Collecting the C's answers on cosmology, consciousness and origins
- Thread starter Approaching Infinity
- Start date
palestine
Dagobah Resident
Yes, what would be interesting would be than to overview how come we made it from the state of "Purity" to this state of "fall". Probably as a catalyst intended for growth, and serving the 300'000 year harvest.
I notice a fresh clean world, and in turns an element triggering some motions. I think it was said it was "free will".
<> The basic cosmology would be something factoring in such (seemingly negative) "alterations"; purposes, way of functioning, etc.
And - the Fall (Adam, Eve, Lizards, "going for the gold" etc) would be ONE possible scenario. I would try to overall get to the bottom of the matter here, and I would come up with the previous idea: an element triggering some motions, or something scrambling the original order, pushing things, towards a different "condition".
Gravity, as the binder of information & 3D, is used specifically, but its function remains. The condition changes - seems it's "from STO to STS". Could be a perennial feature. It makes sense as the overall goal would be harvest and Universal growth towards higher densities up to Union with the One. Why would the scrambling element be required? Couldn't we simply grow from STO more STO? Perhaps it's a design that is mandatory ( or "used", or "useful") in specific circumstances.
Seems the whole requires "cycle" - so a cycle of suffering may make sense as to the how's & why's. But I would have preferred to remain in the STO mist canopy and grow straight to more STO!
Perhaps God wants/needs this friction, some primordial fire that fuels things towards growth. But I am not sure.
So - overall, following-up your take, I would see a big one here: why the Adam & Eve episode?!
Is it a recurring element, why is/was it required, etc. It certainly serves the ultimate cosmology, and could be seen as a major "element" if one was to lay down the basics of the functioning of the Universe. But, perhaps that it remains restricted to several "areas" (3D Earth) and that the Universe proceeds differently on far-away galaxies. I assume an interesting goal would be than to define the basics that are common to ours & foreign galaxies.
EricLux
Dagobah Resident
@Laura and @Approaching Infinity, please find attached a PDF covering all the points raised by the Cs, during the sessions, relating to the 4th "dimension" and also, sometimes, to the 4th density, which is closely linked to the notion of the 4th "dimension" of space. I have focused on the mathematical, physical and consciousness aspects of these notions as these are the most exploitable within the framework of a cosmogony or a universal physics. I have focused on the 4th "dimension" because it seems obvious to me that as long as we are not aware of the nature and structure of the 4th "dimension", everything we discuss will remain 3D and therefore very limited (like trying to describe a large room from the keyhole of its front door). Many mysteries will be clarified once we have integrated the reality of the 4th "dimension". In another post, I will publish what, in my opinion, remains to be clarified on this subject... in case it may be useful to you for future sessions.
Thassa
Jedi
I got further fragments
____________________________
A: All imaginable combinations exist because they are imagined!
is this the concept that our space/time is the boundary of a domain? Is that correct picture? A: Yes. Q: (A) All right, Then, concerning this gravity, and the antimatter, is it a correct picture that there are two such domains; positive and negative one, and the gravity has something to do with the exchange between the positive and negative? A: Gravity is the “fuel,” or “life blood” of absolutely everything that exists!!!
What is the Zendar Council? A: Zendar Council is a sixth level density council which spans both physical and ethereal realms and which oversees dramatic development points at various civilizational sector s in lower density levels.
I have found the pages of a Polish Medical Doctor who is making all kinds of funny experiments, including parapsychological, being, at the same time, director of the University Clinic. I had the idea that I should get in contact with him. Who is he? Can I have a clue? A: Who is he? Q: (A) His name is Brodziak. He is in contact with Sarfatti, Pitkannen, Deautsche, and so on. Should I become more active in these discussions, these mailing lists? A: Sure, but you will need to separate the “wheat from the chaff.”
I was thinking about what is the most important for me at the present, and I think that I want to understand and implement this concept of densities; to implement it into physics and mathematics. But, it seems to me that I am completely alone with that. I would like to know where should I look, because certainly other people have already tried to do it. I don’t want to start from scratch if there is something that I can look at or study before I really jump into this difficult project. Were there people, scientists… where to look? A: Study the works of Gurdjieff and Jung, for starters. Also, Vallee is on a similar path, and a little ahead of you. He would be most approachable, if you can convince him of your sincerity.
