A Space (for A Place)

There is a space for everything, and everything in a place.

A space for a place, and a place for space.
A space for war, and a place to battle.
A space for peace, and a place to be in truce.
A space for fertility, and a place to be fruitful.
A space for desert, and a place to abandon.
A space for alpha, and a place to begin.
A space for omega, and a place to end.
A space for construction, and a place to contract.
A space for destruction, and a place to expand.
A space for sound, and a place to speak.
A space for silence, and a place to keep quiet.
A space for provision, and a place to preserve.
A space for move, and a place to remove.
A space for generation, and a place to copulate.
A space for degeneration, and a place to pollute.

Whatever it is in space, has already been done in any place,
For in a space of wickedness, a place for judgment must be placed.

Hence, there is a space for every activity, but a place to call each activity into account.

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Trispace, Deutercycle 21, 12 R.L. E.C. (Solar East)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

1 vote

Consciousness 2 (what Is It?)

consciousness 2 (kon she’us – nes, noun)

 

  • Biological automaton thought that is instinctive.
  • Instinctual conditional automaton thought(s), depending on specific species.
  • Conscious (able to automatically instinctively thought-out, without sentience).
  • Material automaton, cerebral neural, thought process, and patterns—that are utterly not a distinct capacity of the immaterial mind (sentience/awareness).
  • A misnomer when consciousness 1 is adapted and applied as one in the same with the-Mind (sentient).
  • Thought as an instinct:  Thought as somatic.
  • Alertness, but no awareness:  Awake, but not aware.
  • Recognition, but no realization:  Training, but no learning.
  • Observant, but no insight:  Territorial, but no jurisdiction.
  • Memory, but no experiences:  Knowledge, but no acknowledgment.

 

Related forms

 

con-sci-ousadjective

con-sci-ous-lyadverb

non-con-sci-ousadjective (automaton instincts that are operative without an automatic material cerebral thought process; e.g., the multicellular small genus fresh water animal, the Hydra, has nerve cells without a well defined cerebral neural brain:  And any unicellular organism; e.g., the Diatom(s), a major group of algae).

un-con-sci-ousadjective (when the cerebral neural brain is in a slumber state from the automatic instinctive thought process – sleep).

half con-sci-ousadjectivehalf con-sci-ous-lyadverbhalf con-sci-ous-nessnoun (when the cerebral neural brain is in a trance state during slumber, with the automatic instinctive “para-thought” process – dream).

 

Origin:

 

Tetraspace, Servacycle 24, 11 R.L. E.C. (Solar North): ENG consciousness 2.

Gregorian:  August 16, 2017.

 

Word Origin & File:

 

consciousness (2)

11 R.L. E.C., acknowledged and produced of Modern ENG, consciousness 2; from con (L. prefix con-, meaning with, or together) + scious (L. suffix -scius, meaning having knowledge; but in this case, having automaton, instinctive, and “conditional” knowledgeable thoughts) + ness (O.E. suffix -ness, meaning state, or quality of) = consciousness (i.e., a state of being with thought and knowledge qualities).  The modern coagulum social state of “collective consciousness,” understands and make applications when combining the concept of consciousness as one in the same with the-Mind—or with sentient—or with awareness.  The matter of the fact is, consciousness (which is, thought process and patterns) functions without awareness (which is, the-Mind—sentient):  Such as all animal species, that are capable of thought process and patterns, as well as memory, but possesses no awareness—they are the species with mindless brains—and solely the human species are the one in possession of mindful brains.  The-Mind is immaterial; therefore, unable to possess any formation, patterns, or materials:  Thoughts, however, is a material process of the cerebral organ, that gradually develops patterns as impacts and stimulants are encountered with; and therefore, not a distinct capacity of the-Mind.  Consciousness is then purely and solely somatic—and the-Mind is solely psychosomatic, when the automatic instinctual thought process and patterns are maneuvered, and manipulated by the distinct will of the-Mind.  Therefore, consciousness solely process instincts that are stimulated: and the-Mind solely actuates “distincts” that are experienced.  The plural sense of distinct (e.g., distincts) is used to differentiate the contrasts between the instincts (such as, fear, memory, observance, affection, etc.) and the distincts (such as, sentience, will, intent, experience, etc).  And since the-Mind is solely immaterial, sentience (awareness) is then not a product of the material theory of evolution.

*

[Definition Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Tetraspace, Servacycle 24, 11 R.L. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

1 vote

Jubiliah (a Story)

*

[Story Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Monospace, Servacycle 21, 11 R.L. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Unknown, but modified by Sabiazoth]

0 votes

The Center of the Universe?

*

[Picture Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Heptaspace, Servacycle 20, 11 R.L. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Unknown, but modified by Sabiazoth]

0 votes

The Male Man

*

[Picture Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Heptaspace, Servacycle 20, 11 R.L. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Unknown, but modified by Sabiazoth]

0 votes

Trump Administration

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Trispace, Servacycle 9, 11 R.L. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Sabiazoth]

0 votes

Distinct Vs Instinct

The Distinct

The coagulum of our modern social consciousness are prone to understand, and dispose, the concept of distinct to be characteristically connoted—referring to it as characteristics that are unique, peculiar, special and “distinguished.”  This is also applied to with animals, when people personify them as persons, and therefore, make them as distinctive.

