A Rolling Barack Gathers No Light

[Niall]

Much like many here - I have read - jumped into the conspiracy reality via the David Icke books - used it as a stepping stone, if you will

Where did you read this?

 

[Racer_Unknown]

There are many people that I’ve met who have done this! You’ve never met any? It hasn’t happened to you? That you “created” something for yourself in your life, I mean? Like say, a vacation to “where ever” suddenly materializing because you wished it at some point? Or something similar to this? (Anyone?)

You are correct to place 'created' in inverted commas. How do you know that whatever materialized did so as a result of your own wishes? Just because something materialized and looked like a result of your dreams and wishes, maybe even an exact match, does not mean that you should automatically assume that you created it, or that YCYOR actually works.

I appreciate your questions/comments. Let me clarify.... Loosely speaking Mada85, my books are about "experiments in consciousnes." I start out with a hypothesis and then I "test it" - to see if I can prove it (or disprove it) by way of results. The meeting I "created" with David Icke was one such experiment. Now I placed “created” in inverted commas as contrary to the general consensus of this thread about my application of “YCYOR”, I did not simply “wish” – anything – into manifestation. Rather, the “visualization” – in this particular example – and let me use a somewhat loose analogy here - only served as a “building’s blueprint.”

As you may know, obviously, a building's blueprint (in this instance “psychic blueprint” to borrow a term from Seth) is not enough to manifest the building into physicality. There also needs to be *construction workers* of all types: concrete setters, electricians, carpenters, etc, etc, etc. And of course, these folks must work *physically* (with their hands – as in labor) to bring into material form what was once inside a developer’s *imagination.* (Almost all that exists including the computer in front of you once existed in someone's imagination by the way.) Thus, the two - the idea (or "blueprint") and physical work (by hands) - can eventually manifest the building into a physical reality "here" in physicality.

I can assure you that I did not simply “wish upon a star" to bring David Icke down to where I live (I did not travel to the UK where he lives). But for this to be even *potentially possible* LOTS of things had to happen before hand, behind the scenes, sort of speak, including intakes of large amounts of knowledge on my part so as to be able to have an intelligent/informed discussion with David among other things.

What’s more, I had to have *something* to make David want to come down to “visit me.” Since I’d like to keep my identity private, I can’t divulge too much of this particularity. And that "something" had to be created also through good old hard (and physical) work so as to have "something" that Icke would be interested in.

A hypothesis that explains a great many observable and historical phenomena in our world is that of the hyperdimensional controllers – not to mention the common or garden 3rd density control system.

Cs session 941119 wrote:
A: Same forces spreading disinformation: Brotherhood/ consortium/ Illuminati/ New World Order/ "Antichrist"/ Lizards.
Q: (T) But I'm just a nobody. Why would they go to all [that] trouble to send somebody in a Camaro to drive up on my lawn...
A: Several answers follow: Number One, Nobody is a "nobody." Number two, it is no trouble at all for aforementioned forces to give seemingly individualized attention to anybody.
This throws a very different light on the idea of YCYOR.

Mada85, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by – at least "my own version" of – YCYOR. Again, I did not simply “wish” anything into manifestation, believe you me. There was also *very real* physical work involved!!

The C's second answer above was given in response to a question concerning a specific incident of high strangeness, but can equally well apply to incidents of 'low strangeness', including convincing sleeping humans that YCYOR really works. Remember, 'nobody is nobody', and the controllers want to keep humanity dumbed down, asleep and living in lies – sheep believing we are eagles, lions, or even magicians who can create our own reality.

Please refer to my answer above.

It is apposite to also consider apparent confirmation of YCYOR in terms of A influences. Mouravieff suggests that for those who are asleep and who take A influences to be The Real, said influences can actually work to their benefit, in terms of worldly success (wished for vacations suddenly appearing in one's life, for example) and so on.

Can you be sure that your wishing or visualisations for a desired outcome or thing, were not simply you responding to 'reverse ripples' in time from the actualisation of the event? And that the event would happen anyway, whether you wished for it or not?

So, how do you know that that which has materialized, seemingly in response to your command to the universe, is not simply a function of A influences, or manipulation by the hyperdimensional or 3rd density controllers, in order to keep you asleep? .

Again, I can assure you that said event (meeting DI) would not have happened in physicality, if the proper circumstances, planning, and many other variables would have not been put in place my good old – hands on - physical work. I did not “command the universe” or anything of the sort. I simply made a psychic blueprint and then went to *work physically and mentally* (as in studying) to “construct” (as in construction) said personal reality for myself. Just like I have created other things or events or whatever.

I am not silly to "believe" that just by visualizing I can manifest anything into existence. At least not here, in this reality...

