Truth
Edmond Wollmann
doc...@sprynet.com wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article
...
> > Kevin D. Conod wrote:
> > Every system of belief has its own reinforcing logic that justifies the
> > implied meaning assigned through subjective value judgments that allows
> > the perciever to believe in its truth.
> You are mistaking dogma for logic. They are two different things.
No, I am not-I said every system of belief and that is what I meant.
> > True=tro, a.truer, truest. (O.English treowe, D trowe, Goth triggws,
> > true, faithful: cf. trow, truce and trust). Steadfast or adhereing, as
> > to friend, a cause, or a promise; firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful;
> > trusty; honest; free from deceit; sincere; honorable or upright; being
> > consistent with the actual state of things. Conforming to fact -not
> > false; agreeing with a standard, pattern, rule or the like. A true copy;
> > exact, correct, or accurate...
> Gee, I guess philosophers can stop pondering the matter now. They should
> have purchased a dictionary long ago.
Alright I will give you mine then;
True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
system and reality that created it.
> > Since we create our experiential reality
> To some extent you can create your experiential reality. A lot of it is
> beyond your control.
Our experiential reality is 100% the effect of beliefs and
definitions-you are assuming A) That your conscious mind is the only
bank of psychic material responsible for that creation, and that B) The
physical world and its effects are not the effect of COLLECTIVE
agtreement and belief on this unconscious level.
> > by the definitions we hold
> Your definitions do not create it. Your definitions are interpretive.
Your definitions create the experience you have, there is no other way
you can have it. Your reality then reflects these definitions that then
reinforce the definitions that created them and you say "see its real I
told you" this in psychology has been tested as a self fulfilling
prophecy effect. Please stop and try to realize that time, space and
other factors are interfereing with your ability to see the
connection-but primarily your belief that the you you believe yourself
to be is all you "really" are-it is not.
> Also, you can experience things for which you have no definition.
Not possible, then you could not percieve it. Experience IS the
reflection of definitions back to the self.
> There
> is nothing that mandates that reality conform to your definition.
Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
Of which the physical world is a collective idea being expressed and
experienced. Do you or do you not know that you have an unconscious?
> There
> is nothing that mandates that you will perceive things without error. In
> other words, you, or I, can easily be wrong.
You are speaking about deductive recognitions that are mathemetical that
are the effect of the mechanics of physicality. There are only three
absolutes in the multiverse;
That you exist, the all is one and the one is all (holographics) and
that what you extend or create is what you get back-the rest is all
inductive and pliable and creatable-there is no "right or wrong" these
are subjective value judgments.
2+2=4 only in this dimension, at this time, at this vibration-change any
of those elements and it no longer applies-2 may not even exist EXCEPT
as an effect of time and space-remove time and space (which are the
elements of our creation of 3D) and a 2 turns into an unidentifiable
everything-everywhere all at once-NOW which is right and which is wrong?
The effect of one dimension, or the effect of the other?
These simpleton "goods and bads and right and wrongs" are meaningless.
> > our
> > reality experiences therefore AGREE with that "standard, pattern, rule
> > or the like" that we define it to be.
> Not so. Often your reality experiences completely disagree with what you
> have defined as truth to yourself.
What you consciously BELIEVE is the truth at that time. Ask 3 people to
remember the same event-at several different times and then tell me
which is the real version of what "actually" happened. You will find
this to be very difficult. Especially as time passes. Even when you see
the past on a video it STILL is recreated differently in ypour
consciousness EVERY TIME YOU VIEW IT.
> If they always agreed you would never
> change your view about anything--you would always be right.
Like most you are under the delusion of Granduer that your conscious
mind is
A) All knowing
B) The only locus of control
C) Percieves reality "as it is"
D) Is the major portion of the various banks of psychic material with
the most connection.
I must inform you-it is none of the above. It is a MINOR effect of being
physically focused and the majority of your reality is from
unconsciously patterned systems of belief you have bought into. It takes
introspective work, psychological insight, and last but not by any means
least-you must acknowledge there is something there besides the
consciousness you assume to be all you are FIRST. This also may take
time to see-unless you are very diligent-which most ego oriented
individuals are not.
They are such habitual rituals of thinking that you assume they are the
foundation of the Multiverse-they are not.
> Granted, there
> are people who think this, but (a) they are lying, because they change
> their views on things, also, and (b) their thinking that reality conforms
> with their understanding/definitions does not make it do so.
You forgot C) People like you have no inkling of unconscious creations
that are tested and shown to be valid in psychology all the time-not
mystery-fact.
> > Whether it is mechanistically
> > feasable, biased, based on fundemental attribution errors, observational
> > bias and such is another question.
> Whether it is possible or not is the question.
The observational error that you make that you are even capable of
thinking objectively without knowledge of self MAKES it impossible for
you.
"The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a psyche
different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be
sufficiently informed only when he has in large measure freed himself
from the levelling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived
at a clear conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective
attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology
different from the subject's, because the mind that is collectively
oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way
than by projection."
Carl Jung
> Also, if there is no good
> reason to think that it is possible, then believing it is a statement of
> what you would like to be true, not necessarily what is true.
True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
system and reality that created it. You are confusing conscious belief
and errors in perception with belief systems held at many levels of
consciousness that create the perceptions to begin with.
> > And since the accuracy of the "state of things" is an ongoing process,
> > we are never in a complete state of knowing what the "actual" state of
> > things is.
> No, you can never know completely what the state of things is, but that
> doesn't mean that you know nothing. And it will never make A=notA.
If we can never completely know the state of things-then you argue for
me-because their malleability and changability is an ongoing exploration
of TRUTHS not truth-and yes we can, make A anything we are willing and
bold enough to believe we can make A be.
> > Please refer to the post on Perfection.
> > Significance and the like is always REAL or IMPLIED. The meaning you
> > give it determines its truth value for you.
> Things are either true or they are not.
Oh contrare my philosophically starved speculator. If this is the case
why did you argue with the dictionary defintion of true? Either its true
or its not-correct?
> That doesn't mean that we can
> currently classify everything as true or not--there are some things that
> we do not know. But, something cannot be both true and not true.
Anything you can imagine must exist on some level or you could not
imagine it-therefore it TRUELY conforms to the definition that you have
as an image in your mind and exists there at the very least! Therefore
is this true or not? It is how you look at it sir as to whether
something is true or not-thats about the size of it.
> > "We have no way of identifying truths except to posit that the
> > statements that are currently rationally accepted (by our lights) are
> > true." Hilary Putnam
> Why are you now quoting about the uncertainty of truth after you just
> provided the answer to what truth is?
There is no one truth is what I have repeatedly said (if you would refer
to the posts I refer you to rather than skipping it and continuing to
argue you would see them) EXCEPT that the truth is the composition of
all truths-IF SOMETHING EXISTS IT IS TRUE-it exists in existence who am
I to say whether it is true or not? If the "All That Is" (God) allows it
and manifests it within itself how can it be false? The only way
something can be false is to not exist-then I won't know about it
anyway-otherwise IT IS JUST A MATTER OF PREFERENCE OUT OF THE UNBROKEN
WHOLENESS OF "ALL THAT IS" WHICH truth you prefer to make a part of your
reality.-Period.
> > THE truth is the COMPOSITION of all truths-I will not repeat it again.
> The total truth of everything is the sum of all truths. There must be
> smaller components in order for there to be a "composition of all truths."
> You are equivocating differences in magnitude.
If all truths are true, there doesn't "HAVE" to be anything now does
there?
> > > Meaningless in that your statement is so vague as to be devoid of
> > > intellectual content.
> > Because you cannot comprehend a comment does not inherently mean there
> > is no intellectual content.
> No, it doesn't, but it is possible that (a) he didn't comprehend it and
> there was no "intellectual content," and (b) that he did comprehend it and
> there was no "intellectual content."
Well choose which you prefer to create-you can assume which one I
choose:-)
> > > > We are given MANY lives and all of them we have "made".
> > > How so?
> > Because A) the you you believe yourself to be is not the only-or all the
> > you you are.
> "You" is also a difficult thing to define. But there is no reason to
> believe that the you that you believe yourself to be is not the only you
> you are. If you have knowledge of the totality of you, then that is the
> you that you believe yourself to be, and what you believe yourself to
Oh contrare my philosophically starved speculator-I have a dreaming self
I experience every night-it is not while focused on this dimension so it
is NOT a big stretch to say there is proof right there that the I I am
is not the only I I am. If the definition of the I I am is based on my
conscious waking self and perceptions. We spend 1/3 of our lives
dreaming and tests have shown we spend as much energy while sleeping as
while awake-so why are we reasted when we awake? Because perhaps of the
BALANCING OUT of conscious with unconscious?:-) And if we could balance
perfectly we would never need to die because our deterioration would be
brought to a halt.
>be
> is the only you you are--namely the totality of you. If you do not have
> knowledge of you beyond your present knowledge (and at this point in
> time, could you?), then there is no reason to assume there is any more to
> you, since it would be pure unfounded conjecture and would just reflect
> your fantasies.
Simple amount of introspective thought solves these dilemmas that cynics
seem to strain at.
> Now "you" has an objective definition,
NO! YOU have a DEFINITION that YOU is an objective definition-show me
where and on what tablet Moses wrote this law?:-) Not only is that an
illusion but the you you percieve yourself to be now, and now and now
are ALL DIFFERENT YOUS!!! YOU ( the you you percieve yourself to be NOW)
are CREATING THE ILLUSION OF THESE YOU"S BEING CONNECTED-they are not.
Please go to Deja News and find the "filmstrip analogy" under my name.
Because time IS AN ILLUSION, therefore SPACE is an illusion THEREFORE
THE YOU YOU ARE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, must be also.
> and you might not believe yourself
> to encompass the objective definition of you, so in that case you'd be
> correct in your statement above, but you would have to define the
> objective definition of you, the you that someone believes themselves to
> be, and possible what else you think is encompassed by you.
Already have so many times I'm exausted. Its time you guys used your
imaginations a little. I know its tough but give it a shot.
> > And B) there is no such thing as time per se.
> No, there _is_ time. I think what you mean to say is that time is not some
> immutable property of the universe that does not vary regardless of the
> circumstances. Whether what you meant to say is true or not is something I
> would have to think about further. If it is not objective, that does not
> mean that it does not exist, or that "there is no such thing as time per
> se." It just means that it is not objective. Also, the fact that something
> is not objective is not saying that it could do anything imaginable.
Now you argue for me again-could you please decide whats true and what
isn't? I thought you said either its true or it isn't which is it?:-)
"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of
the
objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart
from the order of events by which we measure it." A. Einstein
> I disagree about space. There are objective reality components to it. With
> time, again, I would have to think about it more.
Thats because you are under the delusions of conscious mind perceptions
being the "real" perceptions.
"He who thinks he knows doesn't, but he who knows he doesn't know,
does." Joseph Campbell-a very intelligent scholar.
> Oh, I guess I am wrong. I guess I _do_ know whether there is any
> objectivity to time? When will I tell me the answer? Why am I hiding it
> from myself?
Because you give far to much power to the conscious mind and "REAL"
world and not enough to the metaphoric and metaphysical world.
"The myth brings us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual . .
. there is a condescension on the part of the infinite to the mind of
man, and that is what looks like God." Joseph Campbell "Myths To Live
By"
--
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness."
Albert Einstein
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Brian Johnson
Truth is a banana.
Dogma is that the banana is only good for eating.
--
Brian Johnson
Membership Services Coordinator
American String Teachers Association
Phone: 703/476-1316
Fax: 703/476-1317
Web Page: http://www.astaweb.com
Edmond Wollmann
doc...@sprynet.com wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > Every system of belief has its own reinforcing logic that justifies the
> > > > > implied meaning assigned through subjective value judgments that allows
> > > > You are mistaking dogma for logic. They are two different things.
> > > No, I am not-I said every system of belief and that is what I meant.
> mistaking dogma for logic. There is only one system of logic, there are
> many dogmas. A always equals A, 2+2 always equals 4.
Well even without my philosophic interjections I can prove that wrong-A
is based on symbolic or inductive logic, it is interpretive and is only
reflective of truth in degrees. These degrees are what is measured in
statisitics.
2+2=4 is deductive logic and is the discerning of the mechanics of the
material world which is A SYSTEM OF BELIEF. Therefore, A) there is more
than one logic as any scholar knows and B) the material world is a
system of belief with its own system of reinforcing logic. So you have
not made a dent in my assertion that "each system has its own
reinforcing logic."
> > > > > True=tro, a.truer, truest. (O.English treowe, D trowe, Goth triggws,
> > > > > true, faithful: cf. trow, truce and trust). Steadfast or adhering, as
> <snipped rest of definition>
> > > > Gee, I guess philosophers can stop pondering the matter now. They should
> > > > have purchased a dictionary long ago.
> > > Alright I will give you mine then;
> > > True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
> > > system and reality that created it.
> So I take it you are a solipsist? You contend that there is no objective
> reality?
You must lable me because you are limited in your thinking? No, I am not
strictly a solipsist. There IS an external reality-but that in no way
proves that A) it is not created by our consciousness, and that B) it is
the "real" reality.
> > > > To some extent you can create your experiential reality. A lot of it is
> > > > beyond your control.
