The Forbidden Letters to Philip Gardiner

The Letters
PS by Philip Gardiner  
Part 2 - by Paris 4
Newsletter 1
Newsletter 2
Newsletter 3
Newsletter 4
Newsletter 5
Newsletter 6
Gary Osborn 
Magnus Strom
Hugo Palts  
David Goldberg
Daniel Srsa
Anna Moshiu
Anton Schneider
Thonus Furious (2 art.) 
Hanno Temming
Anna Pietropoli 
Otto Reich *
Jonathan Rice *
Don Willis
Antoine de la Censerie *
John Fox
Mark O'Neill
Paula Johnson
John Hume
Guillaume Bernier
Guido Popp
Richard Morley
Maud Perkins
Emile de Beauregard
Paul Cambronne *
Hugo Dewasme
Maria El Safti *
J. & W. Kaposi
Heinz Lichtenberg
Anil Sriram
Onno de Bie
Pablo Uribe
Christine Liebreich
Julius Breitner
David E
Paula Braun
F. P. da Silva
Julia Cicci
Mirjam de Heer
Jos Winter
Betty Martin
Peter Wong
Joan Quin
Pedro Caz
Richard Cayce
Rene Loman
Ieounas Urano  
Sandra Milten
Harris & Strom
Ingo Berg
Wilhelm Wundt
Adam Kadmon
Bashir Ibn Salah
Beate Schulz
Judy Brooks  
W-M Editor  
Daniel Witzen
Zita Christensen
Henk Jansen
Nikita Nomi
*recommended by the Paris 4
PhilipGardiner (WM)
Splendor Solis
Aliens in Archaeology
Gary Osborn
Philip Gardiner
Ed Ziomek




 Note: The following article is published with permission.

On the Forbidden Letters - by Wilhelm Wundt

Is biological life in reality inanimate?

'A biophysicist talks physics to the biologists and biology to the physicists.'  [Jay Wilkinson]

[ The DNA helix ]

Life, according to most scientists, is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have 'signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,'[Wikipedia] either because such functions 'have ceased, or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.'[ibid.]

In biology life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter. According to biologists 'living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.'[ibid.]

But how can we be sure that we can distinguish between animate and inanimate in the first place? As scientists point out, any technology sufficiently advanced and complex appears to us as magic. But is mere technology nonetheless.

So can, what we call life, not be animate at all, but only matter sufficiently complex. In such a way that it only appears to us as animate.

This would be interesting, because it could mean, in the light of the Forbidden Letters, that there exists only one form of life, and such life would be alchemical. It would have its origin in The Living Stone of Transmutation through Kundalini fire. This would imply that a human being still untouched by the Stone of Transmutation would only seem animate, but is in fact not. And that would be the essence of logon 11 of the Gospel of Thomas, that, according to the Paris 4, 'most alchemical of all gospels.' Here is that logon:

'Jesus said: "The dead are not alive, and the living will not die." - '

The dead are those not reborn from that fire, meaning DNA-man. The living, those reborn through Kundalini fire.

Again, and even if it doesn't feel that way, if this is correct, we would be inanimate matter, if only born through water, meaning: the womb. And inanimate matter can of course not inherit Life Eternal. And this would, in my opinion, explain why it is said at the very beginning of that Gospel of Thomas:

'These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

Thomas 1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." - '

'The Stone of Alchemy would then not only be the mill of evolution, meaning: transposons [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon ], and thereby the architect of the infrastructure for the Great Work, the human body, it would be the very thing that changes inanimate matter into animate matter through Kundalini fire. In the words of the Paris 4: 'The endgoal of evolution is alchemy. If you are not writing about alchemy, you are writing either about nothing, or about something unimportant.'

That 'endgoal of evolution' might, by the way, very well correspond with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point. In the Omega-Point-theory the universe is 'constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness, a theory of evolution that Teilhard called the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. For him, the universe can only move in the direction of more complexity and consciousness if it is being drawn by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness (i.e. the Stone of Transmutation/Wundt).'[Wikipedia]

Thus Teilhard postulates the Omega Point as this supreme point of complexity and consciousness, which, in his view, is 'the actual cause for the universe to grow in complexity and consciousness. In other words, the Omega Point exists as supremely complex and conscious, transcendent and independent of the evolving universe.'[ibid.]

Wilhelm Wundt, IX/MMX.

FIND any book or DVD and have it delivered to your home!

:::  Hosted by Lunarpages   :::  This Website was launched on March 26, 2002  ::: 

 Recommended: 1920x1200+ display, CSS and Java Script support : : : Hosted by Lunarpages
2002-2010, World-Mysteries.com, All Rights Reserved.