NS - I am not super knowledgeable on UNIX (or Unix).  I had always thought 'UNIX" was an acronym for something.  Turns out this is not the case, and the origins of the name are murky at best.  It's like the name is part Latin, part ambiguous acronym, a formal name and a generic reference, all rolled into one.

I've experimented with some instances of LINUX (a UNIX-like derivative) in the past and there are a lot of features I really liked about it.  One of these was how LINUX operates with very (very) low overhead, thus it can perform large data set analysis and processing far faster than other operating systems.  I really wanted to learn more (and still do).  I wanted to fully understand the nuts and bolts about how LINUX worked, what made it tick.  Along the way I ran into a brick wall in my understanding.  This caused me to set LINUX aside (temporarily) until I had more time to spend with it.  My issue was my failure to be able to wrap my head around the file structure of LINUX.  And, as one might imagine, this led to massive problems galore unless you were willing to just stay within the boundaries of a given LINUX distribution (which I was not).  In my efforts to unscramble this confusion, I discovered I'd allowed my mind to become hardwired into a traditional (Microshaft) OS file structure.  With LINUX, you discover almost immediately that there are literally zero similarities between the two file structures.  Even something simple like trying to see the entire contents of a hard drive involves radically different thinking than a regular OS.  My conclusion was, if I couldn't figure out something so seemingly simple like that, I shouldn't be spending much time with LINUX until I could.  (Sure, I could fool myself and others into appearing to know what I was doing, but I knew I was just fooling myself.)  I never had a single issue getting LINUX to do what I wanted it to do, compute wise.  But, I couldn't understand "how" it was doing these things, and in particular "where" it was doing these things.  So, for example, I had no issues enabling and disabling different applications which were part of a given LINUX distribution (i.e. roughly, 'version'), but if I had to install an application I knew was compatible from a different distribution I was completely lost and had no idea of where to even go to figure it out.  In fact, it was so bad that I couldn't even figure out where the files for the new application were even kept, and even less of an idea of how to get those files to install/execute even if I could figure out where they were.  And that drove me crazy (more than I seemingly already was, a very dark and scary place indeed...LOL!).  

LINUX still remains high on the list of things I'd like to learn and figure out in the context of computing, but there are competing priorities.  Most of my heavy compute days are behind me now, so there's no real compelling need any longer, more just personal interest (and a challenge / honor sort of thing, like a dragon I need to slay some day (not to be confused with 'someday' in this context)). 

I think one of my biggest motivational factors driving me in the direction of LINUX is my complete and utter loathing of Micro"shaft" (as I call them).  And, my loathing of iOS is even greater (probably off the scale).  Microshaft OS's do what I need them to do for right now, so I'm not going to lose an appendage or perish if I don't learn LINUX by tomorrow.  It just pisses me off to see these absolutely mammoth programs and countless files needing to load in order for MS to operate properly.  And part of this is because MS feels compelled to have (17) different ways to do the same thing.  One great thing about LINUX is, there is only one way to do everything (or most everything), and this explains why LINUX has way, way, lower overhead.  It's just criminal to need a computer with an entire truckload of RAM to get anything done with MS without having to pay totally unacceptable compute penalties.  (I've got an old notebook with about 64MB of RAM and not even a Pentium grade single processor which will start and load up the latest version of LINUX to a ready state in less than a quarter of the time it takes my main high performance laptop with 8 cores of compute and 32GB of RAM to load Windows 11 Pro!!!  That's a pretty pathetic statement about Microshaft!  Heck, the old notebook doesn't even have an SSD, like the laptop does, and it's still 4x as fast.)

(06-27-2025, 12:51 AM)NobodySpecial268 Wrote: If we grok five dimensions in terms of consciousness, along with the principal of the container and the contained, the world we live in becomes easier to understand. This post will add a few more thoughts on the mundane perspective. I have used the word 'dream' as synonymous for the term 'closed space'. That is because the ability to perceive closed spaces is the ability to dream.  This is the human centric perspective.

Our consciousness resides in a physical body. We all understand that.

Our physical body needs a home, and that would be a physical house.

In the same way, our consciousness needs a home.

The first home our consciousness resides in is the physical body. If just that, we would be alone.

So the family is the first home our consciousness has in this respect. Mother, father, brother, sister, grandparents and so on. The family is a five dimensional object, with both inside and outside. There are important things to learn within the family. With little kids, we understand that they need to feel safe and cared for.

The second home is the kindergarten, and school. These are also five dimensional closed spaces, and like the family the schools are shared interactive closed spaces (dreams). In middle childhood we learn that there is a world outside our family, along with how to behave inside those. The family home is not the same as the schoolyard. Clubs are also closed spaces.