> > > Our experiential reality is 100% the effect of beliefs and
> > > definitions-you are assuming A) That your conscious mind is the only
> > > bank of psychic material responsible for that creation,
> If you state that "our experiential reality is 100% the effect of beliefs
> and definitions," then your are claiming that our experiential reality is
> 100% internally dictated.
I am claiming that our reality is OTHER WORLDLY directed and that our
consciousness root is basically other worldly and is expressed as forms
in this one.
> I don't know why you are specifying the
> conscious mind above, but if we don't specify only consciousness--if we
> also include subconsciousness, then you are the one claiming that
> experience is the only thing responsible for the creation of experiential
> reality.
No, I am claiming that the PSYCHIC material contained as belief within
these levels of our consciousness is responsible for our reality
EXPERIENCE which is the effect of it.
> That is not my contention. My contention, stated above, is that "to some
> extent you can create your experiential reality. A lot of it is beyond
> your control," by which I mean that a lot of it stems from what is
> actually occurring outside of yourself. Your statement of what I am
> assuming is in error.
No I am not, the part that APPEARS out of your control is created by
beliefs and definitions you are unaware of that are contained within
unconscious material-and that with introspective psychological analysis
these banks CAN be shown to be the catalyst for the experiences you
have-YOU ARE THE REALITY YOU BELIEVE YOU EXIST WITHIN.
> Also, I am curious what your definition of the word psychic is. I doubt
> that it would match mine, and I doubt that I would agree that your
> definition refers to something that has been shown to be existent.
Any dictionary will define CONSCIOUS mind as the upper level of PSYCHIC
material of which the ego self is aware of-and un or subconscious as
material the ego is UNAWARE of-but there none the less.
> > > and that B) The
> > > physical world and its effects are not the effect of COLLECTIVE
> > > agreement and belief on this unconscious level.
> No. If by collective you are referring to beliefs held among many people
> then, no, that has nothing to do with it. Your experiential reality is
> determined by a combination, or collective, if you would like, between
> what is actually occurring and what you perceive is occurring (which may
> or may not agree with what is actually occurring).
When you say "percieve" you keep reinforcing your lack of understanding
of banks of psychic material-do you or do you not recognize that there
are beliefs and fears etc. that you contain within your UNCONCIOUS banks
that you are NOT aware of? Percieving is done by the senses tied to the
CONSCIOUS bank-which in reality is a very small bank. What is "actually
occurring" is a combination of beliefs you HAVE held, are holding and
the momentum or likely EFFECT IN MATERIALITY as forms FROM these beliefs
that are held AT ALL LEVELS not just the bank you are aware of-so of
course you don't see them or HOW your reality is tied to them-but I can
guarantee you through astrology I can define your beliefs and your
reality will reflect these beliefs in YOUR actual reality experiences.
> > > > > by the definitions we hold
> > > > Your definitions do not create it. Your definitions are interpretive.
> > > Your definitions create the experience you have,
> No they don't. They cannot create external happenings. Your definitions
> interpret what is actually happening, and effect your perception.
Incorrect. They create the actual physical events which you then
reinterpret and reinforce in a self fulfilling prophecy type way-there
are no "external happenings" that are not the product of your
consciousness or its co-created and collaborative creation with others.
You ARE THE EXPERIENCE YOU ARE HAVING.
>Again,
> the experience you have has an actual component and your perception,
> which may or may not agree with the actuality.
No, the experience you have is REINFORCED BY the perception you have
which is the effect of belief which on internal and other world levels
you have created in physicality TO REFLECT that belief to you-which you
may then reinforce and say "see, thats the way it "really is"
The only way the cycle of reinforcement of beliefs and defintions is
broken is to acknowledge them as your creation, trace their source AS
belief and then by recognizing the purpose or reason you have created
the scenario to serve you-allows you to then redefine it and recreate
the new reality based on this SHIFT in banks of psychic material.
Because the purpose of living is the exploration of these "ideas" in the
world of matter in a focused way.
> If you mean that you can only understand what happens through your
> definitions, I do not think that I would agree, because that would
> preclude experiencing something that you have no related definitions for.
NOT POSSIBLE, you cannot experience ANYTHING that is not a part of you
ON SOME LEVEL (psychic bank or otherwise). Mechanics.
> This would make it impossible to experience much, because even the act of
> being given new definitions is an experience, and you would not be able
> to receive any that our outside of your present definitions.
Please-I will try to point this out one more time then you will have to
do your part and introspect on what I have said. You are continually
defining things as if the coonscious mind and its perceptions are the
foundation of the entire multiverse-IT IS NOT-and philosophers and
scientists for centuries have seen and been aware of this limitation.
Simply because you are not CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF SOMETHING is NOT proof
that it is not there. Therefore if you cannot percieve something it is
only NOT THERE FOR you-hence NOT created. There is NOTHING outside of
your definitions that you can expoerience BUT IT MAY BE OUTSIDE YOUR
CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. See?
> > >there is no other way
> > > you can have it.
> Well, I just explained it to you.
No, you revealed your complete reliance upon the conscious mind bank of
material-which allows you to be far more delusional than I. Some
psychological study is needed on your part.
> > >Your reality then reflects these definitions that then
> > > reinforce the definitions that created them
> Are you claiming that your definitions cause something external to
> happen? That nothing external ever occurs of its own accord? If there
> were no living things, the universe would cease to exist? Again, it seems
> that you are a solipsist.
"All That Is" is all that is, and we are all the ways that it has of
expressing itself within that creation-we are the co-creators of all
that is-BECAUSE WE ARE IT, so yes, NOTHING EXISTS unless we-in tandem
with "All That Is" create it. We were made in "God's likeness"
LITERALLY-meaning WE are the co-creators of "All That Is" no less than
IT is our creator-lable that however you wish.
> > >and you say "see its real I
> > > told you" this in psychology has been tested as a self fulfilling
> > > prophecy effect.
> "self-fulfilling prophecy" is only valid to the extent that what you
> think is possible and what you think is attainable may have an effect on
> what actions you decide to take. If you do not think that it is possible
> to drive an ice cream truck, then you are not as likely to try.
Now you are speaking of the mechanics of physicality-which you equate to
"truth" which it is not-IT IS A SYSTEM OF BELIEF THAT WE COLLECTIVELY
CREATE THAT HAS THE REINFORCING LOGIC OF TRUCKS THAT SMASH YOU WHEN YOU
STEP IN FRONT OF THEM. That is not a Multiverse truth, but an effect of
dimensional congruence and belief on this level. In your dreams (another
level of psychcic material) truck run over you and you don't get hurt-no
it is not JUST a dream-it is just another REALITY. Because there is no
ONE REALITY OR TRUTH.
> > >Please stop and try to realize that time, space and
> > > other factors are interfering with your ability to see the
> > > connection-
> If all experience proceeds from one's definition as you contend, then
> space and time, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with it--only your
> definitions do.
Which time and space are the effect of-whether they are consciously or
unconsciously created is another questiuon.
> > >but primarily your belief that the you you believe yourself
> > > to be is all you "really" are-it is not.
> So are you now changing your mind and saying that there is an objective
> reality? I thought that whatever I believed and whatever my definitions
> were defined my reality?
YES your reality is YOU, and that is the "other" you (along with other
dimensional "yous") that I am alluding to you do not real--ize is you.
Even that word REAL-----IZE is linguistically correct and goes along
with my assertion that we create our reality or real-ize it, because it
is not IZED at all until we do so.
> > > > Also, you can experience things for which you have no definition.
> > > Not possible, then you could not perceive it.
> So, your contention is that upon birth one has all the definitions one
> will ever use? Where do these come from? If we took a four year old from
> the jungle who had never been exposed to technology and then sat him in
> front of a battery operated t.v., would he not experience it? Or did he
> already have the definition of t.v. in his head?
AGAIN PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THESE DIFFERENT BANKS, you are so
convinced that the ego you percieve yourself to be is ALL that you are,
that I will never get anywhere with this because you are CREATING IT
THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THAT DEFINITION. This boy from the jungle would be
creating his reality as well REGARDLESS of conscious functioning
capabilities-which is all you are describing which are only the TIP of
an iceburg of consciousness that we all are that extends EVERYWHERE ALL
AT ONCE-because we ARE "ALL THAT IS". THAT is why science is an ILLUSION
AT A BROADER LEVEL (Saturn). And the non-physical is the "real" reality
at another (Neptune).
> > > Experience IS the
> > > reflection of definitions back to the self.
> Again, it is not. Experience is what is actually happening filtered
> through your definitions, or lack thereof, which constitutes your
There is no "actually happening" what is actually happening in Quantuum
Mechanics? As we move into those LEVELS OF CONCIOUSNESS physics becomes
METAphysics. What is "actually happening" is the constriction of your
ability to comprehend these other levels in any meaningful way because
of YOUR definitions. Which you tie to the belief that your conscious
mind and its reliance upon faulty perceptions from physical senses MUST
be the "real" thing-you are dreaming right now!! A focused and limiting
dream that YOU YOURSELF AND YOU are creating.
> perception of what is happening. And your definitions can change. There
> have been many experiments done on perception demonstrating these
> principles.
And when your defintions change-so does your reality-Now please, I have
posted many studies in psychology supporting my view and I can post a
string of them if you would like-you are venturing into the field I know
reinforces what I am saying along with philosophy.
> > > > There
> > > > is nothing that mandates that reality conform to your definition.
> > > Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
> > > Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
> > > Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
> I could care less what Bashar Darryl Anka says. He sounds like a
> solipsist. I can prove to you that solipsism is false in two minutes.
You have not done well so far I am afraid. The statement that you can
"prove" anything is indicative of your level of delusion. Any scientist
knows that NOTHING is ever proven.
> > > Of which the physical world is a collective idea being expressed and
> > > experienced. Do you or do you not know that you have an unconscious?
> A subconscious, yes, of course. It doesn't matter if we are discussing
> consciousness or subconsciousness--neither determine reality.
Prove it.
> Again, you
> are professing solipsism by claiming that the world wouldn't exist if not
> for the conscious definition of it.
Throughout this post you have... ass u me d ...that, but I am afraid
that it has only made an ass of you not me.
> The world will exist whether you or I
> or anyone is here or not.
Oh it will? Then how will we know if there is no one there to report
it-and don't tell me about fossil evidence and other such creations that
we constantly REcreate the reality of all the time.
> > > > There
> > > > is nothing that mandates that you will perceive things without error. In
> > > > other words, you, or I, can easily be wrong.
> > > You are speaking about deductive recognitions that are mathematical that
> > > are the effect of the mechanics of physicality. There are only three
> > > absolutes in the multiverse;
> The universe encompasses everything that exists. There is no need for a
> word that denotes any more.
Right for once "All That Is".
> What I am speaking about is that things happen in actuality,
There is no "actuality" apart from what you define it to be.
> and you
> perceive how they happen.
You are predisposed to percieve by the defintions you hold.
> When two people watch a murder, and later on
> the witness stand, one claims that the murderer was wearing a bright
> solid orange shirt and the other claims that, no, he was wearing a solid
> black shirt, both of them cannot be correct.
This is a discernment of an event caused by beliefs to begin with. Just
because we are capable of discerning the manifestation, does not
preclude the entire event from being the effect of belief. Again-you
keep equating physical reality parameters of the physicality "belief"
system and its logic as being the "truth"-it is not-it is only the
"truth" associated with this system of belief and its reinforcing logic.
PHYSICALITY is a collective construct with reinforcing logic. I would
never argue against that-but it is NOT THE TRUTH-it is ONE truth in a
multiverse of infinite truths. Period.
> > > That you exist, the all is one and the one is all (holographics)
> Could you explain the second contention a little more?
> > > and
> > > that what you extend or create is what you get back
> Oh, the "karma" principle. Can you prove that it is accurate?
Mechnics-it proves itself all the time. What energy do you percieve you
entered this discussion with?
> > >-the rest is all
> > > inductive
> It might be inductive in terms of the future but in the present and past
> it is deductive. How are your contentions not inductive with regard to
> the future?
The present is the only time we "actually" exist-therefore you are
creating the future AND the past from the present and they are all
inductive because those creation capablilities are infinite. And each
person creates there own version.
> > >and pliable
> There is no evidence of pliability concerning A=A, for instance. Give me
> some specific examples.
Simple Algebra where X = a conglomeration of A's or is substituted for
A. Or more simply, where in another culture a symbol drawn like an A has
nothing to do with our notion of A because they have CREATED IT to mean
something else-significance is not just "real" meaning it is implied
meaning.
> > > and creatable-there is no "right or wrong" these
> > > are subjective value judgments.
> If you mean morally, I agree. If you mean there is no correct logic, I
> disagree.
Well I have already addressed that and you have work to do before I
continue this argument wherein you limit it with your lack of
introspective abilities.
> > > 2+2=4 only in this dimension,
> No. 2+2=4 anywhere at anytime by the definition of what 2 and 4 are. It
> is not dependent on dimensions . . .
Only in physical reality-dream reality and even quantum reality does not
adhere to this DEFINITION and creation of meaning.
> > > at this time,
> time . . .
The effect of focus and the one manifesting as the illusion of polarity
pairs.
> > > at this vibration-
> Or "vibration."