The etymology of the word distinct derives from the Latin word, distincten, and it was used to make concise distinctions (not just to distinguish characters from one to the other), but mostly, to make distinctions between species—that is, to specify “action of distinguishing” between different creatures, according to their kind(s)—a separation/discrimination in nature and physiology (which was determined that the human species were distinct—greater than any other species—because of us solely possessing the-Mind’s awareness).  In late Latin, distinctivus, later was applied and attributed to differentiate unique traits and skills in different characters; and even in ranking positions/life (e.g., rich vs royalty).  Once the demarcations between different species were removed, especially, through the introduction of the empirical theory of evolution, even animals are now reasoned among humans that many of them too possess awareness (the-Mind).

The matter of the fact is, that the only thing (or aspect) that makes anything distinctive, is the-Mind (sentience/awareness), so that the-Mind itself is distinctive, and not instinctive.  And since many characteristics and personalities are biologically inherited, they are then not distinctive, but instinctive.  What does this then mean?

Since many characteristics and personalities are instinctively shared among many (in any species), they cannot be distinct, for there are many two characters alike:  However, when it comes to the-Mind, there are no two minds alike.  How’s that? You may ask…  Although inherited physiological characteristics and personalities are shared, how we experience them with our minds is how we (as the human species) become distinctive in comparison to every other mindless (unaware) species.

The immaterial mind of the human material brain, is equipped with seven distinctive actuating tools:  Besides from its major actuating tool (which is sentience—awareness), there is the distinct actuating tool of experience, which is only exclusive to each of its possessor—and this tool is actuated when the-Mind experiences the-Mind itself—solely then enabling the human species to become aware of internal and external experiences—thus making every single mind of the human species, unique (distinctive).  So without a mind, no creature can animate their inherited characteristics and personalities, distinctively.  Hence, the manner and disposition that one is experiencing his/her own inherited character and personality, in full awareness, is what makes him/her distinguishable.  If it wasn’t for the-Mind itself, the human species would be like any other species—just instinctive.

The Instinct

When it comes to the instinct, it can be very confusing with what is distinct.  As written in a few of my previous articles, when consciousness (which is nothing more but material cerebral memory and thought patterns) is applied as one in the same with the-Mind (which is purely sentience—awareness), that is a definite misnomer:  For thoughts and memory retainers are purely instinctive, and can function and be automatically stimulated even without the-Mind (i.e., in the absence of awareness).  That’s right!  Just like all the animal species that most all can think instinctively to survive, automatically, without the-Mind.  Any animal creature doesn’t need to be aware to function with his/her own thoughts and memories (and with some humans too, if their minds somehow become mindless—in sleep, sort of say—while their memory and thought patterns are gradually being developed)—they are automatically stimulated by their five senses that are impacted by anything (e.g., hearing, looking, tasting, touching and smelling).

The concept and application of personification in animals, nature and things, is what causes confusion between what is distinct, and what is instinct.  For example, the aphorism and axiom practice in personifying an idol (e.g., an idol that portrays a god/goddess) does not make the idol itself a person—the same in comparison to personifying an animal (e.g., a canine/feline pet, etc.) does not make it a person; so that the application of personification does not make a creature, nature (or thing), distinctive.

Even though there are variable different characteristic and personality instincts, that does not make them distinct, but only different—and here also lies the confusion when the concept of different is applied as one in the same with distinct.  A creature can be different in instinct, but without the-Mind, that creature cannot still be distinctive, but only different.  Just like flowers: a rose is different in appearance in comparison to a daisy—but they’re just different, and not distinctive:  You may want to personify the rose and the daisy as both being separately distinctive; nevertheless, the application and disposition of personification does not make a person (distinctive)—and likewise with all animals.

Distinctive Manifestations

Unlike all the animal species, the human species are the sole ones to manifest creations and concepts in substances, ideology and reality.  Most people are unaware that most and all of human creations are solely possible because of psychosomatic utilization and distribution—other than just our impacted automatic thought and memory instinctive patterns, because of the-Mind, only humans can also manipulate and maneuver our instinctive thoughts with distinctive influences.  And even though the human instincts are far more superior than all the animal species, without the-Mind, they would still be just instinctive, and not distinctive.

Because of the immaterial mind that’s solely in all humans, other than automatically instinctively impacting changes, we can also willfully and intently influence changes, distinctively.  This is evident in our ability to implement chronology (e.g., menology, chronometry, chronograph/chronometer, etc.)—to charge gender specifics (e.g., cisgender, transgender, agender, etc.)—to utilize thoughts (e.g., rumination, imagination, subvocalization, attribution theory, etc.)—to order identity (e.g., ego, solipsism, ipseity, individualism, name, etc.)—and to influence with the figurative heart (e.g., inclination, intuition, emotions, subjectivity/subjectivism, conscience, faith, etc.) is testimony that such manifestations would not be possible if it weren’t for the sole ability of the human psychosomatic capacity—to materialize in cynreality.

In conclusion, nothing is so distinctive without the-Mind—so that the-Mind itself is distinctive—from and by the-Mind itself.

