CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
«PREV34567NEXT
God Options
 
theAlkēmist
#81 Posted : 3/19/2019 10:20:26 PM

Alchemist


Posts: 215
Joined: 06-Feb-2019
Last visit: 13-Mar-2020
Location: Everywhere
LongTimeWaiting wrote:
Are we even talking about God anymore? I'm finding it difficult to jump into the discussion, there's seem to be more attacking than discussing. I'll just do a stand-alone post, putting in my theory...

I always found it odd how we've made huge advancements in mostly everything except religion. When it comes to religion we seem to be stuck in the past. Perhaps we don't know enough to make a conclusion or even a hypothesis that's on the right track. Perhaps we need to advance in other fields to narrow down if there is a god or if there isn't, and what this god could even be. Is there only one god? Multiple gods?

Some of you touched upon what I believe in, how we ourselves are the gods of the universe. Maybe not directly, but indirectly.

Say god is real, does "he" exist in our universe, or in a separate place outside the universe, or both? If he exists in this and only this universe, throw everything I'm about to say out the window. If he exists in this universe and another or just another universe, would you say the universe he originated from is the original universe and the original life? If that's the original universe, could you say that this universe is merely a simulation of that universe? If we're not in the original, then this must be a simulation of the original? Or can we say god exists outside this universe and his universe is nothing like ours, but since he's existing that must be life? If he's in the original life, this must be simulated life?

If you say we're in a simulated universe created by god, does that mean that we're able to simulate a universe or is that power unique to god? Some say one day we'll be able to simulate life, so maybe it isn't unique to god.

Let's say we do one day simulate a whole universe. What will the species in that universe think? That they were created by a god, just like we do? But we specifically know who created that simulated universe, it was us. Perhaps the god we are looking for is us. Perhaps humans are the end all be all, even if life exists on other planets, who is to say it hasn't evolved to be considered human?

Now, even I could see how biased this viewpoint is. It's extremely narcissistic, but that's how my reality has always been. One man or woman will never be able to tell you something in definite answers when it comes to things like this, but we could piece together our theories to create a connected theory.

All I know is, whenever I find an answer, a million questions are created and I'm thrown into a vicious cycle of what the hell is this place, and the only way out is to obtain more knowledge through every field of study.


Well fascinatingly I have a philosophical hypothesis similar to this ontological mentality. If we use the theoretical physics theory of Retro Causality Time-Loop, it suggests time is not linear, the past, present, and future are happening in the now. The future has ‘already developed’, but the present actions are constantly changing the future (which has already happened). Fundamentally, all timelines are constantly influencing each other. It is inevitable that at our current rate of technological advancement we will upload our consciousness virtually. If this eventuates, then it has inherently occurred in the future, which is in the now, congruent to Retro Causality Time-Loop, and who’s not to say we won’t integrate our consciousness’ collectively as one. Think of the intellectual ramifications being free from biological urges, emotions, etc. Pure peace and bliss, ironically the dogma of Eastern spiritual disciplines. If we become this intelligent entity, I’m sure we will have the means to create a simulated reality (which evidence in physics is pointing towards). So isn’t it a possibility, in the distant future, we have actually created ourselves in the past (collectively as one, God) in a time-loop?
“The art of alchemy is like a psycho-spiritual multi-vitamin and mineral elixir secreted by the cosmic mind to help heal the collective madness that has infected our world.”

“If the prima materia contains poison, then the more virulent the poison, the more powerful are its potential healing qualities. Accomplished alchemists are able to transmute the poison into a healing nectar.“
 

Psychedelic news, articles, interviews and art from the DMT-Nexus and other sources.
 
xss27
#82 Posted : 3/19/2019 10:38:39 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 286
Joined: 07-Jul-2018
Last visit: 01-Nov-2020
Location: Londinium
endlessness wrote:
That's not how it works. Your argument is based on faith, because you have no evidence to back up your dismissal of relativity and quantum physics, you even say yourself you DONT want to learn about it, you just somehow "know" it's wrong. THAT is the faith you are criticizing.. Science is the exact opposite, It is not based on faith, it is based on reproducible evidence, on accurate predictions which can be checked over and over again with many different experiments, on mathematical models that can help us interact with the world, regardless of the faith of the experimenter.