White light when refracted reveals components of colors-the only reason
this occurs is because of the "slowing" of the light as it is refracted
through the prism=vibration change.
> > >change any
> > > of those elements and it no longer applies-2 may not even exist
> By itself, "2" _doesn't exist. It is a logical symbol. If that symbol
> were to stand for anything but 2, then it wouldn't be "2" anymore, but
> something else entirely. In other words A=A and if you try to change it
> to not be A anymore, then it _isn't_ A, but something else entirely.
True, so we agree there is no universal 2. But what I am saying is that
2 is an illusion in itself-it is actually the one refracted through the
"prism" of physicality and therefore can only be 2 when refracted-remove
the refraction and 2 becomes 1.
> > > EXCEPT
> > > as an effect of time and space-remove time and space
> > > (which are the
> > > elements of our creation of 3D)
> Your solipsism shows again.
No physics of light refraction shows itself again-lableing makes you
feel supierior I see. Or at least in control-this is typical of
exclusively conscious mind bank focused egos. Psychology-not
philosophical labling.
> > >and a 2 turns into an unidentifiable
> If it is not 2 then it is not 2. You are trying to argue that not 2 can
> be 2--that is not possible. That doesn't change the fact that 2 plus 2
> equals four.
Only in certain reality frames which are created by the observer.
> > > everything-everywhere all at once-NOW which is right and which is wrong?
> What is right is that 2+2 will always equal 4.
Only in physicality.
> > > The effect of one dimension, or the effect of the other?
> Just for the hell of it, go ahead and specify the effects that dimensions
> have on numbers and logic.
In the dream state 2 can be 186.
> > > These simpleton "goods and bads and right and wrongs" are meaningless.
> Morally, yes, although there is a limited moral universality that I can
> explain in another debate. Logically, there is a "right" and "wrong" and
> it is particularly amusing to try to prove logically that there isn't.
I am not trying to prove there isn't a reinforcing logic to the belief
system called physicality-on the contrary I stated from the beginning
that this was the case for all realities-did I not? What I am arguing is
that it is not a universal REALITY-there is no such animal-YOU on the
other hand are equating physical reality (and the limited conscious bank
of material or conscious mind and ego that goes with it) as the ONLY
reality and the REAL reality-which is NOT POSSIBLE simply by the fact
that I and YOU CAN experience other realities.
> > > > > our
> > > > > reality experiences therefore AGREE with that "standard, pattern, rule
> > > > > or the like" that we define it to be.
> > > > Not so. Often your reality experiences completely disagree with what you
> > > > have defined as truth to yourself.
> > > What you consciously BELIEVE is the truth at that time.
> So if I believe that I am the King of Prussia, that means that I am?
That means as has been proven and evident throughout this conversation,
that you equate conscious mind function to the idea of belief-this is
not my limitation in perception or understanding but yours.
> > > Ask 3 people to
> > > remember the same event-at several different times and then tell me
> > > which is the real version of what "actually" happened. You will find
> > > this to be very difficult. Especially as time passes. Even when you see
> > > the past on a video it STILL is recreated differently in your
> > > consciousness EVERY TIME YOU VIEW IT.
> My precious point to you, and curiously you quote it to support your
> view, although it totally undermines it. If we video the murder, and the
> murderer was wearing an orange shirt, the person who perceived it as
> black would have to admit that his perception was incorrect when he
> watches the video. We could pause it and ask him to identify the color,
> or better yet, measure the wavelengths of the color, and they would be
> the wavelengths defined as orange.
IN THIS REALITY WHICH IS A CONSTRUCT, your example is irrelevant to my
point and either you refuse to see it because it destroys your
argument-or you are incapable because you believe the conscious mind to
be the only agent of reality creation, I have better things to do than
waste bandwidth trying to illuminate you on even KNOWN other banks of
psychic material. I agree the shirt is orange-that is irrelevant to HOW
ALL THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ORANGE SHIRT have been created TO BE
percieved. The perception of a creation one way or another is
oirellevant to HOW it is created-the perception is an after the fact
REcreation. The shirt is a PROP given meaning by the participants in the
scenario. It is only important that it is even recognized as orange
because of the reality framing in which it is found. Yes it is still
orange-how did it get there and how does it get orange?
> > > > If they always agreed you would never
> > > > change your view about anything--you would always be right.
> > > Like most you are under the delusion of Grandeur that your conscious
> > > mind is
> > > A) All knowing
> > > B) The only locus of control
> > > C) Perceives reality "as it is"
> > > D) Is the major portion of the various banks of psychic material with
> > > the most connection.
> Excuse my French, but what the fuck are you talking about? Have you
> comprehended one thing that I have written? How many times do I have to
> state that your perceptions can be wrong? That much of your experience is
> out of your control? That perceptions are not synonymous with reality?
> And letter D I'll leave to wallow in its New Age meaninglessness.
This is psychology, and I have had enough and can cite studies on
perception so I am very aware of perceptions being wrong-just as yours
are here. Haven't you heard of social loafing, the placebo effect,
deindividuation, social facilitation? Or many more effects proven to be
there totally as unconscious effects the participant is unaware of that
they are creating?
> > > I must inform you-it is none of the above. It is a MINOR effect of being
> > > physically focused and the majority of your reality is from
> > > unconsciously patterned systems of belief you have bought into.
> In your solipsism, you are not comprehending that I claim that things
> happen outside of yourself, you think that it is an argument over whether
> reality is determined by consciousness or subconsciousness.
Reality although it may manifest as the illusion of being outside of you
is UTTERLY created by all levels of the you you are-the problem is the
you you think you are is not all you are. How is it I can determine a
person's reality and experiences by astrological measurements based on
the time they were born from apparently external celestial bodies? I
delineated a young woman's rape by a stepfather on a certain date 7
years before the date we were interacting, by astrological measurements
in her horoscope for the time she was born 22 years ago-and can project
probable events in the future from the same info. How? Because it is all
one thing "happening" NOW created from the NOW and only "ran into" as
effects of her moving through time and space as the creator of it HER
from within-not outside of her happening to her. For reason and purpose.
Please define the purpose of living from your view before I continue.
You are wasting my time.
> > > It takes
> > > introspective work, psychological insight, and last but not by any means
> > > least-you must acknowledge there is something there besides the
> > > consciousness you assume to be all you are FIRST. This also may take
> > > time to see-unless you are very diligent-which most ego oriented
> > > individuals are not.
> As I said, perceptions may be completely wrong. Yours may be and mine may
> be. Perceptions are actuality filtered through the mind, which is
> comprised of consciousness and subconsciousness.
No, reality is created from within, reflected in physicality which is
then perceived through the SENSES back to the creator of it for
reflection. The creator can then reassess its creation through this
reflection and through conscious cognition of unconscious creations
redefine and locate the defintions that have created the reality if they
don't prefer it-all within this reality construct created on another
level en mass called "physical reality" which has reinforcing logic
parameters which you keep citing as the "real" reality rather than
effects of the system so defined.
> > > They are such habitual rituals of thinking that you assume they are the
> > > foundation of the Multiverse-they are not.
> No. Existent things are what comprise the universe. Whether they exist
> only within your mind or not. Whether we know about them or not.
You can create that powerless belief if you wish, I do not prefer it and
see and prove otherwise in my reality and attract those who do not wish
to believe in that powerless one either. You cannot percieve something
that is not a part of YOU on some level-this is simple psychological
logic.
> Hey, I just realized that your response is itself indicative of the
> faultiness of perception--you thought that I was arguing a position which
> I was not.
Whether we "know about them or not" is again a reliance upon conscious
cognitions as being the indicators of what is "true" or not-this is a
gigantic delusion of granduer.
> > > > Granted, there
> > > > are people who think this, but (a) they are lying, because they change
> > > > their views on things, also, and (b) their thinking that reality conforms
> > > > with their understanding/definitions does not make it do so.
> > > You forgot C) People like you have no inkling of unconscious creations
> > > that are tested and shown to be valid in psychology all the time-not
> > > mystery-fact.
> Here is further example of your misperception and its disagreement with
> reality. I am very intimate with my subconscious and in many ways, in
> fact, value it more than my consciousness--Along with philosophy, I make
> my living as a writer, a musician/composer, and I am an amateur visual
> artist.
And. So. Can you not connect aspects of your unconscious with actual
events that happen in your life? If not then you are not as intimate as
you think.
> Philosophically, along with religion, ethics/morals and aesthetics, one
> of the areas that I most enjoy is the philosophy of mind.
Then you can understand what I am saying is just as viable and possible
as what you choose to believe and that they at the very least are not
truths or rights or wrongs but different perferences for creating a
world view.
> > > > > Whether it is mechanistically
> > > > > feasible, biased, based on fundamental attribution errors, observational
> > > > > bias and such is another question.
> > > > Whether it is possible or not is the question.
> > > The observational error that you make that you are even capable of
> > > thinking objectively without knowledge of self MAKES it impossible for
> > > you.
> Frankly, I forgot what the above comments were in reference to, but again
> we come to solipsism. And again, I ask you the simple question of whether
> there is an objective reality or not.
Reality-as are all realities-is real while you are in it and focused and
participating in that reality-but is an illusion none-the-less.
See Truth #2
Edmond Wollmann
doc...@sprynet.com wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
"The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a
psyche
different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be
sufficiently informed only when he has in large measure freed himself
from the leveling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived
at a clear conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective
attitude hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology
different from the subject's, because the mind that is collectively
oriented is quite incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way
than by projection."
Carl Jung
> Hmm. You don't see the exquisite irony of posting a quote decrying
> collective orientation? I think it is quite funny. I also think that the
> Jung quote is primarily concerned with psychology, not ontology, and I do
> not even agree with Jung on psychology. But that is another debate.
The point is you cannot analytically discern "reality" or anything else
in my opinion until you understand the content of your own psyche that
creates the versions you believe to be the "truth".
> > > > Also, if there is no good
> > > > reason to think that it is possible, then believing it is a statement of
> > > > what you would like to be true, not necessarily what is true.
True-The absolute conforming of an event or experience to the belief
system and reality that created it. You are confusing conscious belief
and errors in perception with belief systems held at many levels of
consciousness that create the perceptions to begin with.
> What does it matter at what "level" the error occurs, Either there can be
Errors can be differences of view.
> a discrepancy between perception and reality or there can't be. My point
> is that there can be, I don't care, for this debate, where in the mind
> the perceptual error occurs.
Perception is the effect of senses-even though there are perceptions
that filter to the unconscious the effect of your beliefs on physicality
are not "errors" just effects of defining reality and things the way we
do. Life unfolds perfectly as it needs to to follow the inclination of
"All That Is" in its exploration of itself-ERRORS are subjective value
judgments of a conscious mind that is limited and unable to see that
what it believes to be error is simply unfolding in the proper direction
that it does not have either the breadth of vision to anticipate or the
capacity to discern fits perfectly.
> > > > > And since the accuracy of the "state of things" is an ongoing process,
> > > > > we are never in a complete state of knowing what the "actual" state of
> > > > > things is.
> > > > No, you can never know completely what the state of things is, but that
> > > > doesn't mean that you know nothing. And it will never make A=notA.
> > > If we can never completely know the state of things-then you argue for
> > > me-because their malleability and changeability is an ongoing exploration
> > > of TRUTHS not truth
> Again, because we do not know everything does not mean that we do not
> know anything, and it doesn't make everything possible.
I never said that we do not know anything, pls show where I said this. I
find your argument irrelevant or redundant-whats your point in saying we
do or don't know anything? That is the CONSCIOUS MIND THAT IS AWARE of
what it knows-it is not aware of the other yous you are that ALSO create
the reality IT then percieves.
> > >and yes we can, make A anything we are willing and
> > > bold enough to believe we can make A be.
> Provide one example of A not equaling A or provide an explanation of how
> it might not equal A at some point or state in the future. If you cannot,
> then why do you believe that it could be? If anything could be, then it
> is just as possible that you are completely wrong and I am completely
> right. It is just as possible that you completely agree with me right
> now. Or isn't everything a possibility? If not, what isn't possible?
There is no wrong or right-you are free to create the reality you prefer
and so am I-it is just that I believe I recognize that I CAN therefore
why would I choose a limited one such as yours when I can choose mine?
Why would I choose to be out of control being bombarded by a reality
that exists outside of me, when I can choose one that doesn't and see
the reiforcing logic of THAT system of belief-which I and persons who
agree with that perspective DO?
> > > > > Please refer to the post on Perfection.
> > > > > Significance and the like is always REAL or IMPLIED. The meaning you
> > > > > give it determines its truth value for you.
> > > > Things are either true or they are not.
> > > Oh contrare my philosophically starved speculator. If this is the case
> > > why did you argue with the dictionary definition of true? Either its true
> > > or its not-correct?
> Correct. So if I argue that it is not true, I hold that it is not true.
> It cannot both be true and not true at the same time. If I my definition
> conflicts with the dictionary's, then either I am wrong or it is or we
> both are. The dictionary definition and my definition cannot be
> conflicting and both correct. That doesn't mean that there can be
> absolutely no difference, but there can be nothing conflicting or
> contradictory and have them both be correct.
Wrong, we all have our own defintion of truth and that is why there are
differences because we are creating them. They are correct because we
believe they are as our conversation so aptly reveals.
