The Noxsoma Chronicles [0079]
12-08-2025 … Day 23659 (Moonday Lunatix Mix)
Good Moonday Lunatics,
Welcome to a brand-new week on Planet Serenity.
How are we going to fight the power this week?
We imagine that there were many more types of messiahs (messengers) in the post-diluvian world than we can ever know about. A perusal of sects & cults in the early days of what became Christianity espoused over-lapping concepts that many humans glomed onto and were subsequently — maybe generations later — compelled to fight to defend, or fight (and kill) to spread, or keep from spreading. Such is the nature of the human (666) beast.
Remnants of dualist gnostic beliefs survive and occasionally emerge in occult ciphers when the chaos of the demiurge becomes overbearing.
“Science” should be spelled “s-eye-ence” [or maybe “psy-ence”] because for humans “knowing” is a matter of “seeing.” Abstract concepts like those of early Christian sects — not sanctioned/governed by the “Church” — were not believed because they could not be “seen” … measured.
It’s always “Now.” And even today in the “21st” century humans cannot believe that a “think” exists unless it can be measured.
SUBSCRIBE
What’s so “Nice” About “Science”?
A woman from my past came to visit a few years back. She comes from the other side of the country so it was a big deal to meet up. During the course of our catch up convo she mentioned that “nice” used to be an insult.
I was gobsmacked and incredulous but as always – curious.
She couldn’t tell me exactly why, so as usual, I researched the etymology. As a result I no longer use the word “nice” the way that I used to. Although it still slips out sometimes. Like an F-bomb.
Here’s the etymology of “nice” which is not so nice after all.
late 13c., in reference to persons, "foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless," from Old French nice (12c.) "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish," from Latin nescius "ignorant, unaware," literally "not-knowing," from ne- "not" (from PIE root ne"not") + stem of scire "to know" (see science).
"The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj." [Weekley] — from "foolish" to "timid, faint-hearted" (pre-1300), to "fussy, fastidious" (late 14c.), to "dainty, delicate" (c. 1400), to "precise, careful" (1500s, preserved in such terms as nice distinction and nice and early); to "agreeable, delightful" (1769), to "kind, thoughtful" (1830).
We well accept this as reliable. We can track how over five centuries the word completely changed meanings. It makes one wonder how words minted from the psychology era have and will change in the centuries to come.
But...
Wait – “see science”?
Let’s see “science.” [Note – the longer the explanation the more BS emerges.]
mid-14c., "state or fact of knowing; what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge"
(12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know."
The original notion in the Latin verb probably is "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," or else "to incise." This is related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root skei "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").
OED writes that the oldest English sense of the word now is restricted to theology and philosophy. From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning, systematized knowledge regarding a particular group of objects;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill resulting from training, handicraft; a trade."
From late 14c. in the more specific sense of "collective human knowledge," especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning. The modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested by 1725; in 17c.-18c. this commonly was philosophy.
The sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek epistemē) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhnē), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill.
The predominant modern use, "natural and physical science," generally restricted to study of the phenomena of the material universe and its laws, is by mid-19c.
The men who founded modern science had two merits which are not necessarily found together: Immense patience in observation, and great boldness in framing hypotheses. The second of these merits had belonged to the earliest Greek philosophers; the first existed, to a considerable degree, in the later astronomers of antiquity. But no one among the ancients, except perhaps Aristarchus, possessed both merits, and no one in the Middle Ages possessed either. [Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy," 1945]
Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
The patient observation of your humble scribe suggests that the more that humans became “literate” and had access to the tools of writing and reproducing their ideas the more diluted the language became to a point where a word that meant “foolish or clumsy” has come to mean “lovely,” “pretty” [a “nice” day or personality.]
And don’t even get me started on “science!” [Too late.] What masquerades as “science” today has little if anything to do with “knowing.” Most of it is theory. And a good deal of this exploration beyond the 3D realm is more about putting one’s name to some abstract “effect” or “phenomenon” that is only vaguely defined and is anything but consistent.
“I cannot stay silent any longer!”
The transcriber of these transmissions is very lucky not to have a large audience. This way we don’t draw the ire of these faux-lie-ciphers who are doing bad deeds and attempting to make them sound like lofty religio-scientific revelations.
Remember that religion means bound and science means knowing. In a sense … we are “bound to know.” Know what?
That’s the question isn’t it?
Don Juan
In the Don Juan series by Carlos Castaneda -- in the early books the narrator has these freaky experiences. He asks his mentor Don Juan what had happened. Don Juan explains, but "Carlito" wants to know if anybody else witnessed his experience. Don Juan scolds him a little bit. Because the author was an academic -- educated man of science -- he didn't trust his own experience. He needed a witness. Maybe even more than one.
Whenever I read one of these "Quantum" essays they are replete with words like "possibly" "probably" and my favorite "if this is true then..." I always ask myself the most outrageous "if" in response. "If we no longer need to breathe oxygen then..."
Then what?
The missing ingredient in every one of these hypotheses is "faith." What this vessel has found to be true -- [and this is ONLY for this vessel] -- "It works whether you believe it works or not." However—the more you believe it works, the more you witness it working. The more you feel it working. And – the more your “common senses” signal you that it’s working. It looks, feels, sounds, tastes and smells like it’s working … and … you intuit it working. No one else will see it. No one else will acknowledge it. No one else will understand it. They will tell you "it's luck," or that you're weird. Contrary to popular believe – not even their “negative vibes” can keep your “magic” from working, although they might hinder the process through distraction.
Welcome new subscribers. Keep doing the good deeds.
SUBSCRIBE
Daily Blog … EXTRA!
My neighbor set up a ping-pong table in his basement. We were “tweens.” I lost the first 18 games. I don’t know if I ever beat him that first day. Many years, many more losses and some techniques later, I was “killer” in racket sports. Not all of them. Really — just two of them. Ping-pong and racket ball. I played so much racket ball it became like Kung-fu. Just like they coach you; the tool [racket] becomes an extension of the body. There’s also staying out of the way of the ball, your opponent, gauging the speed and the angles and setting that ball so that it lands in the corner and just drops.
This is today’s example for practicing your “techniques.” What techniques? That stuff you do to align your uber-self with the most high. Your source.
At first [for Me anyway] - it was very ritualistic. [I will set the scene in tomorrow’s transmission.] But then, We started doing it as we were walking down the street recording our show. We don’t have a lot of daily pressure to unwind from — so maybe the candles, incense and gamalon gongs are required for some folk. But you got to practice. Then it becomes so easy it’s like “an operating system" working behind the scenes.” Instead of re-minding yourself to stay chill & breathe — it’s already taken care of.
SUBSCRIBE
Let’s Do The Numbers!
Today’s Score (12-08-2025)
BC … 61
Rum… 19
Ody….. 0
This Month So Far (12-08-25)
BC …… 445
Rum …...160
Ody……. 15
Month to Date … 610
SUBSCRIBE
[noxsoma.substack.com]