I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by geometry? A: Geometry is the correct model. Q: (A) So, geometry is the correct model and I understand that we have to just write a generalization or expansion of Einstein UFT, and that this will be the correct model of gravity; is this correct? A: Close. Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra? A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The Unified Field Theory, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness. Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry? A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness. Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity. A: No, not extended, expanded. Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding the modelling of consciousness? A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory. Q: (C) It means it needs to be proved, right? A: No. Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond. Q: (C) When they said ‘graduated from the realm of theory,’ I assumed that meant that it needed to be proven. So how does it get graduated? What is the next realm after theory? A: No, my dear, you are missing the point. the currently imposed protocol for “proving” theories is a bit passe, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first prove that there is a sky? Q: (C) So, don’t try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I guess. A: Pretty close.
what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model? A: First of all, since we are to answer such questions, you need to make this surface smoother!! [The plexiglass cover on the board was tacky. We used window cleaner and polished it up.] Q: (A) So, it was good for previous questions, but not for this! (laughter) (L) Okay, carry on! A: You live in a “matter” universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet. Q: (A) But, my question was… A: Who/ what is Mandlebrot?? Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly… A: Are we? Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to ‘what’ - some fractal images are also called ‘mandlebrot.’ A: And where does this lead, Ark? Q: (L) But that doesn’t answer what matter is. A: We are bringing you to the place where you can begin to path to understanding this. Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things. A: What if matter were the “half- life” of energy? Q: (C) Well, half- life is the decay factor. What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying? A: Be careful of the quote marks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: “you take the high road, I’ll take the low road, and I’ll be in Scotland before ye.” Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of ‘half- life,’ but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered. A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it. A: Phi. Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio… A: Carboni. Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term ‘dimensions’ is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term. A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists! Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don’t see how that is connected. A: No, not phi, dimensions! Q: (L) Define dimension. (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it… A: Our “meaning” is closer to that of the general public definition. Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza- Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct? A: That is good.
There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well? A: No. Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics? A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance? Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom? A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here. Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness. A: Picture an endless octagonal… in three dimensions. Q: (A) A lattice, you mean? A: Okay. Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of ‘signatures of the metric?’ I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance. A: Yes…
There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing… they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling? A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
even rocks have consciousness and can learn. That brings us back to Boyd, is he, can he, does he tune into the consciousness of rocks and/ or other consciousnesses THROUGH rocks? A: The latter is closer. Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable to communicating. A: Right. Q: (L) What other consciousness might a person tune into through a rock? ANY other or a specific other? A: Closer to former. Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with some body of some density. Can one tune to consciousness that resides, so to say, in higher densities than third, using rocks? Is it possible? A: Close.
I want to ask about this DNA phantom effect that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with lasers into this vacuum and record photons with detectors. It detects noise because there is nothing coherent. Then, they put a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a certain regular structure. So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA molecule in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they continue to obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though something was still there. They call it the ‘phantom DNA.’ A: The “phantom” is a remnant of the consciousness residue contained within the DNA structure. Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the vibrations of the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside the vacuum, in some nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this remnant? What keeps it? Space itself? A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
A: Fleeing? All life just fills the voids that exist. It is a natural process; existentialism.
because they were so focused on the love and light aspects… A: There is no positivity without negativity.