> > > > That doesn't mean that we can
> > > > currently classify everything as true or not--there are some things that
> > > > we do not know. But, something cannot be both true and not true.
> > > Anything you can imagine must exist on some level or you could not
> > > imagine it
> It can exist only in your imagination. You can imagine the Earth's golden
> mountain, but the only place that it is existent is in your imagination.
Again you equate "true" with physicality-in your mind it must be
physical to be true-in my mind there is not this limitation and illusion
from the intrusion of the physical world as the "real" world and all
other worlds as "false". This is the product of our differences in
belief-hence creation-hence different experiencing of reality. Thus
proving and evidencing my argument that we all create our own reality by
the beliefs we hold ABOUT reality.
> > >therefore it TRULY conforms to the definition that you have
> > > as an image in your mind and exists there at the very least!
> Of course. But that says nothing about external existence, and the
> imagining of a golden mountain is not a golden mountain, it is the
> imagining of a golden mountain.
True but that says nothing of TRUTH -only about your belief that
external =truth.
> > >Therefore
> > > is this true or not?
> It is true if you imagine a golden mountain you imagine a golden mountain.
> But that is all that is true about it.
And you imagine that external=truth, thats all thats true about that.
> > >It is how you look at it sir as to whether
> > > something is true or not-that's about the size of it.
> I am afraid not. If you imagine a golden mountain, you imagined it,
> whether I perceived you imagining it or not. If I look at it that you
> didn't imagine it, that doesn't change the fact that you imagined it. The
> contention that you didn't imagine it would then be false.
To put it more simply true for me and not for you-individual creations.
I rest my case.
"We have no way of identifying truths except to posit that the
statements that are currently rationally accepted (by our lights) are
true." Hilary Putnam
> > > > Why are you now quoting about the uncertainty of truth after you just
> > > > provided the answer to what truth is?
There is no one truth is what I have repeatedly said (if you would
refer
to the posts I refer you to rather than skipping it and continuing to
argue you would see them)
> So, if I were your boss, and I claim that I paid you, although you see no
> money anywhere, I am still telling the truth, is that correct?
That is a truth with reference to a particular system of belief-which I
have already said has its own reinforcing logic.
> How long would you let this continue? How many years would you work for
> me. And seriously, I am looking for employees, so respond promptly.
Irellevant, because you are proceeding on a fallacious slippery slope
that was incorrect to begin with.
> Oh well, I will try to answer the rest later.
Alright.
> I can't spend all of my time answering your post.
Then perhaps you may wish to think twice before you create something you
don't prefer.
--
What about those times when we can't follow what we wish
to create? There are often those times.
Again, you may be creating the idea of beliefs of negative
synchronicity. And it may not let you know you are following it
in a negative way. The idea is this: if you do not act according
to your own instincts, what you know to be true for you, then
all you are saying is that you have a belief that in not doing so
you will create a reality which will force you to recognize that is
what you are doing-which very often in your society can manifest in a
negative reality.
In other words, "I didn't follow my feelings.
I find, therefore, that I still hate my job, hate this, hate that."
You always reinforce the choice you make.
It's a setback?
Not a setback, no. For you are giving yourselves the opportunity
to learn that the choice you made is what the reality is you
are experiencing. And it gives you that much more opportunity
to recognize that if you redefine your choice, that will be the reality
you will experience, since you are experiencing flawlessly the
reality you believe you will experience now.
Symbolic Reflections
The idea is to recognize that synchronicity will bring with it
the idea of symbology. Many times you find that everything in
physical reality is symbolic of the actual interaction, the exact
fundamental energy exchange, that you are creating within your
being. As long as you are in physical reality you always create
an identifiable symbol to reflect to you the idea going on. Since
you have created physical reality to be something outside yourselves,
then understand that everything you perceive in physical
reality is a physiological symbolic extension of processes,
interactions,
which are actually going on, more or less, inside yourselves.
Not truly outside yourselves, but inside yourselves.
You are the actual interaction, the actual process. You are the
exprience you are having! You are the experience you are having.
Bashar "Blueprint for Change", The Orchestration, page 113.
Edmond Wollmann
doc...@sprynet.com wrote:
> Now, what you were all waiting for, the thrilling conclusion to our story:
> > EXCEPT that the truth is the composition of
> > all truths-IF SOMETHING EXISTS IT IS TRUE-
> the same as the existence of the occurrence that caused the perception.
The beliefs are what "causes" the perception.
> > it exists in existence who am
> > I to say whether it is true or not?
> It is "true" if it exists ("real" is a better term as we will see in a
> minute). I have no problem with that statement.What I have a problem with
> is the fact that you are mistaking the existence of perception for the
> existence of something else.
There is no "something else" the whole of physical reality which you
believe to be "the truth" is a system of belief with complete sets of
props that reinforce the logic of it.
> > If the "All That Is" (God)
> So, in your parlance, god is synonymous with the universe?
Multiverse-since physicality is only one level of an infinite array of
Universes.
> > allows it
> > and manifests it within itself how can it be false?
> I have no problem with existent things being true. We seem to disagree on
> what exists, however.
If you can imagine it-I reiterate-it must be "true" on some level or you
could not imagine it-you cannot imagine nothing.
> > The only way
> > something can be false is to not exist
> That is not strictly true. If something doesn't exist, it just doesn't
> exist--it is not real. That does not completely preclude its existence in
> the future, as long as it doesn't contradict the basic principles of
> logic, such as A=A.
Since time is an illusion-if it exists-it exists NOW, it is just not
manifested either in the present or in physicality-so we have no way of
knowing-since we are physically focused at this time-WHETHER it exists
or not EXCEPT by imagination.
> Before space flight was a reality, it was imagined. Space flight didn't
> exist, although the conception of it did. Space flight was not false at
> that point, it just didn't exist yet.
Again-space flight has always existed, since time is an effect of being
physical, it has always existed we just ran into its existence that we
created "out of time" now that we are "in time". And to prove my point
men have always IMAGINED they could fly which was their evidence should
they have been so willing-that they could.
> > then I won't know about it
> > anyway-
> Well, you could conceive possibly existent things.
If it is possible to imagine them-then they exist-they are just not
physical-again you equate physical to real-all manifestation begins with
imagination-therefore the "real" thing is the imagination not the
"thing" produced by it. The imagination taps into the underlying
template that the physical then follows suit to produce. Physical
reality is like the shadow of your body when standing in the sun-it has
no choice but to change positions when you change your consciousness
since it is the effect of that consciousness not the cause.
> > otherwise IT IS JUST A MATTER OF PREFERENCE OUT OF THE UNBROKEN
> > WHOLENESS OF "ALL THAT IS" WHICH truth you prefer to make a part of your
> > reality.-Period.
> Oh. I see. So whatever I believe and/or perceive
You percieve whatever you wish to reinforce WHAT you believe to be true
as this conversation demonstrates. That event that you percieve was
created by what you believe to begin with which was then just reinforced
by the percpetion which is predisposed to percieve it.
> to be true is true. So
> does that mean that if I believe that I am invincible and able to
> "evaporate" my matter, that I could step in front of a car when it is ten
> feet away from me and moving toward me at 60mph and not be harmed?
If you believe that on all levels YES. But you equate the conscious mind
to be the only repository of beliefs. The fact that you ARE PHYSICAL
IMPLIES YOU BELIEVE IN THAT REALITY OR YOU WOULD NOT BE HERE TO
EXPERIENCE IT. Therefore you are subject to those beliefs and their
accompanying systems of reinforcing logic as the natural effect of
buying into that system. That was Christ's point-if you acknowledge
truly that the water and you are ONE then walking on it is no
miracle-just mechanics of "All That Is".
> > > > THE truth is the COMPOSITION of all truths-I will not repeat it again.
> > > The total truth of everything is the sum of all truths. There must be
> > > smaller components in order for there to be a "composition of all truths."
> > > You are equivocating differences in magnitude.
> > If all truths are true, there doesn't "HAVE" to be anything now does
> > there?
> In order for a singular truth to be composed of the plural truths there
> must be things doing the composing and a thing they compose.
What? You mean you cannot see that everything-separate as it looks-still
MUST BE all one thing? Because you see fish in water does that mean that
the ocean and the fish are not obviously still all one thing? You make
no sense here.
> The other
> alternative would be for there to be only one truth that pervades
> everything,
This is obviously illogical and not possible-for if there was only one
truth there would only be one thing.
> in which case it would be nonsensical for you to make the
> statement: "The truth is the composition of all truths." In order for
> that statement to make any sense, there have to be smaller components.
Slippery slope.
> > > "You" is also a difficult thing to define. But there is no reason to
> > > believe that the you that you believe yourself to be is not the only you
> > > you are. If you have knowledge of the totality of you, then that is the
> > > you that you believe yourself to be, and what you believe yourself to
> > Oh contrare my philosophically starved speculator-I have a dreaming self
> > I experience every night
> Of course you do.
And that is "true", "real", another "me", and valid.
> > it is not while focused on this dimension so it
> > is NOT a big stretch to say there is proof right there that the I I am
> > is not the only I I am.
> Yes it is. The I that you are is the I that you is (you like that?)
> consciously and the I that you is subconsciously, all of that stuff is
> part of you, whether you think it is "focused on this dimension or not."
Again you equate the physical me with the "true" me-this is your
delusion that you have not worked out yet but I am sure others can see.
Of course it is "all" me, but so are the planets.
> If you don't think that it is you, then you don't think that it is you
> when you consider your totality. The corollary is that if you consider
> the subconscious in the totality, then you consider it as part of you.
> Regardless, you cannot think yourself to be more or less than you think
> yourself to be.
Correct and that is what I say when I say we create the reality we
experience by the beliefs and defintions YOU hold meaning all the
aspects of the you you are, not just the ones you think you are
therefore the you you are in its entirity CAN create realities that the
CONSCIOUS you is not aware of the YOU are creating. Thank you for
supplying my argument:-)
> > If the definition of the I I am is based on my
> > conscious waking self and perceptions.
> So, again, if you do not consider your subconscious to be part of the
> class of "I," then you do not consider it to be a part of the class of
> "I." If you do, you do. I think that what you are hinting at is that
> notion that most people define themselves just in terms of their
> consciousness (a contention that I do no agree with. Most people are not
> that stupid.) and you are saying that they are more than their
> consciousness. As no one can define the you that anyone is, there is no
> particular reason to believe that there conception of the you that they
> are is not all the you they are. There could even be different types of
> "you's" (this is a fun discussion for playing with grammar), as there are
> different faces. We do not know.
I do know, because in astrology, the you you are unaware you are is
revealed and can be defined by planets that APPEAR to be external from
the you you think you are. Now, there is only one reason why this should
be possible-because the you you are EXTENDS to encompass those
apparently external factors. Because when we become aware of certain
habits or beliefs and defintions they are no longer habits, or
unawarenessess and are controllable and CHANGE through that
awareness-then the level of the experience of that you you were unaware
of before changes because you have owned it-until then it "affects" you
because you do not believe it is you.
> However, if that is what you mean, that is not what you are typing.
I typed what I meant as always.
> > We spend 1/3 of our lives
> > dreaming
> If you mean nighttime dreaming (as opposed to "day dreaming") then speak
> for yourself. I sleep about 5 hours per night.
Well actually you are dreaming now-a physical dream but I meant an out
of physical focus dream. The amount you sleep is irrelevant to my point.
> > and tests have shown we spend as much energy while sleeping
> How so? You certainly burn less calories when asleep.
Oh contrare my phisiologically less than comprehensively studied arguer.
> > as
> > while awake-so why are we reasted when we awake? Because perhaps of the
> > BALANCING OUT of conscious with unconscious?:-) And if we could balance
> > perfectly we would never need to die because our deterioration would be
> > brought to a halt.
> That shows an incredible ignorance of anatomy. Let's see how many
> physicians agree that the reason one dies is because one's consciousness
> and subconsciousness are out of balance.
Irrelevant, because they are deficient in spiritual or psychological or
metaphysical knowledge is no evidence that I am wrong-they are.
And the higher consciousness is also a factor involved which is the
consciousness completely out of time that knows all the things I say
here.
> > >be
> > > is the only you you are--namely the totality of you. If you do not have
> > > knowledge of you beyond your present knowledge (and at this point in
> > > time, could you?), then there is no reason to assume there is any more to
> > > you, since it would be pure unfounded conjecture and would just reflect
> > > your fantasies.
> > Simple amount of introspective thought solves these dilemmas that cynics
> > seem to strain at.
> So your claim is that you can think that your totality is more than you
> think your totality is, correct?
Of course we can create anything from my view remember? You are the one
placing limitations on an otherwise infinite and limitless multiverse
not me.
> > > Now "you" has an objective definition,
> > NO! YOU have a DEFINITION that YOU is an objective definition-show me
> > where and on what tablet Moses wrote this law?:-)
> What the hell does Moses have to do with any of this? Do you also contend
> that there are no objective definitions? Or just no objective definition
> of "you?"
