Aquarius Pisces Boundary
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> All of the details concerning the *reason* for precession, which you
> contributed so proudly and irrelevantly, are the result of pure
> astronomical research.
SNIP! Irrelevant, I never have nor would I ever demean or try to force
anyone to believe that science and other worthwhile paradigms used in
search of understanding of the multiverse are not to be used. My service
is the positive integration of all truths to increase knowingness and
understanding-not decrease it. It is the cynical view that is
exclusionary-not mine.
I repeat;
Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
You have all the tools and all the abilities that you require at any
given moment to be anything you are willing and bold enough to believe
you can define yourself to be. You are always in control 100% even when
you use 90% to create the illusion that you only have the other 10%. No
one can make you feel inferior without your consent. The recognition
that the universe has no built-in meaning. The taking of responsibility
(not guilt) for ones reality BECAUSE you know it is you and your
creation.
Integrity- Functioning as an integrated whole self, without placing
power outside of the self, since nothing is outside of the self. The
recognition that you are as powerful as you need to be to create
whatever you desire to create in your reality without having to hurt
yourself or anyone else in order to create it. You are always a part of
the problem or of the solution, if you are not part of the solution it
is easy to figure out where you are on the scale (unless of course you
are involved as an analytically discerning or accurate empathic
observer-pls see the discernment vs judgment post). You are not
responsible for anyone only responsible to them by being as much as you
can be in integrity. All is vibration, and the vibration you are will BE
the reality you experience EVERYWHERE-ALL THE TIME.
Negative beliefs do not have any more power than positive. So they are
not necessarily "unfortunate", for every being creates their reality
utterly as the product of what they believe or have been taught to
believe is true. There is no one truth, except that THE truth is
composed of all truths within that system. Individuals can act in
positive ways or in negative ways.
* Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive,
inclusive-INTEGRAL.
* Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
But the positive individual, by the light by which they shine, will
simply show the negative individual(s) that they are;
A) Untouchable by anything that is not of a similar vibration. And that;
B) They offer back to the negative individual(s) an offering of a
choice, a choice to also be positive. If the other(s) do not choose to
be positive then they can simply go their own way, for that which is
negative cannot exist within the blinding light of that which is
positive, it is simple mechanics-PHYSICS. That is all. Even if the
negativity is intentional the positive person will still extract a
positive effect.
Action is the manifested conviction of belief-because life happens
through you not to you.
Or as Walt Whitman put it.
"What you are speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying."
No one can interpret a life or vibrational level at which they
themselves are not capable of functioning, because all is vibration.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Bashar and The Association
Elanore Roosevelt
--
"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Peter F. Curran
In article <338E5D...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
[snip]
>Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
>reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
>created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
>conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
>EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
This is _completely_ unproven. If it were so, people could fly if
they believed it, and nobody has yet succeeded. In fact, there isn't
a single repeatable well-constructed physics experiment which needs to
take into account the observer's beliefs. Experiments sometimes even
produce results TOTALLY at odds with everyone's belief system. The
constant speed of light experiments are just one example.
> You have all the tools and all the abilities that you require at any
>given moment to be anything you are willing and bold enough to believe
>you can define yourself to be. You are always in control 100% even when
I see... Not! Are you saying that you can suddenly decide to be
a brain surgeon, perform an operation, and have even a marginal
chance of the patient's recovery? If so, you are a very deluded
person!
>you use 90% to create the illusion that you only have the other 10%. No
>one can make you feel inferior without your consent. The recognition
>that the universe has no built-in meaning. The taking of responsibility
>(not guilt) for ones reality BECAUSE you know it is you and your
>creation.
I will grant that it is we who are ultimately responsible for
our own lives, (at least more so than any other), but that doesn't
change the FACT that the world can still affect us negatively or
positively in ways completely beyond our control. Yes, we can take
steps to prevent a great many of what seem to be random misfortunes,
but it would be impossible to prevent them ALL.
>Integrity- Functioning as an integrated whole self, without placing
>power outside of the self, since nothing is outside of the self. The
>recognition that you are as powerful as you need to be to create
>whatever you desire to create in your reality without having to hurt
>yourself or anyone else in order to create it. You are always a part of
>the problem or of the solution, if you are not part of the solution it
>is easy to figure out where you are on the scale (unless of course you
>are involved as an analytically discerning or accurate empathic
>observer-pls see the discernment vs judgment post). You are not
>responsible for anyone only responsible to them by being as much as you
>can be in integrity. All is vibration, and the vibration you are will BE
>the reality you experience EVERYWHERE-ALL THE TIME.
This is an interesting wishy-washy dream of how you'd _like_ things
to be. It is unfortunately all in your mind. The "vibration"
comments are typical of new-age, "make up whatever you want", kinds
of reasoning.
>Negative beliefs do not have any more power than positive. So they are
>not necessarily "unfortunate", for every being creates their reality
>utterly as the product of what they believe or have been taught to
>believe is true. There is no one truth, except that THE truth is
>composed of all truths within that system. Individuals can act in
>positive ways or in negative ways.
You seem almost dangerously dissociated from reality. Go hug a
tree! It is VERY solid and it is still there when you turn your
back to it. The physical objective world is far too complex for
you to have imagined it all with your puny brain. If you created
your own reality you would never be surprised by it.
>* Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive,
>inclusive-INTEGRAL.
>
>* Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
>PARTS.
>
> But the positive individual, by the light by which they shine, will
>simply show the negative individual(s) that they are;
>
>A) Untouchable by anything that is not of a similar vibration. And that;
>
>B) They offer back to the negative individual(s) an offering of a
>choice, a choice to also be positive. If the other(s) do not choose to
>be positive then they can simply go their own way, for that which is
>negative cannot exist within the blinding light of that which is
>positive, it is simple mechanics-PHYSICS. That is all. Even if the
>negativity is intentional the positive person will still extract a
>positive effect.
>
This is completely "round-the-bend". It is YOUR beliefs which are
unprovable and disappear in the "light" of reason and experimentation.
We are all trying so very hard to draw you away from the false path
you have so unfortunately started down. I urge you to get out more
and interact with this very real and objective physical world we have.
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
Edmond Wollmann
SNIP!
For those so inclined, the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
evidenced by the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self,
that allow for trancendence, that allow for the existential view.
If you live in a "Valley" the lanscape of that valley is all you know,
and are not real clear on the appearance of that valley while you are in
it. Except from the perpective of being "in" the valley. When you climb
to the mountaintop you are now able to view the valley from a different
perspective, to get a bigger picture-an awareness of the "Landscape" of
the valley. Before you climbed this mountain there would have been a
habitual way of percieving the valley which has now changed through the
removal of the lens of the self and its participation in the lanscape of
the valley.
If you have a habit, it is unconscious. If you have a recognition
through
awareness of the habit-you know longer-by definition-have it. This
ability for a recognition outside of or beyond is in a sense proof that
consciousness must be of a non-physical nature to begin with, for the
ability to view the pattern from another point of view is to stand
outside the paradigm that you are. The infinite and non-physical
requirements for this self reflective ability is implicate and necessary
for a Multiverse that CANNOT be "hard wired". For a "hard wired" or
close
ended Multiverse would-by definition-not contain this parameter for
transcendent perspectives to be created. It is a loop or a
mirror-another
view other than what you define yourself to be that IMPLIES something
beyond the reality you immediately inhabit. And the ability to move
beyond the valley and to the mountain is the effect of
self-awareness,---
the goal of any metaphysical endeavor---.
In this way it can be real-ized that because of the physical illusion of
time, we actually exist everywhere at once-non physical and infinite
co-creators with "All That Is". We are the reality that physicality
decieves the conscious mind into believing it exists within.
It is therefore not WHETHER we fit within the infinite "path" but how.
The more conviction and trust we express in the creation of our
reality-the less time it takes to get to this mountaintop. Transcendence
and transformation is NOT the product of mediocrity, NOT the product of
placing power outside the self, NOT the product of aquiesence, and NOT
the product of conscious mind recognitions alone.
You CANNOT experience a reality and vibration that you do not believe to
be true for you-on all levels-with conviction. All experience serves to
TELL you the vibration you are at any given moment.
"Vibration is the impingement of consciousness upon the homogenous field
that creates physical reality, or that is created to create physical
reality. It is a reflection of the ability to create distinct, or as
your
physicists say, discontinuous reality, so as to have the ability to
create many different ideas of reality that can interact in the same
basic universe, while not necessarily occupying the same time frame or
space referential point. It creates the idea of being able to be out of
phase with something else so as to not interfere with it, so that it can
be a parallel reality existing in the same basic referential place and
time, but not experienced to be doing so." "The New Metaphysics" Bashar
and The Association Light and Sound communications 1987.
And in this way, the future and the past are created from the present,
cause and effect are illusions, and NOTHING is determined, set in stone,
or not redefineable when you trust, and act on what you are capable of
acting on that is your bliss with integrity-with trust and CONVICTION
the
physicalized version of belief. Only momentums with degrees of
intensity,
formed by belief, created by the self as the most LIKELY reality to be
experienced, WILL BE the reality you experience. It is a matter of
choice
and preference. The proof is in the acting, the acting in conviction,
the conviction from belief, and the belief from definitional preference.
Choose preference and act like it. There are no other requirements and
there will be no other proofs.
--
"He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he."
The Gospel according to St. Thomas
Peter F. Curran
In article <339071...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:>SNIP!
You seem to have mistaken me for someone who accepts
anything anyone says without any need for proof or
even rationality. :) BTW, the snips are to save
bandwidth, NOT to exhibit disdain for your writing.
I only include copies of the material I want to address.
>
>For those so inclined, the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
>evidenced by the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self,
>that allow for trancendence, that allow for the existential view.
Your statement, "the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
evidenced by...", is not based on any provable phenomena. How can,
"the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self", serve
as proof of the self reflective nature of the Multiverse?!? You first
have to demonstrate that this "Multiverse" exists before you can claim
other truths regarding it. Also, if it IS "self reflective" you need
to rigorously define what you mean by your _term_, "self reflective".
>If you live in a "Valley" the lanscape of that valley is all you know,
>and are not real clear on the appearance of that valley while you are in
>it. Except from the perpective of being "in" the valley. When you climb
>to the mountaintop you are now able to view the valley from a different
>perspective, to get a bigger picture-an awareness of the "Landscape" of
>the valley. Before you climbed this mountain there would have been a
>habitual way of percieving the valley which has now changed through the
>removal of the lens of the self and its participation in the lanscape of
>the valley.
Baloney. People often create scale models and have the ability to
imagine what objects look would like if viewed from new angles despite
the fact that they had never seen them that way.
>If you have a habit, it is unconscious. If you have a recognition
>through
>awareness of the habit-you know longer-by definition-have it. This
WHAT? Are you kidding? Don't you know of anyone who is trying to
break one of their bad habits? Did you ever meet anyone who is an
acknowledged compulsive-obsessive disorder sufferer? There is
NOTHING in the definition of habit which precludes awareness of it.
>ability for a recognition outside of or beyond is in a sense proof that
>consciousness must be of a non-physical nature to begin with, for the
>ability to view the pattern from another point of view is to stand
>outside the paradigm that you are.
How the heck can this be considered proof of _anything_? You are
obviously using an interpretation of the word "proof" which differs
drastically from "implication with certainty".
> The infinite and non-physical
>requirements for this self reflective ability is implicate and necessary
>for a Multiverse that CANNOT be "hard wired". For a "hard wired" or
>close
>ended Multiverse would-by definition-not contain this parameter for
>transcendent perspectives to be created. It is a loop or a
>mirror-another
>view other than what you define yourself to be that IMPLIES something
>beyond the reality you immediately inhabit. And the ability to move
>beyond the valley and to the mountain is the effect of
>self-awareness,---
>the goal of any metaphysical endeavor---.
>
You are rambling. My self reflective ability is limited to
higher level abstracts. In essence, I can never fully
understand the complete workings of my own mind down to the
neuron level. My mind is not complicated enough to completely
understand my mind without generalities.
>In this way it can be real-ized that because of the physical illusion of
>time, we actually exist everywhere at once-non physical and infinite
>co-creators with "All That Is". We are the reality that physicality
>decieves the conscious mind into believing it exists within.
>
Since all your previous points were wrong, this one is as well.
>It is therefore not WHETHER we fit within the infinite "path" but how.
>The more conviction and trust we express in the creation of our
>reality-the less time it takes to get to this mountaintop. Transcendence
>and transformation is NOT the product of mediocrity, NOT the product of
>placing power outside the self, NOT the product of aquiesence, and NOT
>the product of conscious mind recognitions alone.
I have this chaep bridge in Brooklyn which is available for only
a few thousand down....
>You CANNOT experience a reality and vibration that you do not believe to
>be true for you-on all levels-with conviction. All experience serves to
>TELL you the vibration you are at any given moment.
>
And I suppose a new-born baby can NEVER interact with his/her
environment??? You really haven't thought this through, have you?
>"Vibration is the impingement of consciousness upon the homogenous field
>that creates physical reality, or that is created to create physical
>reality. It is a reflection of the ability to create distinct, or as
>your
>physicists say, discontinuous reality, so as to have the ability to
>create many different ideas of reality that can interact in the same
>basic universe, while not necessarily occupying the same time frame or
>space referential point. It creates the idea of being able to be out of
Physicists say, that vibration is repeated MOTION, nothing more. Note
that by MOTION it is assumed motion in the physical sense as a
displacement from a given position. Don't put your weird notions
into the mouths of physicists.
>phase with something else so as to not interfere with it, so that it can
>be a parallel reality existing in the same basic referential place and
>time, but not experienced to be doing so." "The New Metaphysics" Bashar
>and The Association Light and Sound communications 1987.
>
Pseudo-Scientific Mumbo-Jumbo.
>And in this way, the future and the past are created from the present,
>cause and effect are illusions, and NOTHING is determined, set in stone,
>or not redefineable when you trust, and act on what you are capable of
>acting on that is your bliss with integrity-with trust and CONVICTION
>the
>physicalized version of belief. Only momentums with degrees of
>intensity,
>formed by belief, created by the self as the most LIKELY reality to be
>experienced, WILL BE the reality you experience. It is a matter of
>choice
>and preference. The proof is in the acting, the acting in conviction,
>the conviction from belief, and the belief from definitional preference.
>Choose preference and act like it. There are no other requirements and
>there will be no other proofs.