In the "dream landscaspe" (as in lucid dreaming) however, it's a whole different story. "There" (4th density or the "astral plane") one can indeed "create reality" instantenously! Like we ought to be able to do "here" in some physical systems of reality - IF we had our DNA strands intact (P's & C's). But since 10 of our DNA strands are not functioning/have been severed (so-called "junk DNA") due to "our" (this version of Humanity) "destiny karmic profile," we can not. But in the "dream state" we ARE able to manipulate said realities' "matter" (as in "mind over matter") as our consciousness is not interfaced through our damaged DNA.

I can expand upon this subject, if asked, on the PSI section, as now we are dealing, much like with a ouija board, with the paranormal.

 

[PepperFritz]

In the "dream landscaspe" (as in lucid dreaming) however, it's a whole different story. "There" (4th density or the "astral plane") one can indeed "create reality" instantenously! Like we ought to be able to do "here" in some physical systems of reality - IF we had our DNA strands intact (P's & C's). But since 10 of our DNA strands are not functioning/have been severed (so-called "junk DNA") due to "our" (this version of Humanity) "destiny karmic profile," we can not. But in the "dream state" we ARE able to manipulate said realities' "matter" (as in "mind over matter") as our consciousness is not interfaced through our damaged DNA.

You state your theories as though they were fact or common knowledge.Theories presented without data to back them up are no more than opinions. One of the purposes of this Forum is to further our knowledge of objective reality, and if you have been reading the Forum for the past five years, you should know by now that opinions don't count for much around here.

How did you arrive at your above theories about "4th density or the astral plane", "the dream state", "damaged DNA", "consciousness", and humanity's "destiny karmic profile" (whatever that means)? And why are you so convinced that they represent "reality"?

 

[PepperFritz]

Loosely speaking Mada85, my books are about "experiments in consciousnes." I start out with a hypothesis and then I "test it" - to see if I can prove it (or disprove it) by way of results. The meeting I "created" with David Icke was one such experiment....

...I can assure you that said event (meeting DI) would not have happened in physicality, if the proper circumstances, planning, and many other variables would have not been put in place my good old – hands on - physical work. I did not “command the universe” or anything of the sort.... I am not silly to "believe" that just by visualizing I can manifest anything into existence....

From what you have written, I fail to see how you "proved" the YCYOR "hypothesis". In fact, it seems you demonstrated the opposite. A very logical and reasonable case could be made all of the "other variables" that contributed to your eventual meeting with Mr. Icke would have succeeded just as well without the "visualization" exercise. There is certainly nothing to suggest that they would NOT have succeeded without it....

Are you sure you set out to "prove" or "disprove" the hypothesis? It sounds to me as though you have selectively chosen and presented the data that appears to support your pre-existing belief, and ignored any that did not....

 

[anart]

Since other forum members have been doing such a good job explaining what I was attempting to point out to you in my previous post, I was not going to interfere - but the fact that you use a 'meeting' with David Icke - shapeshifting Lizard Royal Family David Icke - as proof that your 'experiments' work (and you've written books on this???) - I would be remiss to not point out that you REALLY need to do some reading on this forum.

You need to look up and read every single thread on YCYOR - David Icke - Cointelpro - Channel Watch - that's a start.... if you understood who and what David Icke is, you might understand that forces other than your 'manifestation skills' were very likely at work with your 'meeting' - knowledge is protection and wishful thinking WILL get you every time.

In the "dream landscaspe" (as in lucid dreaming) however, it's a whole different story. "There" (4th density or the "astral plane") one can indeed "create reality" instantenously! Like we ought to be able to do "here" in some physical systems of reality - IF we had our DNA strands intact (P's & C's). But since 10 of our DNA strands are not functioning/have been severed (so-called "junk DNA") due to "our" (this version of Humanity) "destiny karmic profile," we can not. But in the "dream state" we ARE able to manipulate said realities' "matter" (as in "mind over matter") as our consciousness is not interfaced through our damaged DNA.

I can expand upon this subject, if asked, on the PSI section, as now we are dealing, much like with a ouija board, with the paranormal.

Then, after having read all of the above threads - PLEASE search and read the threads on lucid dreaming. This forum is not in existence to help people sleep and dream more efficiently - to help people convince themselves that they can 'manifest' David Icke 'in the flesh' - you, however, seem quite heavily invested in phenomenon chasing, fantasy and dreaming - please - at the very least - get up to speed with these few topics as they have been covered on this forum before posting further.

You have every right in the world to 'lucid dream' all you'd like to - however, this forum is for waking up - please - at the very, very, least, respect this forum enough to get up to speed on these topics.

 

[Racer_Unknown]

would you or anyone know of any body of work that specifically talked about quantum physics and psychology - as in related to probabilities – that when an individual is faced with a choice, his being supposedly “splits” so as to pursue *various* avenues of expression simultaneously? Again, Seth is supposedly the first author (ghost writer?) to discuss these ideas in the context of psychology in the mid 60’s

The concept of "probabilities" as presented in the Seth Material does not reflect your rather simplistic and linear idea of one's being "splitting" when "faced with a choice". Rather, it proposed that the human psyche is multidimensional and non-linear in nature, existing in multiple lifetimes and probabilities within simultaneous and parallel space/time frameworks. In that respect, the psyche is not a singular linear phenomenon, but a complex multidimensional array of personality potentials that exist independent of our illusions of time and space. It further proposed that our experience of any single one of these lifetimes or probabilities is simply a matter of where in that array the current personality has chosen to "focus".