There are really no objective definitions-just objective effects of
defintions which are then reinterpreted in the light of those subjective
derfinitions. Since time/space are illusions everything is "really" all
right here right now-all of your objectivity junk is an illusion to be
honest with you. Everything that manifests as physical substance is the
effect of IDEATION on some level-change the ideas change the
manifestations. The trick is a psychological and metaphysical problem of
understanding one's own entire psyche-a task not capable by totally
believing in the conscious mind-one small player-as being the main
controller. The paradox is that as you relax the conscious mind bank you
think is so real is the only way the higher truths can come through-but
you won't get it cause you keep thinking the physical and the conscious
are the "real" realities. This is the catch 22 of spiritual growth that
must be transcended-there are few and far between healthy enough to pass
this threshold.
> > Not only is that an
> > illusion but the you you percieve yourself to be now, and now and now
> > are ALL DIFFERENT YOUS!!!
> Of course the you you perceive yourself to be changes from moment to
> moment. That does not change the fact that the you you perceive yourself
> to be at any given moment can only be the you that you perceive yourself
> to be at that moment.
Irrelevant. So the me I am now is the me I am now-and?
> That also doesn't change the fact that an objective definition exists for
> you. No one claimed that the objective definition mirrors the you you
> perceive yourself to be.
The objective definition therefore is not possible either-because you
and the yous you think you are in their own versions are the ones
attempting to discern the version I am.
> > YOU ( the you you percieve yourself to be NOW)
> > are CREATING THE ILLUSION OF THESE YOU"S BEING CONNECTED
> Going back to your previous statements concerning truth and reality, are
> you now claiming that reality and truth can be different than I perceive
> them to be? Different than my definitions? Do you mean that my
> perceptions can be wrong? I thought that my definitions and perceptions
> determined reality!! Please explain this to me, I am so confused . . .
Consciously of course, and you are the one who is obviously lost in this
conversation now-because I have never claimed otherwise in this
conversation. You are confused because you cannot separate the idea that
your conscious definitions that you THINK YOU HAVE may not match the
unconscious ones that you DO have and therefore you cannot accurately
discern HOW the reality you have is the product of those definitions
held in the UNCONSCIOUS state-and your reality always conforms to
beliefs you truly hold as opposed to those you THINK you hold-that is
the value of astrology and psychology and other pardigmns that allow us
to get in touch with those inner workings. This is an area you are
obviously deficient in.
> > they are not.
> Oh--is this an objective reality fact that can differ from my perceptions?
It is my preference in belief and my reality therefore conforms to THIS
view and I see all the reinforcments that confirm it rather than the one
you obviously prefer.
> > Please go to Deja News and find the "filmstrip analogy" under my name.
> > Because time IS AN ILLUSION, therefore SPACE is an illusion THEREFORE
> > THE YOU YOU ARE AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, must be also.
> Ditto the above comment. Also, so you claim that time and space don't
> exist? what do you mean by "illusion" here?
Real while you are in them and participating in their creation-but in an
overall sense an illusion none-the-less-because the NON-physical or
spiritual reality is the "real" reality and physical is one form that
spirit taskes as an expression of "All That Is" in its infinite
creativity.
> > > and you might not believe yourself
> > > to encompass the objective definition of you, so in that case you'd be
> > > correct in your statement above, but you would have to define the
> > > objective definition of you, the you that someone believes themselves to
> > > be, and possible what else you think is encompassed by you.
> > Already have so many times I'm exausted. Its time you guys used your
> > imaginations a little. I know its tough but give it a shot.
> That's a nice way to cop out of an answer when you don't have one. If you
> were able to provide a definition of the you that someone is without them
> thinking that they are that you, then you know what? You would be
> providing an objective definition. If it is not objective, then it is
> subjective, and not necessarily true for someone else. So either the you
> that they think they are might be all that they are, or you have
> objectively defined what "you" is.
Silly nonsense-all you have done is define your version of the you you
believe them to be-because there is no objective version-and even if
there was it would STILL only be your version. So you know what? You
prove nothing.
> > > > And B) there is no such thing as time per se.
> > > No, there _is_ time. I think what you mean to say is that time is not some
> > > immutable property of the universe that does not vary regardless of the
> > > circumstances. Whether what you meant to say is true or not is something I
> > > would have to think about further. If it is not objective, that does not
> > > mean that it does not exist, or that "there is no such thing as time per
> > > se." It just means that it is not objective. Also, the fact that something
> > > is not objective is not saying that it could do anything imaginable.
> > Now you argue for me again-
> How so? Your statement was that "there is no such thing as time per se."
> I disagreed. That is arguing for you? Does "no such thing per se" now
> mean "relative?" When did that start? I must have missed that meeting.
That what we spin upon it is how we create it to be-either it exists or
it doesn't in your initial arguments, I am only adhereing to
those-unless of course you are now changing these views you said were
stone at the beginning.
> > could you please decide whats true and what
> > isn't?
> Why, have I contradicted myself somewhere? Please provide the relevant
> quotes and analysis.
Easy to do just go back and read them as I am sure all who are
interested and inclined will and they will see-I have not contradicted
myself (the you I am in its entirity) but you I am afraid have.
> > I thought you said either its true or it isn't which is it?:-)
> If you are speaking of time, it is true that time exists. It is either
> true or not that it is relative, I don't know which is the case. I would
> have to think about it more, and even then I can't guarantee that it will
> be obvious to me if it is relative or not. In any event, my opinion of
> the matter will not change whether the truth or falsity of its
> relativity.
There are only events we can measure-time does not exist per se.
"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of
the objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence
apart from the order of events by which we measure it." A. Einstein
> > > I disagree about space. There are objective reality components to it. With
> > > time, again, I would have to think about it more.
> > Thats because you are under the delusions of conscious mind perceptions
> > being the "real" perceptions.
> I am. Didn't I state before that perceptions do not necessarily coincide
> with reality? Or can you provide the quote where I said that they _do_?
And those errors are not necessarily because some external has been
mispercieved but that some INTERNAL has been. Please cite where I said
otherwise.
> The statement that there are objective reality components to space does
> not mean that every component of space is objective necessarily.
> >>> "He who thinks he knows doesn't, but he who knows he doesn't know,
> >>> does." Joseph Campbell-a very intelligent scholar.
> > > Oh, I guess I am wrong. I guess I _do_ know whether there is any
> > > objectivity to time? When will I tell me the answer? Why am I hiding it
> > > from myself?
> > Because you give far to much power to the conscious mind and "REAL"
> > world and not enough to the metaphoric and metaphysical world.
> But wait, you think you know--so that means you don't know, doesn't it?
All I know is that I know nothing-whether I know more than you about the
issue is another question.
> Or does that Campbell quote maybe have a problem or two?
No, but you seem to have several problems with regard to it and your
versions of its implicatiuons.
> Additionally, as I stated before, I work in philosophy, as a
> musician/composer, and a writer. I engage in visual arts as a hobby. All
> of these fields deal with metaphysics and metaphor.
Great, than you more than others may be able to see the validity of what
I have said.
"The myth brings us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual . .
. there is a condescension on the part of the infinite to the mind of
man, and that is what looks like God." Joseph Campbell "Myths To Live
By"
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness."
Albert Einstein
> Are these quotes further examples of your non collective thinking?
They are further quotes that reinforce that the reality you think is the
only reality cannot be and is not. I repeat there is no one truth.
--
"Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend. Just what you want to
be, you'll be in the end." The Moody Blues "Nights in White Satin"
Edmond Wollmann
Timebot wrote:
First let me compliment you this is a wonderful post and a welcome
change of approach:-)
> Ed,
> ...so would this illustration be correct,
> as you see it then?
I I I
I I I
I The "other" I This physical I
I reality I reality I
I I I
I (idea I I
I system ------------> things I
I created I experienced I
I here) I leading I
I I (or reinforcing) I
I I to belief I
I I system I
I I in conscious I
I I and unconscious I
I I I
Yes, pretty well put, except that the "idea system" or non-physical
reality actually CREATES the "things" in physicality experienced AND
reinforced-it is one thing being created by both realms-that would be
hard to portray I suppose.
> (and I'm thinking that the unconscious is there
> as a "bridge" to the other reality in various
> ways as well...)
Well, it can turn into a bridge, but primarily IT is created to place
all of the things the conscious mind focus is unwilling and/or unable to
deal with or look at-but because the conscious mind self or ego self is
unwilling or incapable at any given point to see the beliefs there-does
not detract from their reality creating abilities or potency. This is
why many have difficulty understanding and say things like "so if I go
walk out in front of a car and believe I will not get run over I won't?"
Basically YES, but the problem is in discerning what one believes and to
make that sort of analogy IMPLIES the belief that they DO believe they
would get run over-so it is easy to see that they would. Since reality
conforms to what we believe is the MOST likely thing to happen. Reality
is created by TRUST in the ideas you hold.
> Also is the other reality
> composed of ONE consciousness or many "linked"
> consciousnesses in cooperation?
The entity or souls self is a separate identity of which our past,
present and future selves are all one. That souls self or entity is also
a part of "All That Is" and so in a sense it is just semantics-it is all
one thing. But yes, the collective linking of consciousness is reflected
in the planets from Uranus to Pluto, they will be all of one "family"
like the Uranus/Neptune square generation I was born in (which is why I
carry this "rebellious" perspective) was collectively incarnate to break
up the "shoulds" the collectivity had fallen into the habitual ritual of
believing. Hence overcompensation with long hair-etc.
> Also see if you think this analogy is correct....
> A psychologist looking at a drawing a person
> made and using it to point out all the
> psychological motivations and indications
> to the artist, so that the artist can
> *transcend* the person the artist is/was at
> some point. Would this be similar to what
> you see yourself doing when you do charts?
Well, the problem here is that we are depending TOTALLY on subjective
perceptual bias. With astrology, although we create the interpretations
to a great degree there IS a fundemental energy that can be discerned
(negative/positive) that I have discussed many times. Even Palmistry
would be more accurate as there are lines in the palm created by the
person's unconscious that are more directly indicative of the true
energy. In reading the art work the conscious mind of the creator of the
work is involved-so less of the entire psyche of the entity is allowed
through TO BE seen. Whereas in the chart or hand or some other
unconsciously-higher-self created reflection is more complete-so we cut
down on some noise to some degree by interpreting the chart as opposed
to a drawing which eminates from a different source and level. I hope I
have explained this well. It is difficult.
> And, if so, how do you tell if/when a client
> has "transcended" their chart
Firstly, as in psychology, I cannot make a value judgment as to what the
person "should" be doing. My service is to allow them to RELAX shoulds
if they wish to allow more of themselves. All pain is resistance to
growth and all pain is separation. My job is to assist in judgment
alleviation that creates the difficulty or pain. If the person is
creating difficulty with the situation, I seek to find the reasons for
their creation of that difficulty to reflect it to them, so that if they
wish they can redefine it. I may REFRAME what they say or are to allow a
different view which allows them a different view which may break a
momentum deadlock. But I cannot redefine for them.
Transcendence is usually the recognition and owning of a definition
that is creating the reality-until they see the defintion they cannot
own it or redefine it. That doesn't mean that things immediately change
just because you see something-but it is the start of a redfinition that
may have levels of momentum and thresholds of believability (I explain
this in more detail in my book). I.e. my father was getting diabetes
worse and we went through some very difficult reframing (I did this as
Uranus approached opposition to his Mercury on purpose) to allow him to
see that the dis-ease was being created from a scarcity perspective of
accumulation perspective (he's a Cancer)-that he was accumulating
"things" he couldn't "use"-hence the body was reflecting this belief by
accumulating "sugar" it couldn't "burn up"-just the act of his
recognition of that and acting to stop accumulating from the awareness
of WHY he was began to immediately change his physical condition. He now
has it under control just through belief and diet-both REFLECTIONS of
the change of perspective-an example of trancendence. But he still has
to be dilligent lest he fall back into old habit patterns of thinking
until the new patterns become solid-see?
> (or whatever the
> goal is defined as) and does it then become
> a portrait of who they *were*? (Like the artist
This is why any astrologer needs to interact with the person in question
because we cannot know their level of incorporation and integration of
the aspects we see until we do so. This is also why astrology is not and
cannot be empirically measured, because the person has the free will
through awareness and reflection to alter ANY level of aspect.
This is also why no one can interpret or assist a life or a level at
which they have not or cannot function.
> could say the drawing was from himself in the
> "past" and is now different from that person
> in some way.)
Yes, in many ways. My art ability and application changes all the time.
I notice a big difference for example in my application as years pass
even if I have done no art in many years-this is because I change. We
re-create the past and the future selves from the present always. The
NOW is the point of power for all changes.
> I hope this is clear -- the concept as I have
> it in my head does not seem to lend itself to
> an easy description.
Yes, I understand, perhaps this gives you some idea how difficult it is
for me to convey these things without tremendous repition and
explanation.
Timebot
> 4:45pm - 10 Jan 1957 - Camp Lejeune, NC, USA
Yes, you realize you are a Capricorn with the moon in Taurus and I am a
Taurus with moon in Capricorn? No one can experience a reality that is
not a part of them on some level.:-)
Ed
--
"Gazing past the planets, looking for total view. I've been lying here
for hours-you've gotta make the journey out and in, out and in, out and
in. And if you think its a joke, well thats alright do what you want to
do, I've said my piece and I leave it all up to you." The Moody Blues
"Out and In"
Edmond Wollmann
Timebot wrote:
> I was busy doing something else when Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >First let me compliment you this is a wonderful post and a welcome
> >change of approach:-)
> (1st house Uranus) But glad you enjoyed this one.