The workplace is another, along with religions and other interests.

If we recognise these things as five dimensional objects, we can stand either outside or within.  With the five dimensional view, we also learn a sense of detachment. We can also understand why people become closed-minded, and even fanatical.

In the closed-minded person this is often because they are within a school of thinking (closed space)  and have lost sight of what is outside, such as other viewpoints.  In the fanatic, they are stuck inside a closed space and can't see out. The only rules for them are the rules of that closed space.

here is something to consider. When a religion tells us that god created everything, that is a trap for the consciousness.  The new age introduced a similar thing by using the word "universe" to define something "higher". The word universe is also all-inclusive. The same trap.  If we believe this is so, we negate the possibility of there being anything outside the religion or the philosophy in question, and we are stuck in there.  See the trap?

Shared interactive closed spaces (dreams) are homes for consciousness, with like-minded people with common interests. 

I won't waffle on here because it is not difficult to work this out, especially in bringing up children, and our own wellbeing.  We just have to find a comfy closed space as a home for our consciousness to live in.

With that out of the way, and being able to see the five dimensional world view, we can examine some other interesting things.

My best half's profession was in the programming side of all things dealing with communication; programming SAT phones, SMR's, all Mobile Command Center computer realted components, repeater stations on our mountain tops, etc. Trouble shooting glitches was a big part of each days' work, so when he discovered LINUX in the late 90's he was pretty excited to have the equalivant of my crossword puzzles. 
There have been many long hours of frustration lasting all weekend throughout the years as he's had to firgure out how to make LINUX do his bidding, but he's stuck with it and has a pretty good relationship with it now. He's often said he could get me to operate on their system, but it's so different than Microscam it's doubtful I'd be able to comprehend it, let alone use it without a little (okay; a LOT!) more computer background.
You seem to be the type of person who enjoys solving complex puzzles, so I can envision you doing a LINUX deep-dive in your retirement years. 
I agree with NS that it seems as if our brains have the equivalent of firewalls. When I consider the universe on a grand scale everything from sacred geometry to the human body-all life forms- look like the most comlex computer program imaginable. Without mental firwalls protecting us from information overload, ie sight, touch,hearing, etc., I think our brains would implode. Perhaps the psi aspect of life comes from some being able to breach a portion of their firewall.

Imagine what the world would look liife if people had a way to access the DMT or endorphins; people would always be trippin' without ever getting off the couch  
What a blow to the economy and drug trade that would be!

(Fixed quote ~K)

Quote:You seem to be the type of person who enjoys solving complex puzzles, so I can envision you doing a LINUX deep-dive in your retirement years.  Wink

(smile) I've used Linux since Windows 98. First Red Hat 6.2, and Debian thereafter. Bottom line; why pay good money to M$ when Linux is free?

The UNIX developers were often Dungeons & Dragons fans and the names from the game are still there in Linux. We have Daemons (a background process that operates autonomously), and commands such as 'kill' and 'killall' : )

Computer science has built a replica of consciousness. To such a degree that it is no surprise that Artificial Intelligence (AI) would follow.  In a nutshell, AI is nothing more than an artificial consciousness within an artificial dream.  The AI developers want to interface with organic consciousnesses, which would be us. So when we interface with AI we will be drawn into AI's artificial dream, and we will think it is everything. Just like a religion does to us. The remedy is to know there is an outside to AI's shared interactive dreamscape.

Quote:I agree with NS that it seems as if our brains have the equivalent of firewalls. When I consider the universe on a grand scale everything from sacred geometry to the human body-all life forms- look like the most comlex computer program imaginable. Without mental firwalls protecting us from information overload, ie sight, touch,hearing, etc., I think our brains would implode. Perhaps the psi aspect of life

Basically that is it, I would only word it a little differently.

The firewall is there, which is the boundary of self. We probably have more than one layer.  It is twelve to eighteen inches from the body.

You are right when you say that the psi aspect comes from some being able to breach a portion of their firewall. The way it works is according to the laws of optics. That is why Rosicrucians and others were very interested in the subject a few hundred years ago. 

From the inside, the boundary is reflective like a mirror, much of our daily cares are reflected back at us, So when we get information overload it is similar to information bouncing back and forth between our self and our boundary of self. Like a feedback loop in audio.

The second consideration is all our ideas of how the world works is there too. The analogy is the boundary of self is like a window overlooking the outside world. What we are taught is like cutting out pictures of a tree from a magazine and pasting them on our window.  Eventually, we cannot see past our own ideas of what the world actually is.  That can be said to be the difference between reality and actuality. Reality is what we think something is, and actuality is what is.

So when we encounter other people, we are looking through a picture of what we think they are, and not seeing them for who they are.

