Metu Neter - Vols I - II - III : Question concerning the metu neter

jamesfrmphilly

going above and beyond
PREMIUM MEMBER
Jun 18, 2004
36,768
11,983
north philly ghetto
Occupation
retired computer geek
since you say that you have read the metu neter yourself, why do you ask this question?
having read it you already know the answer.
 

OmowaleX

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jun 23, 2002
2,414
40
Aztlan
Occupation
Educator
jamesfrmphilly said:
since you say that you have read the metu neter yourself, why do you ask this question?
having read it you already know the answer.
I ask because I want to know what the understanding is of others.
 

jamesfrmphilly

going above and beyond
PREMIUM MEMBER
Jun 18, 2004
36,768
11,983
north philly ghetto
Occupation
retired computer geek
you said that you read the book and that you reject the book. you don't care for it. why do you care what people think?
if you have rejected the book, which is OK by me, why do you continue?
why not just move forward with something that you do accept?
seem like beating a dead horse to me.
 

OmowaleX

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jun 23, 2002
2,414
40
Aztlan
Occupation
Educator
jamesfrmphilly said:
you said that you read the book and that you reject the book. you don't care for it. why do you care what people think?
if you have rejected the book, which is OK by me, why do you continue?
why not just move forward with something that you do accept?
seem like beating a dead horse to me.
As I stated, I ask because I want to know what the understanding is of others.

Can you answer a simple question without questioning my motive?
 

OmowaleX

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jun 23, 2002
2,414
40
Aztlan
Occupation
Educator
jamesfrmphilly said:
you said that you read the book and that you reject the book. you don't care for it. why do you care what people think?
if you have rejected the book, which is OK by me, why do you continue?
why not just move forward with something that you do accept?
seem like beating a dead horse to me.
By the way, can you quote exactly where I stated that "I reject the book"?

I am sure a few days ago I stated that I have read up to Volume 2, Chapter 17. That means that I am still engaged in "study".

I am sure that I can accept the Message without accepting the "messengers" if the message is itself Divine Knowledge that proves beneficial in my own process of SELF-initiation.
 

OmowaleX

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jun 23, 2002
2,414
40
Aztlan
Occupation
Educator
OmowaleX said:
By the way, can you quote exactly where I stated that "I reject the book"?

I am sure a few days ago I stated that I have read up to Volume 2, Chapter 17. That means that I am still engaged in "study".

I am sure that I can accept the Message without accepting the "messengers" if the message is itself Divine Knowledge that proves beneficial in my own process of SELF-initiation.
In fact, I stated clearly what it is that I "reject".

It is the manner in which...
http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=452912&postcount=13
 

OmowaleX

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jun 23, 2002
2,414
40
Aztlan
Occupation
Educator
OmowaleX said:
As I stated, I ask because I want to know what the understanding is of others.

Can you answer a simple question without questioning my motive?
"When philosophers ask ontological questions they are concerned with establishing what is actually or possibly out there in the world, independently so to say of the idiosyncrasies of their own cognitive processes."


"Ontologists assume it is possible, and take ontologies to be the result of such an effort. Let's say however that, even though we take the somehow relativistic position that whatever result of a cognitive process it will always be nothing more than a particular, subjective, point of view, the distinction between ontology and epistemology should be maintained, at least from a methological point of view, in order to be be able to distinguish a cognitive process directed to the world from a cognitive process directed to another cognitive process."

In other words, denying the fact that the ultimate and definitive ontology could be reached has nothing to do with the distinction between an investigation concerned with what are the kinds of structures of the objects, properties and relations, and another investigation concerned with how can a particular subject posit the existence of a particular object with a particular structure, or more precisely, when is a particular subject justified in holding that a particular object with a particular structure exist.

If in this particular context "We must understand the difference between thinking and knowing" and "the mistaking of thinking , and the acquisition of information for knowing is one of the fundamental causes for evil in the world" and assuming it is also true that "A careful study of people will show that they honestly believe that they equate the knowledge of the information that they have recieved about things in life , especially religion, government, marriage and such topics with knowledge of the realities themselves" my questioning is an attemopt to determine what is knowledge differentiated from what is thought concerning the source of all evil.

There are those who state openly that they do not believe yet do not precisely indicate they know that which they profess to think. I am in the process of practical application of what I know and am attempting to connect with those of like-mind.
 

kemetkind

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Oct 8, 2005
1,599
62
OmowaleX said:
According to the metu neter, what is the "Source of all evil"?
I don't know what it states as the source of all evil, but in chapter 7 vol II is the following:

How is Evil Established in the World:

"The Setanists are those relatively few individuals in the world who have developed their will beyond the majority of Sahu Men, but have not developed it enough to overcome the lower faculties (intellect, imagination, memory and emotions). Thus, their will is still dominated by their lower faculties, especially the intellect and animal spirit.

The higher development of their will above the Sahu Man gives them the ability to dominate the latter. They gain enough insight into the workings of the lower faculties, and the weakness created by the absence of input from the dormant higher faculties to enable them to deceive the Sahu Man, and thus gain control over him/her. As the Sahu Man makes up the majority in the world, Set is thus able to gain world dominance."
 

jamesfrmphilly

going above and beyond
PREMIUM MEMBER
Jun 18, 2004
36,768
11,983
north philly ghetto
Occupation
retired computer geek
OmowaleX said:
By the way, can you quote exactly where I stated that "I reject the book"?
OmowaleX said:
Not only have I read it, like any other work I have critiqued it and discontinued after reading volume 2, chapter 17.

Once you and others started referring to others as "Sahu", "snakes" and "vipers" I concluded that I read more than I need to.
my bad, i thought you said you had rejected it.
 

Consciousness Raising Online!

Latest profile posts

Ms Drea wrote on Kemetstry's profile.
Brother Kem.. Marva Collins passed June 24, 2015
Sister Destee how have you been? It's been a while but I'm glad to be back. I see many changes so I'll browse around to get my feel of things again
sekou kasimu wrote on Destee's profile.
Jambo! I deleted a post that was a duplication. Both were deleted!!! Can you find it and repost it for me? I put a lot of work into it!
Destee wrote on shaka64's profile.
Hi Brother shaka64 ... Welcome Home! :heart:
Destee, my Sister!! I am sending you greetings with love from a rainy and relentless overcast Michigan! But you continue to bring sunshine into my life and for that I am eternally grateful! I LOVE the new look and features in the community. I hope you're enjoying your best life. Love and peace...:heart:
Top