> Then again, my method of inquiry in the past has been
> to >question >reflect what MY answer would be >ask another
> question >pose feedback in the form of whatever argument
> comes to mind (regardless of beliefs) >and etc.
You mean you try to be objective and intelligent unlike the cynical
approach? Yes very good.
> It probably *appears* more argumentative than it really is.
> Because you see, I argue with myself and put that down in
> my writing too. <g>
I see you trying to understand, not arguing.
> re: my illustration...
> Hard to portray in ascii mode, anyway. I might do better with
> a paint program -- if I ever "gettaroundtuit", I might give that
> a try -- but then I'd have to post it elsewhere.
If you can make it a .gif or .jpg they can be attached.
> re: subconscious as a "bridge"
> >deal with or look at-but because the conscious mind self or ego self is
> >unwilling or incapable at any given point to see the beliefs there-does
> >not detract from their reality creating abilities or potency.
> So do you think we create ourselves at birth (or whenever)
> with whatever inate ability/willingness to look at/change the
> subconscious beliefs or lack (the ability) thereof?
We create ourselves continually. The chart is reflective of the time to
be born by the higher self that reflects the "carryover" of momentum
from previous lives and to some degree connections to future ones as
well. Like when you go to sleep at night and get up the next day-you
pick up where you left off-the only difference is that since you got a
new "vehicle" you have to refocus your consciousness again and that is
what happens as we "grow up", this is reflected in the Saturn
quadratures. But remember time is an effect of physicality so we only
experience that separatedness here(Please refer to my "Saturn Opposition
Saturn; View To Reality" article).
> In other
> words, have we *programmed* ourselves -- (making all changes we
> make to ourselves predestined) or is it completely experimental.
No, there is the free will of the higher self and the free will of the
physical self called (I do) conscious commandment. The free will of the
higher self determines "out of time" what developmental processes and
agreements we wish to make (through relationships with certain people
etc.) Then the self that you are about to be is attracted to the
parental structure that best suits and reflects the vibration that you
are and the choice of timing to be born with astrological reflections
reflecting the "frozen version" of the vibration you are upon entry into
physicality. Since planetary movements and measurements from there
forward will be to some degree fixed and mathematical (deductive), this
reflects "Hallway A" or your birth "Path" that horoscopic measurements
will then reflect to a great degree those agreements and choices from
the higher level that it is known will be capable of producing the
"props" in physicality to stimulate the desired psychological and
developmental growth needed.
This is the momentum that you are-sometimes called Karma. You then are
born.
Until age 14 or so (first Saturn opposition Saturn) you really are
riding on the parental choice and hallway A. When the first saturn opp
occurs, this is when the CAPABILITY of the free will of the PHYSICAL
self is activated. This is why many times a crisis in consciousness
occurs at this time. To bring to the attention of the physical self the
"theme" of one of its main recognitions that will be needed in this
life.
> Um... in other words -- am I trying to stay on a certain path
> because I intended myself to be from the moment of existence in
> *this* plane, or is each action undetermined until the moment it
> happens?
Actually both. Everything in a GENERAL THEMATIC sense is a part of
"Hallway A" or the horoscopic configurations already chosen by you. But
the free will of the physical self then has practically speaking total
free will to go down THAT hallway any way it likes-but go down that
hallway you have already WILLED. Nothing is fixed in stone-no.
> What I mean is, I'd *like* to take the credit (in
> _this_ plane) for whatever it is I'm becoming. But if it has
> all been decided in the other dimension, that's a lot harder to
> do -- at least for me at this particular moment.
No, it has not been decided and what has been decided (the general
hallway) you chose anyway-so it is always the effect of choice and
you-no matter.
> >This is
> >why many have difficulty understanding and say things like "so if I go
> >walk out in front of a car and believe I will not get run over I won't?"
> >Basically YES, but the problem is in discerning what one believes and to
> >make that sort of analogy IMPLIES the belief that they DO believe they
> >would get run over-so it is easy to see that they would. Since reality
> >conforms to what we believe is the MOST likely thing to happen. Reality
> >is created by TRUST in the ideas you hold.
> Hm.... I would imagine that even if a person were to hold the
> belief that they would not be harmed, the majority of people
> holding the belief that they *would* be might interfere? There
> are for example, a number of people among what society terms as
> the "mentally ill" who believe they can do any number of things
> which seem to go against what society accepts as reality. Now
> *maybe* society interferes with their reality, or maybe these
> people are actually trying to exist in the other dimension and
> we don't see that. What do you think about this? How much
> can really be done for these people?
Getting hit by the car or the bus is a pretty likely event based on the
fact that it is a PRODUCT of the choice to be "IN" physical reality to
begin with. But it is not impossible that the mental can dissolve it so
to speak-but this requires such a level of awareness that you would
almost be nonphysical to HOLD such a positive perspective. No it is not
the "effect" of others beliefs. Others beliefs have NOTHING to do with
anyone elses ability to create their own reality. But the levels that it
would require to transcend getting hurt by the vehicle are very deep and
no one I know (of course, cause I am not that vibration) can do
that-except Christ from all accounts. Those are just gospels though and
very little historical account. But then anyone approaching that level
doesn't need silly stunts to support their convictions either:-)
> >The entity or souls self is a separate identity of which our past,
> >present and future selves are all one.
> Then you also believe in past lives ("past" as looked at from
> this dimension's vantage point of course). I guess "other" lives
> for the same soul would be a more pertinent term.
Yes, they are all "happening" right now, just like the rest of the
multiverse, we just have our focus here and now, and now, and now, see?
(Please see the filmstrip analogy used by Bashar and myself).
On the generational perspective;
> <g> Cognitive therapy fits nicely into this generation then, I
> think, being as that is one of the goals - to get rid of the
> "shoulds" -- MAINLY the ones that cause criticism of the self and
> create depression. To examine my own mind and create change
> without using any *judgement* but going entirely on preference is
> no easy business. (Of course this is a belief as well. <g>)
Reframe and redefine that belief. Life works when you let it and it is
as easy as you define it to be. When you remove "battle" definitions it
will become easier. You are creating your reality correct? Then what is
there to battle?
> re: the analogy
> >Well, the problem here is that we are depending TOTALLY on subjective
> >perceptual bias. With astrology, although we create the interpretations
> >to a great degree there IS a fundemental energy that can be discerned
> >(negative/positive) that I have discussed many times. Even Palmistry
> >would be more accurate as there are lines in the palm created by the
> >person's unconscious that are more directly indicative of the true
> >energy.
> hmmm... probably handwriting analysis as well. Which at the
> present time seems to have more "acceptability" in the mind of
> the public -- or at least in police work.
Yes but again the consciousness is being filtered through the ego and
conscious self of the writer-so again this is second hand info with much
spin.
> >In reading the art work the conscious mind of the creator of the
> >work is involved-so less of the entire psyche of the entity is allowed
> >through TO BE seen.
> yah...ok that makes sense. Like if I'm painting a landscape, I'm
> just taking a *part* of that landscape and putting it on paper.
Yes, your version as percieved from the conscious perspective.
> Only if I'm painting "in the round" (ie. something like the
> "Space Theater" there in SD) can I get the whole picture.
That basically is what our physical reality projection is! Yes, if
perhaps you could paint in an unconscious state it would reflect more of
the true consciousness that you are. Thats my favorite theatre!
I like watching the pictures from the shuttle on it. And flying in
planes-it makes you dizzy:-)
> As to that, I guess for a beginner looking at a chart I would
> still tend to see it in the two dimensions rather than the three
> that are represented. Does anybody know if any work has been
> done with horoscopes and virtual reality, so that charts could
> be explored in 3 dimensions as far as current tech allows?
> (Heck of a mix there! ie. "virtual" reality and charts which
> indicate our "virtual reality". <vbg>)
Actually what happens is I see the whole chart and then the task is to
break it back down and translate it to the client in a way (no jargon)
that serves to enhance their understanding. I don't know about your
question though but it sounds like a good idea.
> > I hope I
> >have explained this well. It is difficult.
> Acknowledged... but I think I see.
Great.
> re: transcendence of chart.
> >Firstly, as in psychology, I cannot make a value judgment as to what the
> >person "should" be doing. My service is to allow them to RELAX shoulds
> >if they wish to allow more of themselves. All pain is resistance to
> >growth and all pain is separation. My job is to assist in judgment
> >alleviation that creates the difficulty or pain. If the person is
> >creating difficulty with the situation, I seek to find the reasons for
> >their creation of that difficulty to reflect it to them, so that if they
> >wish they can redefine it.
> And I would guess that pain can be seen in terms of unhappiness
> then (relative to the percentage of it in the person's life). And
> anger --
These are shoulds and judgment yes, that the person who does not trust
that they put them there for reason feels and hence "believes", as a
feeling is a reaction to a belief-in essence the value structure is
bounced off the psyche and things then "feel" a certain way.
>obviously Christ also had some "shoulds" as far as what
> the moneychangers "should" have been doing.
Well there's very little really obvious about the stories (gospels) of
christ. We have no first hand accounts of just what he "did", we only
have versions by persons who we really cannot even be sure were the real
disciples 40 years after the event SAID it was and he did. But he may
have done things like this for effect more than anything, knowing how it
would affect those whose beliefs were so strongly attached to those
things. Remember the "evolved" person is not really caught up in
personal insecurities. Just look at the 4 gospels and their differnt
spins and you can see that they were wqritten for certain reasons. I
wrote a paper on this on John that I posted and is retrievable through
Deja News if interested.
> Yet he must have
> struggled through it, because by the time he confronted Judas he
> seem to have accepted the fact that he was being betrayed.
> Although perhaps it was easier accepting his *own* betrayal than
> it was to accept what he may have seen as betrayal of others.
Physical reality and the illusion that it exists outside is an ongoing
illusion. This is what the stories of faith were meant to reflect.
> I wish very much to see alternatives to the concepts of
> "predestined" or "constant experimentation". But it's a struggle
> for me to come up with anything else. I suppose perhaps breaking
> through that barrier might help me touch the other dimension or
> plane better, on the other hand perhaps it would create a reality
If you start acting like a person who creates their reality then you
will see that. Like when things happen in your reality, if you first
remove your habitual thinking as far as what the "mean" this will help.
Then try to see how things fit-because they must. If you cannot at that
moment, just trust that it does and remember it. Many times you will be
able later to see how it fit and why you created it to be that way and
it will be an aha. I have kept a journal of dreams for about 12-13 years
now-and I can place almost everyone as an actual physical
manifestation-most at least a year ahead of the event-so there is a
connection in my opinion while in the dream state to other times and
places and we are incorporating them to some degree while we sleep. Many
times I can get up see the "theme" of the dreams I had the night before
and know exactly what will occur that day.
> in *this* dimension I am not ready for? (yet? <g>)
Not possible. You cannot experience or create anything you are not ready
for. If you are not ready for it you cannot imagine it or see it.
> >I may REFRAME what they say or are to allow a
> >different view which allows them a different view which may break a
> >momentum deadlock. But I cannot redefine for them.
> Acknowledged. I guess I sort of try to do that sometimes
> _outside_ of astrology. Sometimes it seems to help, sometimes it
> doesn't.
If you practice some of the "removing meaning exercises" I stated above
this will help. You will be surprised how fixed some of your meanings
that you interject into things are. Try to pretend it is just a play as
Shakespeare said, and it will begin to dissolve and look differently.
On Transcendence is usually the recognition and owning of a definition
that is creating the reality;
> Yeah... Well I know that I am going through some things at the
> moment. You see, I have waited a very long time to acquire a
> certain object which I see as giving me more freedom.
The object cannot give you freedom, you can only use it as a prop to
ALLOW you to believe in your freedom you have always had (like Oz).
> So I get
> this object, and what happens? I break it, requiring that it get
> fixed and have to wait some more and costing some money as well.
Yes, this is the threshold of believability I have discussed (please see
my definitions A-Z).
You may not believe you deserve happiness and freedom just because you
exist. This is a question of several beliefs intermingling, this is more
the norm than not.
> It's tough NOT to be upset with myself, not knowing just what it
> is I am supposed to be learning by this experience!
Perhaps something as simple as you don't wish to judge yourself like
that anymore?:-)
> re: the diabetes of your father...
> This was interesting. I've messed around with my feelings in
> regard to scarcity and abundance myself --not from an
> astrological perspective though.
The horoscope just acts as a guide to assist me to know WHEN perhaps in
"Hallway A" the person begins to deal with this belief and issue.
> >This is why any astrologer needs to interact with the person in question
> >because we cannot know their level of incorporation and integration of
> >the aspects we see until we do so. This is also why astrology is not and
> >cannot be empirically measured, because the person has the free will
> >through awareness and reflection to alter ANY level of aspect.
> >This is also why no one can interpret or assist a life or a level at
> >which they have not or cannot function.
> Understood. I've seen more than a few "Don Quixote's" here on
> the net (no, not you -- other newsgroups, unless you allow for
> Paul <VBG>) and though I have sometimes been able to see how
> their way of thinking leads to their conclusion that they *must*
> fight whatever or whoever, I admit it's only a limited
> understanding. And even that is only because I remember myself
> as a teen *panicking* because of objections to events that seemed
> at the time as if my whole world was going to fall in if
> *somebody* didn't *do something*. <g> So I was in that place
> at one time. (too late for the hippie movement, I'm afraid, I was
> still a child when that occured.)