What can I say? You are just plain WRONG. Anyone who thinks they
experience a reality drastically different from the rest of us lives
in is considered to be CRAZY, and with good reason! Such people
are a danger to themselves and others and must be confined for their
own safety. Despite a person's beliefs, the objective reality that
exists around us is what ultimately determines what happens to us.
Edmond Wollmann
Peter F. Curran wrote:
> You seem to have mistaken me for someone who accepts
> anything anyone says without any need for proof or
> even rationality. :)
One man's cieling is another's floor.
> >For those so inclined, the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
> >evidenced by the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self,
> >that allow for trancendence, that allow for the existential view.
> Your statement, "the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
> evidenced by...", is not based on any provable phenomena. How can,
> "the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self", serve
> as proof of the self reflective nature of the Multiverse?!?
Well, if you personally CANNOT move beyond them then how can you see?
Because if you can stand outside of yourself and your reality by
reflection this in and of itself is proof that it cannot be a self
contained, deterministic and predictable number crunching universe that
you "believe" we have. I can lead you to mirrors but I can't make you
look-since you create your reality not me.
> You first
> have to demonstrate that this "Multiverse" exists before you can claim
> other truths regarding it.
I don't "have" to do anything-this is one of the wonderful things about
the multiverse and reality.
> Also, if it IS "self reflective" you need
> to rigorously define what you mean by your _term_, "self reflective".
I don't have to "rigorously" do anything-except what I prefer-these are
your beliefs and I don't prefer them.:-)
You mistake me for someone who doesn't believe in the automatic,
synchronistic unfoldment positively of the multiverse, of which I am in
perfect harmonious accord with of the "All That Is"- person:-)
SNIP!
Have fun with your "rigorousness"!:-)
--
"I was thinkin about that summer, so long ago. Pack up your bags and
yell Geronimooooo! That was a silly season, was it the best? We didn't
need a reason-just a list! Happy at the good times comin-happy at the
good times comin in." Paul McCartney "Good Times Coming"
mail.inter.net.il
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> > If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
> > people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
> > this is a specious and dishonest argument.
If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward astrology, then
this is a specious and dishonest argument.
--
"And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm
right, where I belong!" The Beatles "Fixing a Hole"
Brant Watson
On 30 May 1997 15:51:25 GMT, nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu (Peter F.
Curran) wrote:
>In article <338E5D...@aznet.net>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>[snip]
>
>>Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
>>reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
>>created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
>>conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
>>EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
>
>This is _completely_ unproven. If it were so, people could fly if
>they believed it, and nobody has yet succeeded. In fact, there isn't
>a single repeatable well-constructed physics experiment which needs to
>take into account the observer's beliefs. Experiments sometimes even
>produce results TOTALLY at odds with everyone's belief system. The
>constant speed of light experiments are just one example.
>
>> You have all the tools and all the abilities that you require at any
>>given moment to be anything you are willing and bold enough to believe
>>you can define yourself to be. You are always in control 100% even when
>
>I see... Not! Are you saying that you can suddenly decide to be
>a brain surgeon, perform an operation, and have even a marginal
>chance of the patient's recovery? If so, you are a very deluded
>person!
Quite simply, he is justifying fraud.
I'd like to add that it is wonderful, beautiful, awe-inspiring,
incredibly diverse, and just knowable enough to keep us continuously
involved in exploration and discovery. It's just not magical. Too
bad so many people need it to be so.
Brant
Brant Watson
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> All of the details concerning the *reason* for precession, which you
>> contributed so proudly and irrelevantly, are the result of pure
>> astronomical research.
>
>SNIP! Irrelevant, I never have nor would I ever demean or try to force
>anyone to believe that science and other worthwhile paradigms used in
>search of understanding of the multiverse are not to be used. My service
>is the positive integration of all truths to increase knowingness and
>understanding-not decrease it. It is the cynical view that is
>exclusionary-not mine.
>I repeat;
>Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
>reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
>created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
>conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
>EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
Darn, this might be something worthwhile if only one could show a
single piece of evidence that "psychic material," "collective
unconscious," "superconscious," and "non-physical spiritual" even
exist.
> You have all the tools and all the abilities that you require at any
>given moment to be anything you are willing and bold enough to believe
>you can define yourself to be. You are always in control 100% even when
>you use 90% to create the illusion that you only have the other 10%.
Sounds very self-deterministic...this certainly doesn't seem to leave
much room for astrological influences, dose it?
>No
>one can make you feel inferior without your consent. The recognition
>that the universe has no built-in meaning. The taking of responsibility
>(not guilt) for ones reality BECAUSE you know it is you and your
>creation.
More reasons to doubt astrology?
>Integrity- Functioning as an integrated whole self, without placing
>power outside of the self, since nothing is outside of the self. The
>recognition that you are as powerful as you need to be to create
>whatever you desire to create in your reality without having to hurt
>yourself or anyone else in order to create it.
Create-create-create. What level Thetan are you?
>You are always a part of
>the problem or of the solution, if you are not part of the solution it
>is easy to figure out where you are on the scale (unless of course you
>are involved as an analytically discerning or accurate empathic
>observer-pls see the discernment vs judgment post). You are not
>responsible for anyone only responsible to them by being as much as you
>can be in integrity. All is vibration, and the vibration you are will BE
>the reality you experience EVERYWHERE-ALL THE TIME.
>
>Negative beliefs do not have any more power than positive. So they are
>not necessarily "unfortunate", for every being creates their reality
>utterly as the product of what they believe or have been taught to
>believe is true. There is no one truth, except that THE truth is
>composed of all truths within that system. Individuals can act in
>positive ways or in negative ways.
>
>* Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive,
>inclusive-INTEGRAL.
>
>* Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
>PARTS.
Actually, you have only defined synthesis and analysis, two equally
valid intellectual processes.
> But the positive individual, by the light by which they shine, will
>simply show the negative individual(s) that they are;
>
>A) Untouchable by anything that is not of a similar vibration. And that;
A definition of "vibration" might be nice about now.
>B) They offer back to the negative individual(s) an offering of a
>choice, a choice to also be positive. If the other(s) do not choose to
>be positive then they can simply go their own way, for that which is
>negative cannot exist within the blinding light of that which is
>positive, it is simple mechanics-PHYSICS. That is all. Even if the
>negativity is intentional the positive person will still extract a
>positive effect.
Would you consider the refusal to allow a simple claim to be tested a
positive or negative trait?
>Action is the manifested conviction of belief-because life happens
>through you not to you.
> Or as Walt Whitman put it.
>"What you are speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying."
>No one can interpret a life or vibrational level at which they
>themselves are not capable of functioning, because all is vibration.
How convenient for those of you who exempt your extraordinary claims
from the anvil of scrutiny!
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>Bashar and The Association
>Elanore Roosevelt
>--
>"Like a dog that returns to its vomit-is a fool who reverts to his
>folly. Do you see persons wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for
>fools than for them." Proverbs 26:11,12
How do you consider yourself as being anything but the kind of
person referred to in the above quote?
Have you seen my initial test proposals yet? (No need to respond
here...it's in another thread.)
Brant
JeffMo
>In article <338E5D...@aznet.net>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>>Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
>>reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
>>created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
>>conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
>>EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
>This is _completely_ unproven. If it were so, people could fly if
>they believed it, and nobody has yet succeeded.
Actually, this is a good illustration of the part of reality which
Edmond has so far failed to integrate. Contrary to what Peter says
above, people HAVE learned to fly; it's just that no one has yet done
so just by flapping their arms and wishing (which I believe was
Peter's original point. To clarify, Peter, my statement here is
intended as EXPANSION, not refutation.)
Edmond has correctly understood the basic principle that all people
create much of their own reality; our perceptions and our subjective
viewpoints are open to conscious or unconscious influence (and even
control) to a much greater degree than is generally supposed. But
this is certainly a different matter from saying that reality is 100%
self-created and self-defined.
The "flying" bit is a clear example of how we may create new realities
that never existed before: through devotion, hard work, and an
inordinate amount of thinking (both rational and imaginative,) we can
create new paradigms that align OUR reality more closely with the
truth of nature. We CAN learn to fly. But it is most definitely true
that we cannot decide, create, or define ourselves flying through
*any* arbitrary means whatsoever. (To be more precise, we CAN do so,
but that is the path to futile reality-building -- the masturbatory
trap of self-delusion or complete schizophrenia. I label this
"futile" because it ignores our connection and duty to humanity, and
indeed all of nature.)
Take the next expansive step, Edmond, and see that by understanding
both subjective and objective reality, we do not seek division of
those parts, nor arbitrary judgments about their relative value.
Instead, we strive to raise awareness of the positive aspects of each,
in a society where people often come down too hard on one side or
another. It is only when people are comfortable with this unified
view of reality that they can truly integrate their psyches.
It is a great and joyful step when true illumination occurs -- and it
can be overwhelming when we learn that many of our supposed
"limitations" are actually self-created and -imposed. But even such a
great step can lead one to the limited view that we are the sole
arbiters of our reality. It still remains to take the next positive
step towards accepting that our subjective reality is but a part of a
greater unified whole known as nature.
Peace and growth to you,
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick. ;-)
Avital Pilpel
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> "And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm
> right, where I belong!" The Beatles "Fixing a Hole"
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
And you take that literally?
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
Edmond Wollmann
JeffMo wrote:
> On 30 May 1997 15:51:25 GMT, nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu (Peter F.
> Curran) wrote:
> >In article <338E5D...@aznet.net>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
> >>Self-Empowered- Is the recognition that you lack nothing and create your
> >>reality 100% by what you believe and define yourself to be. It is
> >>created from all levels of psychic material, i.e., unconscious,
> >>conscious, collective unconscious, superconscious. The physical is the
> >>EFFECT of the non-physical spiritual.
> >This is _completely_ unproven. If it were so, people could fly if
> >they believed it, and nobody has yet succeeded.
> Edmond has so far failed to integrate.
I have not failed to integrate it, I assumed his post was obviously
incorrect-we do fly as you say-not however with an EXPECTATION or
"should" of how it is done.
> Contrary to what Peter says
> above, people HAVE learned to fly; it's just that no one has yet done
> so just by flapping their arms and wishing (which I believe was
> Peter's original point. To clarify, Peter, my statement here is
> intended as EXPANSION, not refutation.)
> Edmond has correctly understood the basic principle that all people
> create much of their own reality; our perceptions and our subjective
> viewpoints are open to conscious or unconscious influence (and even
> control) to a much greater degree than is generally supposed. But
> this is certainly a different matter from saying that reality is 100%
> self-created and self-defined.
And the only reason most have difficulty with THIS part is because they
are not clear on the idea that the "self" they believe themselves to be
is NOT all they believe themselves to be-it is NOT a defieciency in my
philosophical construct. We are a part of "All That Is", our soul is the
entire "entity" that we are-"ITS" incarnations successively through time
(which is only real while you participate in it) are extensions of the
ENTIRE self-the WHOLE self, which makes these choices (reality
creations) OUT of time-the tiny little psychic pool of conscious self we
believe our selves to be is a TINY FRAGMENT OF THIS OVERSOUL SELF -NOT
the "main thing" and controller of realities throughout time and
space-it is the delusions of granduer of the typical ego that is
overstating its control and as itself as the LOCUS of that control that
is at fault-which by the way is ALSO the characteristic of a faultily
rigid "scientific only" schema-NOT my statement that the SELF-the entire
self creates its reality 100%-which it does.
> The "flying" bit is a clear example of how we may create new realities
> that never existed before: through devotion, hard work, and an
> inordinate amount of thinking (both rational and imaginative,) we can
> create new paradigms that align OUR reality more closely with the
> truth of nature. We CAN learn to fly. But it is most definitely true
> that we cannot decide, create, or define ourselves flying through
> *any* arbitrary means whatsoever. (To be more precise, we CAN do so,
> but that is the path to futile reality-building -- the masturbatory
> trap of self-delusion or complete schizophrenia. I label this
> "futile" because it ignores our connection and duty to humanity, and
> indeed all of nature.)
Yes, a process to go through to become and be what we ALREADY ON ANOTHER
LEVEL IN ANOTHER TIME KNOW WE ARE!!
> Take the next expansive step, Edmond, and see that by understanding
> both subjective and objective reality, we do not seek division of
> those parts, nor arbitrary judgments about their relative value.
I have no aversion to "objective reality", I need no further "steps".
Which is easier, to rationalize the physical world as the ONLY world, or
to understand through insight, research and investigation that it CANNOT
be? When you truly "seek no division of those parts" you will no longer
see any conflict in what I present. Astrology IS the incorporational
recognition of those "two" worlds, and those who seek to understand it
in those terms are the step that you have failed to take. Inclusive
CANNOT be negative-but EXCLUSIVE must-it is simple mechanics. I study
ALL paradigms and see the value in all of them-it is the cynical mind
that cannot accept those it cannot apply to only THIS world.
Science has a place in the world-equal NOT greater than those of
metaphysical or philosophical. That is a view that is exclusionary of
those who are negative-NOT those who are positive and include all
knowledge as being valid and useful-you quite frankly are barking up the
wrong tree.
> Instead, we
Whose we? Cynics? Give me a break-not possible, then we would agree
easily as I do with many who share my view.
>strive to raise awareness of the positive aspects of each,
The positive view is that there is "really" no separation at all, they
are just different ways to view the same one thing "All That Is".
> in a society where people often come down too hard on one side or
> another. It is only when people are comfortable with this unified
> view of reality that they can truly integrate their psyches.
This is a given that not only I have been promoting for years, but the
reason for my posts! So if you truly believe this what are your
experiences and study regarding the unconscious, psychology, astrology
and/or spiritual if you are as balanced as you say?
> It is a great and joyful step when true illumination occurs -- and it
> can be overwhelming when we learn that many of our supposed
You need to remove your ego from this need to "teach"
me something-everytrhing you are saying-been there done that. And having
read my posts you know this.
> "limitations" are actually self-created and -imposed. But even such a
> great step can lead one to the limited view that we are the sole
> arbiters of our reality. It still remains to take the next positive
> step towards accepting that our subjective reality is but a part of a
> greater unified whole known as nature.
It is not "just" part, it is the other HALF. I see that you have decided
you can't beat them you will join them, and try to spin it as if you
came up with it yourself-please, you are not serious here in thinking
you are saying something I have not said for the past few years here on
newsnet and in published articles I have as far back as 1986? Because
this is too easy to refute-the articles are there, and show that this
perspective you are "trying to teach me" has been proposed by me for
documentably 11 years now.