I have paraphrased the Seth material according to my memory and understanding of it. If you require clarification and/or specific quotes and references, I can take the time to review the specific material.

Hello PepperFritz. I apologize for not writing clearer as you appear to have misunderstood me. (BTW I will answer all your posts in this one. Okay?)

Now it’s been a while since I’ve read Seth myself. But from what I recall – this might have been mentioned in either Seth Speaks or The Nature of Personal Reality – Jane Roberts and Robert Butts are in the process of moving to a new house. As their books channeling Seth are selling well, and so they are looking at a couple of new homes (one was in Foster Street in some part of New York, I think) At any rate, there were two homes which Rob and Jane *really liked* and so were undecided. Then, during one of Jane’s weekly sessions, Seth comes through and speaks… Basically – and I am paraphrasing here, of course - Seth shares that at in another system of reality ("parallel universe") there was already an “alternate version” of Rob and Jane living in the Foster Street home, while the "version" we are "familiar with (the ones that exist in this reality) eventually moved to a home in Elmira, New York. “The slightest of thoughts gives birth to new worlds,” from what I recall Seth goes on to say.

Have you seen Next with Nicolas Cage? Cage plays a Las Vegas magician – Chris Johnson – who can see two minutes into the future.

_http://www.amazon.com/Next-Nicolas-Cage/dp/B000TGJ8CQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1207486911&sr=1-1

In one of the scenes, when Cage’s character is trying to pick up a girl, he “tries” different approaches by seeing “two minutes into the future” and is able to “see” which pick up line is the one that gets him the girl! (Wish I could do that!). On one of the scenes, the audience can see Cage’s character “splitting” into a multiplicity of “hims” – each trying a different approach/pick up line with the girl! I simply bring this up to help visualize Seth’s “probabilities” in *simulataneous* action

Could it really be that as Seth says, “The slightest of thoughts gives birth to new worlds”? In thinking about this, using my own experiences as well as gathered knowledge, and using a somewhat loose and simplistic analogy to illustrate, think of “worlds” as this forum’s threads, and of “thoughts” as the posts/replies…

As we all know, one post can generate either a super long thread or generate new “topics” – based on the interaction between people in the forum. As long as there is enough space on the server(s), the amount of “worlds” that can be generated by “thoughts” is virtually limitless. And since at some level everything that exists is some sort of “thought” (subatomic particles are more akin to “ideas” than to “things” (like “little balls” floating in space) as the human mind imagines them to be according to quantum physicists), then what Seth says might just be valid.

If you care for me to elaborate more on the subject of probabilities PepperFritz or would like to share other Seth stuff with the forum as part of this thread (or create a new "world"/topic), I’m game. That would be cool.

In the "dream landscaspe" (as in lucid dreaming) however, it's a whole different story. "There" (4th density or the "astral plane") one can indeed "create reality" instantaneously! Like we ought to be able to do "here" in some physical systems of reality - IF we had our DNA strands intact (P's & C's). But since 10 of our DNA strands are not functioning/have been severed (so-called "junk DNA") due to "our" (this version of Humanity) "destiny karmic profile," we can not. But in the "dream state" we ARE able to manipulate said realities' "matter" (as in "mind over matter") as our consciousness is not interfaced through our damaged DNA.

You state your theories as though they were fact or common knowledge. Theories presented without data to back them up are no more than opinions. One of the purposes of this Forum is to further our knowledge of objective reality, and if you have been reading the Forum for the past five years, you should know by now that opinions don't count for much around here.

I am surprised at what you are saying to me, PepperFritz. Understand that what I said in the above part of my post is based on most of the channeling sources the C’s recommend including Marciniak’s P’s (as well as on the C's material). Have you read Marcinia’s or the C’ in depth, I wonder? As the DNA mutilation for example is stated as “fact” in these bodies of work, as well as in the Matrix material which oddly enough, the C’s also recommend. (But I would add that before reading said book (Matrix 5) where this is discussed, one better get out their weed whacker.)

How did you arrive at your above theories about "4th density or the astral plane", "the dream state", "damaged DNA", "consciousness", and humanity's "destiny karmic profile" (whatever that means)? And why are you so convinced that they represent "reality"?

Again, have you been reading up on the C’s material or the P’s? I mean, even the “destiny karmic profile” is a term borrowed from the C’s which they share with Laura and her group during one of their many ouija board sessions. In fact, I used the term for the forum member's benefit - so as to speak in “your language” (as in the C’s material).

