weapons against the U.S., or her critical allies (United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Germany, Israel, Australia, and South Korea) without threat of (as U.S. President John F. Kennedy said) a "full retaliatory" response by the United States.[2] [edit] History Echoes of the doctrine can be found in the first document which outlined how the atomic bomb was a practical proposition. In March 1940, the Frisch-Peierls memorandum anticipated deterrence as the principal means of combating an enemy with nuclear weapons. In practice during World War II, utter annihilation from the air had already been visited upon the enemies of the Allied forces, both in Europe and Japan, well before use of the Atomic Bomb, and with perhaps even deadlier results. The incendiary attacks on Dresden in Germany, e.g., and Tokyo in efforts to finally force surrender and end both the European and Pacific Wars, set the stage for the concepts of Total War and MAD. [edit] Early Cold War During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union truly developed an understanding of the effectiveness of the U.S. ballistic missile submarine forces, and work on Soviet ballistic missile submarines began in earnest. For the remainder of the Cold War, although official positions on MAD changed in the United States, the consequences of the second strike from ballistic missile submarines was never in doubt. The multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) was another weapons system designed specifically to aid with the MAD nuclear deterrence doctrine. With a MIRV payload, one ICBM could hold many separate warheads. MIRVs were first created by the United States in order to counterbalance Soviet anti-ballistic missile systems around Moscow. Since each defensive missile could only be counted on to destroy one offensive missile, making each offensive missile have, for example, three warheads (as with early MIRV systems) meant that three times as many defensive missiles were needed for each offensive missile. This made defending against missile attacks more costly and difficult. One of the largest U.S. MIRVed missiles, the LGM-118A Peacekeeper, could hold up to 10 warheads, each with a yield of around 300 kilotons—all together, an explosive payload equivalent to 230 Hiroshima-type bombs. The multiple warheads made defense untenable with the technology available, leaving only the threat of retaliatory attack as a viable defensive option. MIRVed land-based ICBMs are considered destabilizing because they tend to put a premium on striking first. It is because of this that this type of weapon was banned under the START II agreement. In the event of a Soviet conventional attack on Western Europe, NATO planned to use tactical nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union countered this threat by issuing a statement that any use of nuclear weapons against Soviet forces, tactical or otherwise, was grounds for a full-scale Soviet retaliatory strike. As such, it was generally assumed that any combat in Europe would end with apocalyptic conclusions. The quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" is generally attributed to Albert Einstein.[1] [edit] Second strike capability In McNamara's formulation, MAD meant that nuclear nations either had first strike or second strike capability. A nation with first strike capability would be able to destroy the entire nuclear arsenal of another nation and thus prevent any nuclear retaliation. Second strike capability indicated that a nation could uphold a promise to respond to a nuclear attack with enough force to make such a first attack highly undesirable. According to McNamara, the arms race was in part an attempt to make sure that no nation gained first strike capability. An early form of second strike capability had already been provided by the use of continual patrols of nuclear-equipped bombers, with a fixed number of planes always in the air (and therefore untouchable by a first strike) at any given time. The use of this tactic was reduced however, by the high logistic difficulty of keeping enough planes active at all times, and the increasing priority given to ICBMs over bombers (which might be shot down by air defenses before reaching their targets). Ballistic missile submarines established a second strike capability through their stealth and by the number fielded by each Cold War adversary—it was highly unlikely that all of them could be targeted and preemptively destroyed (in contrast to, for example, a missile bunker with a fixed location that could be targeted during a first strike). Given their long range, high survivability and ability to carry many medium- and long-range nuclear missiles, submarines were credible and effective means for full-scale retaliation even after a massive first strike. [edit] Late Cold War SDI was criticized by both the Soviets and many of America's allies (including Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher) because, were it ever operational and effective, it would have undermined the "assured destruction" required for MAD. If America had a guarantee against Soviet nuclear attacks, its critics argued, it would have first strike capability which would have been a politically and militarily destabilizing position. Critics further argued that it could trigger a new arms race, this time to develop countermeasures for SDI. Despite its promise of nuclear safety, SDI was described by many of its critics (including Soviet nuclear physicist and later peace activist Andrei Sakharov) as being even more dangerous than MAD because of these political implications. Supporters also argued that SDI could trigger a new arms race, forcing the USSR to spend an increasing proportion of GDP on defense - something which has been claimed to have been an indirect cause of the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Proponents of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) argue that MAD is