> Peace and growth to you,
You too. Accept the validity of the DIMENSION of intuition and intellect
as being one thing-not separate.
--
"You keep looking for someone, to tell your troubles to. I'll sit down
and lend an ear, yet I hear nothing new. Then the tide rushes in and
washes my Castles away-then I'm really not so sure which side of the bed
I should lay, I should lay." The Moody Blues "The Tide Rushes In"
Edmond Wollmann
For those so inclined and interested-first I have never nor would I ever
ask anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it, these are just
offerings to lead to ideas that you can choose or decide on if you
prefer. If they serve you, use them if they don't-don't. There is no
need for a "battle" over them. If you wish to discuss them-that is fine.
This, from my view is all about self empowerment-that is YOUR ability to
empower yourselves and create the reality YOU prefer and it is in that
sense that I offer these anyway. These are just sharings. To ALLOW you
to be aware of these things if you choose. It is, has been and will
always be of course UP TO YOU.
The planets Mercury and its higher octave Uranus, are but two versions
of the same idea of "mind" polarized simply through the effect of focus.
The planets out from the Sun DECREASE in ego focus but this in NO WAY,
SHAPE, OR FORM, makes them any less personalized as each one is
integrated within the whole of the chart and therefore BECOMES
personalized.
Light is STILL light, whether it is focused through one lens or another.
The personal unconscious and collective unconscious are linked through
them. There are just diferent levels of self compaction.
As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of the solar
system COMBINED- so when combined intellect and intuition are simply two
forms of the same thing-focused differently. They are a DIMENSION of
experience, a spectrum of mentality. There is really no need to have
conflict with them. This conflict is the effect of the polarization in
our society between belief on faith and belief in scientific facts.
Reason (scientific) is simply a higher degree of compaction of the
mental realm than the instincts (faith). Niether is really TRUER than
the other.
Each side fears what the other represents because they fear that they
will "lose" something. They fear it is an absolute opposite-that they
will lose their perspective. Animals are really just reacting by
instinct with a lesser degree of compaction than we-and hence less
reason.They have the same consiousness with less SELF compaction-self
definition. But greater degrees of compaction also creates greater
degrees of separation and resistance to trusting the instincts. You will
not LOSE a perspective by incorporating the opposite but will GAIN the
other. Intuitives fear that they will become lost in a quagmire of
details, and factually oriented fear become lost in a sea of
disassociated ideas. NO ONE IS 100% of either anyway.
All pain is resistance to growth and all pain is separation.
The point is to incorporate and balance these two ideas, when they are
integrated as the one idea that they really are, they can be used and
trusted when they are necessary automatically. If you want the life of a
certain person or type of reality, you must ACT like the life and the
person you prefer to have the life. We do this already-but we may
instictually ACT like the definition that we are REALLY holding and
therefore deny ourselves the life we prefer. It is reason that allows us
to analytically DISCERN and reason these understandings by its
compaction (yes analysis requires logic and a high degree of
compaction), and instinct that allows us to trust the definitions
understood and act like them when we do. They are both valid and both
necessary.
When these planets are in developmental tension the REASON for it is to
INCORPORATE, marry, blend and harmonize them into one-it is your cue
that you BELIEVE them to be separate, just becoming aware of this can
allow you to balance them out. This is why Mercury is exalted in the
sign of Aquarius. Intuition (Aquarius) and intellect (Mercury) makes the
most powerful blend for the mental life because they are one.
Intuition and intellect derive and arise therefore from the same center.
The integration of ALL is the path to 4th density and dimensional
experiences and lives. When this is achieved you can use them when and
where they are needed without conflict of the validity of two. Because
there is none.
--
"It is wise to agree that all things are one." Heraclitus
Phil Harrison
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
<339438...@aznet.net>...
> For those so inclined and interested-first I have never nor would I ever
> ask anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it, these are just
> offerings to lead to ideas that you can choose or decide on if you
> prefer. If they serve you, use them if they don't-don't. There is no
> need for a "battle" over them. If you wish to discuss them-that is fine.
Thank you. Please don't regard my comments as part of a battle, even if
they are occasionally a little cynical in tone. I just disagree with your
definition of intuition, and if my attempt to discuss them causes offense
then I apologise in advance...
> This, from my view is all about self empowerment-that is YOUR ability to
> empower yourselves and create the reality YOU prefer and it is in that
> sense that I offer these anyway. These are just sharings. To ALLOW you
> to be aware of these things if you choose. It is, has been and will
> always be of course UP TO YOU.
When you use the term "ability to ... create the reality YOU prefer" do
you not in fact mean the ability to interpret reality according to your
beliefs.
> The planets Mercury and its higher octave Uranus, are but two versions
> of the same idea of "mind" polarized simply through the effect of focus.
> The planets out from the Sun DECREASE in ego focus but this in NO WAY,
> SHAPE, OR FORM, makes them any less personalized as each one is
> integrated within the whole of the chart and therefore BECOMES
> personalized.
OK, this now assumes that I share your belief in astrology. However, if in
my reality Mercury and Uranus are simply planets in our solar system then
this argument has no meaning to me.
> Light is STILL light, whether it is focused through one lens or another.
I do not argue with this statement but I fail to see any relevance.
> The personal unconscious and collective unconscious are linked through
> them. There are just diferent levels of self compaction.
> As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of the solar
> system COMBINED- so when combined intellect and intuition are simply two
> forms of the same thing-focused differently. They are a DIMENSION of
> experience, a spectrum of mentality. There is really no need to have
> conflict with them. This conflict is the effect of the polarization in
> our society between belief on faith and belief in scientific facts.
> Reason (scientific) is simply a higher degree of compaction of the
> mental realm than the instincts (faith). Niether is really TRUER than
> the other.
What? "As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of the
solar system COMBINED...."? what does this mean exactly? What are
dimensions of experience and spectrums (or should that be spectra) of
mentality, and how do I know if mine are conflicting? You say that
scientific reason is not really truer than faith and yet you do not really
seem to have an argument to back this up. If you regard the 'truth' as the
things that you as an individual believe in then nobody could argue against
that. If however you regard truth as an absolute thing that presumably can
be verified then you don't seem to have an argument since your statement is
based solely on your beliefs.
> Each side fears what the other represents because they fear that they
> will "lose" something. They fear it is an absolute opposite-that they
> will lose their perspective. Animals are really just reacting by
> instinct with a lesser degree of compaction than we-and hence less
> reason.They have the same consiousness with less SELF compaction-self
> definition. But greater degrees of compaction also creates greater
> degrees of separation and resistance to trusting the instincts. You will
> not LOSE a perspective by incorporating the opposite but will GAIN the
> other. Intuitives fear that they will become lost in a quagmire of
> details, and factually oriented fear become lost in a sea of
> disassociated ideas. NO ONE IS 100% of either anyway.
I do not have any fears about losing a perspective. I will quite happily
accept new ideas if they have a rational basis. This does not mean that I
would become a better person by automatically believing something even
though there is no evidence to support it.
> All pain is resistance to growth and all pain is separation.
Is this true when you hit your thumb with a hammer? OK I admit that was a
cheap shot, but what are you saying here? That belief in astrology (or
anything that has no scientific evidence to support it) is some form of
growth, and the reason that some of us choose not to accept these beliefs
is that it hurts us in some way. I think that it is more painful to believe
that what you see in the world out there is pretty much what you get, and
that it is easier to cushion yourself with half baked theories than to
accept this.
> The point is to incorporate and balance these two ideas, when they are
> integrated as the one idea that they really are, they can be used and
> trusted when they are necessary automatically. If you want the life of a
> certain person or type of reality, you must ACT like the life and the
> person you prefer to have the life. We do this already-but we may
> instictually ACT like the definition that we are REALLY holding and
> therefore deny ourselves the life we prefer. It is reason that allows us
> to analytically DISCERN and reason these understandings by its
> compaction (yes analysis requires logic and a high degree of
> compaction), and instinct that allows us to trust the definitions
> understood and act like them when we do. They are both valid and both
> necessary.
If you are saying that individuals are able to shape their lives as they
want, then I agree with you up to a point. However, if I wanted the life of
the Sultan of Brunei for example, then if I simply started acting this life
I doubt that it would get me very far towards achieving it. Reality is
surely a little harsher than that.
> When these planets are in developmental tension...........
I am not going to argue with this except to say that I do not believe in
any of this. It does not make any sense to me and does not seem relevant to
a discussion on 'intuition and intellect'.
> Intuition and intellect derive and arise therefore from the same center.
> The integration of ALL is the path to 4th density and dimensional
> experiences and lives. When this is achieved you can use them when and
> where they are needed without conflict of the validity of two. Because
> there is none.
If you are saying that intellect and belief come from the same place, then
I agree with you - that place is the brain. I have no idea what you mean by
4th density and dimensional experiences. I assume that these are things
that cannot be verified and therefore - in my reality at least if not in
yours - they do not exist. Your whole argument seems to be based on the
theory that your own beliefs are in some way human instincts that we all
have. Because my beliefs are different to yours then I must have some form
of inner conflict that is stopping me from development as a person. I am
afraid that I find this to be an egotistical argument.
Phil Harrison.
Edmond Wollmann
Phil Harrison wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
> <339438...@aznet.net>...
> > For those so inclined and interested-first I have never nor would I ever
> > ask anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it, these are just
> > offerings to lead to ideas that you can choose or decide on if you
> > prefer. If they serve you, use them if they don't-don't. There is no
> > need for a "battle" over them. If you wish to discuss them-that is fine.
> Thank you. Please don't regard my comments as part of a battle, even if
> they are occasionally a little cynical in tone. I just disagree with your
> definition of intuition, and if my attempt to discuss them causes offense
> then I apologise in advance...
Alright, I do not percieve it as a battle and I do not take offense.
> > This, from my view is all about self empowerment-that is YOUR ability to
> > empower yourselves and create the reality YOU prefer and it is in that
> > sense that I offer these anyway. These are just sharings. To ALLOW you
> > to be aware of these things if you choose. It is, has been and will
> > always be of course UP TO YOU.
> When you use the term "ability to ... create the reality YOU prefer" do
> you not in fact mean the ability to interpret reality according to your
> beliefs.
No, I mean CREATE your reality by WHAT you believe. The reality that you
see that we collectively share in and measure is simply a collectively
agreed upon creation and EFFECT of the collective agreement to
experience the idea of "physical reality" but it is a construct all the
same.
> > The planets Mercury and its higher octave Uranus, are but two versions
> > of the same idea of "mind" polarized simply through the effect of focus.
> > The planets out from the Sun DECREASE in ego focus but this in NO WAY,
> > SHAPE, OR FORM, makes them any less personalized as each one is
> > integrated within the whole of the chart and therefore BECOMES
> > personalized.
> OK, this now assumes that I share your belief in astrology. However, if in
> my reality Mercury and Uranus are simply planets in our solar system then
> this argument has no meaning to me.
No, because the planets and the reality round and about you IS you,
therefore these planets are not truly outside of you but are the
externalized expressions of the archetypal ideas that we have
collectively agreed upon to create. I am able to determine the
consciousness and beliefs of an individual by the planetary positions at
their time of birth REGARDLESS of whether they CONSCIOUSLY believe in
astrology or not-note I said consciously, because the archetypal
references I spoke of as being reflected in the planetary physical
counterparts we see, are created from higher and more unconscious levels
than just the small bank of psychic material our conscious minds are
AWARE of.
> > Light is STILL light, whether it is focused through one lens or another.
> I do not argue with this statement but I fail to see any relevance.
If there is discovered some form of light or vibrational frequency that
can be measured coming from the planets that is responsible for the
astrological "effect" we see, the planets focus this energy by being in
certain positions in "front of" so to speak, certain areas of space.
Hence focussing that energy in a particular way that allows the
astrological configuration correlation to exist.
> > The personal unconscious and collective unconscious are linked through
> > them. There are just diferent levels of self compaction.
> > As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of the solar
> > system COMBINED- so when combined intellect and intuition are simply two
> > forms of the same thing-focused differently. They are a DIMENSION of
> > experience, a spectrum of mentality. There is really no need to have
> > conflict with them. This conflict is the effect of the polarization in
> > our society between belief on faith and belief in scientific facts.
> > Reason (scientific) is simply a higher degree of compaction of the
> > mental realm than the instincts (faith). Niether is really TRUER than
> > the other.
> What? "As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of the
> solar system COMBINED...."? what does this mean exactly?
The Christ consciousness or the consciousness expressed by Christ was
the integrated combined effect of the ARCHETYPAL references I discussed
in the above paragraph-integrated into one knowing consciousness-not
segragated parts of aggression, love, status, thinking etc.
>What are
> dimensions of experience and spectrums (or should that be spectra) of
> mentality, and how do I know if mine are conflicting?
Each solar system is an idea. Therefore each system reflects a certain
"type" or quality of consciousness as we will discover as we discover
other systems. In the same way that there are archetypal ideas such as
the hero, the peacemaker, the taskmaster etc. these ideas when combined
make up solar systems, these solar systems then make up larger
collective ideas archetypally with other systems and so on ad infinitum
as it becomes all one thing or "All That Is" (God). All that exists, is
all the ways that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the
creation that it is.
> You say that
> scientific reason is not really truer than faith and yet you do not really
> seem to have an argument to back this up.
Why if science is THE truth, do some folks diagnosed with fatal
illnesses live to ripe healthy old ages, and those seemingly healthy
with a minor dis-ease suddenly die? Life is an ongoing revelation of
change and growth-what is once believed the truth is in the next moment
or year or what-have-you changed and no longer that way. The fact that
anamolies shall always exist is fact and argument enough that there is
no "thats the way it is and will always be". Things are more likely to
NOT be the "way we think they are" than not. Name one thing in the
multiverse universe whatever you want to call it-that has never changed?
The sun will cease to rise at some point, I guarantee you, no matter how
sure we think it won't now.
> If you regard the 'truth' as the
> things that you as an individual believe in then nobody could argue against
> that.
There is a personal truth, there are collective truths, but there is no
one truth. You can join in with others in certain truths and you can
still create your own specific brand of truth.
> If however you regard truth as an absolute thing that presumably can
> be verified then you don't seem to have an argument since your statement is
> based solely on your beliefs.
