Merkabah

[Skarekrow]

The whole cyborg think creeps me out. If transhumanism appeals to you then you can become Robocop one day. I would rather be like Batman. An entirely human lone wolf bad ass.

No...I think it will start small...like the Google glass...you already have those bluetooth things in people’s ears...it won’t be long before people start incorporating these things as implants...such s a tiny speaker implanted in the bone behind the ears where you could hear people talking and music in your head without anyone else being able to and not having to worry about cords and such...you may have to wear some sort of earphones to bed to recharge them...or they could be piezoelectric in nature perhaps?
When they start getting VR to a real useable level (which it is moving toward) then I think we’ll see the implants begin.
There will no less be an anti-implant, anti cyborg group that will arise.
I’m not sure where I stand on the issue personally...my cell phone doesn’t even have a camera that’s how basic it is...not because I can’t use it, I just don’t.
You would be jealous of my phone bill at any rate I’m sure hehe.
I think it holds great promise for people who lose limbs, can’t walk, spinal injuries...my cousin who is paralyzed is one of the guys that demonstrates the robotic legs they are testing out....he still rides in the X-games for the disabled...still does backflips on his snowmobile that caused the whole mess.
He’s very lucky that Monster energy has taken great care of him and his family.

[video=youtube;MaXJsUaOl7I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaXJsUaOl7I[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

Trees Rest Their Branches When They ‘Sleep’
​

The birch tree might symbolize renewal and rebirth, but even the source of life needs to kick back for a circadian snooze.
According to a new study birch trees droop their branches when the sun sets and perk back up come dawn; in other words, the trees go to sleep.

On the one hand, this phenomenon is perhaps no great surprise; all forms of life from the smallest of organisms up are at the behest of the 24-hour clock, and even Darwin examined the day and night behaviors of plants.

But the research is the first to precisely observe the sleep movement of trees in their natural habitat.

​

To do so the researchers pointed infrared lasers at two birch trees, one in Austria and one in Finland, scanning millions of points at regular intervals over a single night.
Both studies were conducted close to the solar equinox and were done on nights without wind or condensation, and without the intrusion of artificial light that might alter the behavior of the trees.

What they found is that the leaves and branches gradually drooped over the course of the night, reaching their lowest position a couple of hours before sunrise.
Come morning, the trees returned to their original position within a few hours.

The overall ‘droopage’ came to around 10cm for each five-foot tree.

​

As András Zlinszky of the Centre for Ecological Research in Tihany, Hungary explained to New Scientist:

"It was a very clear effect, and applied to the whole tree… No one has observed this effect before at the scale of whole trees, and I was surprised by the extent of the changes."

​

The researchers remain unclear as to whether the trees behavior is governed by available water and sunlight or by their own internal rhythm, though it is possible that the trees are conserving energy during hours when it is not beneficial to stretch out their limbs and feed from the sun.

As for what comes next, Eetu Puttonen of the Finnish Geospatial Research Institute explained in a statement:

"The next step will be collecting tree point clouds repeatedly and comparing the results to water use measurements during day and night”, says “This will give us a better understanding of the trees’ daily tree water use and their influence on the local or regional climate."


​

 

[Skarekrow]

Let There Be (New) Light:
New Form of Light Discovered
​

Light has been a topic of study in physics for centuries, and it has been assumed that most of the properties of light are already well understood by physicists.
However, physicists at Ireland’s Trinity College Dublin recently published a potentially groundbreaking discovery concerning the nature of light.

While studying the different effects that occur when light is passed through crystals, the team came across what is potentially an unknown form or property of light.
The team was studying a property known as angular momentum, which is the rotation of a system along the same axis of its movement.

Physicists at Trinity College Dublin in the 19th century were some of the first to discover that light has angular momentum and can become a hollow spiral when passing through crystals.

To conceptualize angular momentum, imagine a rifle bullet in flight; while the bullet is traveling forwards, it is also spinning around the same axis as the direction in which it is moving.

The same goes for a screw being driven downward into a screw hole; as the screw is moving downward, it is also rotating.

Angular momentum

​

In previous experiments, the angular momentum of light was found to rotate at a constant velocity.
In this experiment, however, the angular momentum of light was slower due to quantum effects of the light interacting with the crystal.

