"deduction and induction are additional examples of a duality and balance in nature."
Duality and balance in nature? Ah, so that's why I have two balls? Except... If there's deductive, inductive, analytical and a few others I'm aware but too lazy to write ... does that mean I supposed to have more that two balls?
In all fairness, I know they're considered to be opposites of each other. But... I don't know, maybe it's me, but 'duality and balance in nature' sounda a bit like you've just reguritated something you've heard an occultist say without any real understanding of what you heard. Would you like some? I'll give you a couple of hints, even if you don't. From the occult perspective duality is an illusion and the fact we see duality where none really need exist is the problem. See systems thinking for more details. Oh, and dont mistake symmetry for duality. Starfish are symmetrical. Secondly, balance kills without a little wobble. For example, if you were in a pit of quicksand and the weight of the quicksand was perfectly 'balanced' to your strength -- this would have the predictable and certainly inevitable consequence of you being totally fucked. To get a different consequence, you need a third force -- someone throwing you a line or having a convient branch overhead.
"I have a degree in computer engineering among other degrees. I had to design a microprocessor back in the day and write an assembler for it. Your degree in C.S. or whatever has more bearing on the subject at hand than any of my degrees or whatever."
Sure... OK then, describe to me the structure of a half-adder and bit about how it works (in your own words, I will search for a source) and I'll believe you. And when was 'back in the day?' I go back to the 6502. Google Hartnell 6502 I'm sure there's got to be some rambling of mine about it left somewhere online. (Aw, fuck it. Here's the remains of a wiki where I was documenting the little bugger for fun https://6502.wikidot.com)
I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm warning you that I can spot fakes and frankly challenging you to put up or drop the pretense. Essentially, I'm calling you on your appeal to authortive knowledge (which ain't holdin' up so far)
"Yes, I've questioned this idea and just about every other idea that has ever been presented to me"
Uh huh. There's not enough time in anyone's life to do that. You're being presented with many more ideas than you probably recognize. How many ideas do you think came prepackaged in the last two sentences? They don't come prepackaged with 'idea' stamped on them. Google 'presupposition'
What actually happens is you learn to listen to the structure of whatever's being said and you eventually learn overall structures and those tip you off as to whether it's worth examining. It's a system of heuristics. If you wanna get a handle on this sort of thing a great place to start is NLP's Meta Model and the endlessly fun Milton Model.
There's code repositories all over the place where the code isn't searchable by Google. Nice of you to have this code since you wrote it so long ago, 'back in the day.' Alright, I get the gist. If you can't so something REALLY AMAZINGLY simple like describing a half adder -- then I offer a second challenge -- comment your code. (THIS code is strangely lacking the comments one would expect to turn in as an assignment.)
You said this was implemented on a FPGA? WhyTF is it in C?
"
Programming Challenges
Despite the advantages offered by FPGAs and their rapid growth, use of FPGA technology is restricted to a narrow segment of hardware programmers. The larger community of software programmers has stayed away from this technology, largely because of the challenges experienced by beginners trying to learn and use FPGAs.
Abstraction
FPGAs are predominantly programmed using HDLs (hardware description languages) such as Verilog and VHDL. These languages, which date back to the 1980s and have seen few revisions, are very low level in terms of the abstraction offered to the user. A hardware designer thinks about the design in terms of low-level building blocks such as gates, registers, and multiplexors. VHDL and Verilog are well suited for describing a design at that level of abstraction. Writing an application at a behavioral level and leaving its destiny in the hands of a synthesis tool is commonly considered a bad design practice
You know, this was a better point than I first realized. You really can't question science, you can only question your beliefs about science. I get the bit about development, but didn't address or because it was extraneous.@FraterMoloch:
Has it ever occurred to you to question science, or is your faith in it too strong for that? ;) I'm just kidding.
It's just occured to me that the distiction between 'dogma' and 'science' is a completely moot point. 'Science' isn't counter to dogma. Skepticism is.
Anywho, enjoy. ;)
http://www.newscientist.com/round-up/rewriting-the-textbooks/
I can't question science but i can question my own beliefs and experiences... If i don't, i won't developing myself..
The 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth are not dogmas, they're simple rules-of-thumb. Where in the Satanic Bible does it say "Thou shalt be stupid and follow my word absolutely, especially the 11 rules!"
If someone thinks that they're absolutes and follows them as if they were absolute, so what? Some people are stupid and use things in ways not intended by the inventor. The "use as directed" warning is printed on thousands of products for a reason.
"2. Open your eyes that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!
3. For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!
4. I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments.
5. Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!