You can verify for example truths that fall within the "truth" of
physicality-the physical world, like statistics and math does, but that
in no way means that that truth is a THE truth, it can only be verified
within the parameters of the physical world truth. Einstein introduced
the idea of relativity along time ago-same thing. Step out of
physicality or move toward quantum mechanics or toward or passed the
speed of light and these truths no longer apply-it is relative. Each
belief system has its truth and its reinforcing logic to "prove" that
truth.
> > Each side fears what the other represents because they fear that they
> > will "lose" something. They fear it is an absolute opposite-that they
> > will lose their perspective. Animals are really just reacting by
> > instinct with a lesser degree of compaction than we-and hence less
> > reason.They have the same consiousness with less SELF compaction-self
> > definition. But greater degrees of compaction also creates greater
> > degrees of separation and resistance to trusting the instincts. You will
> > not LOSE a perspective by incorporating the opposite but will GAIN the
> > other. Intuitives fear that they will become lost in a quagmire of
> > details, and factually oriented fear become lost in a sea of
> > disassociated ideas. NO ONE IS 100% of either anyway.
> I do not have any fears about losing a perspective. I will quite happily
> accept new ideas if they have a rational basis. This does not mean that I
> would become a better person by automatically believing something even
> though there is no evidence to support it.
Be warned evidence is only capable of being "seen" by the conscious
mind. And the conscious mind is a very limited and small part of the
entire you you are that is infinite, has many unconscious aspects to it
and is a part of the "All That Is" that is also not so limited. So to
judge the ocean by one small fish is not only not possible but in
statistics would amount to extrapolating a populace from one sample, the
sample would be far from representitive of the whole. So this "evidence"
IS evidence against trusting the conscious mind and ITS evidence as the
ONLY evidence capable of being useful or "true".
> > All pain is resistance to growth and all pain is separation.
> Is this true when you hit your thumb with a hammer? OK I admit that was a
> cheap shot, but what are you saying here? That belief in astrology (or
> anything that has no scientific evidence to support it) is some form of
> growth, and the reason that some of us choose not to accept these beliefs
> is that it hurts us in some way. I think that it is more painful to believe
> that what you see in the world out there is pretty much what you get, and
> that it is easier to cushion yourself with half baked theories than to
> accept this.
"Half baked theories", may I ask what YOUR evidence is and experience
and research with this subject is that allows you to determine it is
half baked? You see you are not even trying to understand-but arrogantly
assume that you know the whole of it and therefore are resistant to
learning new knowledge-this is NOT the sign of intelligent, flexible and
pliable mental functioning capable of new growth. So learning new things
will be painful for you-does this answer you?:-)
> > The point is to incorporate and balance these two ideas, when they are
> > integrated as the one idea that they really are, they can be used and
> > trusted when they are necessary automatically. If you want the life of a
> > certain person or type of reality, you must ACT like the life and the
> > person you prefer to have the life. We do this already-but we may
> > instictually ACT like the definition that we are REALLY holding and
> > therefore deny ourselves the life we prefer. It is reason that allows us
> > to analytically DISCERN and reason these understandings by its
> > compaction (yes analysis requires logic and a high degree of
> > compaction), and instinct that allows us to trust the definitions
> > understood and act like them when we do. They are both valid and both
> > necessary.
> If you are saying that individuals are able to shape their lives as they
> want, then I agree with you up to a point. However, if I wanted the life of
> the Sultan of Brunei for example, then if I simply started acting this life
> I doubt that it would get me very far towards achieving it.
Then this belief in and of itself assures that you will not and cannot.
Doubt is a 100% trust in a reality you DON'T prefer.
> Reality is
> surely a little harsher than that.
If you say so, I prefer to create otherwise.
> > When these planets are in developmental tension...........
> I am not going to argue with this except to say that I do not believe in
> any of this. It does not make any sense to me and does not seem relevant to
> a discussion on 'intuition and intellect'.
Well so be it then you are free to rigidly maintain whatever beliefs you
have without investigating anything else new and unexplored in your
schema-I cannot nor will I try to stop you. But at least try to
recognize, you know nothing about this and it only is rejected because
of the insecurity it represents to you and the possiblity that the way
you have believed things "are"-might just not be. It has taken me half a
life (25 years for me about) of pain, introspection and study to
understsand the few meager things I present here-I am more than sure you
will not grasp them in 20 sentences.
> > Intuition and intellect derive and arise therefore from the same center.
> > The integration of ALL is the path to 4th density and dimensional
> > experiences and lives. When this is achieved you can use them when and
> > where they are needed without conflict of the validity of two. Because
> > there is none.
> If you are saying that intellect and belief come from the same place, then
> I agree with you - that place is the brain.
The brain is the effect of ideas-not the cause-the brain "comes from"
intuition and intellect, not the other way around.
> I have no idea what you mean by
> 4th density and dimensional experiences.
Physical reality is 3D, 4D is the recognition that you are the physical
reality that it appears you exist within. The recognition that the
Christ had and tried to convey by taking back power from it.
"He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he."
The Gospel according to St. Thomas
> I assume that these are things
> that cannot be verified and therefore - in my reality at least if not in
> yours - they do not exist.
If you can imagine them they have to exist on some level or you could
not.
> Your whole argument seems to be based on the
> theory that your own beliefs are in some way human instincts that we all
> have. Because my beliefs are different to yours then I must have some form
> of inner conflict that is stopping me from development as a person. I am
> afraid that I find this to be an egotistical argument.
Alright, you are free to create whatever version you wish, because you
create your reality, I don't-only mine. The only question I might ask
then is how does it serve you to create that version to tell you about
you? Which is the only way to extract some positive effect out of your
choice to create it to be that way.
Since my intention was to try to reframe the idea that intuitive
thinking and intellectual "fact" thinking need not be so polarized and
that they are capable of being reconciled, your version only tells me of
you and little of the true "version" of my intent. Proving of
course-that there is no one truth. You have yours and I have mine. I
prefer mine.
--
"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"
Chris Sutor
Edmond Wollmann (woll...@aznet.net) spake thusly:
: Peter F. Curran wrote:
: > You first
: > have to demonstrate that this "Multiverse" exists before you can claim
: > other truths regarding it.
: I don't "have" to do anything-this is one of the wonderful things about
: the multiverse and reality.
I Think that he meant that in order for him, or anyone, to take your
statements about this "Multiverse" seriously, you first need to provide
proof that there IS a Multiverse. Satements about an object/item/thing can
only be considered as true as the existence of said object/item/thing.
Without proof that you're refrencing a real pheonmena, and not just one
you made up on the spur of the moment, outside observers such as myself
can only decide that your statements regarding that pheonmena are lacking
in proof as well.
Prove your phenomena, before using it as the basis of other ideas.
--
_______________________ .-------.
# cob...@tigerden.com # Award winning || PEZ || powered web design
----------------------- "-------"
A lot of what advertising is about
is drawing illogical associations between things
- Stuart Ewen -
Peter F. Curran
In article <3392EB...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
>> You seem to have mistaken me for someone who accepts
>> anything anyone says without any need for proof or
>> even rationality. :)
>
>
Unless the first man lives on the top floor, in which case
his ceiling is the roof. What is your point?
>> >For those so inclined, the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
>> >evidenced by the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self,
>> >that allow for trancendence, that allow for the existential view.
>
>> Your statement, "the self reflective nature of the Multiverse is
>> evidenced by...", is not based on any provable phenomena. How can,
>> "the ability to have recognitions that move beyond the self", serve
>> as proof of the self reflective nature of the Multiverse?!?
>
>Well, if you personally CANNOT move beyond them then how can you see?
>Because if you can stand outside of yourself and your reality by
>reflection this in and of itself is proof that it cannot be a self
>contained, deterministic and predictable number crunching universe that
>you "believe" we have. I can lead you to mirrors but I can't make you
>look-since you create your reality not me.
>
You are using terms in ambiguious ways. Nobody knows what the heck you
mean when you say "recognitions", or what it means to have them "move
beyond self". Regarding the first sentence of your rebuttal above, I
contend that I see using my eyes and that light travels from external
objects to them. There is no "moving beyond myself". As to the second
sentence, please explain why you think this qualifies as "proof"! First
off, since when we "reflect" we DON'T have more knowledge than what we
have received through our senses, it is a totally internal process. Our
intelligence and imagination may fill in many blanks which MAY or MAY NOT
reflect the actual world around us. You need to prove that any pure
mental phenomena interact with the physical world in any way. Nobody has
ever done this.
>> You first
>> have to demonstrate that this "Multiverse" exists before you can claim
>> other truths regarding it.
>
>I don't "have" to do anything-this is one of the wonderful things about
>the multiverse and reality.
>
Fine. You are simply wasting your "electronic breath" spouting kooky
theories which only a fool would accept blindly.
>> Also, if it IS "self reflective" you need
>> to rigorously define what you mean by your _term_, "self reflective".
>
>I don't have to "rigorously" do anything-except what I prefer-these are
>your beliefs and I don't prefer them.:-)
Fine again. What you have amounts to a religion or a cult mentality. In
your opinion what you yourself say is truth is unprovable. I'd advise you
to refrain from trying to convince anyone of a rational nature.
>You mistake me for someone who doesn't believe in the automatic,
>synchronistic unfoldment positively of the multiverse, of which I am in
>perfect harmonious accord with of the "All That Is"- person:-)
>SNIP!
>Have fun with your "rigorousness"!:-)
It is sad that you are so far gone that you can't even consider the
possibility that you are "mistaken". I was open-minded to the possibility
that you might have something worth considering, but it now seems
that you have simply made this stuff up and can't even explain the
reasoning behind your conclusions.
Edmond Wollmann
Peter F. Curran wrote:
> You are using terms in ambiguious ways. Nobody knows what the heck you
> mean when you say "recognitions",
Re-cog-nition, to rethink, acknowledge.
> or what it means to have them "move
> beyond self".
This is easily understood if you investigated the paradigm of
psychology, another useful subject positive people who wish to know
truths, sincerely consider.
> Regarding the first sentence of your rebuttal above, I
> contend that I see using my eyes and that light travels from external
> objects to them. There is no "moving beyond myself". As to the second
> sentence, please explain why you think this qualifies as "proof"! First
> off, since when we "reflect" we DON'T have more knowledge than what we
> have received through our senses, it is a totally internal process. Our
> intelligence and imagination may fill in many blanks which MAY or MAY NOT
> reflect the actual world around us. You need to prove that any pure
> mental phenomena interact with the physical world in any way. Nobody has
> ever done this.
No one ever proves anything firstly, and secondly no one ever proves it
TO anyone else-they always prove it to themselves with their own
reinforcing logic of their personal belief system.
> >> You first
> >> have to demonstrate that this "Multiverse" exists before you can claim
> >> other truths regarding it.
> >I don't "have" to do anything-this is one of the wonderful things about
> >the multiverse and reality.
> Fine. You are simply wasting your "electronic breath" spouting kooky
> theories which only a fool would accept blindly.
"Waste" is a subjective value judgment and only tells us of your
llimitation in perspective and nothing of what constitutes "waste".
You have a task before you-self knowledge, your only action left is self
introspection, not seeking to have me answer your fears.
I have faith that an intelligent person like you can take these leads
and move to greater self development. A word to the wise is sufficient.
> >> Also, if it IS "self reflective" you need
> >> to rigorously define what you mean by your _term_, "self reflective".
> >I don't have to "rigorously" do anything-except what I prefer-these are
> >your beliefs and I don't prefer them.:-)
> Fine again. What you have amounts to a religion or a cult mentality.
Religion=To relink back to source, yes you are correct. The source of
the material illusion you are decieved into thinking is the source.
Religion is not a bad word. However, following others is powerless and
the effect of the science of following, which is what many orthodox
religious structures now promote. Self reflection, introspection and
"relinking" must come from within the person, since giving power to
things outside the self is what needs reconciliation.
I am not interested in followers, I have my power and everyone else has
theirs. They are equal and we all have the same access to the "All That
Is". We all are as interconnected to the "All That Is" as we will ever
be, it is only our awareness of this connection that suffers through
giving power to external truths over internal. They are equal and both
valid ways to investigate the multiverse.
The "truth" makes men free-not bound either to science or any other form
of dogmatic "one truth" perspectives.
I have repeatedly said that all knowledges and paradigms serve in my
opinion, and are best when balanced and equally incorporated into an
intelligent person's knowledge base-positive approach.
You seem to be rigidly adhereing to only the cynical view (negative and
exclusive approach unable and unwilling to incorporate new knowledge),
this is far too limiting for me. I must move on. If you wish to learn
some of what I know feel free to contact me and I will be glad to either
instruct in the complex subject of astrology and the integrated
paradigms I have blended from all knowledge bases, or lead you to
sources should you make new decisions and release yourself from this
self imposed hell (from the old English helan=to cover over or hide from
consiousness).
DIS-covery is the way to heaven.
Otherwise trying to constrict positive and expansive positive energy to
boxes of rigid limited and fearful thinking is not especially exciting
to me-and I follow only what it inspires or excites me to do.
If you find it possible to move beyond these constricted perspectives I
am always willing to assist anyone in whatever small way I can.
Thanks
Ed
--
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him to remember he
has it within himself." Galileo
Phil Harrison
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
<339468...@aznet.net>...
> Phil Harrison wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
> > <339438...@aznet.net>...
[ introductory paragraphs snipped ]
> > > This, from my view is all about self empowerment-that is YOUR ability
to
> > > empower yourselves and create the reality YOU prefer...
>
> > When you use the term "ability to ... create the reality YOU prefer"
do
> > you not in fact mean the ability to interpret reality according to your
> > beliefs.
>
> No, I mean CREATE your reality by WHAT you believe. The reality that you
> see that we collectively share in and measure is simply a collectively
> agreed upon creation and EFFECT of the collective agreement to
> experience the idea of "physical reality" but it is a construct all the
> same.
So what you are saying then is that reality only exists because it is
"collectively agreed upon". Who is collectively agreeing here? Just human
beings or all organic life. What happens about disagreements? Does
everybody have to agree or is it a majority decision?
But surely, if the planets only exist because we have consciously agreed to
create them, then how are new ones discovered? What happened when the
planet Pluto was discovered. Did a group of individuals suddenly decide
that a new planet should exist and then collectively agree to create it? If
nobody new of its existence then there could not have been a collective
agreement about it and therefore by your argument it could not have
existed. I also am not happy with your assertion that I believe
unconsciously in astrology. How do you know what I believe in, consciously
or otherwise?
>
> > > Light is STILL light, whether it is focused through one lens or
another.
>
> > I do not argue with this statement but I fail to see any relevance.