You want and demand evidence to satisfy your own conditions. I can't give anything that will meet your requirements, you know that (*). Respectfully I counter your assertion my position is based on faith and say it is actually your position (assuming you believe relativity theory) that is based on faith - space-time is an abstraction that can not be reproduced anywhere except on paper, that is an act of faith. Irrespective of whether the mathematics appears to make sense, to which I have not denied it does, you still can only infer its existence and can't actually prove its existence beyond an abstraction.

I have no issue with the mathematics appearing to be congruent with experiment and observation. I just refuse to accept an abstraction that to my mind and intuition appears incorrect.

(*) Any example I could pull up which puts relativity into doubt you will deny anyway. Personally I feel the best angle from which it can be legitimately attacked, for your conditions, is from within astrophysics. When galaxy rotation was observed to be inconsistent with what we expected to find given a relativistic gravity based paradigm, what happened.. they just invented dark matter to plug the gaping mathematical hole. This is deliberate mathematical fudging and again it is faith on your part to presume dark matter, dark energy, and any other thing that can't actually be measured directly exists. Observational data was clearly inconsistent with what we expected to find.

Quote:
Despite pointing at others for it, it seems you have an impenetrable dogma, which is, "special relativity and quantum physics are wrong". Everybody else here is basically saying "if they are shown wrong by experimentation/data, then we will happily update our models". If that is not the case and you are not dogmatic about it, then please do tell me, what kind of evidence would it take for you to change your mind?


There is nothing that is going to convince me that time dilates or that space has any sort of geometry that can be distorted. Not until you can make either one of those variables tangible enough to be observed or measured directly, which is an impossibility because they are abstractions created for the convenience of man. You may be satisfied by mathematical proof alone, I will never be - mathematics should explain what we see, not what we imagine we see.
 
DmnStr8
#83 Posted : 3/19/2019 10:46:11 PM

Come what may


Posts: 1698
Joined: 08-Mar-2015
Last visit: 23-Mar-2019
Could be some lawyers around here! Confused

Interesting to hear these theories all the same. You guys have thought about this stuff quite a bit. Thanks for the entertainment!
"In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link." ~Carlos Castaneda
 
theAlkēmist
#84 Posted : 3/19/2019 10:50:38 PM

Alchemist


Posts: 215
Joined: 06-Feb-2019
Last visit: 13-Mar-2020
Location: Everywhere
DmnStr8 wrote:
Could be some lawyers around here! Confused


Lmao
“The art of alchemy is like a psycho-spiritual multi-vitamin and mineral elixir secreted by the cosmic mind to help heal the collective madness that has infected our world.”

“If the prima materia contains poison, then the more virulent the poison, the more powerful are its potential healing qualities. Accomplished alchemists are able to transmute the poison into a healing nectar.“
 
LongTimeWaiting
#85 Posted : 3/19/2019 11:16:28 PM

DMT-Nexus' #1 member


Posts: 112
Joined: 08-Apr-2017
Last visit: 21-Feb-2021
Location: The Supermarket
theAlkēmist wrote:
So isn’t it a possibility, in the distant future, we actually created ourselves in the past (collectively as one, God) in a time-loop?


Yes, this is what I have thought for a while now. A lot of theories come and go within me, but I always tend to stick with the notion that we somehow created ourselves. Again, sounds egotistical, but who wouldn't want to be their own creator?
 
LongTimeWaiting
#86 Posted : 3/19/2019 11:19:14 PM

DMT-Nexus' #1 member


Posts: 112
Joined: 08-Apr-2017
Last visit: 21-Feb-2021
Location: The Supermarket
dragonrider wrote:

If god exists, then "it" does not exist within our current universe. Or rather, then it is not directly part of the content of this universe. God may be the ink and paper with wich the code of the universe is written, but it is not included in the code itself.

Why would that be so?
Because that would contradict the way our universe works.

If god would make things happen here, then god would have to be a physical phenomenon. It would need to have physical properties.
While the whole notion "god" exceeds all things physical.


I agree with you, I hope my post wasn't implying I think god is physically present within our universe.
 
0_o
#87 Posted : 3/20/2019 7:05:06 PM

ⁿ°ⁿ↔ρ└ªγ³r κhªrªκτ³r


Posts: 337
Joined: 19-Aug-2018
Last visit: 29-Jun-2019
Relativity has withstood testing.
Time dilation has been observed.
Timespace isn't abstract.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
Evidence is everything.
Conjecture is nothing.
 
hug46
#88 Posted : 3/20/2019 10:01:16 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1837
Joined: 07-Sep-2012
Last visit: 18-Jun-2021
I believe in god. I just don't don't really know what it is, or how to put it into any kind of explainable context. This doesn't really matter at all. It is a very simple situation for me. It's only when people start trying to explain the how, the who, the why, the when, et cetera et cetara that things start to unravel and everyone starts getting upset with each other.
 