What’s more, from my own experiments with lucid dreaming, which I enjoy when needing a break from my research/studies instead of “playing golf” or “cards” or “painting” - I enjoy experimenting with all sorts of “paranormal stuff” including the ouija board, lucid dreaming/out of the body travel, remote viewing, etc - I've proven some of the "theories" (stated as fact by the C's, P's and M5) to my satisfaction. Fair enough?

From what you have written, I fail to see how you "proved" the YCYOR "hypothesis". In fact, it seems you demonstrated the opposite. A very logical and reasonable case could be made all of the "other variables" that contributed to your eventual meeting with Mr. Icke would have succeeded just as well without the "visualization" exercise. There is certainly nothing to suggest that they would NOT have succeeded without it....

Are you sure you set out to "prove" or "disprove" the hypothesis? It sounds to me as though you have selectively chosen and presented the data that appears to support your pre-existing belief, and ignored any that did not....

I shared the “meeting with DI” simply because we were on the topic of “stepping stones!!” remember? And again, I state that I HAVE read somewhere on this forum’s threads that at least some of the members here have read Icke’s books when being introduced or researching so called conspiracies, Laura included!

In my mind, said event (meeting DI) as well as *numerous* others have proven, to me and to some of my readers/students at least, that one can and does create one’s reality.... every so often.... heh. Sorry if this has not been part of your experiential reality PepperFritz. But again, it does work. Wishful thinking is not enough either! Hard work always proceeds the “dream,” at least in my reality, so as to be manifested in physicality.

To cite an friend’s example and not one of mine… He was an “out of work” musician (a drummer), and we both worked at a warehouse in Florida (this is about 20 years ago by the way back when I use to be a musician myself –a lead guitarist/singer, if you must know). I clearly remember us working and talking about our dreams of “greatness.” At the time, Tony Robbins was very popular and constantly on TV infomercials (remember those from the US and in their 30/40’s 50’s?) and so by using a set of *visualization* techniques together with LOTS of practice (as I recall, he quit work and went to live in his parents’ home for several months just *practicing* his drumming skills while visualizing being “famous,” as in playing in arenas/collisiums fro 20,000+ people.) To cut a long story short, the rock group Marylyn Manson (don’t really care for them) happen to needed a new drummer and were holding nation wide auditions… My buddy got the gig and went on to play arenas and stadiums. Another True Story. (Although I also *visualized* my fame, truth be known and *in hindsight* I wasn't as good as I needed to be to "go pro," like many of my friends. So visualization is NOT enough. I should have practiced harder and been better!)

I promise to get to the rest of the posts, yours included, Anart. Just give me a little time.

 

[Tigersoap]

In my mind, said event (meeting DI) as well as *numerous* others have proven, to me and to some of my readers/students at least, that one can and does create one’s reality.... every so often.... heh. Sorry if this has not been part of your experiential reality PepperFritz. But again, it does work. Wishful thinking is not enough either! Hard work always proceeds the “dream,” at least in my reality, so as to be manifested in physicality.

Hello Racer,

Do you think you can create a version of reality where everyone in this forum will finally realize how great and wise you are ?
Because obviously I can't see it and neither the other members.

 

[Racer_Unknown]

Hello Racer, Do you think you can create a version of reality where everyone in this forum will finally realize how great and wise you are ? Because obviously I can't see it and neither the other members.

With all due respect, Tigersoap, what you say is nothing more a (subjective) opinion on your part.

I am simply answering questions with what I've learned/gathered/read/experienced. Some of which stems from this very forum and its teachings.

 

[PepperFritz]

If you care for me to elaborate more on the subject of probabilities PepperFritz or would like to share other Seth stuff with the forum as part of this thread (or create a new "world"/topic), I’m game.

No thanks. You do not appear to have a firm enough grasp of the concepts proposed in that material to "elaborate" on them in any meaningful way. As usual, you pick and choose the bits and pieces that appear to support your own beliefs, without an understanding of the material and its concepts as a whole.

I am surprised at what you are saying to me, PepperFritz. Understand that what I said in the above part of my post is based on most of the channeling sources the C’s recommend including Marciniak’s P’s (as well as on the C's material). Have you read Marcinia’s or the C’ in depth, I wonder? As the DNA mutilation for example is stated as “fact” in these bodies of work, as well as in the Matrix material which oddly enough, the C’s also recommend.

It is not enough to throw together your own salad of ideas, and then say "I got them from this and that book". Many people come to this forum claiming that their ideas are supported by Laura's work, the C's transcripts, Marciniak, "Ra", etc., but when asked to provide specific passages/quotes from those works are either unable to do so, or are forced to admit that they cannot find something they thought they had remembered reading. Or, upon review of the relevant material, it becomes apparent that it was not properly understood or taken out of context. Many people do not read such material with an open, inquiring mind, but to seek only to confirm what they themselves already believe -- whether the material actually supports those beliefs or not.