exceptionally dangerous in that it essentially offers a single course of action in the event of nuclear attack: full retaliatory response. The fact that nuclear proliferation has led to an increase in the number of nations in the "nuclear club", including nations of questionable stability (Pakistan, North Korea, Israel[3] and Iran, e.g.), and that a nuclear nation might be hijacked by a despot or other person or persons who might use nuclear weapons without sane regard for the consequences, presents a strong case for proponents of BMD who seek a policy which both protects against attack, but also does not require an escalation into what might become global nuclear war. Russia continues to have a strong public distaste for Western BMD initiatives, presumably because proprietary operative BMD systems could exceed their technical and financial resources, and therefore degrade their larger military standing and sense of security in a post-MAD environment. Russian refusal to accept invitations to participate in NATO BMD may be indicative of the lack of an alternative to MAD in current Russian nuclear-war-fighting strategy and capability. [edit] Post Cold War The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in June 2002, claiming that the limited national missile defense system which they propose to build is designed only to prevent nuclear blackmail by a state with limited nuclear capability and is not planned to alter the nuclear posture between Russia and the United States. While relations have improved and an intentional nuclear exchange is increasingly unlikely, the decay in Russian nuclear capability in the post Cold War era has had an effect on the continued viability of the MAD doctrine. An article by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press stated that the United States could carry out a nuclear first strike on Russia and would "have a good chance of destroying every Russian bomber base, submarine, and ICBM." This was attributed to reductions in Russian nuclear stockpiles and the increasing inefficiency and age of that which remains. Lieber and Press argued that the MAD era is coming to an end and that U.S. is on the cusp of global nuclear primacy.[4] However, in a follow up article in the same publication, others criticized the analysis, including Peter Flory, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, who began by writing "The essay by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press contains so many errors, on a topic of such gravity, that a Department of Defense response is required to correct the record."[5] Regarding reductions in Russian stockpiles, another response stated that "a similarly one-sided examination of [reductions in] U.S. forces would have painted a similarly dire portrait". A situation in which the United States might actually be expected to carry out a "successful" attack is perceived as a disadvantage for both countries. The strategic balance between the United States and Russia is becoming less stable, and the objective, technical possibility of a first strike by the United States is increasing. At a time of crisis, this instability could lead to an accidental nuclear war. For example, if Russia feared a U.S. nuclear attack, Moscow might make rash moves (such as putting its forces on alert) that would provoke a U.S. preemptive strike.[5] An outline of current United States nuclear strategy toward both Russia and other nations was published as the document "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence" in 1995. [edit] Official policy To continue to deter in an era of strategic nuclear equivalence, it is necessary to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no plausible outcome would represent a victory or any plausible definition of victory. To this end and so as to preserve the possibility of bargaining effectively to terminate the war on acceptable terms that are as favorable as practical, if deterrence fails initially, we must be capable of fighting successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would suffer costs that are unacceptable, or in any event greater than his gains, from having initiated an attack. – President Jimmy Carter in 1980, Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy [edit] Criticism and challengable assumptions Critics of the MAD doctrine note the similarity between the acronym and the common word for mental illness. The doctrine of nuclear deterrence depends on several challengeable assumptions: Second-strike capability A first strike must not be capable of preventing a retaliatory second strike or else mutual destruction is not assured. In this case, a state would have nothing to lose with a first strike; or might try to preempt the development of an opponent's second-strike capability with a first strike (i.e., decapitation strike). No false positives (errors) in the equipment and/or procedures that must identify a launch by the other side. The implication of this is that an accident could lead to a full nuclear exchange. During the Cold War there were several instances of false positives, as in the case of Stanislav Petrov. No "rogue states" will develop nuclear weapons. Or, if they do, they will stop behaving as rogue states and subject themselves to the logic of MAD. No shelters sufficient to protect population and/or industry.
TIMELESS EARTH Peter Kolosimo 1974 Chapter NINETEEN Page 192 "The Indians say that thousands of years ago their ancestors travelled on great golden discs which were kept airborne by means of sound vibrations at a certain pitch, produced by continual hammer-blows. This is not so absurd as it may seem. Vibrations of a set frequency may have had the effect of increasing the atomic energy of gold, thus reducing the weight of the disc and enabling it to overcome gravity.'
O NAMUH BELOVED CHILDREN OF THE LIGHT BLESSED DREAMER OF DREAMS AWAKEN THE ETERNAL MOMENT BIRTHS ITS FUTURE
|
 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
.gif)