>
> If there is discovered some form of light or vibrational frequency that
> can be measured coming from the planets that is responsible for the
> astrological "effect" we see, the planets focus this energy by being in
> certain positions in "front of" so to speak, certain areas of space.
> Hence focussing that energy in a particular way that allows the
> astrological configuration correlation to exist.
That is one hell of a big "if". As far as I am aware, nobody has provided
any scientific proof of any form of radiation from planets that causes any
form of "astrological effect". And what exactly is an astrological effect
anyway? I don't think that you are claiming that astrology permits you to
see into the future (or are you). You claim to be able to determine the
consciousness and beliefs of a person from the positions of the planets at
the time of their birth. Is that all of their beliefs, or just a few. Are
our beliefs predetermined at birth, or are they shaped by our experiences
as we continue through our lives? Do we have a free will? Surely, if all of
our beliefs are predetermined at birth then we do not have the ability to
create our own reality since we cannot change our beliefs.
>
> > > The personal unconscious and collective unconscious are linked
through
> > > them.....
>
> > What? "As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of
the
> > solar system COMBINED...."? what does this mean exactly?
>
> The Christ consciousness or the consciousness expressed by Christ was
> the integrated combined effect of the ARCHETYPAL references I discussed
> in the above paragraph-integrated into one knowing consciousness-not
> segragated parts of aggression, love, status, thinking etc.
So we are all part of a great collective consciousness then are we? If that
is the case, how do you explain the conflict that occurs throughout the
world and throughout history? Do you claim that this is because some of us
refuse to acknowledge this collective consciousness? Couldn't it just be
possible that it doesn't exist?
>
> >What are
> > dimensions of experience and spectrums (or should that be spectra) of
> > mentality, and how do I know if mine are conflicting?
>
> Each solar system is an idea. Therefore each system reflects a certain
> "type" or quality of consciousness as we will discover as we discover
> other systems. In the same way that there are archetypal ideas such as
> the hero, the peacemaker, the taskmaster etc. these ideas when combined
> make up solar systems, these solar systems then make up larger
> collective ideas archetypally with other systems and so on ad infinitum
> as it becomes all one thing or "All That Is" (God). All that exists, is
> all the ways that "All That Is" has of expressing itself within the
> creation that it is.
Solar systems are just ideas. Hmm... But the movements of the planets
within solar systems can be projected quite accurately (accurately enough
for the measurements that astrologers use anyway) some way into the future.
Does that mean that collective ideas can be predicted. There does not seem
to be room for free will in this belief. If we do not have free will then
we cannot shape reality, and it stops being the creation of a collective
consciousness, and becomes an absolute unchanging thing.
>
> > You say that
> > scientific reason is not really truer than faith and yet you do not
really
> > seem to have an argument to back this up.
>
> Why if science is THE truth, do some folks diagnosed with fatal
> illnesses live to ripe healthy old ages, and those seemingly healthy
> with a minor dis-ease suddenly die? Life is an ongoing revelation of
> change and growth-what is once believed the truth is in the next moment
> or year or what-have-you changed and no longer that way. The fact that
> anamolies shall always exist is fact and argument enough that there is
> no "thats the way it is and will always be". Things are more likely to
> NOT be the "way we think they are" than not. Name one thing in the
> multiverse universe whatever you want to call it-that has never changed?
> The sun will cease to rise at some point, I guarantee you, no matter how
> sure we think it won't now.
I never said that the current limits of scientific understanding make up
the whole truth. If scientists knew everything then that would be the end
of science. However, scientists conduct rigorous experiments to learn about
the nature of reality. Doctors occasionally make mistakes in diagnosis. I
am not saying every scientist is absolutely correct about everything. I am
just saying that scientists generally attempt to find evidence to prove
their theories. Just because science does not know everything does not mean
that it does not know anything. As for naming one thing in the universe
that has never changed, what about the speed of light?
>
> > If you regard the 'truth' as the
> > things that you as an individual believe in then nobody could argue
against
> > that.
>
> There is a personal truth, there are collective truths, but there is no
> one truth. You can join in with others in certain truths and you can
> still create your own specific brand of truth.
This is just an argument about the meaning of the word "truth". By personal
truth you mean personal belief. By collective truth you mean collective
belief. If you are saying that we all have different interpretations of the
mechanics of the universe then of course this is the case. However, if you
are saying that there is no absolute definition of the way the universe
works, then by that argument you can be no more correct than I am. My
belief that there are physical principles that govern the way the universe
works must be equally as valid as your belief that there are none.
>
> > If however you regard truth as an absolute thing that presumably can
> > be verified then you don't seem to have an argument since your
statement is
> > based solely on your beliefs.
>
> You can verify for example truths that fall within the "truth" of
> physicality-the physical world, like statistics and math does, but that
> in no way means that that truth is a THE truth, it can only be verified
> within the parameters of the physical world truth. Einstein introduced
> the idea of relativity along time ago-same thing. Step out of
> physicality or move toward quantum mechanics or toward or passed the
> speed of light and these truths no longer apply-it is relative. Each
> belief system has its truth and its reinforcing logic to "prove" that
> truth.
But without evidence that "stepping out of physicality" or exceeding the
speed of light is possible then how can you claim that there is any other
truth apart from the physical truth? Anything other than that which can be
proven must be a belief.
>
> > > Each side fears what the other represents because they fear that
they
> > > will "lose" something...
>
> > I do not have any fears about losing a perspective. I will quite
happily
> > accept new ideas if they have a rational basis. This does not mean that
I
> > would become a better person by automatically believing something even
> > though there is no evidence to support it.
>
> Be warned evidence is only capable of being "seen" by the conscious
> mind. And the conscious mind is a very limited and small part of the
> entire you you are that is infinite, has many unconscious aspects to it
> and is a part of the "All That Is" that is also not so limited. So to
> judge the ocean by one small fish is not only not possible but in
> statistics would amount to extrapolating a populace from one sample, the
> sample would be far from representitive of the whole. So this "evidence"
> IS evidence against trusting the conscious mind and ITS evidence as the
> ONLY evidence capable of being useful or "true".
I am not saying that we "judge the ocean by one small fish". It seems to me
that it is you who is extrapolating a populace from one sample. You are
claiming that we have many unconscious aspects with only the evidence of a
conscious one, not me. I do not accept astrology because there is not
enough evidence to convince me. Your belief in astrology is based upon an
extrapolation of limited statistical evidence, i.e. the number of times you
perceive that astrology has given you some form of insight. I suspect that
you have not performed a controlled statistical study to back this up. You
certainly do not have any scientific evidence of an actual physical way
that planetary positions can affect our lives.
>
> > > All pain is resistance to growth and all pain is separation.
>
> > Is this true when you hit your thumb with a hammer? OK I admit that was
a
> > cheap shot, but what are you saying here? That belief in astrology (or
> > anything that has no scientific evidence to support it) is some form of
> > growth, and the reason that some of us choose not to accept these
beliefs
> > is that it hurts us in some way. I think that it is more painful to
believe
> > that what you see in the world out there is pretty much what you get,
and
> > that it is easier to cushion yourself with half baked theories than to
> > accept this.
>
> "Half baked theories", may I ask what YOUR evidence is and experience
> and research with this subject is that allows you to determine it is
> half baked? You see you are not even trying to understand-but arrogantly
> assume that you know the whole of it and therefore are resistant to
> learning new knowledge-this is NOT the sign of intelligent, flexible and
> pliable mental functioning capable of new growth. So learning new things
> will be painful for you-does this answer you?:-)
No I do not claim to know the whole of everything. I am quite happy to
learn new things, I do this every day. This doesn't mean that I should
blindly accept every theory that I come across. I choose to accept things
that I judge to have been investigated properly. Perhaps I should replace
the phrase "half baked" with "poorly researched" if it will cause less
offence. I am not debating this subject with you to score points, nor to
try to convince you that I am right. This is a discussion, a learning
exercise. Hopefully we are both examining our beliefs and learning from the
experience. Just because I do not find myself agreeing with you does not
mean that I am not examining my own beliefs.
>
> > > The point is to incorporate and balance these two ideas....
>
> > If you are saying that individuals are able to shape their lives as
they
> > want, then I agree with you up to a point. However, if I wanted the
life of
> > the Sultan of Brunei for example, then if I simply started acting this
life
> > I doubt that it would get me very far towards achieving it.
>
> Then this belief in and of itself assures that you will not and cannot.
> Doubt is a 100% trust in a reality you DON'T prefer.
So you say that if I had enough faith to believe that I was the richest man
in the world (for example) then I could just become the richest man in the
world right now? But by your argument earlier, my beliefs are shaped by the
positions of the planets at my birth. Since I cannot go back in time and
change the positions of these planets, I cannot change my belief. By this
argument, doubt is inevitable.
>
> > Reality is
> > surely a little harsher than that.
>
> If you say so, I prefer to create otherwise.
>
That's fine by me. I would say that you prefer to believe otherwise, but
since the language that we are using is shaped by our different beliefs,
then there is no argument.
> > > When these planets are in developmental tension...........
>
> > I am not going to argue with this except to say that I do not believe
in
> > any of this. It does not make any sense to me and does not seem
relevant to
> > a discussion on 'intuition and intellect'.
>
> Well so be it then you are free to rigidly maintain whatever beliefs you
> have without investigating anything else new and unexplored in your
> schema-I cannot nor will I try to stop you. But at least try to
> recognize, you know nothing about this and it only is rejected because
> of the insecurity it represents to you and the possiblity that the way
> you have believed things "are"-might just not be. It has taken me half a
> life (25 years for me about) of pain, introspection and study to
> understsand the few meager things I present here-I am more than sure you
> will not grasp them in 20 sentences.
I do not rigidly maintain my beliefs without investigating anything new.
The fact that I am continuing to respond to you surely demonstrates that.
The fact that I do not agree with you is not because of insecurity but
because I do not find anything to convince me. I do not expect that you
would be able to explain all of the beliefs that you have formed over 25
years in a few sentences. My comment is that I still have not seen anything
in your postings to convince me that I should change my views an astrology
yet.
>
> > > Intuition and intellect derive and arise therefore from the same
center.
> > > The integration of ALL is the path to 4th density and dimensional
> > > experiences and lives. When this is achieved you can use them when
and
> > > where they are needed without conflict of the validity of two.
Because
> > > there is none.
>
> > If you are saying that intellect and belief come from the same place,
then
> > I agree with you - that place is the brain.
>
> The brain is the effect of ideas-not the cause-the brain "comes from"
> intuition and intellect, not the other way around.
Well this depends upon the belief that everything that we see is created by
a collective consciousness doesn't it? I think that we will have to agree
to differ on this point.
>
> > I have no idea what you mean by
> > 4th density and dimensional experiences.
>
> Physical reality is 3D, 4D is the recognition that you are the physical
> reality that it appears you exist within. The recognition that the
> Christ had and tried to convey by taking back power from it.
>
Well the argument that physical reality is 3D is not necessarily so. In
order to explain relativity, physicists believe that there is a fourth
dimension and that the universe is expanding in this fourth dimension. You
see, I am not totally resistant to new ideas, I just prefer them to be
verified experimentally.
> "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he."
> The Gospel according to St. Thomas
>
> > I assume that these are things
> > that cannot be verified and therefore - in my reality at least if not
in
> > yours - they do not exist.
>
> If you can imagine them they have to exist on some level or you could
> not.
As I have said, I can happily imagine a fourth dimension of some form.
However since I do not understand your definition then I am unable to
imagine your interpretation of a fourth dimension. Therefore their
existence has not yet been proved to me.
>
> > Your whole argument seems to be based on the
> > theory that your own beliefs are in some way human instincts that we
all
> > have. Because my beliefs are different to yours then I must have some
form
> > of inner conflict that is stopping me from development as a person. I
am
> > afraid that I find this to be an egotistical argument.
>
> Alright, you are free to create whatever version you wish, because you
> create your reality, I don't-only mine. The only question I might ask
> then is how does it serve you to create that version to tell you about
> you? Which is the only way to extract some positive effect out of your
> choice to create it to be that way.
>
> Since my intention was to try to reframe the idea that intuitive
> thinking and intellectual "fact" thinking need not be so polarized and
> that they are capable of being reconciled, your version only tells me of
> you and little of the true "version" of my intent. Proving of
> course-that there is no one truth. You have yours and I have mine. I
> prefer mine.
That's fine. I am just examining your "truth" or belief, and I assume that
you are doing the same. I simply object to the assumption that because I do
not agree with you that I am in some way "frightened" to do so or that I am
refusing to "grow".
Regards,
Phil Harrison.
"An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a
proposition" - Monty Python, "The Argument Sketch".
P.S. Please excuse my editing of your original posting in this reply. I am
not attempting to alter your original argument, just to keep this posting
to a manageable size.
I H Spedding
>For those so inclined and interested-first I have never nor would I ever
>ask anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it, these are just
>offerings to lead to ideas that you can choose or decide on if you
>prefer. If they serve you, use them if they don't-don't. There is no
>need for a "battle" over them. If you wish to discuss them-that is fine.
>
>This, from my view is all about self empowerment-that is YOUR ability to
>empower yourselves and create the reality YOU prefer and it is in that
>sense that I offer these anyway. These are just sharings. To ALLOW you
>to be aware of these things if you choose. It is, has been and will
>always be of course UP TO YOU.
>
>The planets Mercury and its higher octave Uranus, are but two versions
>of the same idea of "mind" polarized simply through the effect of focus.
>The planets out from the Sun DECREASE in ego focus but this in NO WAY,
>SHAPE, OR FORM, makes them any less personalized as each one is
>integrated within the whole of the chart and therefore BECOMES
>personalized.
>
>Light is STILL light, whether it is focused through one lens or another.
>
> The personal unconscious and collective unconscious are linked through
>them. There are just diferent levels of self compaction.
>As the christ consciousness is the collective consciousness of the solar
>system COMBINED- so when combined intellect and intuition are simply two
>forms of the same thing-focused differently. They are a DIMENSION of
>experience, a spectrum of mentality. There is really no need to have
>conflict with them. This conflict is the effect of the polarization in
>our society between belief on faith and belief in scientific facts.
>Reason (scientific) is simply a higher degree of compaction of the
>mental realm than the instincts (faith). Niether is really TRUER than
>the other.