You must deal with specifics here, and back up your assertions and theories with more than just personal belief and opinion. Otherwise, you will not be taken seriously. You seem quite unwilling to examine the beliefs and assumptions that you bring to this table, and to subject them to objective analysis. You clearly have your own agenda here, stemming from your own self-important concept of yourself as a "teacher". However, what you do not seem to understand is that everyone must come here first as a "student" and be willing to learn the basics of how knowledge is pursued and shared within the context of this Forum.

I've proven some of the "theories" (stated as fact by the C's, P's and M5) to my satisfaction. Fair enough?

No, not "fair enough". It has already been pointed out to you that in the face of objective reasoning, you have clearly failed to "prove" your YCYOR hypothesis as claimed. Why on earth should we just "accept" your claims to have "proven" other pet theories?

In my mind, said event (meeting DI) as well as *numerous* others have proven, to me and to some of my readers/students at least, that one can and does create one’s reality....

But why should we care that you believe yourself to have proven something "in your own mind"? What value does that have to others on this Forum?

Sorry if this has not been part of your experiential reality PepperFritz.

I do not rely on subjective experience to evaluate the objective reality of a given phenomenon. I have never seen a UFO, nor had a "close encounter" with an alien. But I have exhaustively read the thorough and objective research of those who study such phenomena and am persuaded that such phenomena have an objective reality. Your failure to present a logical, objective, bias-free case for your theories has nothing to do with what I may or may not have experienced in my own life. Objective reality has nothing to do with subjective experience.

As Anart has suggested, it is clear that you need to do a lot more reading and a lot less posting on this forum, until such time as you get "up to speed" on its nature, rules, and methodologies.

 

[PepperFritz]

With all due respect, Tigersoap, what you say is nothing more a (subjective) opinion on your part.

No, Tigersoap was simply using humour to point out this obvious objective FACT: That your posts and responses to other forum members' questions clearly demonstrate (to those who are trained to objectively observe) that your ability to effectively communicate and share in the purpose of this Forum is being severely hindered by a strong sense of self-importance, and an inability to even consider that the beliefs and assumptions you bring to the table may be in need of more objective scrutiny and analysis.

Participants on this Forum are NEVER going to just accept your subjective experiences, theories, and opinions at face value, and will ALWAYS subject them to critical analysis; they will NEVER accept that you have successfully proven the "fact" of something "in your own mind", and will ALWAYS insist that you back up your theories with specific objective data when presenting them here for serious consideration.

This is the lay of the land, RU. You must either adapt, or find a terrain more suited to your current needs.

 

[Miss Isness]

racer unknown wrote: To cite an friend’s example and not one of mine… He was an “out of work” musician (a drummer), and we both worked at a warehouse in Florida (this is about 20 years ago by the way back when I use to be a musician myself –a lead guitarist/singer, if you must know). I clearly remember us working and talking about our dreams of “greatness.” At the time, Tony Robbins was very popular and constantly on TV infomercials (remember those from the US and in their 30/40’s 50’s?) and so by using a set of *visualization* techniques together with LOTS of practice (as I recall, he quit work and went to live in his parents’ home for several months just *practicing* his drumming skills while visualizing being “famous,” as in playing in arenas/collisiums fro 20,000+ people.) To cut a long story short, the rock group Marylyn Manson (don’t really care for them) happen to needed a new drummer and were holding nation wide auditions… My buddy got the gig and went on to play arenas and stadiums. Another True Story. (Although I also *visualized* my fame, truth be known and *in hindsight* I wasn't as good as I needed to be to "go pro," like many of my friends. So visualization is NOT enough. I should have practiced harder and been better!)

I don't disagree with the idea that there are people that successfully 'create their own reality' at times. I have personally had success with visualizations too, BUT I wouldn't recommend it. Why? First of all, because it's quite difficult to know what we really need with the little sliver of conscious awareness that we may have developed. Not only that, but it's likely that dominating the mind with visualizations to obtain benefits for the self will put you in the midst of a fairly strongly polarized STS environment, at least that's what happened in my case. Furthermore, it's far more effective, and lasting to focus on purifying, and balancing one's being with a conscious effort to increase one's awareness through self observation.

 

[mada85]

Understand that what I said in the above part of my post is based on most of the channeling sources the C’s recommend including Marciniak’s P’s

Hmmm…well, if you're really familiar with Laura's work you will know that she now thinks that the 'recommendation' of the Pleiadaeans was actually Frank skewing the 'signal'. I suggest you get up to speed by reading The Wave and The Adventures – both available online or in book form.

In my mind, said event (meeting DI) as well as *numerous* others have proven, to me and to some of my readers/students at least, that one can and does create one’s reality....

In your mind, what has been 'proved' may have nothing to do with objective reality, but everything to do with your machine and your self-importance. Your passionate promotion of YCYOR, and your attempts to prove that psychoactive substances actually have something of value to offer suggest an unconscious desire to be rescued or to find an easy way out.

My buddy got the gig and went on to play arenas and stadiums. Another True Story.

Did you read the quote from Mouravieff, given earlier in this thread? This story is a perfect example.

