He does not claim that music was only singe tones isolated from melody. I don't see how you're getting at that "flies in the face of" the writings.
If there is misinformation, point it out and substantiate it. If you feel that something was over simplified I'd love to hear your breakdown-analysis in detail.
Regarding alleged conjecture, you can see it (the transjective proof of harmony) demonstrated by meditating on various types of music and tones and frequencies and if you would like to do actual experiments with other people and/or plants & animals you can see it as well.
Why do you think such power, especially in which is simply demonstrable, would not have an effect on societal development? It's been said music is food for the soul, music has inspired countless people to do myriads of things that they otherwise would not have. I think it's hardly a far cry to say such had a profound impact on the (western) world.
I'm well aware of the scientific method and how it works.
>If you need to discard such
I do not and have not.
>You call for anyone who's tired of vague, lengthy texts that lead nowhere and yet you write a shitload of text that's ambiguous, full of vague and frankly bullshit language: "the probabilistical influencing of quantum mechanical variables resulting in said object being butterfly effecting out towards you". What are "quantum mechanical variables"?
In this case, they are the probable orbital positions of electrons.
>How do you affect something probabilistically?
With your consciousness/mind or the aetheric-astral components of your being by exerting your desire-will.
>When you say "butterfly effecting" I assume you mean creating a chain of deterministic events that have a specific outcome,
Initiating new causal chains to a certain end.
>but what does "out towards you" mean?
The place in which the object exists and the place in which your consciousness exists start to move towards each other and eventually into a state of unity (vibratory phase lock)
>"In actuality every possible different configuration, of every possible different (fractal) ‘time-line’, of every possible different realm exists at the same simultaneously in superposition"… Why do you use "different" and "fractal" as synonyms?
Trying to help the maximum amount of people understand the true nature, which is that there are (what appears to be) different timelines, but those are just other parts of the fractal of the whole.
>By the way, what is a "realm"?
In this case
The sphere of your influence and experience, your own reality bubble. Those who inhabit a common realm share common experiences and have some commonality in their FRV. Two entities residing in completely different realms have little in common and are not mutually aware of each other.
>"[…] your conscious awareness is always shifting in the directing of vibration […]" Shifting in the direction of what vibration?
The vibration of you(r being)
>Didn't you realize when you were writing this that the words you're putting together do not create a meaning, at all?
It makes perfect sense to me and a great many others as well.
>Does consciousness vibrate?
>At what rate (oscillations per second)?
Varying rates depending on what state of being you currently are in.
>How do you measure it?
By manipulation of awareness/consciousness and observing oneself, you could also do it in abstraction by the resultant effects as well.
>Can you change that rate of vibration? How?
Yes, be altering what you are currently be-ing.
>Is it the medium in which consciousness exist the one that's vibrating instead?
You could say the medium (God) is vibrating and from that we were given form… but also we are, and until we merge with the totality our vibrations (as exerted by our freewill decisions are respected and as such) are potentially superior to the background harmony.
>Did you prove the existence of such a medium first?
Yes and it's very clearly existent once you start working with it.
>What are its properties?
The typical properties of God, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
>What's it's rate of vibration?
It varies again depending on perspective, I suppose you could say the Aum is the "default".
>What kind of influences does it respond to, if at all?
>Can't you see you are not following a rigorous method of exploration?
The proofs are scattered around fringechan and the various other esoteric resources (and always within oneself for when one turns there). This thread is not so much about the proofs of the truth (as that is volumes upon volumes, hardly something very capable of making concise nor condensed) as it is the distilled truth minus all of the unnecessary oppressively flowery language.
>How do you expect to make sense of anything reasoning like that?
Experience, in this life or in a past one, or if absolutely nothing else, a pointer in the right direction.
>As someone who's an actual, real user of what some people might call "supernatural" abilities or "esp" or whatever, it irritates me to no end (as you might have noticed) to read someone spouting this level of nonsense while claiming to be able to guide anyone anywhere. The only thing you're doing is creating more confusion and making anyone who takes the metaphysical seriously a quack.
>I'll give you a hint you can follow. Stop quoting people.
What's wrong with quotes? If there is truth in them, there is truth, I suppose I could leave off the cited names, but that just seemed presumptious to me.
The wisdom of the wise and the experience of the ages are perpetuated by quotations. - Isaac D'Israeli
And also, I've found people often give truth more weight if some one famous said it too.
>Don't be so eager to believe, and LEARN instead.
I'm only eager to find the truth via empiricism. There are certainly theories that, by their mere existance have some level of belief in them but I don't, like a fool, claim them to be true untill I obtain data to support them.
>Build your conclusions on top of your experience and not the other way around.