Mindlusion
#89 Posted : 3/20/2019 10:07:01 PM

Chairman of the Celestial Divison

Extreme Chemical expertChemical expertSenior Member

Posts: 1341
Joined: 21-Jul-2010
Last visit: 14-Jun-2021
Location: the ancient cluster
I apologize for being abhorrent, I regretted posting that immediately after. Must have really not been in a good mood that day. It came out very ugly.

The difference I was trying to make is this, that single post might have made me come off as this highly rational pragmatist, prickly particle physics thumper, but really I am very much opposite of that. I have my own perceptions and ideas of reality, my own metaphysics. And I also believe there are some massive holes (hah) in the standard model, especially on the astronomical scale. I believe much of it is due to distortion, no matter what we do everything we see is refracted and limited to the small window of our perception. Any self-respecting, truth seeking physicist would also agree. In my own experience, the more I learn about physics, in various experiments, or the discovery of new properties (super-conductance for example) , and in educating myself in the hypothetical mechanisms, the deeper my own perception and my own personal meta-physics becomes, and appreciation of the sheer beauty that exists in this reality.

More often then not, we think we understand something without fully understanding the concept.
As Richard Feymann once said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" and of course, this applies not just to quantum mechanics, but anything and everything.

Our personal lack of understanding of that concept needs to comes first, before you are able dismiss the concept itself. Otherwise you won't even know what you are dismissing, you cannot search for the truth if you do not look. No stone must be left unturned. This is the mechanism of science.

Of course the theories themselves are constantly evolving, and they will never be complete. We have no way of knowing of what is a dead end or not unless we spend the time and energy, to do our due diligence. It's a tough journey, imagine the scientists of centuries ago, spending their entire lives searching and uncovering information, developing understandings and theories that today we know are obsolete, though not entirely wrong. It's our only way forward. If it weren't for them we wouldn't be here today.

In my experience only small percentage be the close-minded, defensive of their particular field/pet-theory, so I understand where you are coming from with the 'dogma'. Your perception of this is skewed, similar to how the mainstream media regularly broadcasts uncommon occurrences, for the reason that it sells, and it gives the perception that it happens much more often than it does to the people who limit themselves to that one source of information.


xss27 wrote:

Direct current and alternating current, our practical manifestation of electricity for human needs, were invented/discovered long before relativity theory. Neither system requires relativistic thinking for their operation, though mathematically I think there is some interchangeable thing going on between some of the classical formulas associated with electrical theory and special relativity.

That is not the issue. The crux of the matter is that we're talking about theories, which are subject to alteration, revision, superseded or even abandonment. The question you posed should be directed at those who hold those theories to be impenetrable dogma. I have no issue with questioning anything and everything, if I did I wouldn't be doubting relativity theory.

'Good-enough' and 'best we have' is a different matter. I freely admit that the theory may fit the reality picture we have, but that doesn't mean the theory is actually correct or not in fundamental error. That is the problem with theoretical physics that relies too heavily on mathematics. I nor 99% of others can dissect the mathematics because we're not trained to that level, so we rely on the simplified explanations provided in order to make sense of the theory and it's those explanations that do not, to my mind, appear to be correct.

I can't offer an alternative theory or paradigm, all I can say is I do not believe space-time to exist, that it is a metaphysical abstraction arising from mathematical speculation and that it exists solely on paper. No one can directly observe space-time, or dark matter/energy, only the supposed effects of these abstractions. I say that whilst the mathematics may explain elements of what we see in experiments, that doesn't mean the theory itself is correct.



You want and demand evidence to satisfy your own conditions. I can't give anything that will meet your requirements, you know that (*). Respectfully I counter your assertion my position is based on faith and say it is actually your position (assuming you believe relativity theory) that is based on faith - space-time is an abstraction that can not be reproduced anywhere except on paper, that is an act of faith. Irrespective of whether the mathematics appears to make sense, to which I have not denied it does, you still can only infer its existence and can't actually prove its existence beyond an abstraction.

I have no issue with the mathematics appearing to be congruent with experiment and observation. I just refuse to accept an abstraction that to my mind and intuition appears incorrect.