I am simply answering questions with what I've learned/gathered/read/experienced. Some of which stems from this very forum and its teachings.

Actually, RU, you are using your lengthy and seemingly impressive (to yourself, at least) posts to avoid answering the many questions that have been asked. You are still trying to convince us all of your status as a great and wise teacher. Tigersoap really has a point.

 

[anart]

Hello Racer,

Do you think you can create a version of reality where everyone in this forum will finally realize how great and wise you are ?
Because obviously I can't see it and neither the other members.

Short, sweet and to the point.

You see, Racer, this entire experience you are having is a prime example of objective reality versus subjective YCYOR thinking. You truly believe that you are wise, learned and informed - that you understand the world and how to manifest and how to teach others - you truly believe this - yet - all the deep belief in the world does not change the fact that it is not objectively true. You cannot make members of this forum 'believe' you because they can See what is behind your words and they have spent enormous amounts of time and effort to understand how such things generally work.

Are there exceptions - why, of course, there are almost always exceptions - but this situation could be used as quite an important lesson by you if you so chose - that all is NOT how and what you think it is - that you do NOT know what you think you know and that there really is an objective reality, an objective truth whose existence and definition does not rely upon your subjective interpretation.

Are you at all familiar with the Work of GI Gurdjieff - it is upon his Work that this forum is based.

William Patrick Patterson wrote this as a footnote in his book 'Struggle of the Magicians' and I think it fits here:

Energy, the student believes, is the magic elixir - energy will solve all problems. Instead of submitting to the suffering and remorse that self-seeing must bring, instead of working with his lower centers, he thinks he can finesse the process by adopting techniques for refining energy, such as breathing exercises (or visualizations). As he increases vibration without correspondingly increasing discernment and understanding, he unknowingly projects his ignorance and delusion on the higher levels of energy, thus creating imagination in higher emotional center (where, once imprinted, it is difficult to erase) (assuming he is even equipped with a higher emotional center). Hence, the prevalent contemporary fascination with a variety of psychic phenomenon - the current spiritual materialism masking itself in New Age rhetoric.

In other words, you are asleep, dreaming you are a magician.

This article by Laura discusses the same phenomenon from a more precise angle: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/151667-Order-Out-of-Chaos

 

[Racer_Unknown]

If you care for me to elaborate more on the subject of probabilities PepperFritz or would like to share other Seth stuff with the forum as part of this thread (or create a new "world"/topic), I’m game.

No thanks. You do not appear to have a firm enough grasp of the concepts proposed in that material to "elaborate" on them in any meaningful way. As usual, you pick and choose the bits and pieces that appear to support your own beliefs, without an understanding of the material and its concepts as a whole.

That’s a real shame, as I would appreciate anything anyone on this forum would care to share on any subject I might have a background and interest.

You know, one of the things that initially attracted me to SOTT many years ago was a slogan on their web site that read: “No sacred cows.” Like many of you, I too have had to “sacrifice” many along the way. But I was willing to. And I think that was key perhaps.

Now one of the cool things I heard from “anti shape-shifting reptilian” Icke was, “I may be wrong (in what he believes/describes in his books). But that’s okay. As I’m still learning.”

And so are all of us here doing the same thing: learning new ideas. Correct? I note from you – and this might be an subjective assessment on my part – a degree of hostility and even dare I say, anger, directed at me in your posts. Of course, this makes me somehwat sad.

I am surprised at what you are saying to me, PepperFritz. Understand that what I said in the above part of my post is based on most of the channeling sources the C’s recommend including Marciniak’s P’s (as well as on the C's material). Have you read Marcinia’s or the C’ in depth, I wonder? As the DNA mutilation for example is stated as “fact” in these bodies of work, as well as in the Matrix material which oddly enough, the C’s also recommend.

it is not enough to throw together your own salad of ideas, and then say "I got them from this and that book"

.


May I say that this is a subjective (and erroneous, I might add, if I may) call on your part. You see, once one has *studied* (and I emphasize “study” not just casually read - as I take the C’s et al material seriously, as far as my psycho-spiritual development is concerned), one CAN “pick and choose” whatever to make points or answer questions during a conversation or back and forth such as the one we’re now involved in. BUT the other persons in said discussion must also have *studied* the material at length and be at the same level of understanding.

Many people come to this forum claiming that their ideas are supported by Laura's work, the C's transcripts, Marciniak, "Ra", etc., but when asked to provide specific passages/quotes from those works are either unable to do so, or are forced to admit that they cannot find something they thought they had remembered reading. Or, upon review of the relevant material, it becomes apparent that it was not properly understood or taken out of context. Many people do not read such material with an open, inquiring mind, but to seek only to confirm what they themselves already believe -- whether the material actually supports those beliefs or not."

.

I perhaps am not one to say, but it appears that it has been a while since you've read over the C’s transcripts? Or follow up on some of the books they recommend? I can assure you that me using material from either Seth or the C’s or even the P’s comes from much study on my part.