This marks the first time that light has been observed with a different velocity of angular momentum.
According to the researchers’ findings, this discovery changes our current understanding of how light behaves in space:

"The new form of total angular momentum we have identified gives an alternative representation of the state space in terms of beams with nonuniform polarization, leading to a new understanding of the effects of optical angular momentum."

​

Optic technology could enable much faster and more secure communications.

​

This discovery could revolutionize optical communications, potentially enabling much faster and more secure connections.
There is already research being conducted to develop computers that are powered by light rather than electricity, which could allow for near-instant communication between computers connected by optical cables.

As physicists keep pushing the boundaries on quantum computing and nanophotonics, breakthroughs like this one could soon make today’s technology look like stone tablets when compared with the computers of the near future.

 

[Skarekrow]

Creating malevolent AI: A manual

A new paper by AI experts explores the construction of dangerous artificial intelligence.

​

The boom in AI promises to enrich our lives.
AI assistants keep our schedules in order; robot "crew" members help us on cruises; and "swarm AI" even offers the chance for us to win big in the gambling world.

But there's a dark side of the coin as well: AI that can cause great harm.
While much thought has been devoted to the dangers of AI, and centers like the Future of Life Institute in Cambridge, Ma., and the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University are focusing resources on how to support the creation of 'safe' AI, few have attempted to intentionally create malevolent AI.

Until now.

A new paper by computer scientist Federico Pistono and Roman Yampolskiy, director of the Cybersecurity Lab at the University of Louisville and author of Artificial Superintelligence: A Futuristic Approach, explores "Unethical Research: How to Create a Malevolent Artificial Intelligence."

In this case, malevolent AI is defined by any system that acts in discord with the intentions of its users.
There are many examples of dangerous AI, which can be created accidentally or intentionally.

In a previous paper about pathways to dangerous AI, Yampolskiy put it like this:

"Wall Street trading, nuclear power plants, Social Security compensation, credit histories, and traffic lights are all software controlled, and are only one serious design flaw away from creating disastrous consequences for millions of people.
The situation is even more dangerous with software specifically designed for malicious purposes, such as viruses, spyware, Trojan horses, worms, and other hazardous software."​

So why would anyone want to create malevolent AI?
Here are a handful of groups, according to the paper, that might be interested:

• Military whose aim is to develop cyber-weapons and robot soldiers.

• Governments who would like to establish hegemony, control people, or take down other governments.
• Corporations who want a monopoly, destroying competition through illegal means.
• Black hats attempting to steal information or resources or destroy cyber-infrastructure targets.
• Doomsday cults attempting to bring the end of the world by any means.

The list goes on and includes depressed people who want to commit suicide, psychopaths who want to earn fame, and even AI researchers who need to secure funding.
If you are interested in how malevolent AI can be created by "ill-informed but not purposefully malevolent software designers," the paper suggests several methods:

• The system could be immediately deployed without testing.

• It could be provided with unlimited access to information from sources with large data sets, from places like Facebook.
• It could be given unvetted goals, with no thought to consequences.
• And it could be charged with operating critical infrastructure like energy, nuclear weapons, financial markets, or communication.

According to the authors, there are two specific ways that malevolent AI can be created.
The first is by failing to create an oversight board that can review the ethics of the research.

"Since we currently don't have any control mechanism for artificial general intelligence (AGI), creating one right now would be very dangerous and so unethical," said Yampolskiy. "Oversight boards need to evaluate likelihood of any project to become an uncontrolled AGI."

The second is by creating closed-source code.
This type of closed-source code or proprietary software is much more vulnerable to attacks, and has been manipulated by intelligence agencies in previous cases.

"In this environment, any group with the intent of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence would find the ideal conditions for operating in quasi-total obscurity, without any oversight board and without being screened or monitored," the authors wrote, "all the while being protected by copyright law, patent law, industrial secret, or in the name of 'national security.'"

"I hope no one tries to create malevolent AI," said Yampolskiy.
If, indeed, it does happen, Nick Bostrom's vision of superintelligence may not be too far-fetched.

 

[Skarekrow]

How Facebook Warps Our Worlds

THOSE who’ve been raising alarms about Facebook are right: Almost every minute that we spend on our smartphones and tablets and laptops, thumbing through favorite websites and scrolling through personalized feeds, we’re pointed toward foregone conclusions.

We’re pressured to conform.
But unseen puppet masters on Mark Zuckerberg’s payroll aren’t to blame.