(*) Any example I could pull up which puts relativity into doubt you will deny anyway. Personally I feel the best angle from which it can be legitimately attacked, for your conditions, is from within astrophysics. When galaxy rotation was observed to be inconsistent with what we expected to find given a relativistic gravity based paradigm, what happened.. they just invented dark matter to plug the gaping mathematical hole. This is deliberate mathematical fudging and again it is faith on your part to presume dark matter, dark energy, and any other thing that can't actually be measured directly exists. Observational data was clearly inconsistent with what we expected to find.


There is nothing that is going to convince me that time dilates or that space has any sort of geometry that can be distorted. Not until you can make either one of those variables tangible enough to be observed or measured directly, which is an impossibility because they are abstractions created for the convenience of man. You may be satisfied by mathematical proof alone, I will never be - mathematics should explain what we see, not what we imagine we see.



What I can't understand is where your assertions are coming from. You seem to be very inconsistent in your reasoning. Why do you accept some theories on faith but not others? Where do you draw the line and why? Help me understand your reasoning and why you draw your conclusions. I don't need you to give me evidence I would just like to hear how you came to these conclusions. It's a more productive to discussion rather than just stating "I believe this is true, don't ask me why, and nothing can change my mind".

I can't understand why you believe one thing but deny another, especially when the two are directly related to another. You seem to idolize Tesla, so lets start with electromagnetism.

Quote:
Direct current and alternating current, our practical manifestation of electricity for human needs, were invented/discovered long before relativity theory. Neither system requires relativistic thinking for their operation, though mathematically I think there is some interchangeable thing going on between some of the classical formulas associated with electrical theory and special relativity.


Actually, yes, it does. This is what led to the discovery of relativity and the speed of light.
The mathematics here is very simple, and the phenomenon its available through direct observation and measurement of the observed phenomenon. And in every case, mathematics our first hint into problems what is wrong with the theory.

A moving electric charge generates a magnetic field, and you can determine the strength of this field using Maxwell's equations. These are the fundamental equations of electromagnetism, fundamental to electricity in direct and alternating current. At any speed, from any frame of reference, the field is measured to be the same.

The problem came when you tried to use Maxwell's equation to calculate the strength of the magnetic field from a different frame of reference. If you measure the strength of a magnetic field weather you are stationary, or travelling on the highway, or taking into account the earth is moving 67000 mph, the measured field strength is always the same regardless of velocity.

Quote:
mathematics should explain what we see, not what we imagine we see.


This is exactly what were doing here.

If you calculate the field strength using Maxwell's equations, you get drastically different results on whether you were measuring from the car speed or from a static position.
This meant there was something fundamentally wrong with the assumptions underlying classical mechanics ( that velocities add together v1+v2 = v total, and that distance and time do not depend on velocity).

So if you assume the universe makes sense, that you should be able to calculate the magnetic field irrespective of position and velocity, since both of these are changing rapidly all the time as we circle around the sun and the sun circles around the galaxy and so on and so forth. Just assume basic consistency between these fundamental statements.

The transformation that satisfies these axioms, called the Lorentz transformation, requires one parameter, a specific velocity. That value has to be a combination of the fundamental constants of Maxwell's equations. For the laws of electromagnetism to work as we measure them, we need a finite maximum speed.

Effectively, this transformation predicts a cosmic speed limit, and it just so happens to to define the speed of electromagnetic waves. It is the speed of light, but first it is the speed of causality. It is the maximum speed of cause and effect, the interaction or relationship between two massless entities. And it is the only speed those massless entities can travel.

The very existence of mass, space, and time, tells us this speed limit must be finite. They are unavoidable conclusions if you accept the laws of electromagnetism.
As a result, the speed of causality is constant for all reference frames, the only thing that changes with velocity is the observed speed and change of events from another reference frame. So the speed remains the same, but the light must travel more distance, depending on the velocity relative to the observer.
All of these predictions are directly observable and measurable using lasers, no faith required, no imagination necessary. And recently one of the final predictions of these conclusions was measured, the long awaited detection gravitational waves. So much so the actually discovery wasn't even that exciting, because of how predictable it was in accordance with everything that came before.

If this speed was infinite, all locations would be communicating simultaneously, there would be no cause and effect, meaning there would be no time, there would be no distance, no space. An infinite here and now.