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Pentaspace, Pastucycle 26, 11 R.M. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

0 votes

The Extroverold Alien (Psychosomatically)

My instinct of surprise astounds my psyche-being on the more that IT comprehends its somatic form, of its own personage being.  The more understanding of my dividuality is achieved, the more of my dividuality becomes even more of a dividual.  My being use to think that my form of extroverold alien being was purely psyche (all psychological, and none physiological).  However, with the understanding, as well as with my internal experience(s), of achieved knowledge, insight and wisdom, has impact a different (or more in depth) comprehension of my social and psyche alien-being.

Now that my being has realized the reality that thought process (consciousness) in all species is instinctive, and not distinctive (of the-Mind), IT has come to understand that since the psyche-being (e.g., the aspect of the personage phenomenon of the-Mind) is immaterial, and therefore, unable to retain mental formation(s), all that is then accumulated in explaining and identifying my extroverold alien is somatic—cerebrally recorded in a biological physical containment (the material brain) in its memory and thought patterns—whilst my psyche-being remains formless; and to no wonder then, why IT remains uniformed and immutable—as well as impervious to external changes.

Indeed then, when consciousness is used and applied as one in the same with sentience (the-Mind’s awareness), that is a definite misnomer.

Consciousness is nothing more but a thought process that exists in all species with a brain (vertebrate/invertebrate)—a cerebral/nerve-spinal retainer that functions instinctual thoughts and memories without awareness.

Simply Put…

If my immaterial mind was somehow removed from my material brain, and put into a new different material brain, my immaterial mind would then start anew, all over again (e.g., in tabula-rasa), and totally become a new understanding and comprehensive person—unless, however, my previous biological thoughts and memories pattern were restored in the new material brain.

And—if our minds were possible to jump into someone’s else fully developed brain, we wouldn’t be able to carry with us the thought and memory patterns from our own previous brains—and the memories and thought patterns in the other material brain, that our immaterial mind jumped into, would then become estranged (alien) to us.

So the figurative belief in “astral projection” may be impossible to achieve—for one would immediately forget everything, once one’s own mind would astral project from his/her own cerebral body.

Further, the metaphorical belief in “disembodied consciousness” is truly fictional.  Since thought and memory process (consciousness) is purely biologically cerebral—in physical embodiment—it itself then ceases to exist once our animating bodies expire.

So if it were still possible that our minds would depart after the death of our physical animating container (cerebral body), we would depart not knowing anything—for our minds departed from what was biologically achieved, and now terminated.

In Conclusion

My status of being the extroverold alien person is then not solely psyche, nor solely somatic, but a correlation of both the immaterial (psycho) and the material (soma), in paralleled condition(s):  Simply put, purely psychosomatic.

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Hexaspace, Pastucycle 21, 11 R.M. E.C. (Solar North)]

[Image: Sabiazoth]

0 votes

Alphaversary (what Is It?)

alphaversary (ăl-fă-vur-suh-reenoun)

  • The commemoration of a specific initial start, in a particular lunar space: in accordance to Hebrew lunar calendar.
  • An observance of an original commencement (the very first start).
  • The celebration of the first inception, before any other following inceptions.

(adjective)

  • The lunar spatial memorialization of an aboriginal: in accordance to Hebrew lunar calendar.
  • The lunar spatial celebration of a primary start (and not of subsidiary beginnings): again, in accordance to Hebrew lunar calendar.

 

Related forms

al-pha-ver-sa-ries, plural noun (misnomer; inappropriate suggestion; inaccurate).

(There are no plural to this concept; for every alphaversary that may exist, is different in comparison to each other: e.g., no two alphaversary are alike).

 

Origin:

Monospace, Vigercycle 6, 11 R.M. E.C. (Solar West): ENG alphaversary.

 

Word Origin & File

alphaversary

11 R.M. E.C., from Modern ENG, alphaversary:  From alpha (GK prefix alpha-meaning, “first in a sequence”) + versary (LT suffix –versare, meaning, “to turn”) =To turn the attention to an aboriginal (e.g., to memorialize/commemorate a primary/first start.”  “Alphaversary” entails the commemoration, or celebration, of an initial start that’s primary in comparison to any other beginnings that is following its own commencement.  For example, if the biblical first man, Adam, was still alive, he would’ve been celebrating his own “alphaversary,” for he would have been the initial primary start of the human species: any other after him, would be subsidiary (assisting) beginners of the human species, in celebration of their own anniversaries instead.  Another example, is that the biblical Satan is the alpha of The Rebellion; any other after him, are the following assisting demons (and humans) in rebellion against the biblical God.

Buddha Shakyamuni (born c. 6th–4th century BCE in Lumbini, India) is the founder, or the initial start (the alpha), of “Buddhism:”  Any other after him, are subsidiary (assisting) beginners in Buddhism.

Since my own psyche-being (Sabiazoth) is the initial start in being the ‘no-self’ (the ‘not-I’), that’s solely chaste to ‘The-Self’ (the-Ego/the ‘I’), the concept and application of celebrating my “alphaversary” of my initial aboriginal being is accurate, because unlike any other ‘no-self’ (anatta), my ‘no-self’ (anego) has no former self whatsoever:  Therefore, only my being can be the anego, of my kind.