(A) Okay, I was trying to figure out how to build this expanded gravity, and I made a table to assist the question. The first possibility is that one can build gravity on a square matrix. This matrix can be symmetric, can be non- symmetric, or can be a complex matrix, which I call possibilities a, b, and c. The second possibility is to build a theory of gravity on the basis of a connection which looks like a cube rather than a matrix. Here we also have three possibilities: no curvature, but torsion; no torsion but curvature; torsion and curvature. These are possibilities 1, 2, and 3. Another possibility is to use any combination of these two lines of speculation. Another possibility is none of the above, but to build gravity on the basis of an irregular cube, or an irregular square, which I call A. Another possibility is to use something that is none of the above. A: Octagonal complexigram. Try the formula for possibility 1- c first. Q: (A) During the last two weeks or so, I got a new connection through the internet, in particular I was pointed to a Russian guy by the name Alexander Shpilman, who is writing about special generators of what is called ‘spin field,’ which is supposedly a new kind of field which can penetrate lead without any problem, and he is building or describing the generator of this field which has essentially rotating pieces of ferrite with little magnets inside and so on, which can be detected by human beings because you can feel this field if you are in the right state and so forth. This guy and another guy named Boyd then try to relate this to some kind of expanded gravity with torsion because spin is supposed to be a source of torsion in space. All that seems to me quite reasonable, and maybe even the right track to follow. (L) He even talks about the funny ‘light pole.’ (A) What I want to know is if the things that Shpilman is describing really work? A: Yes, they would work. Q: (A) Is it a path to a kind of expanded gravity? A: Enhanced gravitational pull. Relates to space/ time management.
I am stuck at one point. When we were talking about phi and Mandelbrot, you mentioned the name ‘Carboni.’ (L) And you also mentioned the name ‘Carboni’ to Santilli, saying that this group was behind the Molise Institute. A: Yes. Scientific/ intelligence matrix. Neapolitan. Q: (L) Well, we did a search and have not been able to find anything on it. I don’t know if Molise has very much money behind it because, by looking at their pages, it doesn’t seem to be very well funded. A: Looks can be deceiving. Front is vulcanology. Q: (L) You mean they study volcanoes? A: Front.
some information recently about something called “Roswell Rods.” Can you tell me what these “Rods” are? A: Do you mean the life forms? Q: Well, that IS what some of the folks are trying to call them! A: 4th Density Life Forms. Q: That’s pretty interesting. (A) Is it a being with a soul? A: Sort of. Q: (A) Intelligent? A: Relative to others. Q: In terms of what we know about relative intelligence, could you give us an example of something in our density that relates here? A: Birds. Q: They are like 4th density birds? A: Maybe. That’s close enough.
Back to Montauk: the Montauk project continued. Did they ever, at any point in time, produce monsters as some of these stories I have heard relate? A: Maybe. Q: Was this a result of opening portals between densities or dimensions and having cross- density window fallers dropping in, so to speak? A: Partly. Q: Were any of these supposed monsters that they were supposed to have created, productions or creations of their minds? A: Other densities afford a degree of one and the same thing.
there were these people who simply were producing monsters, which does not seem to be anything that the Navy would want to do, much less physicists! A: You are confusing subjects and time frames. Q: (A) Somebody had to plan this experiment, yes? A: But that was the Philadelphia Experiment. Q: (L) How did this business of producing monsters and all that even come into this project? A: Experiments in mind programming and psy- warfare. Q: So, these were separate experiments. But, did they fall under the Montauk project… A: Yes. Q: So, they were compartmentalized things. A: But the monsters were long after the Eldridge. Q: When did the experiments with the monsters occur? A: Late 70s. Q: Have they continued on with this monster producing business? A: No need to get hung up on “monsters.” Q: Well, that would give me the heebie jeebies for sure! A: Other materializations. Q: They are working on other materializations, or they HAD other materializations? A: Not just monsters. Q: Well, that’s too good to pass. What OTHER kinds of materializations did they have? A: You name it! Q: Were they able to materialize money for themselves? A: No need. Q: Were they able to materialize people from the past or the future? A: Temporarily. Q: Did they, in fact, do this? A: Yes. Q: Did they ask people from the future what kinds of events have occurred between then and now in order to refine their plans and activities? A: No such. Q: Why? A: Variable futures. Q: So, they could materialize somebody from the future, but it was only as potential, or probable future, so therefore, it meant very little, or was useless? A: One of 329 decillion. Q: Probable futures? A: Yes. Q: It’s a lot. A: Up to a point… Q: At which time something collapses into the now. Regarding these folks they materialized from the past: anybody we would know? A: No. Q: Could they select who they materialized, or was it random? A: The materialization was really a duality. Review texts re: abductions between densities for idea. Q: Could it be possible that, using this technology, the U.S. Government, or Secret Government, has been doing abductions on human beings that the victims THINK is an alien abduction? A: Maybe in some cases, but the technology is not comparable. Q: Other than people from the past and future, what other kinds of things did they materialize in the Montauk experiments? A: Review. Q: What kinds of things were they interested in materializing more than anything else? (A) Probably technological devices. (L) Did they materialize technology from the future? A: This is more complex than your questions indicate. Q: I realize this. I am struggling with this whole idea. I would just like to know what sorts of things they were most interested in materializing so that I would then have a clue as to which direction to go with my questions. A: Not applicable.