We’re the real culprits.
When it comes to elevating one perspective above all others and herding people into culturally and ideologically inflexible tribes, nothing that Facebook does to us comes close to what we do to ourselves.

I’m talking about how we use social media in particular and the Internet in general – and how we let them use us.
They’re not so much agents as accomplices, new tools for ancient impulses, part of “a long sequence of technological innovations that enable us to do what we want,” noted the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who wrote the 2012 best seller “The Righteous Mind,” when we spoke last week.

“And one of the things we want is to spend more time with people who think like us and less with people who are different,” Haidt added.
“The Facebook effect isn’t trivial. But it’s catalyzing or amplifying a tendency that was already there.”

By “the Facebook effect” he didn’t mean the possibility, discussed extensively over recent weeks, that Facebook manipulates its menu of “trending” news to emphasize liberal views and sources.

That menu is just one facet of Facebook.
More prevalent for many users are the posts we see from friends and from other people and groups we follow on the network, and this information is utterly contingent on choices we ourselves make.

If we seek out, “like” and comment on angry missives from Bernie Sanders supporters, we’ll be confronted with more angry missives from more Sanders supporters.

If we banish such outbursts, those dispatches disappear.
That’s the crucial dynamic, algorithm or whatever you want to call it.

That’s the trap and curse of our lives online.

The Internet isn’t rigged to give us right or left, conservative or liberal – at least not until we rig it that way.
It’s designed to give us more of the same, whatever that same is: one sustained note from the vast and varied music that it holds, one redundant fragrance from a garden of infinite possibility.

A few years back I bought some scented shower gel from Jo Malone.
I made the purchase through the company’s website. For months afterward, as I toggled through cyberspace, Jo Malone stalked me, always on my digital heels, forever in a corner of my screen, a Jo Malone candle here, a Jo Malone cologne over there.

I’d been profiled and pigeonholed: fan of Jo Malone.
Sure, I could choose from woody, citrus, floral and even fruity, but there was no Aramis in my aromatic ecosphere, and I was steered clear of Old Spice.

So it goes with the fiction we read, the movies we watch, the music we listen to and, scarily, the ideas we subscribe to.
They’re not challenged.

They’re validated and reinforced.
By bookmarking given blogs and personalizing social-media feeds, we customize the news we consume and the political beliefs we’re exposed to as never before.

And this colors our days, or rather bleeds them of color, reducing them to a single hue.
We construct precisely contoured echo chambers of affirmation that turn conviction into zeal, passion into fury, disagreements with the other side into the demonization of it.

Then we marvel at the Twitter mobs that swarm in defense of Sanders or the surreal success of Donald Trump’s candidacy, whose historical tagline may well be “All I know is what’s on the Internet.”

Those were his exact words, a blithe excuse for his mistaken assertion that a protester at one of his rallies had ties to Islamic extremists.
He’d seen a video somewhere.

He’d chosen to take it at face value.
His intelligence wasn’t and isn’t vetted but viral – and conveniently suited to his argument and needs.

With a creative or credulous enough Google search, a self-serving “truth” can always be found, along with a passel of supposed experts to vouch for it and a clique of fellow disciples.

Carnival barkers, conspiracy theories, willful bias and nasty partisanship aren’t anything new, and they haven’t reached unprecedented heights today.
But what’s remarkable and sort of heartbreaking is the way they’re fed by what should be strides in our ability to educate ourselves.

The proliferation of cable television networks and growth of the Internet promised to expand our worlds, not shrink them.
Instead they’ve enhanced the speed and thoroughness with which we retreat into enclaves of the like-minded.

Eli Pariser parsed all of this in his 2011 book “The Filter Bubble,” noting how every tap, swipe and keystroke warps what comes next, creating a tailored reality that’s closer to fiction.

There was subsequent pushback to that analysis, including from scientists at Facebook, who published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Science last year that questioned just how homogeneous a given Facebook user’s news feed really was.

But there’s no argument that in an era that teems with choice, brims with niche marketing and exalts individualism to the extent that ours does, we’re sorting ourselves with a chillingly ruthless efficiency.

We’ve surrendered universal points of reference.
We’ve lost common ground.

“Technology makes it much easier for us to connect to people who share some single common interest,” said Marc Dunkelman, adding that it also makes it easier for us to avoid “face-to-face interactions with diverse ideas.”