Since my own psyche-being is also the sole initial start in being the extroverold alien, once again, celebrating my “alphaversary” of my aboriginal extroverold being is accurate; any other followers would be subsidiary (assisting) beginners in “extroverold beings,” celebrating anniversaries instead.

Not anyone can just apply the concept and application of “alphaversary.”  Unless anyone has an initial aboriginal commencement to any first start, celebrating one’s own alphaversary will be a total inaccurate disposition:  That would be a total misnomer; and possibly make one obstinate to continue in such disposition.  The concept of Alpha entails the initial start, and not just any other following starts, thereafter its aboriginal root.

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Monospace, Vigercycle 6, 11 R.M. E.C. (Solar West)]

[Image: Unknown]

0 votes

Eternal (beyond Creation)

The-World(s) is taken by the idea/faith of obtaining everlasting existence.  Whether one is an atheist or religious, it seems that the concept of eternity is mostly within us all:  You can hear it and read it just about everywhere (in songs, movies and books).  This is evident just by the simple expressions that most would agree that love is everlasting.  And if two individuals get intimately involved, and fall madly in love, they mostly utter to each other, “My love for you is forever.”  And you don’t have to be religious to believe that a part of you goes on living for all eternity, even after death.  One way or another, most people feel that they’re going to live forever, somehow.

Everlasting existence seem feasible for most believers.  Most of our ancestors expressed eternal desires in variable myths, legends and scriptures: some of which you may have heard about; like the Fountain of Youth (about a Spanish explorer, Ponce De Leon, who went on seeking a fountain known to have restored youth for anyone who would drink of it, or bathe in it); the Elixir of life (also known as the Philosopher’s Stone, was a potion sought out by Alchemists, for it was believed to give eternal youth to its drinker); the Food of the Gods (about a specific required kind of food that only the gods were allowed to eat on a regular basis, in order to have maintained their immortality: even man would have gained immortality had they too ate from it); the Quest of the Holy Grail (about the chalice of which Jesus and His disciples drank from, during the Last Supper—that anyone finding such a chalice and drinks from it, would be granted an extraordinarily long life—almost eternal); the Shangri-La (about a hidden perfect place, often associated with long life, health and happiness—inspired by a 1933 novel, “Lost Horizon,” by James Hilton); and of course, the scriptural Garden of Eden (about the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—having lost their conditions of everlasting existence, due to both of their disobedience toward their Creator—Genesis 2:17; 3:2,3,6,7).

Boarders - Black infinity

Many people have sworn and testified that they had out-of-body experiences: either by astral projection/travel (e.g., when one’s own astral body/spirit leaves the physical body to travel in an astral plane, invisibly); or the belief in the immortality of the soul (e.g., when one’s own soul/spirit departs after the death of the physical body, and goes on living forever in a specific region of the universe, whatever it may be called); and the near death experiences (e.g., when at the brink of death—being clinically dead—one unusually experiences departing outside of the physical body, but recounts the experiences after his/her clinical recovery—seeing a tunnel of light is usually the common mental experiences in these cases).  With these kind of testimonies, it is to no wonder why many tend to believe that some aspects of the human species are everlasting after all.

Many medical/surgical physicians that has witnessed their recovered clinically dead patients—recounting their near death experiences—have taken into their own account to test out those mental experiences, by placing permanent objects on top of high shelves in case a patient encounters a near death experience—these objects are not normally seen by those standing around it, but only be seen by those departing from their clinically dead bodies (or, from a top view only).  Upon their patients clinical recoveries, many were asked by their physicians if they looked down at their dead bodies as they departed, and their answers were almost always yes:  And if yes, the physicians would then ask if they noticed a top shelf in the room, and their answers were almost always yes:  And if yes again, upon asking if they see anything on top of the shelf, they all almost always claimed it was empty—and the very little that answered that they did see something, they claimed they couldn’t remember.  Mind you that these objects were placed unbeknownst to those clinically dead recovered patients: and not one test was ever satisfied.

In regards to astral projection, there are no solid grounds of such existences, simply because such astral encounters are solely partisan—never collectively:  And for those who claimed to have astral travel in couples, or in groups, when they’re separated and isolated from each other to be questioned, each recounted astral adventures are always utterly different in the end.

And in regards to the theory of possessing the immortality of the soul, such belief is purely suggestive, that can only be mastery within the figurative heart: perhaps such a faith is the result of the fear of death, or just the desire to live forever.  Regardless of what may have inspired such a faith, the theory of the immortal soul within humans can only be self-swaying, so that one can pow it as a truth to one-self, with no requirements of proof whatsoever—but in a collective framework, it still becomes effervescently real.  The back-patting in most support groups can turn many beliefs into high spirits.

It seems that the-World(s) is permeated with the belief that we don’t die after all; and that to most, death is but an illusion.  Some even suggest that our own experiences in consciousness becomes like an imprint in the cosmos of things: that when our physical bodies die, our memories and experiences don’t vanish, but remain as disembodied consciousnesses, merging forever into a whole consciousness of the universe.  In spite of all these wonderful hopes of eternity, we need to know exactly what really determines eternity (if it ever began at all); but most importantly, can eternity even be created to begin with?