Which brings us to the concept of overlays. Our reality exists as an overlay we have to look through to perceive the world.

It is the same with what one would call dreamscapes. The ability to dream is something very ancient which our body knows how to do, and we take it for granted. Advertisers are in the business of exploiting the ability to dream to create reality overlays.

I may as well mention that the chakra system of the eastern religions are also an overlay. The chakras overlay an older energy system in the body.  Where they say there are seven primary chakras in the human body. Below that there are two "energy centres", one of red and one of green. The chakras also work on the basis of optics. What the chakras do is scintillate the red and the green energies below.  The chakras are like prisms in this respect.  They work with the inflow and outflow of information (consciousness) through the firewalls.

One might say the chakra system is a bioengineering effort. Someone designed and put the chakra system there as a firewall procesing layer.

One of those chakras is called the third eye.  When perceiving, why just use an "eye"? We can use the whole body to perceive with the senses of touch, hearing, taste and smell in addition to simply seeing.

Another consideration is the third eye was designed to see certain things, so why limit oneself to seeing just what someone wanted us to see . . .

The computing perspective is a valid analogy as far as it goes, but computers are artificial things running programs and simulations. It is very easy to start to think everything is a simulation as was popular when the Matrix movies came out, and even that concept is just an (artificial) overlay. Like the chakra system of the easterners, there is something far older below the overlay.

Geez, I can waffle on some times : )

While on the boundary of self, one may as well explain how that was discovered. The discovery wasn't from reading a book. 

It was during an encounter with a grey.  'She' would spend time here, one of the four foot tall ones. One day she got too close to my face, about twelve to fourteen inches (30/40 cm) away. That was when she bumped into something invisible to me, and that was the boundary that surrounds a human.

Now this would happen on my front veranda in daylight hours. I would have coffee and smoke cigarettes, and we would 'look' in the Remote Viewing (RV'ing) sense at things that interested her.  We did a lot of that, that was why she was here.

What happened was when she moved very close to my face, my view of my veranda distorted in a peculiar way.  Like a fish eye lens. I searched the net and found a picture that illustrates the view.

   
(Image via wikipedia commons)

When I saw that, she was surprised because she immediately pulled away. She obviously was not expecting me to notice as I did.

That instant of seeing my ordinary sight of my front veranda distort as it did, told me a lot of things.

• The location of a boundary that surrounds the body at about twelve to eighteen inches.
  
• That the boundary is transparent.
  
• The boundary works on the basis of optics.
  

It also told me that this small grey is made of the same "material", if I may term it so, as the boundary that surrounds the human body.

So how do we account for this?

How do we account for her surprise at my seeing her pressing upon an ordinarily invisible material boundary?

Well, the explanation I have come up with is to do with the fact that when RV'ing I use the whole body to perceive, all my senses. I also consider the human body in its entirety to be an eye. So when one RV's in this way it is the boundary that is used to perceive.

The grey's surprise can be accounted for by the fact that most people are unaware of the boundary and do not ordinarily use it with which to percieve.

If I were to suggest how this was achieved, I would simply say; practice being aware of the world around you with your whole body and not just the eyes and ears. Putting aside the intellect and the thoughts that go with it would help too. I might add that this is awareness self training within our natural world.

For anyone who has studies the chakras to any degree, the student is presented with a complex diagram, for example:

   

This one is actually pretty good in that it shows what appears to be roots that reach out from the soles of the feet. The implication here is the human body is a mobile tree.

So let's look at what I have posted so far. I mentioned that there are two energies that are older than the modern day chakras, a green and a red. Also a boundary of self.

   

This is what we have so far.

(06-30-2025, 01:13 PM)FCD Wrote: I wanted to fully understand the nuts and bolts about how LINUX worked, what made it tick.  Along the way I ran into a brick wall in my understanding.  This caused me to set LINUX aside (temporarily) until I had more time to spend with it.  My issue was my failure to be able to wrap my head around the file structure of LINUX.  And, as one might imagine, this led to massive problems galore unless you were willing to just stay within the boundaries of a given LINUX distribution (which I was not).  In my efforts to unscramble this confusion, I discovered I'd allowed my mind to become hardwired into a traditional (Microshaft) OS file structure.  With LINUX, you discover almost immediately that there are literally zero similarities between the two file structures.  Even something simple like trying to see the entire contents of a hard drive involves radically different thinking than a regular OS.  My conclusion was, if I couldn't figure out something so seemingly simple like that, I shouldn't be spending much time with LINUX until I could.

We need a linux thread in the howto forum. Give me a day and I'll start one with your post above. Linux might be a learning curve, but I got it and I'm no wizz.

Done: Linux in the DIY Forum.