>>24554600 (OP)
Misner, Wheeler, and Thorne is the standard reference, although the informal presentation makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Weinberg is a much better written book, but it’s very dated.

Idk what "exotic" means but early buddhist cosmology is pretty good, although you'll probably want to skip around sections because it gets really detailed at certain points

>>24554665
Oh just double checked the title it's "The Buddhist Cosmos: a comprehensive summary of the early buddhist worldview"

>>24554600 (OP)
Ra Material

>>24555694
Did anyone nibble when you posted LoO in gnostic thread a few days back?

>>24555774
LoO is gateway gnosticism.

>>24555777
I'll clarify for holy trips: the whole council of elders from Saturn bit is tacky. But the conceit of the whole thing is beautiful. Ra was a direct influence on Modem, which was a precursor for better or for worse of ChatGPT.

>>24555777
Yeah, I know, I’ve read it, I’ve read other gnostic stuff, I’ve read patristics talking about their take on gnosticism. I didn’t watch that thread closely and was wondering if anyone replied to (you). Every now and then you get people who are into it, but lots of times if you bring it up it slides into oblivion. I don’t agree with it but I see the same currents of thought popping up other places as “everything old is new again” gnosticism, including what you are saying about embedding it into foundation models as a default view of the metaphysical end of things.
Nice trips.

whats that