Boarders - Black infinity4

Everlasting Animus

purpose

Almost all people desire not to die—because most worry about leaving their loved ones behind—or being left behind by their deceased love ones.  For some, the dread of losing all that was achieved and obtained becomes devastating.  It is then understandable the need to believe in an afterlife.  Some are comforted with the idea that their dead loved ones are somewhere in heaven, with God or in the universe; and somehow, that they’re being watched and guided by them from up above.  It’s so hard to accept death because it’s so final.  Nevertheless, some do welcome death due to constant illness, suffering, poverty, natural disasters, segregation, crimes and injustices.  Some have been sick all their lives that they welcome death with open arms, and even with open hearts.  So if life is a blessing to some, death becomes their enemy: but if life is a curse to some, death then becomes their friend.  Regardless whatever death may mean to any individual, the end is only the result of what begins.  If nothing begins, nothing then dies.

The etymology of the concept of everlasting stems from the early 13th century—it began its use as a colloquial expression to explain something or someone who would last very exceedingly (like the mountains, the earth, and the stars), but not necessarily eternal: so that, if we were to somehow obtain everlasting life, that would only mean that we’ll just live longer than our usual current lifespans; and maybe long enough to see the sun finally come to an end from its also very exceedingly (everlasting) existence:  So that in the end, all will eventually reach to its finale.

Even my own being once understood that the concept of everlasting existence was one in the same with eternity: but it wasn’t until a little after IT finished my article, “Chronology (a State Of Time),” that IT then realized something was different about the term everlasting.  Hence, the need to write this article to correct my former article arose, while simultaneously learning the concept of everlasting for what it truly is.

Shadowed 03

Combining the colloquial expression of everlasting with the formal concept of eternity, only confuses the whole concept of creation.  According to my research on some of the several biblical encyclopedias and essays my being found in the Internet, IT noticed that many theologians desegregated the ideas of everlasting with eternal, thus obscuring its origin from the Hebrew word, olam (עולם—oh-LAHM), from their sacred dead sea scrolls, which means eternal: but most Judaism leaders (rabbis) impersonate olam with eternity; and you’ll soon know the reason why they needed to establish a quasi-olam.  But there are other Hebrew expressions that may just coincide with the colloquial expression of everlasting; such as, לְעוֹלָם (leh-oh-LAHM), meaning forever; and לָנֶצַח (lah-NEH-tsahkh), meaning forever as well; and לְתָמִיד (leh-tah-MEED), meaning for always.  These Hebraic expressions, however, are connected to plural chronological concepts when referring to something, or someone, lasting for a long duration of times—(פעמים—times) as in, times long-lasting; or, lasting for long times; and even in, lasting for generations to come:  Maybe twice the time, or thrice the time, or quince the time: etc.).

Transparent_Red_Deco_Banner_PNG_Picture2a

The God of Hebrews is always referred to as the Eternal God, and not as the Everlasting God: but just as most rabbis intentionally work so hard to hide and protect the true name and pronunciation of God from commoners, they also take advantage in the obscurity of the Hebrew word olam, in order to further protect their God from the gentiles even deeper—hence, the need for a quasi-olam interpretation.  And they’ve even adopted the spelling format G_d for their God, pretentiously suggesting to the outsiders that the title “God” is the actual name of their Creator, and that by spelling it with an underscore to replace the letter ‘o’ between ‘G’ and ‘D,’ they’re protecting His name; and thus really diverting gentiles from trying to find out the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which is actually God’s real name.  Nonetheless, the English colloquial transliteration of the Hebrew olam confuses the true concept of creation in a great deal, and adds to the illusion that a substance can be created as eternal from scratch.  Let’s first consider the forensics of everlasting in contrast to eternal—to see if this is even biblically possible.

When you segregate the prefix from the suffix of the word everlasting, you will notice that the word in of itself becomes transparent, and their obscurities begin to vanish.  The O.E. prefix æfre (ever-), is referred to as, “at any time:” and the O.E. suffix –lasting, is referred to as, “continuing in time:” combining them whole, the concept then becomes clear, which means that one continues in time, at any given time—lasting, therefore, for a very exceedingly duration in times and generations to come:  And we all know that anything/anyone that initially start in time is transient, and not eternal.  In comparison, the etymology of the word eternal stems from the Latin aeternus: from this root, the word eternal is inscribed with aging that’s lasting and enduring; hence, suggesting that eternal is one in the same with everlasting.  But that is where the error liesthat eternal too is aging, eventually.