You must deal with specifics here, and back up your assertions and theories with more than just personal belief and opinion. Otherwise, you will not be taken seriously. You seem quite unwilling to examine the beliefs and assumptions that you bring to this table, and to subject them to objective analysis.

.


Fair enough. So how can I prove to my little nephew that Santa Claus does not exist?

Taking it a bit further… How can I prove to my older Christian sister that Jesus is not “real...”?

I can only try and show my sister 'whatever' IF she happens to be curious about "the reality of God" and open minded as well. Right? But I KNOW that if I were to show Zeitgeist for example to my Christian sister, I KNOW she would say "Oh pleazzze. That's all bullshit"!! So as to defend her beliefs and worldview. In other words, she would not "go there." In essence, what I'm trying to say is that before such an "awakening" can happen the individual must have reached a “place” inside themselves *on their own* to either “see it” (whatever including psychic phenomena) or not.

You clearly have your own agenda here, stemming from your own self-important concept of yourself as a "teacher".

.

Why are you accusing me - of anything? By know you must know that this you have made is nothing more than a subjective opinion on your part.

Why does my *job* (it IS a job, after all, and one which I lovely embrace) make you hostile towards me? I don't state that I'm teacher out of "self importance" but rather simply to state, in the context of a particular conversation - a fact. Period. You are the one who is *reacting* to something that simply "is." I am simply stating

However, what you do not seem to understand is that everyone must come here first as a "student" and be willing to learn the basics of how knowledge is pursued and shared within the context of this Forum."

.

I have already stated that I am a student, if not only for the fact that I am both learning and studying all the time from many sources, including the excellent SOTT Discussion Forum.

I have no “agenda” PepperFritz. I am here simply because this forum deals not only with politics, but also with extraterrestrial intelligence and supernatural/paranormal phjenomena. These are not topics that can be discussed just with anyone. I mean, even with my students (please think of me as ‘grade school teacher’ as opposed to a “metaphysical” teacher. As when I write “teacher” it apparently pushes the "wrong buttons" – for some strange reason?)

Fact is that I can’t bring up stuff like the mutilated DNA by the lizards (or ‘reptilians’) to just anyone because many, if not most, are simply not at the level where this could be understood and discussed in an intelligent and mature manner.

But here we can discuss such ideas… right?

I've proven some of the "theories" (stated as fact by the C's, P's and M5) to my satisfaction. Fair enough?

No, not "fair enough". It has already been pointed out to you that in the face of objective reasoning, you have clearly failed to "prove" your YCYOR hypothesis as claimed.

In the same spirit that you made the above statement, let me state that ultimately, I cannot *prove* some things like "YCYOR" or an out of the body experience, or even that extraterrestrials are real. As some things require an individual’s experience of it!

Much like Ark, I believe, says, “I don’t want to believe. I want to know.”

I probably would have NOT believed that the ouija phenomena, for example, was real, nor bought Laura’s claims that the phenomena is “real” (strangely enough...) until I had my own experiences with a ouija board and looked further into the phenomena with *solid book research*.

Which is WHY I would indeed know that "discarnate entities" are REAL and can sometimes communicate with the living via a ouija board. As opposed to having a “belief” or even an “innate knowingness” - that it is real - about it.

As Ark's quote states, I too want to KNOW, not just simply “believe.”

Is remote viewing a *real* phenomena as described by say, Ingo Swann? YES! YES! YES! And it is exciting as heck, as in truth then, WE ARE NOT DELUDED by saying that psychic phenomena is real.

And this assertion by the way - and it must be said as part of the context of the discussion - is based on both my own book research and my own "experiences" - experiences which make the phenomenon objectifiable.

Why on earth should we just "accept" your claims to have "proven" other pet theories?

This you say: “accept,” should never be done in my humble opinion (that of a student by the way). But rather, you (or anyone) should try to PROVE – anything – to themselves by engaging in the in proper research, experiments or whatever might be deemed necessary.

In my mind, said event (meeting DI) as well as *numerous* others have proven, to me and to some of my readers/students at least, that one can and does create one’s reality....?

But why should we care that you believe yourself to have proven something "in your own mind"? What value does that have to others on this Forum?

Ahh – that’s the $64,000 ring right there. As one must Prove it - anything - to oneself, my friend. I’m sure that after you (not addressing "you" specifically but anyone0] do this – with anything, including YCYOR experiments, or remote viewing, or even ouija board channeling, you will share in excitement and declare that PSI phenomena is real!

Sorry if this has not been part of your experiential reality PepperFritz.

I do not rely on subjective experience to evaluate the objective reality of a given phenomenon. I have never seen a UFO, nor had a "close encounter" with an alien. But I have exhaustively read the thorough and objective research of those who study such phenomena and am persuaded that such phenomena have an objective reality.

But unfortunately I am sad to say that then, at the end of the day, both for you and me (sorry can’t speak for others on this forum) the UFO phenomena or “close encounters of the third kind” will remain a (subjective) *belief*.