He touched on this in an incisive 2014 book, “The Vanishing Neighbor,” which belongs with Haidt’s work and with “Bowling Alone,” “Coming Apart” and “The Fractured Republic” in the literature of modern American fragmentation, a booming genre all its own.

We’re less committed to, and trustful of, large institutions than we were at times in the past.
We question their wisdom and substitute it with the groupthink of micro-communities, many of which we’ve formed online, and their sensibilities can be more peculiar and unforgiving.

Facebook, along with other social media, definitely conspires in this.
Haidt noted that it often discourages dissent within a cluster of friends by accelerating shaming.

He pointed to the enforced political correctness among students at many colleges.
“Facebook allows people to react to each other so quickly that they are really afraid to step out of line,” he said.

But that’s not about a lopsided news feed.
It’s not about some sorcerer’s algorithm.

It’s about a tribalism that has existed for as long as humankind has and is now rooted in the fertile soil of the Internet, which is coaxing it toward a full and insidious flower.

[SIZ3]Correction: May 21, 2016
An earlier version of this article misstated a word in a quote by Jonathan Haidt. Mr. Haidt said the Facebook effect was “catalyzing or amplifying” a tendency already there (not “metabolizing or amplifying”).[/SIZE]​

 

[Kgal]

For all of us...

"Well...that's not all we can do....although it's an important component of shifting ourselves into a new reality. But I invite you to consider the meaning of the word Hope to include Fear.
The reason we Hope for some particular outcome...is because we Fear it might not happen. The mere fact of the Fear woven into the state of mind when hoping...actually hinders the desired outcome.
So instead... we Believe the outcome has already happened...and we focus this intention through our Heart to infuse the thought with the Power of the emotion of unconditional Love. It's unconditional you see because we don't want to hold on to a very detailed outcome...but instead we make it open ended as long as it matches the frequency vibration emanating through our Heart....which is Love without judgment.
Believe in your heart that 'things are different" now...and flow that belief through your heart and out in to your world. Send it to the flowers and plants in your garden. Send that thought imbued with love to your horses and creatures around you.
Practice it. See how it feels within your sphere. This act alone will change the world.
Much love and strength to you. ...Kathleen"

 

[Kgal]

How Facebook Warps Our Worlds



​

THOSE who’ve been raising alarms about Facebook are right: Almost every minute that we spend on our smartphones and tablets and laptops, thumbing through favorite websites and scrolling through personalized feeds, we’re pointed toward foregone conclusions.

We’re pressured to conform.
But unseen puppet masters on Mark Zuckerberg’s payroll aren’t to blame.

We’re the real culprits.
When it comes to elevating one perspective above all others and herding people into culturally and ideologically inflexible tribes, nothing that Facebook does to us comes close to what we do to ourselves.

I’m talking about how we use social media in particular and the Internet in general — and how we let them use us.
They’re not so much agents as accomplices, new tools for ancient impulses, part of “a long sequence of technological innovations that enable us to do what we want,” noted the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who wrote the 2012 best seller “The Righteous Mind,” when we spoke last week.

“And one of the things we want is to spend more time with people who think like us and less with people who are different,” Haidt added.
“The Facebook effect isn’t trivial. But it’s catalyzing or amplifying a tendency that was already there.”

By “the Facebook effect” he didn’t mean the possibility, discussed extensively over recent weeks, that Facebook manipulates its menu of “trending” news to emphasize liberal views and sources.

That menu is just one facet of Facebook.
More prevalent for many users are the posts we see from friends and from other people and groups we follow on the network, and this information is utterly contingent on choices we ourselves make.

If we seek out, “like” and comment on angry missives from Bernie Sanders supporters, we’ll be confronted with more angry missives from more Sanders supporters.

If we banish such outbursts, those dispatches disappear.
That’s the crucial dynamic, algorithm or whatever you want to call it.

That’s the trap and curse of our lives online.

The Internet isn’t rigged to give us right or left, conservative or liberal — at least not until we rig it that way.
It’s designed to give us more of the same, whatever that same is: one sustained note from the vast and varied music that it holds, one redundant fragrance from a garden of infinite possibility.

A few years back I bought some scented shower gel from Jo Malone.
I made the purchase through the company’s website. For months afterward, as I toggled through cyberspace, Jo Malone stalked me, always on my digital heels, forever in a corner of my screen, a Jo Malone candle here, a Jo Malone cologne over there.

