Posts Tagged ‘culture’

The controversy between Hindu culture and Matrix/DNA culture

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

xxxx

Reading articles from a Hinduist tendency blog, I noted that their concepts are good challenge for testing and developing my preferred world view, called Matrix/DNA Theory.

The blog is:

Wise Humans Wakeup Call

“Human Society Needs Stability”

Author: Jay Krishnan

https://wisehumans.blogspot.in/

The article is:

NURTURING IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS GENES MIGHT REMAIN DORMANT

Then I wrote to Jay and we are at the following debate. Some paragraphs of the article will be copied here for registering the replies by Matrix/DNA

xxxx

Jay Krishnan Jay Krishnan 4 days ago - about 8/8/17
I read Marton Piller comments below and we all should agree that Science can neither lead us to God nor prove that there is no God. All the wonders that we observe through science is by itself a proof of what a great design and creation it is, not necessary that it is an individual known as God but the energy or the power that drives everything on this universe is a unique phenomena one could consider as an invisible thing beyond our senses to recognize!
Please, take a shower of real world going to live in the jungle, from where we came from. And come back saying that this world is intelligently designed. Or go to live with 7 billions humans today that are in misery as slave workers or no work at all. See a tiger eating a baby in front of the eyes of its mother, and come telling that a benevolent powerful God is watching the scene. I have lived among the poor of the third world, I was slave, and escaped to the jungle living 7 years in Amazon jungle, I saw horrific things, I know this biosphere is product of chaotic state of Nature, we are the sons of chaos. Not of powerful, benevolent, magical Gods.
You can make yourself the questions I did at the jungle. Why chaos if we lift our eyes and see the ordered state of the Cosmos, so ordered that it can be described by Newtonian mechanics? Then, if a person is weak of brain, he will concludes that are two Gods, one, good God that designed the Cosmos and other, bad God that designed our biosphere and life. This person will invent the demon, as the second god. And will create a fairy-tale about a sin made by our ancestors, for explaining why the first biggest God permits the actuation of the second god. But if a person has the honesty wish for searching the truth he will apply the rational scientific method, and doing that, he will go further into chaos, and will not see demons, but natural causes.
Going further he will find lots of evidences of, as you said ” an energy or the power that drives everything on this universe is a unique phenomena one could consider as an invisible thing”. The weak brain will stop here with a precipitate conclusion: a magical God. The strong brain will find that there is a similar situation going on here, just facing our eyes: inside a womb, is occurring the development of a baby and, as you said ” All the wonders that we observe through science is by itself a proof of what a great design and creation it is…”. But science show us what the designer is, what the invisible energy or power is: the DNA, genetics. Not magical gods. So, the right thing to do, when questioning the causes making the complex systems in this world is searching a kind of world’s DNA, and what is doing universal genetics. I did the hard work and found a rational possibility: biological DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix , from which a got its formula. Then, was born the Matrix/DNA Theory. Since you don’t want go to be tortured in the jungle for learning the real world, and have not did the hard work, I suggest you must see this another possibility than gods and demons and magical accidents creating complex natural systems. Cheers.
Jay Krishnan  Jay Krishnan 16 hours ago Highlighted reply
Hi Charles I am sorry I had mistaken you as Marton Piller. Thanks for the awakening. If you find time please visit my blog http:// wisehumans.blogspot.in – where I suppose you will get some answers to material science versus human life science. Best regards
Jay Krishnan – I began to read your blog and I like the link you do between modern human behaviors and ancestors animals till genes. I did it also in the jungle for finding my world view called Matrix/DNA, but I went further, to ancestrals like astronomic and atomic systems. As I saw meanwhile, you didn’t this and you change it by the concept of karma, which I don’t understand and I can’t grasp real facts about it. So, if you have time and interest, we could change ideas/information between two such different cultures.
As example, you wrote:
” During early days human species lived only up to the age of 20 to 30 years if one survived childhood and adolescence and it was rare for someone to survive beyond 30 or more. It was perhaps women who survived a little bit longer as they mostly remained indoors. So generally the experience of a woman is highly internalized and passive in nature and not usually displayed like the aggressive men.”
The Matrix/DNA formula for natural systems suggests that woman’s highly internalized factor is not due social nurture and so due its universal systemic function that is coming since the astronomic configuration that produced biological systems (aka, life) here. Before producing biological DNA, this formula was a universal Matrix encoded into light waves ( we can see it at the electromagnetic spectrum) that produced fundamental particles, atoms and galaxies, so, these systems are our ancestrals like a bacteria is. The formula is hermaphrodite where the female function has the tendency to introversion, towards closed system and male function, extroversion, towards dispersion due extreme tendency to opened system. So, the female psyche tendency to be highly internalized is encrypted at the primordial DNA, when there were no humans yet. Our difference is that you goes to early biological ancestry searching the causes of humans behaviors and conditions, while I go further in the past at the ancestry that produced the early biological ancestry. Of course, we, both, has no a scientific proved statement, we have theories, maybe the right one or not, and debating it we can improve both. Cheers…
Jay Krishnan – Another example: you wrote:
” Several thousand years ago human species felt safe during day time because the daylight gave him or her awareness of what is where and how safe he or she is in a particular place. Day light provided them direction enabling one to search food and change the place of dwelling as per the individual or group needs.”
In Amazon jungle was famous among natives the bat-tribe, where humans live and hunting at night sleeping at day, Some white men told that meet then and they are blind under sun’s light. Since their territory is gold rich, they are being extinct. You know about marine’s species that lives in the darkness. So, if one species is blind at night or at day, it is produced by their free will or imposed by the environment. The very fact that humans became day-awakened seems to be the return imposed by evolution, since that insects and butterflies can’t resist to flying around a lamp and its cause is its genes rules that came from its atomic rules where particles flies around a luminous proton, or planets around a luminous star. This is universally imposed by the Matrix/DNA formula where non-radioactive pieces orbits radioactive pieces.
This “evolution return imposed by the code” is saw also in the case that insects has established a high automatized social system (ants, bees ) while humans began as chaotic groups and now is going to mimic the insects towards the highly automatized social system. What is the fundamental cause driven us towards it? Without enough intellect and no knowledge about the bad face of the code ( the Matrix/DNA has a bad force which is a system working automatized as a perfect machine – and a good force – which is a system opened to evolution – in relation to humans) for resisting to it, which dominated our last non-biological ancestral and has the tendency to be reproduced here, we are going to build a social system like predicted by Aldous Huxley under the rules of a Big Brother by Orwell. So, I am insisting that, for understanding the modern world and modern humans, we need know its roots in the past till the Big Bang.
Jay Krishnan – Another example: you wrote:
” Also the innate spiritual or political nature of a child is not only woman centric (though man’s Y chromosome provides the initial seed) but is also nurtured by a woman!”
Innate traits means genetic inheritance. Do you think that humans’ child nurtured by women has incorporated these “external far away phenomena” into its code? I don’t, because I think that biological genetics has a non-biological ancestry, I got a theoretical model of this ancestry and the model is suggesting a different solution. You must see my model-picture of the Matrix/DNA formula in relation to ” The Origins of Chromosome X and Y”. The model suggests that the very fact well described by you about the child’s woman centric is due our last non-biological hermaphrodite ancestor being a system female centralized. The X chromosome is bigger than Y because X contains the whole spherical circuity flow of information while Y contains only the left half flow of information, in a system where the female function is dominant and male function is recessive. Since that through the biological evolution there is the tendency to guide the whole Earth biosphere to be a unique system reproducing the non-biological ancestor/creator, the innate child tendency to be woman centric is very well explained by the Matrix/DNA formula.
xxxxxx
And other example:
Jay wrote:

” Therefore women folk are required to play the great role of nurturing character for human civilization to go further distance or I would rather say in the right direction!”

Louis suggestion:

Nope, it is not the right direction, accordingly to the supreme universal laws suggested by Matrix/DNA world view. The right direction for human civilization will be the one that the great role be a third alternative resulting from mixing, or fusion, the female and male character.

The female universal tendency is to be a closed system – domestic internalized, with a big house in a big farm with her male partner under her rules and full of her children playing in the yard, isolated from the external world and kept in this way eternally. She has the tendency to be monogamist. This was just the state of evolution at our astronomic ancestor where female was dominant over male character, and the universal laws destroyed it through entropy, showing that Nature does not approve this tendency,. But the tendency does not stop here: as closed system it has the natural movement for collapsing herself till reaching its own nucleus where it disappears as a point…. and this movement was the common behavior of fundamental left-spinner particles at the universe’s origins.

In another hand, the male universal tendency is to be an opened system – travelling far away from home, as warrior and hunter, conquering the world till the galaxies, leaving his offspring abandoned to its own lucky, making changes, business, with all things at the external world. He has the tendency to be polygamist. At our last non-biological ancestor, he was submitted to the female force, since the female was occupying the nucleus ( as F1, as we can see in the Matrix/DNA astronomic’s state formula, while the male was F4, orbiting around F1), and that is the cause biological chromosome Y is shorter than X ) .  But the male tendency does not stop at being an opened system, he goes to the last possibilities when becomes dispersion, disappearing by fragmentation, and this movement was the common behavior of fundamental right-spinner particles at the universe’s origins.

Two characters that are, each one, 50% right and 50% wrong. The right direction for humans is dependable that male be accessible to the right 50% from female, destroying his negative 50%, and female do the same. We need to build the third most evolved character, synchronized with Nature’s laws.