>
> Each side fears what the other represents because they fear that they
>will "lose" something. They fear it is an absolute opposite-that they
>will lose their perspective. Animals are really just reacting by
>instinct with a lesser degree of compaction than we-and hence less
>reason.They have the same consiousness with less SELF compaction-self
>definition. But greater degrees of compaction also creates greater
>degrees of separation and resistance to trusting the instincts. You will
>not LOSE a perspective by incorporating the opposite but will GAIN the
>other. Intuitives fear that they will become lost in a quagmire of
>details, and factually oriented fear become lost in a sea of
>disassociated ideas. NO ONE IS 100% of either anyway.
>
>All pain is resistance to growth and all pain is separation.
>
>The point is to incorporate and balance these two ideas, when they are
>integrated as the one idea that they really are, they can be used and
>trusted when they are necessary automatically. If you want the life of a
>certain person or type of reality, you must ACT like the life and the
>person you prefer to have the life. We do this already-but we may
>instictually ACT like the definition that we are REALLY holding and
>therefore deny ourselves the life we prefer. It is reason that allows us
>to analytically DISCERN and reason these understandings by its
>compaction (yes analysis requires logic and a high degree of
>compaction), and instinct that allows us to trust the definitions
>understood and act like them when we do. They are both valid and both
>necessary.
>
>When these planets are in developmental tension the REASON for it is to
>INCORPORATE, marry, blend and harmonize them into one-it is your cue
>that you BELIEVE them to be separate, just becoming aware of this can
>allow you to balance them out. This is why Mercury is exalted in the
>sign of Aquarius. Intuition (Aquarius) and intellect (Mercury) makes the
>most powerful blend for the mental life because they are one.
>
>Intuition and intellect derive and arise therefore from the same center.
>The integration of ALL is the path to 4th density and dimensional
>experiences and lives. When this is achieved you can use them when and
>where they are needed without conflict of the validity of two. Because
>there is none.
An attractive fiction. I could concoct something just as attractive,
just as complex and just as baseless; and I could get a lot of
gullible people to believe it, as well. But I have no wish to
recreate Scientology.
Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian H Spedding (sped...@mognet.u-net.com)
There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in
UFO's. But on the grounds of probability it should be kept as an
explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than
routinely weak evidence to support it.
Richard Dawkins: Richard Dimbleby Lecture (12 November 1996)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Wollmann
Phil Harrison wrote:
> So what you are saying then is that reality only exists because it is
> "collectively agreed upon". Who is collectively agreeing here? Just human
> beings or all organic life. What happens about disagreements? Does
> everybody have to agree or is it a majority decision?
I tried to start this off with the statment about the unconscious-you
have much work to do in regard to psychological understanding -therefore
my answers will be brief until this work is done and reflected in your
responses. We are not CONCIOUSLY aware of all psychic content within our
psyches. Therefore just DISCOVERING what one believes is a learning
experience-and if we are not aware of that content-how can it be
paralleled with external creations?
> > No, because the planets and the reality round and about you IS you,
> > therefore these planets are not truly outside of you but are the
> > externalized expressions of the archetypal ideas that we have
> > collectively agreed upon to create. I am able to determine the
> > consciousness and beliefs of an individual by the planetary positions at
> > their time of birth REGARDLESS of whether they CONSCIOUSLY believe in
> > astrology or not-note I said consciously, because the archetypal
> > references I spoke of as being reflected in the planetary physical
> > counterparts we see, are created from higher and more unconscious levels
> > than just the small bank of psychic material our conscious minds are
> > AWARE of.
> But surely, if the planets only exist because we have consciously agreed to
> create them,
I said UNconsciouslly and from higher levels, therefore the rest of the
slippery slope has been snipped.
> see into the future (or are you). You claim to be able to determine the
> consciousness and beliefs of a person from the positions of the planets at
> the time of their birth. Is that all of their beliefs, or just a few.
Yes, I do this all the time- for the last 18 years, and it is NOT post
hoc, it is always before the individual has even met me or opened their
mouth other than to give birth data for their appointment. I am sure you
would find it hard to believe that I could MAKE a female client
"believe" she was raped on a certain date if she was not. People are not
gullible idiots-and many of my clients hold Ph D's in their own
fields-psychology included.
> Are
> our beliefs predetermined at birth, or are they shaped by our experiences
> as we continue through our lives? Do we have a free will?
Go to Deja News, search my name + Free will -or "Hallway A", wherein I
have explained this many times.
> So we are all part of a great collective consciousness then are we? If that
> is the case, how do you explain the conflict that occurs throughout the
> world and throughout history?
Well, if you would go back study some psychology, understand the
different levels of psychic energy possible it would be easier to
explain and for you to understand-this is not a product of any
deficiency in my philosophical construct it is simply a lack of
knowledge on your part of paradigms critical to these understandings.
> Do you claim that this is because some of us
> refuse to acknowledge this collective consciousness? Couldn't it just be
> possible that it doesn't exist?
It exists-whether you are aware of the fact or not is irrelevant.
Nothing can exist that is not a part of the consciousness of "All That
Is".
> Solar systems are just ideas.
Ah, Ah, watch it now spin doctor, show me where JUST exists in my
explanation? Next slippery slope deleted therfore as well.
> > The sun will cease to rise at some point, I guarantee you, no matter how
> > sure we think it won't now.
> I never said that the current limits of scientific understanding make up
> the whole truth. If scientists knew everything then that would be the end
> of science. However, scientists conduct rigorous experiments to learn about
> the nature of reality.
Ah, Ah-physical reality-one aspect of the infinite "realities". I know
what science proports to do I study many forms of it at school.
> Doctors occasionally make mistakes in diagnosis. I
> am not saying every scientist is absolutely correct about everything. I am
> just saying that scientists generally attempt to find evidence to prove
> their theories. Just because science does not know everything does not mean
> that it does not know anything.
Yes this is the same with any paradigm-including astrology. NO subject
can delineate EVERYTHING. THAT is why I say POSITIVE energy is the
blending and incorporation of all of these useful paradigms into a
coherent knowing WHOLE. This is why a cynical perspective will never
overwhelm a more coherent and wide perspective-not possible.
> As for naming one thing in the universe
> that has never changed, what about the speed of light?
That is still an unknown and speculation-where's your proof? Besides
this again would only be a PHYSICAL absolute-of the PHYSICAL universe.
Not an absolute of the multiverse.
> > There is a personal truth, there are collective truths, but there is no
> > one truth. You can join in with others in certain truths and you can
> > still create your own specific brand of truth.
> This is just
"Just" an argument about truth? Philosophy is not a "just"-it is a deep
and profound question that transcends "Just" science-a product of
philosophy.
> an argument about the meaning of the word "truth". By personal
> truth you mean personal belief. By collective truth you mean collective
> belief. If you are saying that we all have different interpretations of the
> mechanics of the universe then of course this is the case. However, if you
> are saying that there is no absolute definition of the way the universe
> works, then by that argument you can be no more correct than I am. My
> belief that there are physical principles that govern the way the universe
> works must be equally as valid as your belief that there are none.
There are some-but they cannot derivate across levels of infinite. They
are only valid in certain parameters-if you are a scientist this needs
no explaining.
> > speed of light and these truths no longer apply-it is relative. Each
> > belief system has its truth and its reinforcing logic to "prove" that
> > truth.
> But without evidence that "stepping out of physicality" or exceeding the
> speed of light is possible then how can you claim that there is any other
> truth apart from the physical truth?
Because I can imagine it. And because I experience one every night when
I sleep. I went through this with an astronomer who thought he could
prove to me that he existed-and could not. Now if he cannot even prove
he exists, how can you prove anything else to me? Or I to you?
> Anything other than that which can be
> proven must be a belief.
Everything that IS proven is the effect of belief as well-the entire
multiverse is the effect of ideation-concept. And I repeat-please be
scientific-it is known by any scientist-true scientist-that NOTHING is
ever PROVEN. You are misleading readers with this idea-that is
irresponsible.
> > IS evidence against trusting the conscious mind and ITS evidence as the
> > ONLY evidence capable of being useful or "true".
> I am not saying that we "judge the ocean by one small fish". It seems to me
> that it is you who is extrapolating a populace from one sample. You are
> claiming that we have many unconscious aspects with only the evidence of a
> conscious one, not me. I do not accept astrology because there is not
> enough evidence to convince me.
You cannot have any because you don't know the subject and cannot
possibly know how to look.
> > "Half baked theories", may I ask what YOUR evidence is and experience
> > and research with this subject is that allows you to determine it is
> > half baked? You see you are not even trying to understand-but arrogantly
> > assume that you know the whole of it and therefore are resistant to
> > learning new knowledge-this is NOT the sign of intelligent, flexible and
> > pliable mental functioning capable of new growth. So learning new things
> > will be painful for you-does this answer you?:-)
> No I do not claim to know the whole of everything. I am quite happy to
> learn new things, I do this every day. This doesn't mean that I should
> blindly accept every theory that I come across. I choose to accept things
> that I judge to have been investigated properly. Perhaps I should replace
> the phrase "half baked" with "poorly researched" if it will cause less
> offence. I am not debating this subject with you to score points, nor to
> try to convince you that I am right. This is a discussion, a learning
> exercise. Hopefully we are both examining our beliefs and learning from the
> experience. Just because I do not find myself agreeing with you does not
> mean that I am not examining my own beliefs.
Alright then "properly investigate" the paradigm before "half baked"
value judgments are interjected-that action would convince me of your
integrity much quicker than just saying you are examining beliefs and
that it is my "fault" because I take offense at your "half baked" spins.
> > > If you are saying that individuals are able to shape their lives as
> they
> > > want, then I agree with you up to a point. However, if I wanted the
> life of
> > > the Sultan of Brunei for example, then if I simply started acting this
> life
> > > I doubt that it would get me very far towards achieving it.
> > Then this belief in and of itself assures that you will not and cannot.
> > Doubt is a 100% trust in a reality you DON'T prefer.
> So you say that if I had enough faith to believe that I was the richest man
> in the world (for example) then I could just become the richest man in the
> world right now?
Why does it have to be "right now"? You are the ones who spin this crap
to try to make it look "magical" and illogical-please show me in my 3000
posts where I ever said anyone could blink like Genie and be the richest
person in the world? There are thresholds of believability-I have posted
a definition list from A-Z-its in there-READ IT!!!!!!!!!!
> But by your argument earlier, my beliefs are shaped by the
> positions of the planets at my birth.
No I did not. Slippery slope therefore deleted.
> > > Reality is
> > > surely a little harsher than that.
> > If you say so, I prefer to create otherwise.
> That's fine by me. I would say that you prefer to believe otherwise, but
> since the language that we are using is shaped by our different beliefs,
> then there is no argument.
I would say you create your experiential reality by what you believe and
that is why you experience it that way-and THERE are studies to back
that specific statment up-many in psychology on observational bias,
projection and on and on.
> > > any of this. It does not make any sense to me and does not seem
> relevant to
> > > a discussion on 'intuition and intellect'.
> > Well so be it then you are free to rigidly maintain whatever beliefs you
> > have without investigating anything else new and unexplored in your
> > schema-I cannot nor will I try to stop you. But at least try to
> > recognize, you know nothing about this and it only is rejected because
> > of the insecurity it represents to you and the possiblity that the way
> > you have believed things "are"-might just not be. It has taken me half a
> > life (25 years for me about) of pain, introspection and study to
> > understsand the few meager things I present here-I am more than sure you
> > will not grasp them in 20 sentences.
> I do not rigidly maintain my beliefs without investigating anything new.
> The fact that I am continuing to respond to you surely demonstrates that.
> The fact that I do not agree with you is not because of insecurity but
> because I do not find anything to convince me. I do not expect that you
> would be able to explain all of the beliefs that you have formed over 25
> years in a few sentences. My comment is that I still have not seen anything
> in your postings to convince me that I should change my views an astrology
> yet.
And you may go on for 1000 sentences and not see it-that will STILL be
your creation-I cannot prove these things to you-I assist- YOU must
verify them to yourself by being able to consider my leads. EVERYONE
proves things to themselves-others don't prove things TO them.
> > > I agree with you - that place is the brain.
> > The brain is the effect of ideas-not the cause-the brain "comes from"
> > intuition and intellect, not the other way around.
> Well this depends upon the belief that everything that we see is created by
> a collective consciousness doesn't it? I think that we will have to agree
> to differ on this point.
Fine, there is reinforcing logic for both arguments-except that the
materialist point of view fails to hold up when it states that the brain
"causes" us to be able to understand patterns-because patterns are
abstract concepts. Also my post on self awareness addresses this to a
great degree, because a closed system of deterministic functioning
cannot move beyond itself and reflect. Only an open ended system allows
such a concept to exist.
> > > I have no idea what you mean by
> > > 4th density and dimensional experiences.
> > Physical reality is 3D, 4D is the recognition that you are the physical
> > reality that it appears you exist within. The recognition that the
> > Christ had and tried to convey by taking back power from it.
> Well the argument that physical reality is 3D is not necessarily so. In
> order to explain relativity, physicists believe that there is a fourth
> dimension and that the universe is expanding in this fourth dimension.
I did not say that there was not a 4D now did I? As a matter of fact you
not contradicting my statement one bit-as I said THE PERSPECTIVE THAT
ALLOWS THE EXPERIENCE OF 4D-is that you are the reality you believe you
exist within. 4D is reflected in the 4 Elements in astrology, the four
nucleotide bases in DNA, the 4 Cardinal points, the octahedral structure
the Pyramid-its all over-no big revelation.
>You
> see, I am not totally resistant to new ideas, I just prefer them to be
> verified experimentally.
But there is a point where physics becomes metaphysics-you will see
this.
> > If you can imagine them they have to exist on some level or you could
> > not.
> As I have said, I can happily imagine a fourth dimension of some form.
Look around you-there it is-when you real-ize it is you you will
experience it thus.
> However since I do not understand your definition then I am unable to
> imagine your interpretation of a fourth dimension. Therefore their
> existence has not yet been proved to me.
Well I have given you another clue.
> > Since my intention was to try to reframe the idea that intuitive
> > thinking and intellectual "fact" thinking need not be so polarized and
> > that they are capable of being reconciled, your version only tells me of
> > you and little of the true "version" of my intent. Proving of
> > course-that there is no one truth. You have yours and I have mine. I
> > prefer mine.
> That's fine. I am just examining your "truth" or belief, and I assume that
> you are doing the same. I simply object to the assumption that because I do
> not agree with you that I am in some way "frightened" to do so or that I am
> refusing to "grow".