By contrast, if one were travelling at the speed of light, it would take an infinite amount of time to witness any two entities in the universe to communicate with one another, and correspondingly an infinite amount of distance. This is why massless particles, in isolation, do not experience time or space. Reality as we know it only exists when it is in communication with itself. Cause and effect. Through this interaction arises mass, space and time. They are emergent phenomena.

I don't understand why you wouldn't agree with quantum mechanics either, if you like tesla so much.
He said "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."

Quantum mechanics is exactly this, this is what we observe. I think you are misunderstanding the term particle. The energy isn't composed of physical particles, not like you imagine. It just a useful description to describe the quantized nature of waves. All particles are indeed waves, they have frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes, resonances, they carry energy, and they are delocalized across a field. They just so happen to also carry indivisible, quantized packets of information, properties like charge. And not just the traditional photons and electrons, physical atoms, molecules... Which are also (more obviously) quantized. When we want to look at molecules, we place them inside a powerful super-conducting electromagnet, to polarize the atoms inside the magnetic field, it is then tuned to the specific frequency of a to a particular atom, to generate a state of resonance and measure the corresponding signal. This means the molecules aren't little particles balls stuck together in a specific manner, they are a set of superimposed quantized interdependent vibrating fields, interacting in a specific reproducible manner. I spend hours doing this everyday.

Many other beautiful phenomenon rely on these same principles. Super-conductance works due to a resonance, between the electron waves and the phonon (crystal lattice vibration) waves of the metal or material. When the crystal lattice is vibrating at the right harmonic frequency of the electron field, the electrons can 'surf' the phonon waves, and move with zero resistance, infinite current.
I'd think for a Tesla worshiper you'd be more into that.

This is why I really think if you took a deeper look, took the time to really understand the concepts, I think you would find you like it. Its empowering to be a contrarian but its not very fulfilling.
Expect nothing, Receive everything.
"Experiment and extrapolation is the only means the organic chemists (humans) currrently have - in contrast to "God" (and possibly R. B. Woodward). "
He alone sees truly who sees the Absolute the same in every creature...seeing the same Absolute everywhere, he does not harm himself or others. - The Bhagavad Gita
"The most beautiful thing we can experience, is the mysterious. The source of all true art and science."
 
DmnStr8
#90 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:04:51 PM

Come what may


Posts: 1698
Joined: 08-Mar-2015
Last visit: 23-Mar-2019
Mindlusion.. you sound like a 12 year old lashing out! HAHA! Man oh man.. you are a grumpy person.

PFFFFTTT!!!! Razz
"In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link." ~Carlos Castaneda
 
hug46
#91 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:23:09 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1837
Joined: 07-Sep-2012
Last visit: 18-Jun-2021
DmnStr8 wrote:
Mindlusion.. you sound like a 12 year old lashing out! HAHA! Man oh man.. you are a grumpy person.

PFFFFTTT!!!! Razz


What? Are you drunk?? The guy has just apologised. How in any way can his last post be described as grumpy or adolescent? Are you sure that this isn't sour grapes over the entity god discussion a few weeks ago, when he called you out for being childish?
 
DmnStr8
#92 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:26:42 PM

Come what may


Posts: 1698
Joined: 08-Mar-2015
Last visit: 23-Mar-2019
hug46 wrote:
DmnStr8 wrote:
Mindlusion.. you sound like a 12 year old lashing out! HAHA! Man oh man.. you are a grumpy person.

PFFFFTTT!!!! Razz


What? Are you drunk?? The guy has just apologised. How in any way can his last post be described as grumpy or adolescent? Are you sure that this isn't sour grapes over the entity god discussion a few weeks ago, when he called you out for being childish?


Yep.. just being childish again. You guys are so dang serious sometimes. Relax. And in my opinion.. mindlusion is grumpy often. Just my opinion. I can get my quick poke in no matter how childish it is.
"In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link." ~Carlos Castaneda
 
hug46
#93 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:44:07 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1837
Joined: 07-Sep-2012
Last visit: 18-Jun-2021
DmnStr8 wrote:
hug46 wrote:
DmnStr8 wrote:
Mindlusion.. you sound like a 12 year old lashing out! HAHA! Man oh man.. you are a grumpy person.

PFFFFTTT!!!! Razz


What? Are you drunk?? The guy has just apologised. How in any way can his last post be described as grumpy or adolescent? Are you sure that this isn't sour grapes over the entity god discussion a few weeks ago, when he called you out for being childish?


Yep.. just being childish again. You guys are so dang serious sometimes. Relax. And in my opinion.. mindlusion is grumpy often. Just my opinion. I can get my quick poke in no matter how childish it is.


