Philosophy Now Forum

Just a post on some information about the Rosicrucians.

Traditional Rosicrucian Vowel Intonations performed by Ed Lee in the King's Chamber: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_R3Rhcz90
The Hollow Earth Blogspot - The Rosicrucian Mystery of V.I.T.R.I.O.L.: http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... f.html?m=0
Wikipedia - Rosicrucianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism
The True Story of the Rosicrucians by Tobias Curton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cOov-PCHs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uwimrQDeuI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gpziPIpiow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBx6RYZ4L-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzucM7PEgI

Good video lecture (divided into 12 parts) by Dr. Robert Gilbert of the Vesica Institute explaining the Rosicrucian Science of Initiation.

(1/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WO2rT8M8OI
(2/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YGzl4NDajE
(3/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJ9kHYHkuc
(4/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I04K_3tvVUE
(5/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSIvKx7KBmw
(6/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-RiUHtSWZ0
(7/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rpWI3bvDWY
(8/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M9J1eODZCc
(9/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHG6HZcI02w
(10/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBFjKDa1io
(11/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TErIEZhpE0c
(12/12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54PulkvpaUk

The Rosy Cross as well! You certainly are the full packet.

Arising_uk wrote:The Rosy Cross as well! You certainly are the full packet.

Arising, I'm not going to fight or argue with you at all, but really I believe that you should act more mature and open minded at least in looking at this information. It really gets annoying when you and others just insult people that don't "fit" into their paradigm, and I believe that it's really a crises in the Philosophical world where many "big time" philosophers say that they don't "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.

.



THANK YOU for saying this in your post above.



It really gets annoying when you and others just insult people that don't "fit" into their paradigm, and I believe that it's really a crises in the Philosophical world where many "big time" philosophers say that they don't "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.


The quote above is really well written, NEEDED to be said and needs to be repeated every so often around here..



Thank you.





....................................................







.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



THANK YOU for saying this in your post above.



It really gets annoying when you and others just insult people that don't "fit" into their paradigm, and I believe that it's really a crises in the Philosophical world where many "big time" philosophers say that they don't "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.


The quote above is really well written, NEEDED to be said and needs to be repeated every so often around here..



Thank you.





....................................................







.

Thanks - and nice picture, too. What fight was that in that picture?

.





The fight is of a regular guy who might not "fit" into the regular paradigm exactly but who is not afraid of mixing it up with the many "big time" philosophers who think that they "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.



The GIF is a portrait of you...



Well done my friend.




.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.





The fight is of a regular guy who might not "fit" into the regular paradigm exactly but who is not afraid of mixing it up with the many "big time" philosophers who think that they "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.



The GIF is a portrait of you...



Well done my friend.




.

So making me "the underdog" means that you're making fun of me?

It is very quite irritating and pathetic that a forum that claims to champion philosophy and actual philosophical discussion actually houses immature, hubris, and arrogant people, that have no answers and think that metaphysics means to just drag on the same old questions of "what is being?", "what is truth?", and so on. It is nothing more than a game of messing with other's minds and has absolutely no real meaning or merit.

WanderingLands wrote:Arising, I'm not going to fight or argue with you at all, but really I believe that you should act more mature and open minded at least in looking at this information. It really gets annoying when you and others just insult people that don't "fit" into their paradigm, and I believe that it's really a crises in the Philosophical world where many "big time" philosophers say that they don't "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.

Why do you think I haven't looked at such things?

I'm open to more philosophical metaphysical topics, have you read Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant?

For more up-to-date stuff what about Zuse, Fredkin, and Bostrom?

Arising_uk wrote: Why do you think I haven't looked at such things?

I'm open to more philosophical metaphysical topics, have you read Leibniz, Spinoza and Kant?

For more up-to-date stuff what about Zuse, Fredkin, and Bostrom?

I believe I have overlooked what your philosophy when me and you were in disagreement at the Metaphysical Papers thread (you said that my stuff was "neo-mystic new-age numerology babble".

P.S. I have looked at Leibniz, but not Spinoza or Kant. I haven't heard of those other three names, either.

WanderingLands wrote:I believe I have overlooked what your philosophy when me and you were in disagreement at the Metaphysical Papers thread (you said that my stuff was "neo-mystic new-age numerology babble".

My apologies, maybe a bit harsh, not babble but pretty much the rest and a common concern of those who want the world to be governed by unknown secrets for some reason or other.

P.S. I have looked at Leibniz, but not Spinoza or Kant. I haven't heard of those other three names, either.

So what did you think of Leibniz? And when you say 'looked at' do you mean you read him?

Arising_uk wrote:My apologies, maybe a bit harsh, not babble but pretty much the rest and a common concern of those who want the world to be governed by unknown secrets for some reason or other.

So what did you think of Leibniz? And when you say 'looked at' do you mean you read him?

Well, thanks for the apology. I would also like to apologize myself for I guess assuming that you were against Metaphysics.

Anyways, I believe Leibniz to be very great and unfortunately more overlooked than that of Newton and others. The only actual work that I've read was "Monadology", and I read it online. I looked at a video about Leibniz and learned about him the most there.

YouTube - Secret History 19/42: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W8fA0Z2cRE

WanderingLands wrote:... I believe that you should act more mature and open minded at least in looking at this information. It really gets annoying when you and others just insult people that don't "fit" into their paradigm, and I believe that it's really a crises in the Philosophical world where many "big time" philosophers say that they don't "know everything" and are not open to more metaphysical topics.

Most big time philosophers agree with Rene Descartes who said: "Nothing so strange can be thought, that hasn't been said by some philosopher or other." It is essential to philosophy that it's practitioners are open minded if they are to understand what anyone else is on about. Ultimately, the reason there are so many different philosophies is that it is difficult to prove any of them; they are essentially stories and any one of them which isn't demonstrably false, might be true. People generally support their philosophy for geographic and cultural reasons, much as they do football teams, except with a better organised and more violent hooligan element.
The thing is, interesting as other people's stories are, the fact that they are coherent doesn't make them true. Whatcha got apart from 'It makes sense'?