In the Hebrew word olam (eternal), its meaning is bounded with ranks, as to whether the ranks are higher or lower in position, power, degree and condition.  In some cases, olam is closely fixed with the arrangement of rows—connected and organized.  Also, depending on the nature of the object and subject referred to, olam is nearly matched with class of regions, or dimensions.  For example, the word paternal is biblically considered to be a rank that is atop maternal (for the head of household is the husband); so together, arranged in rows, paternal would be placed as a higher administration above maternal.  The prefix e-, of the word eternal, indicates that something or someone is out of (or, outside) of whatever its suffix may be:  It’s pretty much almost the same with the prefix ex-, as in the word external—which, in this usage, the word is referring to a region or dimension that is outside of the one compared to.  In the sense of Eternal, as in olam, the word itself is referring to something or someone who is the apex of ranks—the incomparable line of arranged rows—the being outside/beyond of ephemeral existence and time—and the supreme magnitude and authority of condition, power and position.  The sense and concept of eternal (olam) is therefore without beginning and end (outside and beyond of alpha and omega).  With this in mind, it is also important to understand that the suffix of the English word eternal, which is “ternal,” stems from the Latin word ternus; and it means, “at a time,” sequentially (e.g., one at a time: two at a time: three at a time: etc.):  This then indicates that the God of Hebrews (aka, the biblical God) is outside/beyond of time in all of its entirety; hence, ‘He’ is eternally outside of time, but not as an eternity inside of time.  You may be wondering what is the difference between eternal and eternity?

The etymology of the word eternity stems from the Latin aeternitatem (in the subject of a verb, it is the Latin aeternitas)—in Hebrew, the word eternity is written as נצח (NEH-tsahkh): and they’re both pretty much the same in the meaning of the word, which is referred to something or someone of aging substance that was turned (granted) to live forever within infinite timeThe Eternal that can deservedly and righteously then grant eternity (or, eternal life—life that’s outside of ephemeral existence, but still not outside of time in its entirety: because although one may be granted never to reach death, one’s own condition of origin is impossible to be changed as remaining alive without origin) to any creation and creature.  So even though we can be granted eternal life by the biblical God, we’re still not the eternals, but only the eternities (i.e., the origins without finales—beginners without death—life without end).  We can now clearly see that the concept of eternal is not one in the same with the concept of everlasting; not even in the least.  With all this in mind, and with the granting of eternity being possible by the biblical God, can eternity also be created from scratch?  Can it be, innate?

Boarders - Black infinity3

Generating Eternity

tree of knowledge

In order to answer both questions, we have to go back to the very biblical start of mankind—a story that almost all of us are familiar with—of Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden.

We’re almost all familiar that the biblical Creator, along with its First Creation (that’ll be the, us, in the scriptures—Genesis 1:26), created the first man and woman in their likeness; and that the entire earth, and all of its treasures, foods and creatures, were given to them to have under, and to rule over (Genesis 1:28-30):  All expect for two particular trees that were in the middle of the garden (which were the tree of the knowledge of good and bad; and the tree of eternal life—Genesis 2:16, 17; 3:1-3, 22, 24).  Since they both disobeyed God by eating of the tree they were told not to eat from, lest they die, death was the end result of their judgement for their disobedience (Genesis 3:16-19).  In accordance to this biblical circumstance, the capacity for eternal life was then never literally introduced in our DNA structure—Adam never got to bite the fruit of the tree of eternal life.  Hence, there is no actual hidden fountain of youth within us, but only the view (the imagination) of living forever:  Based on this unfortunate biblical occurrence, you can definitely then forget about the belief of humans possessing immortal souls, that depart after our deaths—it’s not happening—thanks to the first man, Adam.

Shadowed 03

The two trees in the middle of the garden were put there for probably several reasons: one of them is to establish who is the ruler and law-maker above them: and secondly, probably to eventually had them first both eat of the tree of knowledge (but, only when God said they could):  And if they did well with that knowledge they both acquired (in accordance to God’s will, that is), they probably would have been given permission to go and eat of the tree of life (eternal life) and live forever—as their reward to have passed their probationary period to God’s satisfactory.  But they relied in their own understanding instead, and went on and eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, and both died for it.  According to the bible, because of their disobedience, the only thing that our generation now generates is death, as opposed to eternity (Romans 5:12).  But the bible indicates further that all is still not in vain; because eventually, at an appointed time—and through the propitiatory sacrifice of his First Creation (Jesus Christ)—God will restore mankind to ‘Him,’ just as ‘He’ had intended to be close with mankind (one on one) from the beginning—John 3:16; Revelation 21:1, 3, 4; Psalms 37:29.

Transparent_Deco_Banner_PNG_Picture2a

Because of all the obscurities that lies with the concepts of everlasting, forever, eternal and eternity, many people believe that since Adam and Eve were created perfectly, they had to have been created with eternal life from scratch.  Au contraire: for if that were so, the tree of eternal life would not have been positioned in the middle of the garden, along with the tree of knowledge.  The matter of fact is that everything that’s created from scratch, is automatically created as ephemeral, or it wouldn’t be a creation to begin with.  The only thing that determines what is the start, is the end.  It is impossible to freshly create something without end, for that would then entail to create something also without beginning:  And you can’t begin what is without a beginning; just the same as you can’t create something without origin—nor can something, or someone already with origin, can be turned into one remaining alive without origin—this kind of divine effort from such an attempt (that even if God wanted to), will only result in death.  So anything that starts from scratch, is automatically conditioned as temporal lasting.  Therefore, it is impossible for the biblical God to create something, or someone, without end from square one.  And it is also impossible for the God of the bible to change the condition of something/someone with origin, into a condition of something/someone without origin, while still remaining alive—that’s a limitation that solely concerns The Eternal.