Now if I was to be “shown a picture” of you hanging out with an ET…

Right?

Objective reality has nothing to do with subjective experience.

I beg to differ *profoundly* with the above statement, PepperFritz. You are clearly missing “half of the picture” here. Let me see if I can explain briefly.

In my own line of research, I catalog the *objective* in the *subjective*.... What I mean by this seemingly paradoxical statement is that when one has say, a lucid dreaming experience, it is clearly subjective. Correct? But how about if you were to dream of holding a flower in your hand and upon waking, you find that same flower in your hands? What then?

God knows I’ve had a very similar “experience” stemming from one of my experiments which *I will not share here* as I am sure it will apparently push even more of your “wrong buttons.” Believe me, I don’t want to do that. With you or anyone. But I am a “scientist at heart” as I like to make experiments and observe/record the results.

And given the fact that I do have the “flower” as *proof* (and I’m using the “flower dream” example – a Hindi legend, I think? - only as a very close analogy to my actual experience) that turns the subjective (dream) experience into an Objective event or “physicalzed” reality.

As the "flower" can be SEEN and thus objectified by OTHERS - by seeing the same “dream flower” on both mine and their hands.

Obviously, I cannot prove that this "strange incident" I've experienced can happen (to you or anyone).

As something like this – an experiment like any experiment - although in this case it is a bit different - must be “proven” to oneself through the direct subjective experience which in turn, and in this particular (and personal) instance, paradoxically, objectifies it. Which is to say there are instances, Real instances, when one can bring an"object" (or whatever) out of a dream for ALL TO SEE.

Oddly enough, still many will simply *refuse* to see what is... or for them, can be.

Why would such an experiment upset you or anyone? It’s just an experiment! Done in the spirit of seeking the Objective Truth about reality. That’s all.

 

[anart]

You know, one of the things that initially attracted me to SOTT many years ago was a slogan on their web site that read: “No sacred cows.” Like many of you, I too have had to “sacrifice” many along the way. But I was willing to. And I think that was key perhaps.

What a fascinating thing for you to say, considering that your attachment to YCYOR and identification with being a teacher are exactly that - sacred cows. Yet, you cannot see it.

with anything, including YCYOR experiments, or remote viewing, or even ouija board channeling, you will share in excitement and declare that PSI phenomena is real!

Why in the world would you think such a thing? You presume to know what one other person would do or think? You ASSUME that just because you experience something, that it is REAL?

I will ask you again to read - read the threads that have been suggested on this forum. If you intend to continue to participate here, you also need to become familiar with the work of Gurdjieff - you put far too much confidence and trust in your own thoughts and 'experiences' - and I'm certain my stating that is lost on you.

That's ok - that is normal - IF you are willing to learn. If you are not, then this forum is not for you.

As Henry wrote well over a year ago:

There are many sites where people can go to hear all the different points of view. It is not our goal here to either represent all points of view or to permit the expression of all points of view. It can be done elsewhere.

Our goal here is to weed through the garbage to find the pearls. Part of that means that when a newbie arrives, we expect them to do the work of catching up themselves by reading through the archives. We do what we can to help newcomers out, but they are expected to be able to get up to speed themselves. We don't have the time to handhold. Sorry, but that's how it is. The world is on fire.

The people who "trust us" don't do it because we tell them to, it is because over the years, they have learned to trust us because of our work. They have read our research, have done their own, and have decided that our conclusions, so far, are correct and that our working hypotheses as to the functioning of the world have a high probability of being close to the truth. Yes, they can be improved, and we are doing that every day. But they don't take what we say at face-value. They do the work they need to do in order to decide for themselves whether they agreement with our analysis or not.

There are certain questions where we have more or less made up our minds. It would take some substantial new data to have us rethink our positions. But if that data were shown to us, we would look at it. Trouble is, most people don't come here with data, they come here with their opinions. Opinions aren't worth a damn. If you want to know why, you can search on the subject in the forum.

There are certain teachings and ideas that we have, through our many, many years of research, been able to put in the box of disinformation. If someone comes here and starts putting forward those ideas, they will be asked to do the research necessary to understand why we have moved beyond those topics and why we don't talk about them any longer. They need to do the reading and research to understand what we have to say about it. Then, if they have some new data that we are not aware of, they are welcome to contribute, but if they want to rehash old topics that we have already been through, we don't have the time.

This is a forum for active and ongoing research. It isn't a debating society.

It comes down to the purpose of the forum. The purpose of this forum is for people to work together to uncover the truth about this world. That means a critical and scientific spirit. It means that at a certain point, a decision is taken about the value of certain ideas. A judgement is made. It doesn't mean a free-for-all of ideas, which is an enviroment where no serious work can be done.

People either "get it" or they don't. If people get it, they are happy to contribute to our work. If they don't, then their participation here will only prevent others from doing that work.

If people don't like the rules, they can go elsewhere. Nothing is forcing anyone to come here.