As I understand it, or as I am trying to figure it out from the literature, prior to the ‘Fall in Eden,’ mankind lived in a 4th density state. Is that correct? A: Semi/ sort of. Q: Please be more specific. A: 4th density in another realm, such as time/ space continuum, etc. Q: Okay, so this realm changed, as a part of the cycle; various choices were made: the human race went through the door after the ‘gold,’ so to speak, and became aligned with the Lizzies after the ‘female energy’ consorted with the wrong side, so to speak. This is what you have said. This resulted in a number of effects: the breaking up of the DNA, the burning off of the first ten factors of DNA, the separation of the hemispheres of the brain… A: Only reason for this: you play in the dirt, you’re gonna get dirty. Q: What was the motivating factor for playing in the dirt? What essential thing occurred? You said once that it was ‘desire based imbalance.’ What was it a desire for? A: Increased physicality. Q: What was the objective sought for in this desire for increased physicality? A: Sensate. Q: How was sensate experienced so that these beings had an idea that they could get more if they increased their physicality? A: Not experienced, demonstrated. Q: Demonstrated how, by who? A: Do you not know? Q: It was demonstrated by the Lizzies? A: Basically. Q: Demonstrated in what way? Did they say: ‘here, try this!’ Or did they demonstrate by showing or doing? A: Closer to the latter. Q: They were doing, experimenting, playing, and saying: ‘look, we are doing this, it’s so great, come here and try it?’ A: Not really. More like: “you could have this.” Q: What seemed to be so desirable about this increased physicality when they said ‘you can have this?’ A: Use your imagination! Q: Was there any understanding, or realization of any kind, that increased physicality could be like Osiris lured into his own coffin by Set? That they would then slam the lid shut and nail him in? A: Obviously, such understanding was lacking. Q: Sounds like a pretty naive bunch! Does the lack of this understanding reflect a lack of knowledge? A: Of course. But more, it is desire getting in the way of…
The ‘Fall’ occurred. It seems like, and some of the archaeological studies indicate, that for many thousands of years, there was a peaceful existence and a nice agrarian society where the goddess or female creative forces were worshipped. At least, this is what a lot of present- day books are proposing… A: No. These events took place 309000 years ago, as you measure it. This is when the first prototype of what you call “modern man” was created. The controllers had the bodies ready, they just needed the right soul matrix to agree to “jump in.” Q: So, prior to this time, this prior Edenic state… A: Was more like 4th density. Q: But that implies that there was some level of physicality. Was there physicality in the sense of bodies that look like present- day humans? A: Not quite. Q: What did these pre- fall… A: Cannot answer because it is too complex for you to understand.
was there any kind of worship of God, or religious activity in this pre- Fall state; this Edenic, 4th density state? A: No need when one has a clue.
I am trying to understand what was worshipped. Okay, we had these guys; they fell from Eden, but they were still fairly close to the original concepts, in some terms. Once they jumped into the physical bodies, as you put it, what was their level of conceptualization regarding the universe? Did they still retain some understanding at that point? A: Kind of like the understanding one has after severe head trauma, vis a vis your normal understanding in your current state. Q: So, they were traumatized; they may have had bits and pieces of ideas and memories, but they may also have lost a great deal altogether. There may have even been a sort of “coma” state of mankind for many millennia. But, after they woke up, with the bits and pieces floating around in their heads, they may have begun to attempt to piece it all together. So, they started putting it all back together. What was the first thing they put together regarding the cosmos around them? A: Sex. Q: What did they decide about sex? I mean, sex was there. They were having sex. Is that it? Or, did they understand the cosmos as sex? A: More like the former. After all, that is what got you guys in this mess in the first place! Just imagine the sales job if you can: “Look how much fun this is! Want to try it?!? Oops, sorry, we forgot to tell you, you cannot go back!” Q: I really fail to understand - and I know it is a big issue that has been hinted at and alluded to, and outright claims have been made regarding sex in all religions and mythologies - but I fail to understand the mechanics of how this can be the engineering of a ‘fall.’ What, precisely, are the mechanics of it? What energy is generated? How is it generated? What is the conceptualization of the misuse of this energy, or the use of the energy? A: It is simply the introduction of the concept of self- gratification of a physical sort.