Well it is a matter of approach, I don't answer these things and cynics
because I believe if I don't it will be "bad". I answer because I trust
I know what I am doing and CAN. There is a difference, one is from
defense and one is from conviction.
> re: drawings being a reflection of the artist at a *certain*
> period of time...
> Same here. I have tended to operate in a way in which my
> pastimes change with the seasons in a sort of rotation ...
> ie. >painting > genealogy > computer stuff > crafts >painting,
> and around again... And with me as well, when I get back into
> the art it seems to have changed in some way. (A very good
> psychic channel once gave me a reading that I needed
> "integration" -- and how right she was!) As to that, I seem to
> need one of two things to do good work -- either a very STRONG
> emotional tie to what I am painting (ie. my daughter as a child)
> or to be in a classroom setting.
Yes, I put my life into things I do. If I have an issue going on I might
write an article or post on it, this helps me deal with that issue
myself while I convey the resolutions for others who may wish to have
that info or perspective.
> re: hard to describe concepts...
> >Yes, I understand, perhaps this gives you some idea how difficult it is
> >for me to convey these things without tremendous repition and
> >explanation.
> Oh of course. When a person is promoting a (relatively) new idea,
> that does seem to be a needed course of action. Practice makes
> perfect, and it helps to see the same idea over and over -- not
> to mention in different place. <g>
Actually nothing I do is new-except that I integrate all the old things
into one thing that all fits together and works just fine-but most of
what I say has been said since the beginning of recorded (and before)
history. I do view astrology differently I believe and with Noel Tyl's
psychological interpretation help have distilled the archetypes down to
their basic belief.
> Even if it takes longer for me to "get" certain parts of these
> ideas, I do get there. Because much of what I have studied, goes
> along the same course -- Jane Roberts "Nature of Personality"
> series, Carlos Casteneda's books, "The Tenth Insight" by
> Redfield, "Mindwalk" (the video), and the materials Tony Robbins
> puts out. These ALL go along the ideas that we create our own
> world in which to be in the here and now and that our belief
> systems affect just how that world is.
There is no such thing as time and we have eternity to enjoy the
exploration of "things". All judgments are self imposed.
> >Timebot
> >> 4:45pm - 10 Jan 1957 - Camp Lejeune, NC, USA
> >Yes, you realize you are a Capricorn with the moon in Taurus and I am a
> >Taurus with moon in Capricorn? No one can experience a reality that is
> >not a part of them on some level.:-)
> Well I didn't know, but I do now, having seen your page
> and art. :-)
> My husband and daughter are both Taurus as well, though my
> husband has Sagittarius ascending, and my daughter has Capricorn
> ascending. An interesting excercise is contrasting my ex-husband
> (of 22 years ago) born 24 Jun 1955 9:20AM San Diego with my
> husband of some 20 years now -- born 04 May 1959 9:26PM San
> Diego.
My son is a Sagittarius sun conjunct Neptune in 9!, Picses rising,
ex-wife (his mother) Aquarius, moon in Gemini, Scorpio rising- if that
gives any further insight into the familial structure here. I discuss
this in my article "DNA, Thae Pyramids and The Elements" about how the
family structure and inherited DNA is reflected in astrological
signatures-generally.
> And in a wonderful continuation of this familial theme, my new
> grand-daughter is also a Taurus, with Aquarius ascending and a
> Libra moon.
Venusian. And sort of the same theme as your Uranus in 1 with Aquarius
rising huh?:-)
> and in the theme of musical quotations...
> "I listen to the wind, to the wind of my soul.
> Where I'll end up well I think only God really knows."
> (Cat Stevens)
Yes, and since we are all the different ways "All That Is" has of
expressing itself-we too can know. So, WE really know, and we are
beginning an age where we will take back the projection of "God" as well
as physicality existing outside of us.
> (And BTW, I really enjoy the "Moodies" quotes -- I have many
> of their albums and got to go to two of their concerts, one
> in the early 80's and one around 1991, I think.)
Thanks, so did I -I went and saw them on bay with the San Diego Symphony
playing with them-I am quite a music person. I still have my front row
Led Zepplin ticket:-) And almost every other group that I went to,
including the US festival where there was about 50 top name groups.
> regards,
> Timebot
To you as well, thank you for your reasonableness, what a change.
Edmond Wollmann
Timebot wrote:
> I was busy doing something else when Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >You mean you try to be objective and intelligent unlike the cynical
> >approach? Yes very good.
> >I see you trying to understand, not arguing.
This is why the Mutable signs are flexible and changable, because that
is what information and perspective must be;
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
> :->
Just like metal, too rigid it breaks-this is why they use Titanium for
turbine engine blades (on jet engines) for example:-) Strength is a
balance of flexibility and consistency.
> re :We create ourselves continually.
> Okay. And even science acknowledges the fact that we
> have new cells every single day, so it follows that everything
> else is new as well. And whatever patterns are manifested follow
> from the patterns of the day before, with whatever changes have
> occurred.
Yes, but the philosophical question is; If we have a cube with colored
sides and just one of the sides is changed, do we have a new cube or the
same one with a new side?
> >But remember time is an effect of physicality so we only
> >experience that separatedness here(Please refer to my "Saturn Opposition
> >Saturn; View To Reality" article).
> Well I sure know there is no sense of time in the dream state.
Real while you are in it, but an illusion none the less. On both counts.
> <g> My children are grown and half-grown, and I dream about them
> as toddlers sometimes still. I also (and this is bothersome)
> sometimes dream about my ex as I know his *real* self is (and not
> as the person he is now) -- which really gets disorienting at
> times. <g>
Well this is the common myth that real=physical. Real=anything that
exists, either in the imagination OR physicality-these are just 2
different ways for reality TO manifest. Our egos like to think that the
realm it is conscious of and resides in is THE REAL RREALITY:-) This is
because the ego is a creation FOR physicality TO control the self while
IN this reality-and part of the parameter of BEING physical (THIS cube)
is focus, exclusion and the illusion that the ego we are is ALL we are.
This is so we can explore focus and limitation. We have become masters
of limitation. But we are nearing the end of this "game" and are now
reintegrating our consciousness back into the awareness of the unbroken
wholeness of "All That Is". That is WHY physics will become metaphysics
and science will be the dinosaur. It is simple mechanics.
> And then I suppose the people in these dreams are reflections
> of my self in the other dimension, in both the dream state and
> in real life...
Well they may be actually them and your interaction with them IN these
other states.
> re: two parts of free will...
> hmmm... so it (they) operate like those student driving cars that
> have two steering wheels? One for "override" in case the new
> driving student gets a little too far off-course? <g>
Well sort of, but the higher will supercedes the limited and feeble
physical will. Unless of course they are viewed as one (which they
"really" are) then in that case self empowerment is great in an overall
sense.(i.e., Christ).
> >Then the self that you are about to be is attracted to the
> >parental structure that best suits and reflects the vibration that you
> >are and the choice of timing to be born with astrological reflections
> >reflecting the "frozen version" of the vibration you are upon entry into
> >physicality.
> Another analogy comes to mind... "Core samples" from geological
> exploration, where one slice represents a point in time of the
> earth evolving in a particular location.
Yes, those are the effects of the physical reflections of the versions
expressed at that timing.
> > Since planetary movements and measurements from there
> >forward will be to some degree fixed and mathematical (deductive), this
> >reflects "Hallway A" or your birth "Path" that horoscopic measurements
> >will then reflect to a great degree those agreements and choices from
> >the higher level that it is known will be capable of producing the
> >"props" in physicality to stimulate the desired psychological and
> >developmental growth needed.
> >This is the momentum that you are-sometimes called Karma. You then are
> >born.
> >Until age 14 or so (first Saturn opposition Saturn) you really are
> >riding on the parental choice and hallway A. When the first saturn opp
> >occurs, this is when the CAPABILITY of the free will of the PHYSICAL
> >self is activated. This is why many times a crisis in consciousness
> >occurs at this time.
> As for me, at that time I separated myself from my parents
> emotionally but went _directly_ into the relationship with my
> ex. And so I stayed "re-active" instead of "pro-active" for
> quite a few years after that.
Of course, Saturn rules your 7th and disposes of all the Capricorn
planets there, your Saturn placement is in 5 (creative extension) so the
opposition would have been from 11 (others extension and love recieved)
revealing that you gave power away to the reflection as a way to
identity definition. See how easy and obvious astrology is?:-)
> > To bring to the attention of the physical self the
> >"theme" of one of its main recognitions that will be needed in this
> >life.
> Looking back, I'd say it's been relationships and communication,
> and changes in both.
Yes, your Saturn is in Sagittarius-others opinions and the exchange of
belief systems:-)
> on choosing the hallway still being my own choice.
> Okay. I'll take the credit then. <g>
> >Getting hit by the car or the bus is a pretty likely event based on the
> >fact that it is a PRODUCT of the choice to be "IN" physical reality to
> >begin with.
> >But it is not impossible that the mental can dissolve it so
> >to speak-but this requires such a level of awareness that you would
> >almost be nonphysical to HOLD such a positive perspective.
> aha. okay.
If the perspective and threshold of believability is reached in order to
do this physical reality will be found to be as permeable as dream
reality. Physics is showing us this now.
> >No it is not
> >the "effect" of others beliefs. Others beliefs have NOTHING to do with
> >anyone elses ability to create their own reality. But the levels that it
> >would require to transcend getting hurt by the vehicle are very deep and
> >no one I know (of course, cause I am not that vibration) can do
> >that-except Christ from all accounts.
> And "reports of" certain mystics, I guess. Which brings me to
> another question -- whether ascetics and monks and so on who
> cloister themselves do so because they feel they have to remove
> themselves from the "reinforcement of beliefs" in society itself.
If you go back to your Saturn placement discussed above it is easy to
see this is your fear and belief (Saturn in Sagittarius) that you are
projecting-not any inherent control of others beliefs of anyone elses
reality-see? Relinquishing fears associated with Saturn is the key to
changing projection (the perception of another's belief system with our
belief system interjected) into analytical discernment (the objective
reception of the belief system of another without being caught up in
that system). This is the primary reason for the path I am (Sun
opposition Saturn from 4 inner self-to 10, life direction and
externalization of self). And to take this experience and relay it to
others.
> > Those are just gospels though and
> >very little historical account. But then anyone approaching that level
> >doesn't need silly stunts to support their convictions either:-)
> True. I guess that's why we hear only rumours of what they can
> do, if that.
Well it is always believing is seeing not seeing is believing-so you
must believe this on all levels before you even see anyone who can
reflect this to you.
> >Yes, they are all "happening" right now, just like the rest of the
> >multiverse, we just have our focus here and now, and now, and now, see?
> >(Please see the filmstrip analogy used by Bashar and myself).
> Guess I could leave myself "markers" <g>. Studying other
> lifetimes from the perspective of this one would be
> interesting...
Then you go right ahead:-)
> (I did an experiment once where I left a message to people in
> the future to come back and get me -- going on the lines of how
> we do archeological digs to find out about the past, I reasoned
> that we would still do this in the future even if time travel
> becomes possible. So that maybe, if they got my message, someone
> might have the capability of coming back and telling me. :-)
Why can't the you you are in the future tell you how to do this? And you
leave messages with the self you are becoming to remind you at that
time? You forget YOU exist everywhere all at once, so the you you are
becoming is already there-ask that you:-)
> On the other hand, if they got the same rule of
> "non-interference" that the show "Star Trek TNG" does, they
> probably would not tell me anyhow. :-< )
This idea simply reflects the idea I was saying about the feebleness of
conscious decisions, if the conscious mind just "wants" something to be
another way so it is easier or less conflictive or confronting to ITS
survival, then the higher self must take over because the overall path
is more comprehensivce and necessary than the egos desire for candy when
it really needs spinach-see? So this comes across metaphorically in
themes such as this "non-interference" idea portrayed in Star Trek-our
unconscious always creates symbols for us to see these truths in many
ways, but we have to be inclined to view them that way to begin with.
This is why if the cynical view is too rigid there is nothing anyone can
say that will break that lock of fear from the ego on physical "proof"
illusions.
> >Reframe and redefine that belief. Life works when you let it and it is
> >as easy as you define it to be. When you remove "battle" definitions it
> >will become easier. You are creating your reality correct? Then what is
> >there to battle?
> Well perhaps "battle" was not what I meant exactly.
> Steering is a better analogy -- and I guess I don't exactly trust
> my steering ability. <g> To try to be more clear -- I like to
> know where I am headed at all times, and sometimes the road ahead
> becomes rather shadowy and vague.
What you are saying is that if the ego doesn't know "every little detail
to "make sure" everything will go "as planned" etc, that you cannot
muster the trust to know that it is anyway. If you look to the external
for "PROOF" that things are going "ok" you will never find it because
you are saying it must not be and that is why you have to "make sure".
> Actually it's more than
> "like to know" -- at times it becomes almost an addiction to
> knowing... probably what is termed "control issues" in some
> circles. <g> Then again, having chosen to be a Capricorn, I
> suppose that IS the issue for me, right? <vbg> Probably more
> than anything else, too.