Now, if Adam and Eve would have obeyed God in the Garden of Eden, to then have been rewarded with eternal life for their patience and trust in God’s command and understanding, we instead would have been generated with eternity:  So that even though eternity can’t be created from scratch, it can, however, be procreated (innately pass on) from our ancestors that were turned into eternity for our infinite generations to come; forever.

Even the Primary Alpha (the start of all creations—Jesus), was no exception to the rule when being created from scratch by God itself.  Even he had to have earned the capacity to exist as the eternity god, way before he was sent down to earth.  Just like Adam too, who would’ve remained as the Subordinate Alpha (the start of mankind) had he endured as obedient to God:  But unlike the main alpha, Adam failed us and became the end of us all.  So it had to had taken the initial alpha (the first start) to offer him-self as a sacrifice, to replace the following alpha (the second start) that has failed us—in order to then save mankind.  Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that even if God wanted to offer Himself as a sacrifice to save all mankind, although He is unimaginably more powerful than Jesus, He couldn’t do it; simply because He is without alpha, and therefore, impossible to have become the omega for us—to save us from sin and death:  In this kind of offering situation, the scale of justice (to undo the unjust of Adam) would not have compensated evenly in weight.  No other sacrifice than Jesus, greater or smaller, would have ever sufficed.

By the way, to consider the word alpha equated with any other following beginnings, is a misnomer.  Alpha is properly connoted with a first initial start to everything, or everybody: anything else after the initial start, is solely considered as the followings of beginnings.  Alpha could also be applied to impacts and changes due to initial starts of someone else’s doing (e.g., Satan is the alpha—the start—of rebellion; any other would be the following, like the demons).  Alpha can further be applied as a state of mind and being; like my very own being, that’s the alpha—the start—of the no-self (the ‘Not-I’) that’s chaste to The-Self (the-ego/the “I”); any other after my initial start, would be the following.  If the concept of alpha is not clear, just as I have made it transparent here, all concepts connoting with the the ideas of beginning and start will remain ambiguous.  You could begin something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve started it.

Stardom3

Immortal (beyond Eternal)

In comparing both concepts of Immortal and immortality, would be the same approach as comparing both meanings of eternal and eternity—as we have done above.  So, just as there’s only One that is The Eternal, likewise, there’s only One that is The Immortal.  The prefix im-, of the Latin word immortalis, means “the opposite of”—not to be mistaken as a negating format (which is, to make invalid; or, to nullify): in Hebrews, the wording of immortal is unusually expressed as, “בן-אלמוות”—a word not necessarily used in Hebrew dialect—unless it is used when a disputed idea is proved a gentile nature (e.g., proving that the belief in the “immortally” soul is purely of gentile root—outside of Judaism):  Many rabbis also intentionally use the word immortal to obscure it with the same meaning of their quasi-olam (עולם—oh-LAHM) word, eternity.  Now, the concept of mortal stems from the Latin word mortalis, and it means a substance that’s subject to death (perishable under any circumstance).  So, combining im- (opposite of) + mor- (death) + -tal (of such kind, from the L. -talis) = the opposite of death kind:  This is important to understand, because the concept of immortal is referring to a kind (such as a definitive class) that’s imperishable over any circumstance; and therefore, deathless.  The only person that can be deathless in one’s own true being, is the One that is without a beginning—the very One that is also known as The Eternal; but unlike the concept of eternal, the word immortal is not just referring to a state of existence, but also to a structure and condition of a certain sort (like a degree of some kind of an exactness)—a grade, that’s impossible to grant to a human, even with eternity given.  Why is that? How can that be that a human is not immortal even if he/she is granted with eternal life?

When a human is granted with eternal life, one is still in possession of a corruptible body even though one can live a life without end.  How’s that!? You may ask surprisingly:  Well, for example, if you were flying in a plane, and had an accident by falling in an active volcano, you would still be consumed in its fire even with eternal life in your possession.  If that were to happen, the biblical God would then have to bring you back to life, to keep His word that you will live forever.  But if you intentionally caused your eternal life to end at your own hands, the biblical God will not bring you back.  How’s that possible, and why is that? You may ask:  Well, a human with eternal life is still responsible to maintain his/her ageless body in good condition, forever.  Let’s say if you were to decide not to eat any longer, nor hydrate your body with water; or, decided to take a knowingly risk attempt in flying off a plane with an accidental failure in parachuting, and you plunge into your death either by hitting the ground, or by drowning in the sea, God will not bring you back to life again—because you knew the risks—and you knew that if you intentionally stop eating food and drinking water, your eternity lifespan will eventually end.  Why!? How can that be? You may ask:  Because the kind that your body is composed of, it is still of corruptible nature if you don’t maintain it properly, for all eternity:  Just because one is given eternal life, that doesn’t mean that one can just sit back and let God take care of the rest—you would still be responsible in keeping your own ageless body alive:  With eternal life granted, one too can’t expect to test God by taking a rocket into space, and come out of your spaceship, without your space suite on, and expect to breathe with your ageless lungs with no air whatsoever.  Granting one with eternal life does not exclude one from the laws of God either, which means that you’re still dependent of God; therefore, you can still end by committing a crime against God’s laws—that’s deserving and punishable by death.  Your body may not naturally age anymore, but it can still corrupt by your negligence—and end by disobeying and rebelling against divine authority (e.g., because of his rebellion against God, Satan will soon be terminated at his appointed time even though he was given eternal life).  Does that then mean that a human can never be granted immortality, but only eternity?