On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don’t understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state. A: Possession is the key. Q: What do you mean? A: In STS, you possess. Q: That’s what I am saying here… A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess… Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don’t understand how it can be a mechanism for a ‘fall.’ A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach? Q: Well, you could! A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.
What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration, whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn’t that constitute a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things? A: Not if one is “feeling this oneness.”
We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want… just BE? A: Yes, but STS does not do that.
___________________________
I WILL CONTINUE NEXT TIME
____________________________
A: All imaginable combinations exist because they are imagined!
is this the concept that our space/time is the boundary of a domain? Is that correct picture? A: Yes. Q: (A) All right, Then, concerning this gravity, and the antimatter, is it a correct picture that there are two such domains; positive and negative one, and the gravity has something to do with the exchange between the positive and negative? A: Gravity is the “fuel,” or “life blood” of absolutely everything that exists!!!
What is the Zendar Council? A: Zendar Council is a sixth level density council which spans both physical and ethereal realms and which oversees dramatic development points at various civilizational sector s in lower density levels.
I have found the pages of a Polish Medical Doctor who is making all kinds of funny experiments, including parapsychological, being, at the same time, director of the University Clinic. I had the idea that I should get in contact with him. Who is he? Can I have a clue? A: Who is he? Q: (A) His name is Brodziak. He is in contact with Sarfatti, Pitkannen, Deautsche, and so on. Should I become more active in these discussions, these mailing lists? A: Sure, but you will need to separate the “wheat from the chaff.”
I was thinking about what is the most important for me at the present, and I think that I want to understand and implement this concept of densities; to implement it into physics and mathematics. But, it seems to me that I am completely alone with that. I would like to know where should I look, because certainly other people have already tried to do it. I don’t want to start from scratch if there is something that I can look at or study before I really jump into this difficult project. Were there people, scientists… where to look? A: Study the works of Gurdjieff and Jung, for starters. Also, Vallee is on a similar path, and a little ahead of you. He would be most approachable, if you can convince him of your sincerity.
I want to ask about mathematical modelling of gravity. The gravity that we know about is modelled by geometry of a curved space. Is the gravity that you are talking about, which is an expansion of this concept, capable of being modelled in a similar way: by geometry? A: Geometry is the correct model. Q: (A) So, geometry is the correct model and I understand that we have to just write a generalization or expansion of Einstein UFT, and that this will be the correct model of gravity; is this correct? A: Close. Q: (A) Now, the question is: if gravity can be modelled in this way - geometry is the correct model - what do we need more to model also consciousness? Will it be automatically implied in such a model of gravity, or is it something extra? A: Consciousness is contained within the expanded realization of the gravity model. The Unified Field Theory, if completed, would give one an insight into the synchronous relationship between gravity and consciousness. Q: (A) If gravity is modelled by curvature or torsion of geometry, mathematically, how would consciousness come out of geometry? A: That is a broken question. What we can say is this: if one could visualize the inverted representation of the gravity geometric model, one would be squarely on the path to understanding the geometric model of consciousness. Q: (A) Now, there are claims, more or less, shared by many scientists that quantum theory is necessary to model or understand consciousness. From what was said before, it seems that quantum theory is not necessary, that it is sufficient to have the right geometric model of extended gravity. A: No, not extended, expanded. Q: (A) Does that mean that quantum theory is irrelevant for understanding the modelling of consciousness? A: Quantum first needs to be graduated from the realm of theory. Q: (C) It means it needs to be proved, right? A: No. Proving is a concept we should now be moving beyond. Q: (C) When they said ‘graduated from the realm of theory,’ I assumed that meant that it needed to be proven. So how does it get graduated? What is the next realm after theory? A: No, my dear, you are missing the point. the currently imposed protocol for “proving” theories is a bit passe, we thinx. Can you imagine trying to fly a plane if you must first prove that there is a sky? Q: (C) So, don’t try to prove quantum theory, just go ahead and use it, I guess. A: Pretty close.