That is why i have never really understood a lot of the psychedelic "community". They are so forthright in giving out sage advice whenever possible, then show themselves up to being complete egotistical dicks. But i guess that we're all human when it comes down to it.
 
DmnStr8
#94 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:47:13 PM

Come what may


Posts: 1698
Joined: 08-Mar-2015
Last visit: 23-Mar-2019
hug46 wrote:
DmnStr8 wrote:
hug46 wrote:
DmnStr8 wrote:
Mindlusion.. you sound like a 12 year old lashing out! HAHA! Man oh man.. you are a grumpy person.

PFFFFTTT!!!! Razz


What? Are you drunk?? The guy has just apologised. How in any way can his last post be described as grumpy or adolescent? Are you sure that this isn't sour grapes over the entity god discussion a few weeks ago, when he called you out for being childish?


Yep.. just being childish again. You guys are so dang serious sometimes. Relax. And in my opinion.. mindlusion is grumpy often. Just my opinion. I can get my quick poke in no matter how childish it is.


That is why i have never really understood a lot of the psychedelic "community". They are so forthright in giving out sage advice whenever possible, then show themselves up to being complete egotistical dicks. But i guess that we're all human when it comes down to it.


Go ahead, get your dig in. Why don't you mind your own business anyway. This wasn't even about you. Mindlusion is a big boy.. I think he knows I was just jabbing him. Lots of jerks around here.. incuding you sometimes hug46... hey we all have bad days.. he called me out and I get a little jokey jab in and now I am a dick?! Ha!

Fine.. I'm a dick! Don't care.
"In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link." ~Carlos Castaneda
 
hug46
#95 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:52:54 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1837
Joined: 07-Sep-2012
Last visit: 18-Jun-2021
DmnStr8 wrote:
ow I am a dick?! Ha!

Fine.. I'm a dick! Don't care.


You missed out the egotistical bit. I called you an egotistical dick.
 
DmnStr8
#96 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:53:53 PM

Come what may


Posts: 1698
Joined: 08-Mar-2015
Last visit: 23-Mar-2019
hug46 wrote:
DmnStr8 wrote:
ow I am a dick?! Ha!

Fine.. I'm a dick! Don't care.


You missed out the egotistical bit. I called you an egotistical dick.


Quite right! Sorry. I am an egotistical dick!

Feel better?
"In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link." ~Carlos Castaneda
 
hug46
#97 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:55:54 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1837
Joined: 07-Sep-2012
Last visit: 18-Jun-2021
DmnStr8 wrote:

Quite right! Sorry. I am an egotistical dick!

Feel better?


Yes! Thanks! Much better!
 
DmnStr8
#98 Posted : 3/20/2019 11:56:58 PM

Come what may


Posts: 1698
Joined: 08-Mar-2015
Last visit: 23-Mar-2019
hug46 wrote:
DmnStr8 wrote:

Quite right! Sorry. I am an egotistical dick!

Feel better?


Yes! Thanks! Much better!


YEAH!! And all was right in the world again!!!!
"In the universe there is an immeasurable, indescribable force which shamans call intent, and absolutely everything that exists in the entire cosmos is attached to intent by a connecting link." ~Carlos Castaneda
 
theAlkēmist
#99 Posted : 3/21/2019 1:26:08 AM

Alchemist


Posts: 215
Joined: 06-Feb-2019
Last visit: 13-Mar-2020
Location: Everywhere
Lol, egotistical dick. My new catchphrase.

On another note thank you Mindilusion for that!
“The art of alchemy is like a psycho-spiritual multi-vitamin and mineral elixir secreted by the cosmic mind to help heal the collective madness that has infected our world.”

“If the prima materia contains poison, then the more virulent the poison, the more powerful are its potential healing qualities. Accomplished alchemists are able to transmute the poison into a healing nectar.“
 
hug46
#100 Posted : 3/21/2019 8:41:41 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1837
Joined: 07-Sep-2012
Last visit: 18-Jun-2021
theAlkēmist wrote:
Lol, egotistical dick. My new catchphrase.

On another note thank you Mindilusion for that!


I am sorry for contributing to the derailment of your thread. And DmnStr8 i am sorry for calling you an egotistical dick. I still think you were being one, but no more so than i am at times. Shouldve kept my mouth shut...
 
«PREV34567NEXT
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.131 seconds.