6. I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: The TRUE prince of evil - the king of slaves!
7. No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling dogma shall encramp my pen!
8. I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness."
This kind of skepticism also applies to Satanism is obvious to me, from the above. But LaVey didn't stop there. There's this gem from the 9 Satanic Statements:
"Satanism represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!"
Auchtung!! The No.1 Satanic noob error is failing to apply Satanism to itself.
You now follow the dogma about the dogma about the satanic 11 rules not being dogma...
"Have you question yourself why LaVey actually states it...?"
I've put a lot of thought into figuring out the whys and wherefores of Satanism. I've questioned myself as to whether or not I understand what was meant. I can't question myself as to why LaVey states anything -- he's the person to ask, not me.
And BTW, see the Achtung! I added to my post above yours.
Yes, I've tried to 'get in LaVey's head' and think I'm fairly accurate about what he was up to with Satanism given a lot of things he says, especially when he's given to be striaghtforward about it: https://www.churchofsatan.com/...owerful-religion.php . Even so, I'm not 100% sure that 100% of everything I think about LaVey and his reasons. So, what I'm about to tell you is both a highly educated guess and an opinion I'm fairly confident about -- but hey, I didn't know LaVey and he's not around to ask questions anymore. Do you get that?
As to why he included "undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deciet" as one of the Satanic Statements, let me start by quoting two others:
Responsibility to the responsible instead of psychic vampires.
Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, and has kept it in business all these years.
There's this quirk in human psychology where someone projects onto other people responsibility for their own behavior, make it someone else's fault, and blame them entirely. It's all about NOT taking responsibility for their own life and accepting the consequences of their own actions. In short, they're self-righteous hypocrites who always blame the other guy and never accept responsibility for anything.
So, in writing those statements, he was making that quirk explicit and offering a clue to get out of the hypocrisy trap. Think about it: hypocrisy is what defiles wisdom. Another way to put it is "you don't know shit unless you can smell your own shit."
It may surprise you to know that LaVey's on record saying that some Christians were already Satanic but didn't call themselves that. He was well aware that Jesus and Satan agree more than most people realize and that the real problem is the self-righteous hypocrisy of the adherents -- not the religion itself. Notice he says that Satan is the best friend the CHURCH has ever had, not the religion.
Here's Jeezer himself on the subject:
Matthew 7:5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Luke 6:41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
And here it is echoed in an epistle:
Romans 2:1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
This from Burton Wolfe's introduction to the Satanic Bible:
"Anton LaVey, called “The Black Pope” by some of his followers, realized that two decades ago when he was playing organ for carnival sideshows. “On Saturday night,” he recalls, “I would see men lusting after half-naked girls dancing at the carnival, and on Sunday morning when I was playing the organ for tent-show evangelists at the other end of the carnival lot, I would see these same men sitting in the pews with their wives and children, asking God to forgive them and purge them of carnal desires. And the next Saturday night they’d be back at the carnival or some other place of indulgence. I knew then that the Christian church thrives on hypocrisy, and that man’s carnal nature will out no matter how much it is purged or scourged by any white light religion.”
Note again that the church is specified, not the religion. The 'scourging by white light religion' is basically a process of shaming which causes denial, repression, and projection. (See Freud's ego defense mechanisms) This happens at church, and by people who go to church to people who don't go to church. Well, some churches. I admit that. Most of them are dens of self-righteous hypocrites, but not all. Some of them are more to the gnostic side, but they're the minority, and generally are cool peoples.
What difference would it make if he was or wasn'r a Satanist before starting the CoC?
You consistently abuse the term you use: free thinking. You don't think. You choose from options handed to you. You regurgitate the most banal arguments which I've heard a thousand rimes befoe and will a thousand times since.
Mind reading is an NLP meta-model violation:
"Mind Reading occurs when someone assumes they know what another person is thinking or feeling without direct evidence. Mind Reading can be recognized when someone claims to know something without obvious evidence, claims to know how another person feels, or claims to understand another person’s internal state without explanation. It is the assumptions that are made about another persons thoughts or opinions, without the other person specifying it."
It wouldn't surprise me if this goes right over your head even when explained well -- as it went sailing over your head so effortlessly the first time.
Crowley was no right hand magician, if u ever read Magick in Theory and Practice u would know that. Kabbalah has nothing to do with Christianity. U got everything mixed up. Satanism existed before LaVey and Christianity only helped it along by actually codifying what it is (even if wrongly), at least it got it right in that it said that it is everything that is un-Christian - which is absolutely true, for it, unlike Christianity is a religion (if u want to call it that) for the strong, while Christianity is for the weak and the meek, as it continuously points out.