what is matter? How is matter built out of gravity? What forms of gravity correspond to matter in terms of the geometric model? A: First of all, since we are to answer such questions, you need to make this surface smoother!! [The plexiglass cover on the board was tacky. We used window cleaner and polished it up.] Q: (A) So, it was good for previous questions, but not for this! (laughter) (L) Okay, carry on! A: You live in a “matter” universe, from your perspective. There is an accompanying energy universe which you largely are unable to perceive as of yet. Q: (A) But, my question was… A: Who/ what is Mandlebrot?? Q: (A) Okay, you are talking about fractals now, certainly… A: Are we? Q: (A) Mandlebrot is the name of a French mathematician who is famous because he discovered fractals and some laws that govern fractals and chaos. But, as to ‘what’ - some fractal images are also called ‘mandlebrot.’ A: And where does this lead, Ark? Q: (L) But that doesn’t answer what matter is. A: We are bringing you to the place where you can begin to path to understanding this. Q: (A) That brings us to fractal properties of space time and such things. A: What if matter were the “half- life” of energy? Q: (C) Well, half- life is the decay factor. What if energy decays into matter? Is that what they are saying? A: Be careful of the quote marks, they bring you to the crossroads. As in: “you take the high road, I’ll take the low road, and I’ll be in Scotland before ye.” Q: (L) I guess that means that we are not to use the usual interpretation of ‘half- life,’ but that there is a pun, a clue intended here that is to be deciphered. A: Look folks, we cannot just spill the secrets of all existence all over this board, but we sure can open the doorways, yeah.
Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it. A: Phi. Q: (A) Well, I have no idea what this phi is doing here which is probably related to Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio… A: Carboni. Q: (A) Yet, still there is my question about dimensions. Phi is not an integer number and we will look into it. But, what I said was that the way you are using the term ‘dimensions’ is not what physicists are familiar with in using this term. A: The trouble here is with semantics: the general public uses that word to mean different things from the physicists! Q: (C) Okay, phi is a Greek letter but I don’t see how that is connected. A: No, not phi, dimensions! Q: (L) Define dimension. (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it… A: Our “meaning” is closer to that of the general public definition. Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza- Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct? A: That is good.
There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well? A: No. Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics? A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance? Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom? A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here. Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness. A: Picture an endless octagonal… in three dimensions. Q: (A) A lattice, you mean? A: Okay. Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of ‘signatures of the metric?’ I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance. A: Yes…
There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing… they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling? A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
even rocks have consciousness and can learn. That brings us back to Boyd, is he, can he, does he tune into the consciousness of rocks and/ or other consciousnesses THROUGH rocks? A: The latter is closer. Q: (L) So, the consciousness of a rock might not be amenable to communicating. A: Right. Q: (L) What other consciousness might a person tune into through a rock? ANY other or a specific other? A: Closer to former. Q: (A) If there is consciousness, it means that there is a consciousness unit, and this consciousn unit can be within or associated with some body of some density. Can one tune to consciousness that resides, so to say, in higher densities than third, using rocks? Is it possible? A: Close.
I want to ask about this DNA phantom effect that some Russians recently discovered. They shoot with lasers into this vacuum and record photons with detectors. It detects noise because there is nothing coherent. Then, they put a little piece of DNA there. This DNA has a certain regular structure. So, the photons from the lasers scatter from this DNA molecule in a certain wavy pattern which corresponds to the internal structure of the DNA. Now, they remove the DNA and for a month or two they continue to obtain a coherent pattern from the vacuum as though something was still there. They call it the ‘phantom DNA.’ A: The “phantom” is a remnant of the consciousness residue contained within the DNA structure. Q: (A) Where does this remnant reside? In the vacuum, in the vibrations of the vacuum, in a gravitational field that is inside the vacuum, in some nonlinear electromagnetics? Where is this remnant? What keeps it? Space itself? A: You hit it pretty close with the last three.