imperishable

As confusing as my answer can be, that would still be a no: a human can still be granted immortality, after all.  But how, then?  The concept of the word immortality stems from the Latin root of immortalitatem (in the subject of a verb, it is immortalitas), and it indicates a kind (a power) that was transformed into a structure that now exists as imperishable (incorruptible) over death:  Unlike the wording immortal, the im- prefix in the wording of immortality is negated (i.e., to cancel; to nullify; to neutralize)—to cancel out first before granting.  This then indicates that if a human is to be granted immortality, one must first be transformed into a kind that can exist with immortal life when it is given.  In other words, a human that is granted immortality can no longer remain a human:  With or without eternity, his/her human corruptible body must be canceled out first, in exchange for a new potential incorruptible construct when finally the power of immortality is granted to it—that can then only live up where God Himself reside, along with all the others (i.e., it takes a dual process to grant a human with immortality, as opposed to granting eternity—which is by a singular process):  In this way, one is then imperishable (deathless) under any circumstance (1st Peter 1:3, 4).  That would mean, that the human who is transformed to be granted with immortality, would then become self-sustaining, and no longer in need of God’s provisions to remain alive.  That is why the biblical God is very careful as to whom He is granting immortality—not even the angels are granted with such powers, nor the Cherubs themselves—only from the earth, a few will be chosen to be granted immortality (Revelation 14:1,3).  So before God endows a human with such power and capacity, He knows first who would not betray and abandon Him, and then decides to become one’s own self-sustaining immortality god.

So the ideology that humans can possess immortality, remaining as humans, is bizarre and impossible.  Even with eternity granted, you would still first need a body that’s not built with the need of external provisions in order to keep surviving; and that nothing else can destroy it, not even our sun—not even God itself.  If you’re eternalized in the earth, you would still need food, water, air, the sun, the moon, the trees and green vegetation, and all the animals and insects to survive:  In other words, even with eternity given, you would still need to be dependent of God’s sustenance to help you maintain your eternal life.  But if you’re immortalized (in a literal sense) in with God’s presence above, then you’re no longer depended of God’s sustenance, for unlike all the angels, you’ve become self-sustaining with an incorruptible body that can withstand against any power that may come at you, even against an unimaginable amount of gamma-ray bursts:  Nevertheless, still with the expectation that you, in good faith, won’t put your immortality against God’s authority, and remain with him in doing His will—because even if you’ve been literally immortalized, you’re still not The Immortal—you still have a beginning.  Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that you’ve been granted to exist as an immortality god, but then decides to rebel and abandon God, although it’s true that God can’t destroy you, that doesn’t mean that He can’t immobilize you for all immortality—that is, as a final punishment for your rebellion/disobedience.  At this point of this paragraph, you’re probably beginning to realize that immortality is not just a state of existence, but a state of power—a God like immortality power—a power even beyond all the angels, of all ranks—a power not even Satan possess; this must be killing Satan in rage, that a few humans (that he considers as way below him) are going to be transformed to possess a power that he wish he had—what a blow to his ego if he has one:  Surely then, you can now see how impossible it is for a human to be God like, while remaining as a human.

Hence, God is both The Eternal and The Immortal; but man, remaining as man, can only become the eternities, but never the immortalities (immortality gods).  The idea of some humans becoming as the immortals is untrue, because even God, with all of His unimaginable powers, would be impossible to grant any man immortality, as in his true human form of nature (independent of God’s provision) while still living in earth, surviving in God’s provisions from the earth—the flesh is not constructed with the potential of incorruptible capacity and power if immortality is to be granted to it; instead, it will annihilate the flesh.  Human construct can’t enhouse immortality powers.

Boarders - Black infinity

In conclusion, it is logical to reason that although it is possible for the biblical God to create someone with everlasting life from scratch, it is impossible, however, for that very God to create someone with eternal and immortal life, as the initial start.  Since everlasting life/existence is not really one in the same as to live and exist forever (as we have learned in our early chapters of this article), the concept of creation is then transparent, and no longer obscure.  Therefore, with every initial creation, there is the end; but with every following procreation, there is the possibility of no end.  Although eternity and immortality cannot become the alpha (the initial start itself); they can, however, be transformed up in heaven if it’s immortality, or be given for the following earthly generations to come if it’s eternity.  Hence, it turns out to be that forever is forever, after all!

Indeed—eternal is beyond creation—and immortal is beyond eternal—in both each of their entirety.

Shadowed 03

Take that!  You scholars and theologians!  😀

*

[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth Alonso]

[Writing & Concept by: Sabiazoth Alonso]

[Aspaty/Space: Pentaspace, Docercycle 24, 10 R.M. L.E.C. (Solar South)]

[Image(s): Unknown]

0 votes