'The Satanic Bible' was published in 1969 AD and is the first public manuscript written with a clear presentation of Satanism from a non-Judeo-Christian perspective from a human that claims no ties of divine gnosis from the being Satan but to define a path for the rebel and the joker in human terms.Do you have any sort of proof besides your own lips? Historical facts for instance?
SL MaGregor Mathers and Aleister Crowley translated books such as the Goetia that deal with demonic magic in the 19th century magic but they are still written through the lense of Qablistic magic which is Judeo-Christian based (yes, Crowley was a Right-Hand Path magician although a bit eccentric).
After LaVey's initial Church of Satan organizations such as the Temple of Set, Order of Nine Angles (O9A), and the Greater Church of Lucifer (still in its infant stage) emerged. Each of these organizations (their websites are easily found via Google and you can purchase their books quite easily as well on amazon.com) state that Satanism (or Setianism for the Set folk) is defined by individual experience and perception:
"Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams" Anton Szandor LaVey, the Satanic Bible, Second Satanic Statement.
"What matters is the individual developing, from their own years-long (mostly decades long) practical experience, a personal weltanschauung: that is, discovering their own individual answers to certain questions concerning themselves, life, existence, the Occult, and the nature of Reality." Anton Long on Authority, omega9alpha.wordpress.com
"The Temple of Set is an organization with one task: to provide an environment in which individuals discover, pursue, and realize their unique purpose and destiny." Patty A. Hardy IV*, High Priestess of Set, xeper.org
"There are two major criteria for being considered a true lord (or lady) of the left-hand path: deification of the self and antinomianism." Stephen E. Flowers, Lords of the Left-Hand Path
"As individuals, we are accountable for all of our actions, good and negative and must be aware of this sobering fact. There is no governing deity or invisible authority which has this responsibility over us." Michael W. Ford, Jacob No, Jeremy Crow, Hope Marie, Wisdom of Eosphoros.
In the King James version of the Bible only in Isiah 14 does it name 'Lucifer' but in the side notes it says "or day star" and all of the references do not name Satan or Lucifer. In Daniel the fall refers to stars, in Revelations it refers to a dragon, but Lucifer nor Satan are named. When it comes to the idea that Satan and Lucifer are the same that is etymologically incorrect being that 'satan' is Hebrew for adversary and 'lucifer' is Latin for light bearer.
'The Satanic Bible' was published in 1969 AD and is the first public manuscript written with a clear presentation of Satanism from a non-Judeo-Christian perspective from a human that claims no ties of divine gnosis from the being Satan but to define a path for the rebel and the joker in human terms.Do you have any sort of proof besides your own lips? Historical facts for instance?
SL MaGregor Mathers and Aleister Crowley translated books such as the Goetia that deal with demonic magic in the 19th century magic but they are still written through the lense of Qablistic magic which is Judeo-Christian based (yes, Crowley was a Right-Hand Path magician although a bit eccentric).
After LaVey's initial Church of Satan organizations such as the Temple of Set, Order of Nine Angles (O9A), and the Greater Church of Lucifer (still in its infant stage) emerged. Each of these organizations (their websites are easily found via Google and you can purchase their books quite easily as well on amazon.com) state that Satanism (or Setianism for the Set folk) is defined by individual experience and perception:
"Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams" Anton Szandor LaVey, the Satanic Bible, Second Satanic Statement.
"What matters is the individual developing, from their own years-long (mostly decades long) practical experience, a personal weltanschauung: that is, discovering their own individual answers to certain questions concerning themselves, life, existence, the Occult, and the nature of Reality." Anton Long on Authority, omega9alpha.wordpress.com
"The Temple of Set is an organization with one task: to provide an environment in which individuals discover, pursue, and realize their unique purpose and destiny." Patty A. Hardy IV*, High Priestess of Set, xeper.org
"There are two major criteria for being considered a true lord (or lady) of the left-hand path: deification of the self and antinomianism." Stephen E. Flowers, Lords of the Left-Hand Path
"As individuals, we are accountable for all of our actions, good and negative and must be aware of this sobering fact. There is no governing deity or invisible authority which has this responsibility over us." Michael W. Ford, Jacob No, Jeremy Crow, Hope Marie, Wisdom of Eosphoros.
In the King James version of the Bible only in Isiah 14 does it name 'Lucifer' but in the side notes it says "or day star" and all of the references do not name Satan or Lucifer. In Daniel the fall refers to stars, in Revelations it refers to a dragon, but Lucifer nor Satan are named. When it comes to the idea that Satan and Lucifer are the same that is etymologically incorrect being that 'satan' is Hebrew for adversary and 'lucifer' is Latin for light bearer.