I’d been profiled and pigeonholed: fan of Jo Malone.
Sure, I could choose from woody, citrus, floral and even fruity, but there was no Aramis in my aromatic ecosphere, and I was steered clear of Old Spice.

So it goes with the fiction we read, the movies we watch, the music we listen to and, scarily, the ideas we subscribe to.
They’re not challenged.

They’re validated and reinforced.
By bookmarking given blogs and personalizing social-media feeds, we customize the news we consume and the political beliefs we’re exposed to as never before.

And this colors our days, or rather bleeds them of color, reducing them to a single hue.
We construct precisely contoured echo chambers of affirmation that turn conviction into zeal, passion into fury, disagreements with the other side into the demonization of it.

Then we marvel at the Twitter mobs that swarm in defense of Sanders or the surreal success of Donald Trump’s candidacy, whose historical tagline may well be “All I know is what’s on the Internet.”

Those were his exact words, a blithe excuse for his mistaken assertion that a protester at one of his rallies had ties to Islamic extremists.
He’d seen a video somewhere.

He’d chosen to take it at face value.
His intelligence wasn’t and isn’t vetted but viral — and conveniently suited to his argument and needs.

With a creative or credulous enough Google search, a self-serving “truth” can always be found, along with a passel of supposed experts to vouch for it and a clique of fellow disciples.

Carnival barkers, conspiracy theories, willful bias and nasty partisanship aren’t anything new, and they haven’t reached unprecedented heights today.
But what’s remarkable and sort of heartbreaking is the way they’re fed by what should be strides in our ability to educate ourselves.

The proliferation of cable television networks and growth of the Internet promised to expand our worlds, not shrink them.
Instead they’ve enhanced the speed and thoroughness with which we retreat into enclaves of the like-minded.

Eli Pariser parsed all of this in his 2011 book “The Filter Bubble,” noting how every tap, swipe and keystroke warps what comes next, creating a tailored reality that’s closer to fiction.

There was subsequent pushback to that analysis, including from scientists at Facebook, who published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Science last year that questioned just how homogeneous a given Facebook user’s news feed really was.

But there’s no argument that in an era that teems with choice, brims with niche marketing and exalts individualism to the extent that ours does, we’re sorting ourselves with a chillingly ruthless efficiency.

We’ve surrendered universal points of reference.
We’ve lost common ground.

“Technology makes it much easier for us to connect to people who share some single common interest,” said Marc Dunkelman, adding that it also makes it easier for us to avoid “face-to-face interactions with diverse ideas.”

He touched on this in an incisive 2014 book, “The Vanishing Neighbor,” which belongs with Haidt’s work and with “Bowling Alone,” “Coming Apart” and “The Fractured Republic” in the literature of modern American fragmentation, a booming genre all its own.

We’re less committed to, and trustful of, large institutions than we were at times in the past.
We question their wisdom and substitute it with the groupthink of micro-communities, many of which we’ve formed online, and their sensibilities can be more peculiar and unforgiving.

Facebook, along with other social media, definitely conspires in this.
Haidt noted that it often discourages dissent within a cluster of friends by accelerating shaming.

He pointed to the enforced political correctness among students at many colleges.
“Facebook allows people to react to each other so quickly that they are really afraid to step out of line,” he said.

But that’s not about a lopsided news feed.
It’s not about some sorcerer’s algorithm.

It’s about a tribalism that has existed for as long as humankind has and is now rooted in the fertile soil of the Internet, which is coaxing it toward a full and insidious flower.

Correction: May 21, 2016
An earlier version of this article misstated a word in a quote by Jonathan Haidt. Mr. Haidt said the Facebook effect was “catalyzing or amplifying” a tendency already there (not “metabolizing or amplifying”).​

and my facebook experience is the complete opposite of this...

I have some excellent conversations with friends from around the world... especially in secret groups on facebook. we try to share our weird Shift experiences and give each other healing reiki and emotional support. we're a safe haven for more and more people waking up too.

I am glad we are less trusting of institutions. This article is laced with subtle "control" statements. Facebook is certainly not the best way of interacting with others...but it sure is increasing diverse knowledge across cultures.

The People mentioned in this article need to take a stand for themselves. When they get slapped for it...they need to take a good long look at that. These are the times when Contrast is at an all time high.....staring us in the mirror. Contrast is created in order to stimulate creation and flow.
This is not the Time for stagnation and status quo. The days of Institutions must go...

