Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Amitakh Stanford
#31
(07-31-2013, 08:56 AM)Elizabeth Wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-TrAvp_xs

Perhaps the best little piece written by Mozart, and among the top classical pieces ever written was Requiem: Confutatis and Lacrymosa.
~ ++ Hanc Defendemus ++ ~
Reply

#32
"Perhaps the best little piece written by Mozart, and among the top classical pieces ever written was Requiem: Confutatis and Lacrymosa." 
                                                            (MetaOntosis)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRWov2pdJkE

Spectacular isn't it, it's incredibly moving. I don't agree with the article Amitakh's daughter wrote claiming Mozart was a fraud/plagiarizer.  Divine power and aesthetic lit Mozart's spirit.
Reply

#33
I like this one:  "Your Common Highness", which is #45
~ ++ Hanc Defendemus ++ ~
Reply

#34
Me too. Nobody presents mundane but esoterically inspired injustices better than Amitakh.  With a compassionate eye she "makes it plain."  She's a trance medium (with an ET soul she says).  I don't feel she's evil. Her group could be working at cross purposes to Chiappalone's group (conjecture).

Either way, she's a champion of the underdog and unflinchingly captures the mess we're in. I appreciate my information straight up. 
Reply

#35
I have to say that I find her writing style so clean that it is pleasure to read even if she is talking about licorice candy.  She also doesn't get all embroiled about the controversy surrounding her and just plows along with her own stuff.  I don't know what her creds are, or what her background *really* is, and I'm not clear on any of her claims, nor what their merits are or not.  But from what I have read, even when it gets "weird and dubious" (like the "cubical sun" etc), I don't even feel the need to do anything except react as I would normally to such claims.  In my case I'm like "Oh, a cubical sun that rotates to look spherical, somehow", and I "leave it (at that)".  She didn't even have to say "take it or leave it", I was so obvious that it was the option which presented itself.


I suppose that I would put it this way:  If a Divine Agency wanted to use someone as an emissary of a message about the true nature of the sun, I think it would be better entrusted into the hands of someone that doesn't grandstand themselves and just explains the nature of the sun.  There, job finished.  If I can't convince someone by just making bald statements about *why I think I know*, then I should just leave that to the side and expertly propound what it is that I think that I know.  Bam, it has been done without BS indicators everywhere to ruin the message.  Because a cubical sun theory is hard enough to get across without coming across as a snake-oil salesman who wants to sell most especially, and as a premium part of the whole package, THAT he is the Archangel Gabriel, or The Herald of the End, or something else.  Whew...

I'd sooner believe in a CUBICAL SUN, maliciously spun so as to merely seem spherical... I mean, I can get this in some way, metaphysically.  I've read, for example, her reasons for going into fundamental shapes of entities, and their spatio-temporal encasements.  I get that, its an ancient approach!!  But what I'd say in defense is that there are "meta-media" of presentations of phenomena which are not meant to be seen, like metaphysical HTML, so to speak.  And these are left out of the appearance of things because they interfere with the processing of the surface text of appearances which are meant to be processed and which, in their presented form, are critically ideal for the needs of being what they are in fact, yet only understood by some accounts "on a need to know basis", which is distributed only to those who are "granted clearance" (demons, archons, lesser kings and queens of existence, etc).  That all makes sense to me.  So whatever is inherently meaningful about something's metaphysical effects, the "metatoken" is submerged under an illusion, and we are given only the token we are meant to receive within the context of languages of control which require tokens within them to be delimited safely from any references to certain basic facts about reality which are meant to be kept "occult" and "metatextual" in the world.

So, that can't be much better symbolized, to our minds, than like something analogous to the seemingly astounding case of a sun being really an image on a translucent/transparent force-space which is, in its own dimension, cubical and not "free".  This could be metaphor for unseen forces of constriction upon the Solar Being.  Those would be unseen, and quite strange to behold, so they are passed off as other phenomena, such as the image we see, when in fact whatever that Being may really appear like, or how it might behave, if not put in a space which imprisons its "spiritual sphericity" would not fit into the protocols of control of the Being itself (first) and as adjunctive to that, the control of the way it appears to other beings, especially other Spiritual Beings.

Not an unreasonable array of ideas, especially in light of many of the things which we discuss, which are abstract, strange, and way beyond "out there" in many instances.

So if this is a reasonable approach to "a take on" her cubically imprisoned Sun, then it is because there is nothing absurd about presenting that claim and putting forth some explanations for it. And she explains all her bit about it in a way that is readable and not filled with references  to her authority with a defensive and unnecessary "take it or leave it" or "and I know, because I KNOW" etc.

But with the Chiappalone character, it is absolutely about him in the end, not about these issues he pretends to care about.  Yes, all things as they stand, I'd prefer to assign my Divine Mission to someone who can express it without maligning it and aggrandizing themselves upon it in a way that impugns its Origin and defeats its purpose.
~ ++ Hanc Defendemus ++ ~
Reply

#36
That's a good way of describing her writing style...clean. She's not a narcissist either which is refreshing. She gets right down to the nitty gritty of explaining material that none of us will be able to truly ascertain anyway (or at least while we're all incarcerated here). 

If matrices are spun out of a celestial computer program anyway, than why not a cubed sun? Seriously, it's just a simple computation. Why are the "consensus-science-types" er..."paycheck-science-types"... bent out of shape about these kind of pronouncements when their accuracy batting average is so dismal?

Amitakh's people are the M_______? She at least identifies them, now I have to rummage around to find the name. She also doesn't cook up a solution when perhaps there isn't one. I respect that. "Hold onto your will, she says" certainly easier said than done especially if you don't really know what that means exactly. But at least that's a clear directive.

I particularly like her compassion and have never gotten an evil or Reptilian vibe from her work.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.