A: Fleeing? All life just fills the voids that exist. It is a natural process; existentialism.
because they were so focused on the love and light aspects… A: There is no positivity without negativity.
(A) Okay, I was trying to figure out how to build this expanded gravity, and I made a table to assist the question. The first possibility is that one can build gravity on a square matrix. This matrix can be symmetric, can be non- symmetric, or can be a complex matrix, which I call possibilities a, b, and c. The second possibility is to build a theory of gravity on the basis of a connection which looks like a cube rather than a matrix. Here we also have three possibilities: no curvature, but torsion; no torsion but curvature; torsion and curvature. These are possibilities 1, 2, and 3. Another possibility is to use any combination of these two lines of speculation. Another possibility is none of the above, but to build gravity on the basis of an irregular cube, or an irregular square, which I call A. Another possibility is to use something that is none of the above. A: Octagonal complexigram. Try the formula for possibility 1- c first. Q: (A) During the last two weeks or so, I got a new connection through the internet, in particular I was pointed to a Russian guy by the name Alexander Shpilman, who is writing about special generators of what is called ‘spin field,’ which is supposedly a new kind of field which can penetrate lead without any problem, and he is building or describing the generator of this field which has essentially rotating pieces of ferrite with little magnets inside and so on, which can be detected by human beings because you can feel this field if you are in the right state and so forth. This guy and another guy named Boyd then try to relate this to some kind of expanded gravity with torsion because spin is supposed to be a source of torsion in space. All that seems to me quite reasonable, and maybe even the right track to follow. (L) He even talks about the funny ‘light pole.’ (A) What I want to know is if the things that Shpilman is describing really work? A: Yes, they would work. Q: (A) Is it a path to a kind of expanded gravity? A: Enhanced gravitational pull. Relates to space/ time management.
I am stuck at one point. When we were talking about phi and Mandelbrot, you mentioned the name ‘Carboni.’ (L) And you also mentioned the name ‘Carboni’ to Santilli, saying that this group was behind the Molise Institute. A: Yes. Scientific/ intelligence matrix. Neapolitan. Q: (L) Well, we did a search and have not been able to find anything on it. I don’t know if Molise has very much money behind it because, by looking at their pages, it doesn’t seem to be very well funded. A: Looks can be deceiving. Front is vulcanology. Q: (L) You mean they study volcanoes? A: Front.
some information recently about something called “Roswell Rods.” Can you tell me what these “Rods” are? A: Do you mean the life forms? Q: Well, that IS what some of the folks are trying to call them! A: 4th Density Life Forms. Q: That’s pretty interesting. (A) Is it a being with a soul? A: Sort of. Q: (A) Intelligent? A: Relative to others. Q: In terms of what we know about relative intelligence, could you give us an example of something in our density that relates here? A: Birds. Q: They are like 4th density birds? A: Maybe. That’s close enough.
Back to Montauk: the Montauk project continued. Did they ever, at any point in time, produce monsters as some of these stories I have heard relate? A: Maybe. Q: Was this a result of opening portals between densities or dimensions and having cross- density window fallers dropping in, so to speak? A: Partly. Q: Were any of these supposed monsters that they were supposed to have created, productions or creations of their minds? A: Other densities afford a degree of one and the same thing.