Well as long as you keep incorporating these points then you are. I can
only assume by the same token the fact that you have not seen these
perspectives yourself is BECAUSE of your fear of exploring them. Or
because you were not ready to experience them before this point and did
not therfore create that developmental process in your physical
reality-for if you are not ready, it will be painful and difficult.
When the student is ready the teachers appear.
> P.S. Please excuse my editing of your original posting in this reply. I am
> not attempting to alter your original argument, just to keep this posting
> to a manageable size.
Alright no problem-I have done the same:-)
--
"Well I try so hard to understand dear, but you still mystify and I want
to know why!...Again and again when I ask you to explain you say;
'You've gotta be-cruel to be kind in the right measure, cruel to be
kind, its a very good sign. Cruel to be kind means that I love you!
Baby, you've gotta be cruel to be kind.'" Nick Lowe "Cruel to be Kind"
Peter F. Curran
In article <339580...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
>> You are using terms in ambiguious ways. Nobody knows what the heck you
>> mean when you say "recognitions",
>
>Re-cog-nition, to rethink, acknowledge.
>
>> or what it means to have them "move
>> beyond self".
>
>This is easily understood if you investigated the paradigm of
>psychology, another useful subject positive people who wish to know
>truths, sincerely consider.
>
Baloney. You are not expressing the beliefs of mainstream psychology
here, instead you are just using the name of the discipline to add
authority to your ramblings.
Recognition means "to recognize", to acknowledge. "Recognitions" means
to recognize more than once. Even if we took your distorted meaning of
the word, you still have not adequately described how you can have any
sorts of recognitions which "move beyond self".
BTW, your use of the word "paradigm" above is incorrect. Please
refrain from using buzzwords you don't understand! :) Will you
tell me to be more pro-active next?
>> Regarding the first sentence of your rebuttal above, I
>> contend that I see using my eyes and that light travels from external
>> objects to them. There is no "moving beyond myself". As to the second
>> sentence, please explain why you think this qualifies as "proof"! First
>> off, since when we "reflect" we DON'T have more knowledge than what we
>> have received through our senses, it is a totally internal process. Our
>> intelligence and imagination may fill in many blanks which MAY or MAY NOT
>> reflect the actual world around us. You need to prove that any pure
>> mental phenomena interact with the physical world in any way. Nobody has
>> ever done this.
>
>No one ever proves anything firstly, and secondly no one ever proves it
>TO anyone else-they always prove it to themselves with their own
>reinforcing logic of their personal belief system.
>
YOU were the one who used the word "proof", and since you haven't
done it, you used it incorrectly.
>> >> You first
>> >> have to demonstrate that this "Multiverse" exists before you can claim
>> >> other truths regarding it.
>
>> >I don't "have" to do anything-this is one of the wonderful things about
>> >the multiverse and reality.
>
>> Fine. You are simply wasting your "electronic breath" spouting kooky
>> theories which only a fool would accept blindly.
>
>"Waste" is a subjective value judgment and only tells us of your
>llimitation in perspective and nothing of what constitutes "waste".
>
Waste is not _wholly_ subjective. The greater the number of
people who think that what you do is a waste, the more likely
the case is that it IS a waste! :)
>You have a task before you-self knowledge, your only action left is self
>introspection, not seeking to have me answer your fears.
>I have faith that an intelligent person like you can take these leads
>and move to greater self development. A word to the wise is sufficient.
>
I don't have "fears" concerning my place in the universe, and the
only thing I'm "asking" you is if you can give me a good reason to
believe anything so provably wrong as the idea that our mental
state affects our shared external reality.
>> >> Also, if it IS "self reflective" you need
>> >> to rigorously define what you mean by your _term_, "self reflective".
>
>> >I don't have to "rigorously" do anything-except what I prefer-these are
>> >your beliefs and I don't prefer them.:-)
>
>> Fine again. What you have amounts to a religion or a cult mentality.
>
>Religion=To relink back to source, yes you are correct. The source of
>the material illusion you are decieved into thinking is the source.
Why do you insist that it is illusion? You have been unable to
prove it is so, (although you claim proof). I, on the other hand
can easily dispell the idea that reality is modified by people's
minds with simple repeatable experiments. Unfortunately, it is
you who is avoiding the truth, and are deceived.
>Religion is not a bad word. However, following others is powerless and
>the effect of the science of following, which is what many orthodox
>religious structures now promote. Self reflection, introspection and
>"relinking" must come from within the person, since giving power to
>things outside the self is what needs reconciliation.
This seems to make no real sense.
>I am not interested in followers, I have my power and everyone else has
>theirs. They are equal and we all have the same access to the "All That
>Is". We all are as interconnected to the "All That Is" as we will ever
>be, it is only our awareness of this connection that suffers through
>giving power to external truths over internal. They are equal and both
>valid ways to investigate the multiverse.
I'm sorry, but your methods and mine are NOT equal. Mine have
the potential to arrive at real underlying truth, while yours
have the potential to get you someday committed.
>The "truth" makes men free-not bound either to science or any other form
>of dogmatic "one truth" perspectives.
>
Science has the potential to arrive at the truth. Dreaming about
how you want the world to be, and claiming that it IS that way
leads to psychological problems, probably sociopathy.
>I have repeatedly said that all knowledges and paradigms serve in my
>opinion, and are best when balanced and equally incorporated into an
>intelligent person's knowledge base-positive approach.
>
Science is knowledge which does not "serve in your opinion", just
because you say so. This is just another false statement.
>You seem to be rigidly adhereing to only the cynical view (negative and
>exclusive approach unable and unwilling to incorporate new knowledge),
Wrong. I prefer to embrace only new knowledge which is TRUE, and is
demonstratably so. Therefore, I come to a real understanding of how
things really are, instead of how I want them to be.
>this is far too limiting for me. I must move on. If you wish to learn
You move on because you feel REAL science may be too hard for you to
learn. You escape into your buzzword-soaked "happy realm" where you
can be an authority without having to pay your dues.
>some of what I know feel free to contact me and I will be glad to either
>instruct in the complex subject of astrology and the integrated
>paradigms I have blended from all knowledge bases, or lead you to
>sources should you make new decisions and release yourself from this
>self imposed hell (from the old English helan=to cover over or hide from
>consiousness).
>DIS-covery is the way to heaven.
>
Astrology is to psychology as tea is to expresso. Both astrology and
tea are very weak! Astrology gives you about as much insight into
a person's mind as does the bumps on his/her head. Rational people
abandonded Astrology long ago.
> Otherwise trying to constrict positive and expansive positive energy to
>boxes of rigid limited and fearful thinking is not especially exciting
>to me-and I follow only what it inspires or excites me to do.
>If you find it possible to move beyond these constricted perspectives I
>am always willing to assist anyone in whatever small way I can.
>Thanks
>Ed
It is not fear which directs my thinking. To challenge ALL your
beliefs takes a more than a bit of courage in my opinion. Coming
to grips with the idea of your ultimate mortality and the fact
that there is no great plan which the universe has for you is
very humbling.
All I can do for you is to offer help in constricting your
perspectives to something closer to reality as it exists. I
certainly _don't_ acknowledge that our respective views of the
universe are equally valid. Yours is seriously flawed and will
not serve you well if you attempt to put your ideas to a test.
Roger L. Satterlee
> >
> > Since my intention was to try to reframe the idea that intuitive
> > thinking and intellectual "fact" thinking need not be so polarized and
> > that they are capable of being reconciled, your version only tells me of
> > you and little of the true "version" of my intent. Proving of
> > course-that there is no one truth. You have yours and I have mine. I
> > prefer mine.
>
> That's fine. I am just examining your "truth" or belief, and I assume that
> you are doing the same. I simply object to the assumption that because I do
> not agree with you that I am in some way "frightened" to do so or that I am
> refusing to "grow".
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil Harrison.
>
> "An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a
> proposition" - Monty Python, "The Argument Sketch".
>
> P.S. Please excuse my editing of your original posting in this reply. I am
> not attempting to alter your original argument, just to keep this posting
More to the point:
When the Wolf could not succeed in blowing down the house made of bricks,
he climed down the chimney where, unfortunately, he was burned to ashes by the
three little pigs.
Calcinatio:
"[..]The first of these (alchemical) stages which I will discuss is called
the *calcinatio*, and it is the process of burning. This stage is steeped in the
symbolism of fire. The idea is that the alchemist heated the prima materia until
the liquid evaporated from it, and it was redced to ash. I think this very vivid
symbol needs a little explanation. The imagery around the calcinatio always
involves the frustration of the desire, until the emotions exhaust themselves and
the Old King or the savage animal is burned down to the bare essence. Fire
cleanses away dross, and here the dross is liquid--water, the image of longing for
union. The animals connected with the calcinatio are usually the wolf and the
lion. These have been from time immemorial animals connected with the passions,
with hunger and pride and arrogance and desire.[..]"
Liz Greene, "Dynamics of The Unconscious", p.278
Rog
--
rog...@ix.netcom.com
11:53pm EDT 26Jul50 Elmira, NY 076W48 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Roger L. Satterlee
> >
> > Since my intention was to try to reframe the idea that intuitive
> > thinking and intellectual "fact" thinking need not be so polarized and
> > that they are capable of being reconciled, your version only tells me of
> > you and little of the true "version" of my intent. Proving of
> > course-that there is no one truth. You have yours and I have mine. I
> > prefer mine.
>
> That's fine. I am just examining your "truth" or belief, and I assume that
> you are doing the same. I simply object to the assumption that because I do
> not agree with you that I am in some way "frightened" to do so or that I am
> refusing to "grow".
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil Harrison.
>
> "An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a
> proposition" - Monty Python, "The Argument Sketch".
>
> P.S. Please excuse my editing of your original posting in this reply. I am
> not attempting to alter your original argument, just to keep this posting
Phil Harrison
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> wrote in article
<3395E6...@aznet.net>...
> Phil Harrison wrote:
>
> > So what you are saying then .....
>
> I tried to start this off with the statment about the unconscious-you
> have much work to do in regard to psychological understanding -therefore
> my answers will be brief until this work is done and reflected in your
> responses. We are not CONCIOUSLY aware of all psychic content within our
> psyches. Therefore just DISCOVERING what one believes is a learning
> experience-and if we are not aware of that content-how can it be
> paralleled with external creations?
Oooh, this is starting to sound patronising! O.K. I accept that I do not
have the benefit of your education in psychology. If this makes it
difficult for you to explain your beliefs about the nature of reality to me
then I will have difficulty in debating them with you (although this seems
somewhat convenient). This does not mean that I have to accept your beliefs
have any foundation though - I doubt that your beliefs are widely held by
psychologists.
[Section snipped}
> > see into the future (or are you). You claim to be able to determine the
> > consciousness and beliefs of a person from the positions of the planets
at
> > the time of their birth. Is that all of their beliefs, or just a few.
>
> Yes, I do this all the time- for the last 18 years, and it is NOT post
> hoc, it is always before the individual has even met me or opened their
> mouth other than to give birth data for their appointment.
This does not convince me that there is any factual basis in astrology
though. Once your client meets with you to discuss your analysis the
process becomes subjective. I don't doubt that you can say things about a
person without meeting them and that they would then agree with you later.
Don't forget that your clients must believe in your abilities otherwise
they would not part with their money (I assume that you do not provide your
services free of charge). They would probably be looking for things to
agree with and therefore the process is subjective.
To provide evidence (to convince me anyway) that your astrological analysis
has any basis, you would have to test it objectively. For example if you
took the birth data of ten people that you had not met, you could
presumably provide a written analysis for these individuals. Now let's say
that we took those analyses and let each person look at all ten, still
without meeting you. We then asked them which one they felt applied best to
them. If enough of them correctly identified the analysis based on their
own birth data to show a correlation that was significantly better than a
statistical average, and you could repeat these positive results with
several groups of ten people, then yes I would be interested. Provided of
course that you didn't ignore bad results and just cherry picked the good
ones.
> I am sure you
> would find it hard to believe that I could MAKE a female client
> "believe" she was raped on a certain date if she was not.
This could be difficult to debate as I don't know whether you are referring
to a hypothetical case or an actual client. If it is an actual client I
would assume (and hope) that you would wish to keep the details
confidential, and so I shall look at this as a hypothetical argument.
If, in your analysis you determined that a client had a particularly
traumatic experience (such as rape) on a certain date then presumably you
would discuss this with them at their appointment with you. I would be
surprised if your client would agree with this initially (unless you had
managed to gain information by some other means). However, let us say that
this client denied that this traumatic experience happened initially, but
because of your own belief in your analysis, you decided that this client
could be repressing the memory. You then might persuade the client that
this is the case and, maybe by hypnosis or perhaps through attempts at
counseling them for this traumatic incident, you could persuade the client
that the traumatic event in question happened when it in fact did not. I am
not accusing you of deliberately misleading your clients (heaven forbid!)
but I can see a way in which this delusion could occur accidentally. I
recommend Bob Carroll's article on repressed memory and false memory:
http://wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/memory.html
> People are not
> gullible idiots-and many of my clients hold Ph D's in their own
> fields-psychology included.
I would not presume to call somebody an idiot without meeting them at
least. As for people being gullible, I think I agree with P.T. Barnum on
this one. It is possible to deceive people even when they have had an
education. That is why stage magicians make a living.
[section edited due to my scant knowledge of psychology]
>
> > Anything other than that which can be
> > proven must be a belief.
>
> Everything that IS proven is the effect of belief as well-the entire
> multiverse is the effect of ideation-concept. And I repeat-please be
> scientific-it is known by any scientist-true scientist-that NOTHING is
> ever PROVEN. You are misleading readers with this idea-that is
> irresponsible.
Now hang on, that's a bit strong! What do you consider my responsibilities
to be? How about if I clarify this statement. There are some things that we
perceive to be proven to us because we have had direct evidence to support
them with our own five senses (I do not accept the existence of more than
five senses so I would not agree with an argument based on additional
senses. If you wish to provide one for the benefit of other readers then go
ahead). Other things we have not perceived ourselves, but we accept an
explanation from another source.
We are more careful with the latter category. We decide whether we agree
with the other sources explanation based on our beliefs about both the
subject and the source of the information. If we blindly accepted
everything that we were told then we would be gullible idiots.
> > I am not saying that we "judge the ocean by one small fish". It seems
to me
> > that it is you who is extrapolating a populace from one sample. You are
> > claiming that we have many unconscious aspects with only the evidence
of a
> > conscious one, not me. I do not accept astrology because there is not
> > enough evidence to convince me.