To me ...this statement is insulting...as if institutions were flexible and forgiving.... [snorts] That's a bald faced lie:

We question their wisdom and substitute it with the groupthink of micro-communities, many of which we’ve formed online, and their sensibilities can be more peculiar and unforgiving.

 

[Skarekrow]

and my facebook experience is the complete opposite of this...

I have some excellent conversations with friends from around the world... especially in secret groups on facebook. we try to share our weird Shift experiences and give each other healing reiki and emotional support. we're a safe haven for more and more people waking up too.

I am glad we are less trusting of institutions. This article is laced with subtle "control" statements. Facebook is certainly not the best way of interacting with others...but it sure is increasing diverse knowledge across cultures.

The People mentioned in this article need to take a stand for themselves. When they get slapped for it...they need to take a good long look at that. These are the times when Contrast is at an all time high.....staring us in the mirror. Contrast is created in order to stimulate creation and flow.
This is not the Time for stagnation and status quo. The days of Institutions must go...

To me ...this statement is insulting...as if institutions were flexible and forgiving.... [snorts] That's a bald faced lie:

Well, my dear...you know I don’t just post things on my thread that are non-confrontational or pushing the edges of science or spirit or what is acceptable or not.
I found his op ed piece to be an interesting point of view, one that I, like you, don’t share, but found would still like to be read and understood.
How’re you today anyhow??

Here, check out the very beginning outline work on the pendulum board I am making using pyrography...I am going to copper-leaf the negative space in the spiral at the middle...not sure about the rest yet...and I’m still debating if I should include the regular alphabet and numbering around the circle as well.
Not sure if I’ll just paint the rest or stain the wood with various shades of stain (though containing the stain within the lines can be tricky)...the wood is however already built with sides like it has it’s own frame (dunno if you can see...there is a space underneath so I am going to attach crystals to the underside of each sigil (not sure which ones yet...I figured I would let my intuition guide me there...though I am fairly certain I want a piece of black tourmaline in the center).
What do you think (there’s a bit of sacred geometry there if you look)?
Keep in mind that this is a very rough beginning to what will hopefully look much nicer upon completion.
It’s about 12” x 12"

( also [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] )

 

[Skarekrow]

It’s actually a pretty Zen premise.​

 

[sprinkles]

Well, my dear...you know I don’t just post things on my thread that are non-confrontational or pushing the edges of science or spirit or what is acceptable or not.
I found his op ed piece to be an interesting point of view, one that I, like you, don’t share, but found would still like to be read and understood.
How’re you today anyhow??

Here, check out the very beginning outline work on the pendulum board I am making using pyrography...I am going to copper-leaf the negative space in the spiral at the middle...not sure about the rest yet...and I’m still debating if I should include the regular alphabet and numbering around the circle as well.
Not sure if I’ll just paint the rest or stain the wood with various shades of stain (though containing the stain within the lines can be tricky)...the wood is however already built with sides like it has it’s own frame (dunno if you can see...there is a space underneath so I am going to attach crystals to the underside of each sigil (not sure which ones yet...I figured I would let my intuition guide me there...though I am fairly certain I want a piece of black tourmaline in the center).
What do you think (there’s a bit of sacred geometry there if you look)?
Keep in mind that this is a very rough beginning to what will hopefully look much nicer upon completion.
It’s about 12” x 12"

( also [MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION] )

That is neat. Kind of resembles a cosmic diagram.

 

[Skarekrow]

So I don’t agree with all the details contained within these illustrations, but they are fairly well done.
It tends to make light of certain things, like the section on Sigils for example...I found that irritating, but the rest seems useful.

 

[Skarekrow]

​

 

[Skarekrow]

​

 

[Skarekrow]

to be continued...


​

 

[Skarekrow]

Continued...^^^

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

Oh man I would kill for this thing.
(I must have done something alone these lines in a past-life or some shit)

Apothecary's Cabinet, 1730, Delft.
Veneered with walnut and olive wood in oak core.
Contents complete.
The small central alcove can be removed to reveal a hidden pulley system that opens a set of secret drawers.​

 

[Skarekrow]

Today’s film...

Entheogen - Awakening the Divine Within

[video=youtube;aBD0hmlW1SM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBD0hmlW1SM[/video]

And it begins ~ Generating the divine within...

Psychedelic gurus gather to share arcane knowledge and explore expanded consciousness!​