Placing the power outside the self illusion-yes this is "satan"
(Saturn). The deception of the material world. This is why Christ could
very well have been a Capricorn as he took back power fom this illusion
and therefore had ultimate control. That is what the Apex sign of
Capricorn as a spiritual manifestation is-to know that you ARE the
reality it "appears" you exist within.
> >Yes but again the consciousness is being filtered through the ego and
> >conscious self of the writer-so again this is second hand info with much
> >spin.
> ah okay. I admit, I didn't see it that way. It didn't occur to
> me that the person could control their writing -- but yeah -- I
> guess I *consciously* worked on my own handwriting, so I guess
> the subconscious "filters" could work the same way.
Yes, my point was that there are two times of coming through a
"conscious mind" when we interpret someones writing or art-once through
theirs and once through ours-we cut down the noise if we look at a chart
because THEIR conscious mind interpretation of the energy is removed and
we see the psyche more or less unaltered (except by our version of
course). So if the astrologer is astute enough insight can be great and
to the heart of the matter.
> Actually my goal is to be able to paint some of the dreams I
> have. I do okay painting things I see in the awake state, but
> trying to get that ethereal quality down in paint is something I
> still have to work on. An Astrologer friend of mine some years
> ago, Vicki Greene, had a set of portraits done by someone she
> knew (and I don't know the name of the artist) where it was a
> set of faces done on canvas and they all blended into each other.
> With background colors I have a high response to -- lavenders and
> blues. The painting had a very ethereal "other-world" appearance
> to me -- as I recall it may have been a channeled painting of
> what her other lifetime selves may have looked like. Not sure.
> But it made a HUGE impression on me, and that has been my wish
> ever since.
Then ask the future self that you are that already knows how to do this,
and act upon it.
> I do well with *written* descriptions of dreams, and even have
> a short story called "The Fall" which I almost had published
> once. (We moved, and so I neglected to send it in again to the
> magazine...)
A low threshold of believability that it CAN have an effect and positive
impact-yes? Publish it, what is the worst possible thing that could
happen?
On chart interps;
> >Actually what happens is I see the whole chart and then the task is to
> >break it back down and translate it to the client in a way (no jargon)
> >that serves to enhance their understanding. I don't know about your
> >question though but it sounds like a good idea.
> The idea intrigues me. I have access to some programs that might
> help me create something like that. Of course the distances
> between planets on the vertical and horizontal plane would have
> to be reduced in order to actually be able to "travel" the chart.
> So first I think I would have to make some sort of interpolation
> type formula for translating the distances into handle-able
> numbers.
Then you go right ahead-nothing "just occurs" to us that does not for
some reason.
> >These are shoulds and judgment yes, that the person who does not trust
> >that they put them there for reason feels and hence "believes", as a
> >feeling is a reaction to a belief-in essence the value structure is
> >bounced off the psyche and things then "feel" a certain way.
> You might be interested in knowing that in Cognitive therapy,
> it holds that not only do our beliefs result in feelings, but
> that *thoughts* result in those beliefs which lead to the
> feelings. So if I (or anyone) messes up and say to myself
> "I'm stupid", even if I tell myself I don't really believe
> it's true -- over time it results in a real belief of this.
> And that belief would result in a feeling of impatience or
> anger with myself which can lead to depression eventually.
> And so... the object of this therapy is to catch and "correct"
> negative thinking (and "should" thinking) in order to cure
> and prevent depression.
Yes, I know.
> >Well there's very little really obvious about the stories (gospels) of
> >christ. We have no first hand accounts of just what he "did", we only
> >have versions by persons who we really cannot even be sure were the real
> >disciples 40 years after the event SAID it was and he did.
> True. (My mother attended theology school and read the original
> greek version of the bible (as opposed to modern day greek
> versions, I mean).
Its thrust is to offer ways to transform perspective to a more
empowering view.
> >But he may
> >have done things like this for effect more than anything, knowing how it
> >would affect those whose beliefs were so strongly attached to those
> >things.
> <g> That's probably true. Another "assumption" that comes into
> play is assuming he lived the "reactive" life like most of us
> tend to do instead of being "proactive".
Yes, many times I know what I say or do "looks like" but am willing to
allow that misunderstanding because I can see it leading to broader
revelations further down the line, and to run to defending it only
implies I don't trust that overall unfoldment.
> >Remember the "evolved" person is not really caught up in
> >personal insecurities. Just look at the 4 gospels and their differnt
> >spins and you can see that they were wqritten for certain reasons. I
> >wrote a paper on this on John that I posted and is retrievable through
> >Deja News if interested.
> Cool. I may even pass it on to my mother -- I'd like to see her
> get re-involved in thinking about such things again... But
> that's another (very long) story.
I think the four gospels reflect the four Cardinal points idea and that
they allow the idea to be grasped from whatever level or vibration is
attracted to-to get it.
> >Physical reality and the illusion that it exists outside is an ongoing
> >illusion. This is what the stories of faith were meant to reflect.
> <nod>
> I seem to have gotten the "ask and ye shall receive" part
> down. It's holding on to what I've asked for that I'm still
> working on... (laugh)
Well perhaps because you forget it is you giving and recieving? If it is
yours to begin with how can you lose it? And when you get it back the
only way you can again lose it is by not believing it was yours to begin
with.
> >If you start acting like a person who creates their reality then you
> >will see that. Like when things happen in your reality, if you first
> >remove your habitual thinking as far as what the "mean" this will help.
> >Then try to see how things fit-because they must. If you cannot at that
> >moment, just trust that it does and remember it. Many times you will be
> >able later to see how it fit and why you created it to be that way and
> >it will be an aha. I have kept a journal of dreams for about 12-13 years
> >now-and I can place almost everyone as an actual physical
> >manifestation-most at least a year ahead of the event-so there is a
> >connection in my opinion while in the dream state to other times and
> >places and we are incorporating them to some degree while we sleep. Many
> >times I can get up see the "theme" of the dreams I had the night before
> >and know exactly what will occur that day.
> Whew! I've done dream-study and dream work too -- not nearly as
> consistently though.
A year before my father had to have a by-pass surgery I had a dream he
had a heart attack and died. I never discussed the dream with him until
the year later when he said he was having short breath and I told him to
go get it checked because of my dream-it was discovered he needed triple
by-pass surgery. I confirmed the time for surgery and he went ahead with
it and everything came out fine-he is 72. (He consults me all the time
for things from his experiences in the accuracy of astrological
reflection). This was during major aspects to his Leo stellium.
> I've stopped just short of lucid dreaming
> several times. I studied under Jean Campbell ("Dreams Beyond
> Dreaming") quite a few years ago. This was one of the factors
> that changed my nightmarish "storm" dreams into more peaceful
> story like dreams -- with the occasional obvious archetype, like
> the "old wise woman". (And if anyone knows where Jean Campbell
> is now, please email me with that info! Her organization
> dissolved and I don't know where to find her now.)
> >Not possible. You cannot experience or create anything you are not ready
> >for. If you are not ready for it you cannot imagine it or see it.
> I guess it's just a reflection of some issues I have then.
> >If you practice some of the "removing meaning exercises" I stated above
> >this will help. You will be surprised how fixed some of your meanings
> >that you interject into things are. Try to pretend it is just a play as
> >Shakespeare said, and it will begin to dissolve and look differently.
> Well it's *been* looking different for some time now. But I
> guess this means I'm ready for another step or several...
I didn't mean to imply you were not changing-I know that you must.
> >On Transcendence is usually the recognition and owning of a definition
> >that is creating the reality;
> <nod>
> >The object cannot give you freedom, you can only use it as a prop to
> >ALLOW you to believe in your freedom you have always had (like Oz).
> okay. yeah. knew that -- didn't put it like I knew that.
Everything happens for a reason.
> >Yes, this is the threshold of believability I have discussed (please see
> >my definitions A-Z).
> >You may not believe you deserve happiness and freedom just because you
> >exist. This is a question of several beliefs intermingling, this is more
> >the norm than not.
Part of the "spiritual path" many people percieve is that they have to
do something special in order to deserve to exist-but we do not. What
special thing did we do to get here to begin with? This is where this
"born sinner" judgment idea comes from.
> >Perhaps something as simple as you don't wish to judge yourself like
> >that anymore?:-)
> Having thought about this some more, I think maybe it's more of
> an issue of work vs play, and breaking the invisible tether that
> runs from me to my desk.
Make your play your work and that will resolve that.
> I've been working on becoming organized
> and that is working very well, but I now have the wish to bring
> my center of organization with me wherever I go. That became
> possible -- and suddenly *not* possible again.
What threshold does not allow you to trust the permenacy of your
preferences?
> >The horoscope just acts as a guide to assist me to know WHEN perhaps in
> >"Hallway A" the person begins to deal with this belief and issue.
> hmm... I think I'll go check and see what issues I'm beginning to
> deal with then. I really should check more often.
Saturn is squaring your sun-hence you "run into" me. And we discuss
"Saturn issues". Simple.
> >Well it is a matter of approach, I don't answer these things and cynics
> >because I believe if I don't it will be "bad". I answer because I trust
> >I know what I am doing and CAN. There is a difference, one is from
> >defense and one is from conviction.
> And either way, the *attacking* I see being done by a lot of
> people on usenet to your posts and those of other people will
> not affect the beliefs held -- either by you, OR by those others
> getting similar treatment. The cynic is welcome to continue
> to be if he/she likes -- but to me the idea that they think
> they can change or "expose" something by attacking seems
> even to go against *this* dimension's natural ways.
In my schema it reinforces exactly what I say and is self defeating for
them to even challenge me. Therefore I do it as demonstration to help
assist others in their threshold of believability should they so
choose-not necessarily for the cynics or to prove something to me-I
already know this. Thats another reason why I crosspost it-those groups
I do have seekers who it may serve in example-which is the only way
anyone is ever convinced or changed anyway. I know what I am saying is
correct, because lurkers from these groups encourage me and write me
privately to tell me so. I get many more positive letters than negative
ones. Only the negative grandstanders publicly post and the compliments
come from private mail and mostly people who NEVER post. I started
talking to a certain person privately and when he could not accept my
answers he took it public to seek reinforcement from others. Easy to do
because all the naysayers and those who feel me a threat are naturally
going to try to flock together in an attempt to "defeat" my arguments
they figure by having power in numbers-but it is irrelevant to me-I will
continue to maintain my view. I have had major opposition and testing
far greater than the simple opinion of a few persons on newsnet to these
ideas-life threatening, not simply speculative posturing.
This is because of fear and the difference in vibrational levels and the
ability for persons to know the contents of their own psyche without
fear;
.."but the idea many times of the reasons that those fears occur in your
society, when you are interacting with beings from other societies in
that way, no matter what level you are interacting with them, the reason
that many of those fears occur is because-let us say-and again in no
way, shape, or form, is this meant to be a comparative judgement that
you are any less than any other being. But the way you create yourselves
to be, the way you have been taught to think of yourselves, creates
within you the ability to hide and suppress many portions of your
consciousness from yourselves, and in doing so you function on a lower
vibratory frequency very often. When you come in contact with a being
that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
lower frequency to rise in pitch. In forcing the lower frequency to
raise in pitch, that will bring to the surface all the things that you
have been keeping buried within you, and bringing those things to the
surface when you are not ready to face them, can be a very fearful
experience for many of you. That is where the fear comes from." Bashar
> >Yes, I put my life into things I do. If I have an issue going on I might
> >write an article or post on it, this helps me deal with that issue
> >myself while I convey the resolutions for others who may wish to have
> >that info or perspective.
> I see. I guess that's why its among the quality work on usenet
> which I tend to save for reference later. <g>
Thank you for your compliments:-)
> Ain't usenet wonderful?! <g> Seriously, it's so great to
> be able to talk to people -- and for me, writing comes easier
> than talking most of the time. Although I guess that's probably
> true for a lot of people in this medium.
Yes, reality is always even more amazing than imagined.
> >Actually nothing I do is new-
> okay... not new in the idea -- but in it's availablity to "the
> masses" in various ways.
Well because of the times yes perhaps.
> I grew up a few blocks from the Sports Arena, so we didn't have
> to mess with parking. <g> But I only actually went to just a few
> concerts. Chuck Mangione, Dan Fogleberg, and John Denver are
> the only other ones I've been to -- except when we went to see
> the Guess Who at a nightclub there.
I have a little cedar box that I kept all my concert tickets in from 70
forward. I went to a few before that (I was too young to go to them
before that), I must have at least 40 or so.
> And as to music...
> "Thank you for the music, the songs I'm singin'. Thanks for all
> the joy they're bringin'. Who could live without it, I ask in
> all honesty, what would life be? Without a song or a dance, who
> are we? So I say 'Thank you for the music, for bringing it to
> me.'" (ABBA)
> >To you as well, thank you for your reasonableness, what a change.
> Oh I'm always reasonable, I just don't always project it.
Well I meant in comparison to others, not your own past. I think you
have been reasonble throughout all of your posts.
--
"Make a promise take a vow and trust your feelings its easy now!
Understand the voice within and feel the change alright begin-and
Oooohhhhh won't you tell me again, Ooooohhhh can you feel it. Oooohhh
won't you tell me again tonight." The Moody Blues "The Voice"