>
> You cannot have any because you don't know the subject and cannot
> possibly know how to look.
Oh no! There is no hope for me then. You know things that I do not and I
"cannot possibly know" how to find them out. You are being patronising
again.
> > No I do not claim to know the whole of everything. I am quite happy to
> > learn new things, I do this every day. This doesn't mean that I should
> > blindly accept every theory that I come across. I choose to accept
things
> > that I judge to have been investigated properly. Perhaps I should
replace
> > the phrase "half baked" with "poorly researched" if it will cause less
> > offence. I am not debating this subject with you to score points, nor
to
> > try to convince you that I am right. This is a discussion, a learning
> > exercise. Hopefully we are both examining our beliefs and learning from
the
> > experience. Just because I do not find myself agreeing with you does
not
> > mean that I am not examining my own beliefs.
>
> Alright then "properly investigate" the paradigm before "half baked"
> value judgments are interjected-that action would convince me of your
> integrity much quicker than just saying you are examining beliefs and
> that it is my "fault" because I take offense at your "half baked" spins.
No I didn't claim that it was your fault that you took offence. I admit
that the language I used was offensive to you and I accept the blame for
that. My argument is that I am not aware of any objective scientific
research into astrology that would convince me to believe in it.
> > So you say that if I had enough faith to believe that I was the richest
man
> > in the world (for example) then I could just become the richest man in
the
> > world right now?
>
> Why does it have to be "right now"? You are the ones who spin this crap
> to try to make it look "magical" and illogical-please show me in my 3000
> posts where I ever said anyone could blink like Genie and be the richest
> person in the world? There are thresholds of believability-I have posted
> a definition list from A-Z-its in there-READ IT!!!!!!!!!!
Please allow me to bring back a phrase from your original posting that got
deleted during our discussion. You said, "If you want the life of a certain
person or type of reality, you must ACT like the life and the person you
prefer to have the life." I admit that it you didn't say that these things
happen immediately, but you also didn't indicate that any hard work might
be involved. If you are saying that in order to meet their goals then a
person must have a positive attitude towards them then I agree with you.
It's hardly profound though is it.
[snip]
> I would say you create your experiential reality by what you believe and
> that is why you experience it that way-and THERE are studies to back
> that specific statment up-many in psychology on observational bias,
> projection and on and on.
Oops, my lack of education lets me down again. I agree that my
interpretation of my experiences is based on my beliefs. I think that we
are just debating ways of phrasing the same thing here.
[another snip for the sake of clarity]
> > I do not rigidly maintain my beliefs without investigating anything
new.
> > The fact that I am continuing to respond to you surely demonstrates
that.
> > The fact that I do not agree with you is not because of insecurity but
> > because I do not find anything to convince me. I do not expect that you
> > would be able to explain all of the beliefs that you have formed over
25
> > years in a few sentences. My comment is that I still have not seen
anything
> > in your postings to convince me that I should change my views an
astrology
> > yet.
>
> And you may go on for 1000 sentences and not see it-that will STILL be
> your creation-I cannot prove these things to you-I assist- YOU must
> verify them to yourself by being able to consider my leads. EVERYONE
> proves things to themselves-others don't prove things TO them.
So you accept that I could consider your leads and reject them then?
[snip again - we went back to psychology which is not my subject]
[Further snip for the sake of clarity]
> > Well the argument that physical reality is 3D is not necessarily so. In
> > order to explain relativity, physicists believe that there is a fourth
> > dimension and that the universe is expanding in this fourth dimension.
>
> I did not say that there was not a 4D now did I? As a matter of fact you
> not contradicting my statement one bit-as I said THE PERSPECTIVE THAT
> ALLOWS THE EXPERIENCE OF 4D-is that you are the reality you believe you
> exist within. 4D is reflected in the 4 Elements in astrology, the four
> nucleotide bases in DNA, the 4 Cardinal points, the octahedral structure
> the Pyramid-its all over-no big revelation.
No you didn't say that there was not a 4D. Your interpretation of a fourth
dimension seems to be different to mine though. I do not recognise the four
elements of astrology - they were based on early attempts to explain
chemical reactions. Now we have a better understanding of how atoms and sub
atomic particles interact (although I admit that it is not a complete
understanding) the four elemental explanation is no longer valid. I do not
see that the pyramid has any more dimensions than any other shape. It's
just a shape, the same as a cube or a sphere.
[ further comments on dimensions snipped]
> > > Since my intention was to try to reframe the idea that intuitive
> > > thinking and intellectual "fact" thinking need not be so polarized
and
> > > that they are capable of being reconciled, your version only tells me
of
> > > you and little of the true "version" of my intent. Proving of
> > > course-that there is no one truth. You have yours and I have mine. I
> > > prefer mine.
>
> > That's fine. I am just examining your "truth" or belief, and I assume
that
> > you are doing the same. I simply object to the assumption that because
I do
> > not agree with you that I am in some way "frightened" to do so or that
I am
> > refusing to "grow".
>
> Well as long as you keep incorporating these points then you are. I can
> only assume by the same token the fact that you have not seen these
> perspectives yourself is BECAUSE of your fear of exploring them. Or
> because you were not ready to experience them before this point and did
> not therfore create that developmental process in your physical
> reality-for if you are not ready, it will be painful and difficult.
> When the student is ready the teachers appear.
No this is the point that I have a real problem with, the "fear" thing. You
have said that I would need to study psychology in order for you to explain
your beliefs fully. If I choose not do this, and I still do not blindly
accept your opinion then you claim that it is due to fear. This smacks of
arrogance! We all choose our own path to learn about the universe around
us. Just because my path leads me to look towards science for an
explanation does not mean that I am scared of other explanations. It's just
a choice. I respect your choice, I just don't agree with it.
Regards,
Phil Harrison
"See the constellation ride across the sky,
No cigar, no lady on his arm,
Just a guy made of dots and lines." - They Might Be Giants, "See the
constellation"
Brant Watson
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> > If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
>> > people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
>> > this is a specious and dishonest argument.
>
> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
> people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward astrology, then
> this is a specious and dishonest argument.
You actually did your multiple crosspost for a dumb retort like this?
Here, I'll copy the entire post which Ed has snipped and responded to
in a much larger selection of newsgroups which did not see what led up
to his post:
Complete posts follows:
>On Tue, 27 May 1997 09:37:23 -0500, Marsha <sha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Brant Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
>>> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
>>> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
>>> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
>>> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
>>>
>>> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
>>> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
>>> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
>>> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
>>> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
>>>
>>> Brant
>>
>>
>>Brant,
>>
>>Medical doctors are not the "gods" that some of them, the AMA,
>>pharmaceutical companies (& apparently you) would like people to
>>believe. In fact many could accurately be accused of some of the "sins"
>>that cynics are accusing astrologers of committing. Greed for one.
>>Especially many surgeons. Many choose the profession because of the
>>income possibilities.
> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
>people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
>this is a specious and dishonest argument. You will discover the truth
>of my remark when you have a serious medical disorder that requires
>surgery. When you have a heart attack or stroke or are bleeding to
>death, I want to see you go to your astrologer or consult your charts.
>Doctors aren't gods and medicine isn't perfect, but astrological medical
>advice is pure quackery.
>>The practice of medicine can be compared to the practice of astrology.
>I'm going to say something I rarely say...BULLSHIT!!!!
>>There are practitioners in both areas who are knowledgeable, ethical,
>>sincere & adept at their chosen art. A Medical doctor is not a
>>scientist. He uses science--biology, chemistry, etc. and practices his
>>art--as an astrologer uses mathematics, astronomy, etc.
>And it's that "etc." which comprises all the bunk we know as astrology.
>The fact that a doctor uses science, *and* reason, *and* rigor, *and*
>intense critical evaluation, *and* the Hippocratic Oath, *and* accountability,
>*and* objectively measurable results that makes his/her practice valuable.
>Astrologers exempt themselves from *all* of these things. No other
>profession is so completely devoid of these methods and checks and
>balances as astrology is. To compare astrology and medicine is an insult to
>the intelligence.
>>In each field
>>some are better at it than others. And in each field some work better
>>for some people than others.
> The only measure of success for an astrologer is the number of people successfully conned.
>>A surgeon doesn't schedule surgery to coincide with the best time for
>>the person unless it's an emergency, & then it's often whoever is on
>>call. He schedules it to fit in best with his schedule. (Other
>>surgery, sometimes golf, etc.) They would have better results if they
>>did schedule surgery using astrology. And it would also benefit their
>>reputation$!$
>>
>>Marsha
> These same doctors who you so unfairly malign, save thousands of lives
> every day. They provide services of a quality which is unmatched in
>almost any other profession. Your claim that they would have better
>results using astrology is a mindless appeal to superstition and ignorance
>and I just hop there aren;t a lot of people who listen to it. But in any
>case, you are welcome to show evidence in support of your ideas. Go
>ahead, show the evidence which demonstrates the astrological effects
>which you feel doctors should consider in scheduling surgery. Heck,
>just show ONE! If you can do it, James Randi will *gladly* make you
>a million dollars richer. (Oh, that's right...your intentions are purely
>magnanimous.)
> In the meantime, you can only hurt anyone who listens to you.
> Brant
*******End of post.
And Ed has concluded for you:
>"And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm
> right, where I belong!" The Beatles "Fixing a Hole"
And I add:
"Baby you can drive my car." Beatles
"Just give me money, that's what I need." Beatles
Deep stuff
Brant
Dmitry Serebrennikov
>For those so inclined and interested-first I have never nor would I ever
>ask anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it, these are just
>offerings to lead to ideas that you can choose or decide on if you
>prefer. If they serve you, use them if they don't-don't. There is no
>need for a "battle" over them. If you wish to discuss them-that is fine.
No battle here. Just trying to follow the argument and see where we
end up.
Let me trace this:
1. each persons state of mind (conscious and unconscious) determines
that person's reality.
2. the reality that we all share (or seem to share) is the result of
our collective state of mind.
3. the planet placements, being part of this shared reality, are also
representative of our collective state of mind.
4. since the planets do (or appear to) proceed in an orderly and
predictable motion around the Zodiac this implies that our
collective state of mind also follows a predictable trajectory
POSSIBILITY A (Sanity Check, or scientific approach)
5. at best this is sociology, otherwise it is nonsense.
(please, no need to flame yet -- read-on)
FACTS:
- the planets exist separately from individuals and follow their
trajectories under the influence of the laws from gravity and
other large bodies in their vicinity
- individuals exist separately of planets and follow their own
thoughts and convictions, which come from other people's thoughts
and convictions (education), from reasoning (creating theories
that explain as much of the perceived reality as possible), and
experiment (generating new perception data to confirm or disprove
the theories).
QUESTIONS:
- regarding planets:
- how large does an object have to be to influence the motion of
Jupiter? If it is influenced by the Sun, is it not also
influenced by the Earth? By a house in Texas? By electron that
just hit your monitor's surface to produce this speck of color
-> .
Admittedly one influence is stronger than another, but why
should there be a cut-off line?
- regarding individual's convictions:
- the convictions come from more convictions (recursive,
ignore), reasoning (studying perception data) and experiment
(generating perception data).
- Thus, human knowledge depends on perception.
- But perception differs between humans as it does between
species too. Someone without hearing does not perceive the same
world as the other people. None of us can smell the same world
that dogs smell. We may be able to enhance our ability to hear
(or maybe even smell), but only if we think of doing so.
However, if there is another avenue of perception that is
missing from all humans, we will never perceive the world
defined by it.
CONCLUSION:
- enough of this. Are there are possibilities of making sense
out of this thread?
POSSIBILITY B (Freelance Musician, or individual soul's choice)
5. an individual born at a certain moment CHOOSES that specific
moment for birth to reflect or play part in the shared state of
mind, thus maintaining its orderly trajectory
QUESTIONS:
- where does this individual come from?
- what happens to the universe that the soul leaves to come here?
- who is the conductor of this orchestra?
CONCLUSION: this possibility implies -
- existence of an individualized God
- separate existence of individual soles from God and from each
other.
- this is not what you are talking about.
POSSIBILITY C (Crystallization, or individual soul's karmic
attraction)
5. an individual soul's karmic pattern of desire/aversion is
ATTRACTED to re-materialize or reincarnate in "this" world by the
current shared state of mind.
CONCLUSION:
- as before, except there is less implication of soul's separate
existence, the whole process happens more mechanically.
- still, the Universe is seen as an effect of individuals' states
of mind
POSSIBILITY C (Conscious Foam, or individual is part of the system's
state)
5. existence of an individual and his/her states of mind are as much
an expression of the state of the universe as the positions of
planets. In other words: there is no causal relationship between
the individual's psyche and the planet's positions (not
self->planets, nor planets->self). Rather, both are effects of a
common cause. The relationship is a correlation.
MUSINGS:
- thus astrology may indeed have predictive power by offering an
analysis of another representation of the same state as expressed
by the individual.
- this is consistent with saying that there is no separate self
and that all is really one, THAT WHICH IS, if you will.
- this does not require existence of an individualized God.
- all of the famous maxims follow from this point of view
wonderfully:
"All is mind (god/nirvana/dharmakaya...),
there is nothing that is not part of it."
- does each individual reflect the entire state, or do I reflect a
part and you reflect a part? It must be that each reflects all.
This way we can say that
"the Universe is reflected in the individual
as in a drop of dew."
- if this is the case, then there is as much of the Universe
reflected in one individual as in a group, as in a civilization.
Also, if all existence (not only living beings)
is such reflection, then an atom reflects as much as a planet
does (while it is composed of atoms). This also yields that the
entire universe is identical to itself and to each part.
- what is death? Well, what is existence?
Existence is the presence of a particular reflection of the
universal state of mind. In this view, BTW, each planet can also
be though of as a "living being" with a very long life span.
- so what makes one an *individual*?
Why, it's only natural to believe that you *are* the whole
universe! :)
So the individual is the material in which this reflection of
the universe is made. It is the H2O of the dew drop.
CONCLUSIONS:
- this seems to be a very fertile view.
- anything we do (anything whatsoever) is part of the state of the
Universe. This includes praying and meditating as much as
shopping and arguing about this topic. It also includes
aggression, depression, success and failure, pleasure and pain,
etc.
Is this about where you were going?
=======================================================
Regards.
Dmitry
dmi...@no.spam.earthlink.net
(remove no.spam for e-mail)