End Times

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Than Aeon-Creator wouldn't make sense. Nous is the split perfect being of Aeon, not god but an emanation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being.
Yochanan (Jhn) 1:1*-‬3 CJB

https://bible.com/bible/1275/jhn.1.1-3.CJB

[Gwaihir]

The thing you don't understand is that the syzygy is not "split" it's two aspects of the same thing, inseparable, defined by the aspects' apparent opposition to itself, with neither anima nor animus having meaning without relation to each other

[Gwaihir]

This axiomatic nature is reflected in language itself. Things are defined by what they are, and what they are not, and those words are derived from theophilosophical concepts (which I suppose you could call "myth" as a synonymous umbrella term, but your ah-ha usage of "myth" as a tertiary position is illusory because myth describes both theology and philosophy, and has no meaning outside of that relationship)

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The thing you don't understand is that the syzygy is not "split" it's two aspects of the same thing, inseparable, defined by the aspects' apparent opposition to itself, with neither anima nor animus having meaning without relation to each other

"Split perfect being" comes from the wiki and other sites. Yin and yang exemplify that but those are still dualities, not representative of what might lie beyond comprehension.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Split perfect being" comes from the wiki and other sites. Yin and yang exemplify that but those are still dualities, not representative of what might lie beyond comprehension.

It is said that "God Most High" is without Form, and without Knowledge, for knowledge is Habit, and Habit is limited, and on the same note Form is limited. So, for all intents and purposes the first Syzygial emanation of God, is the only God we should be concerned with, because one cannot "know" God in any greater capacity.

By the way, that's why Christ says "I am the Way..." (The truth and the life)
By the Tao, Christ is the Tao, Lucifer and Michael

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is said that "God Most High" is without Form, and without Knowledge, for knowledge is Habit, and Habit is limited, and on the same note Form is limited. So, for all intents and purposes the first Syzygial emanation of God, is the only God we should be concerned with, because one cannot "know" God in any greater capacity.

I didn't know that about habit, but I wonder if there isn't some double meaning in the word since it once referred to clothes in general, among other things, only now to be used in reference to the clothing of monks and nuns, men and women of god.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/habit

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't know that about habit, but I wonder if there isn't some double meaning in the word since it once referred to clothes in general, among other things, only now to be used in reference to the clothing of monks and nuns, men and women of god.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/habit

"originally past participle of habere "to have, hold, possess; wear; find oneself, be situated; consider, think, reason, have in mind; manage, keep," from PIE root *ghabh- "to give or receive."


Definitely

[reznor_]

Originally Posted by Ennewi [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The original point of the thread, I assumed, was to cover all aspects of humankind's self-destructive tendencies, not to compare one form to the other and debate which was worse overall.

https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU

John Oliver's piece was really a sensational hit job. People forget that nuclear is the newest science of power, compared to everything else. Mistakes were made at the outset, no one in the nuclear community denies that. Yucca mountain was perfect, but Harry Reid made a deal with Barack Obama (tinfoil-ish, I know) to give him the electoral votes if Obama supported the closure of Yucca mountain. Bottom line, humans don't do the necessary until it becomes a matter of life or death, and I fear we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Nuclear energy is a major part of the solution, but because most of the US and world are ignorant to science, and the facts of that science, we may not get there. I will never agree that other power sources are as safe and effective as nuclear.

I will chime in on Chernobyl, since every anti-nuke in this thread uses it as scapegoat. The brass tacks are: the design was flawed from the outset. The Soviets made a terrible design using POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which are different (and bad) from NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. What this means is: in a normal (well designed) nuclear reactor, as the fuel heats up, the fuel becomes less reactive, meaning that if there is some power excursion, the fuel's physics are leveraged to stop it from fissioning, and help mitigate any kind of accident. These are the PWR (pressurized water reactor) and BWR (boiling water reactor). Chernobyl was an RBMK model, and had POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. Every other reactor has NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which help safely shut it down in the event of an accident scenario. Chernobyl went into a catastrophic accident phase because as the fuel heated up and the cooling water evaporated, the fuel became more and more reactive. This led to the accident.

Fukushima was a bad geographic placement and poorly planed from TEPCO's perspective from the start. Because people wanted to save money (and conversely, MAKE MONEY) the TEPCO board ignored Japanese geological surveys which said a 100 year flood (in the form of tsunami) had a decent chance of occurring. A sea wall could have been built around Fukushima which would have mitigated the disaster. Furthermore, response authorities did not helicopter in diesel generators (which, as a young nuclear engineer, I said they should do) to counterbalance the power outage (so ironic, that a nuclear plant can't use the power it creates to power it's own pumps).

Keep in mind, nuclear is the youngest power source. You don't hear about the direct deaths from coal and gas and wind, but they're there. They just aren't as sexy as direct deaths from nuclear.

[Gwaihir]

In his Cratylus, Plato gives the etymology of Athena's name, the goddess of wisdom, from Atheonóa (Ἀθεονόα) meaning "god's (theos) mind (nous)

So about that Sophia....

[Pulgasari]

Originally Posted by reznor_ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

John Oliver's piece was really a sensational hit job. People forget that nuclear is the newest science of power, compared to everything else. Mistakes were made at the outset, no one in the nuclear community denies that. Yucca mountain was perfect, but Harry Reid made a deal with Barack Obama (tinfoil-ish, I know) to give him the electoral votes if Obama supported the closure of Yucca mountain. Bottom line, humans don't do the necessary until it becomes a matter of life or death, and I fear we've hit the bottom of the barrel. Nuclear energy is a major part of the solution, but because most of the US and world are ignorant to science, and the facts of that science, we may not get there. I will never agree that other power sources are as safe and effective as nuclear.

I will chime in on Chernobyl, since every anti-nuke in this thread uses it as scapegoat. The brass tacks are: the design was flawed from the outset. The Soviets made a terrible design using POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which are different (and bad) from NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. What this means is: in a normal (well designed) nuclear reactor, as the fuel heats up, the fuel becomes less reactive, meaning that if there is some power excursion, the fuel's physics are leveraged to stop it from fissioning, and help mitigate any kind of accident. These are the PWR (pressurized water reactor) and BWR (boiling water reactor). Chernobyl was an RBMK model, and had POSITIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS. Every other reactor has NEGATIVE VOID COEFFICIENTS, which help safely shut it down in the event of an accident scenario. Chernobyl went into a catastrophic accident phase because as the fuel heated up and the cooling water evaporated, the fuel became more and more reactive. This led to the accident.

Fukushima was a bad geographic placement and poorly planed from TEPCO's perspective from the start. Because people wanted to save money (and conversely, MAKE MONEY) the TEPCO board ignored Japanese geological surveys which said a 100 year flood (in the form of tsunami) had a decent chance of occurring. A sea wall could have been built around Fukushima which would have mitigated the disaster. Furthermore, response authorities did not helicopter in diesel generators (which, as a young nuclear engineer, I said they should do) to counterbalance the power outage (so ironic, that a nuclear plant can't use the power it creates to power it's own pumps).

Keep in mind, nuclear is the youngest power source. You don't hear about the direct deaths from coal and gas and wind, but they're there. They just aren't as sexy as direct deaths from nuclear.

the generators they had got flooded(11/12) and failed but i don't see a reality where we can deliver enough portable generators to supply a nuclear plant. just scale.