there were these people who simply were producing monsters, which does not seem to be anything that the Navy would want to do, much less physicists! A: You are confusing subjects and time frames. Q: (A) Somebody had to plan this experiment, yes? A: But that was the Philadelphia Experiment. Q: (L) How did this business of producing monsters and all that even come into this project? A: Experiments in mind programming and psy- warfare. Q: So, these were separate experiments. But, did they fall under the Montauk project… A: Yes. Q: So, they were compartmentalized things. A: But the monsters were long after the Eldridge. Q: When did the experiments with the monsters occur? A: Late 70s. Q: Have they continued on with this monster producing business? A: No need to get hung up on “monsters.” Q: Well, that would give me the heebie jeebies for sure! A: Other materializations. Q: They are working on other materializations, or they HAD other materializations? A: Not just monsters. Q: Well, that’s too good to pass. What OTHER kinds of materializations did they have? A: You name it! Q: Were they able to materialize money for themselves? A: No need. Q: Were they able to materialize people from the past or the future? A: Temporarily. Q: Did they, in fact, do this? A: Yes. Q: Did they ask people from the future what kinds of events have occurred between then and now in order to refine their plans and activities? A: No such. Q: Why? A: Variable futures. Q: So, they could materialize somebody from the future, but it was only as potential, or probable future, so therefore, it meant very little, or was useless? A: One of 329 decillion. Q: Probable futures? A: Yes. Q: It’s a lot. A: Up to a point… Q: At which time something collapses into the now. Regarding these folks they materialized from the past: anybody we would know? A: No. Q: Could they select who they materialized, or was it random? A: The materialization was really a duality. Review texts re: abductions between densities for idea. Q: Could it be possible that, using this technology, the U.S. Government, or Secret Government, has been doing abductions on human beings that the victims THINK is an alien abduction? A: Maybe in some cases, but the technology is not comparable. Q: Other than people from the past and future, what other kinds of things did they materialize in the Montauk experiments? A: Review. Q: What kinds of things were they interested in materializing more than anything else? (A) Probably technological devices. (L) Did they materialize technology from the future? A: This is more complex than your questions indicate. Q: I realize this. I am struggling with this whole idea. I would just like to know what sorts of things they were most interested in materializing so that I would then have a clue as to which direction to go with my questions. A: Not applicable.
As I understand it, or as I am trying to figure it out from the literature, prior to the ‘Fall in Eden,’ mankind lived in a 4th density state. Is that correct? A: Semi/ sort of. Q: Please be more specific. A: 4th density in another realm, such as time/ space continuum, etc. Q: Okay, so this realm changed, as a part of the cycle; various choices were made: the human race went through the door after the ‘gold,’ so to speak, and became aligned with the Lizzies after the ‘female energy’ consorted with the wrong side, so to speak. This is what you have said. This resulted in a number of effects: the breaking up of the DNA, the burning off of the first ten factors of DNA, the separation of the hemispheres of the brain… A: Only reason for this: you play in the dirt, you’re gonna get dirty. Q: What was the motivating factor for playing in the dirt? What essential thing occurred? You said once that it was ‘desire based imbalance.’ What was it a desire for? A: Increased physicality. Q: What was the objective sought for in this desire for increased physicality? A: Sensate. Q: How was sensate experienced so that these beings had an idea that they could get more if they increased their physicality? A: Not experienced, demonstrated. Q: Demonstrated how, by who? A: Do you not know? Q: It was demonstrated by the Lizzies? A: Basically. Q: Demonstrated in what way? Did they say: ‘here, try this!’ Or did they demonstrate by showing or doing? A: Closer to the latter. Q: They were doing, experimenting, playing, and saying: ‘look, we are doing this, it’s so great, come here and try it?’ A: Not really. More like: “you could have this.” Q: What seemed to be so desirable about this increased physicality when they said ‘you can have this?’ A: Use your imagination! Q: Was there any understanding, or realization of any kind, that increased physicality could be like Osiris lured into his own coffin by Set? That they would then slam the lid shut and nail him in? A: Obviously, such understanding was lacking. Q: Sounds like a pretty naive bunch! Does the lack of this understanding reflect a lack of knowledge? A: Of course. But more, it is desire getting in the way of…
The ‘Fall’ occurred. It seems like, and some of the archaeological studies indicate, that for many thousands of years, there was a peaceful existence and a nice agrarian society where the goddess or female creative forces were worshipped. At least, this is what a lot of present- day books are proposing… A: No. These events took place 309000 years ago, as you measure it. This is when the first prototype of what you call “modern man” was created. The controllers had the bodies ready, they just needed the right soul matrix to agree to “jump in.” Q: So, prior to this time, this prior Edenic state… A: Was more like 4th density. Q: But that implies that there was some level of physicality. Was there physicality in the sense of bodies that look like present- day humans? A: Not quite. Q: What did these pre- fall… A: Cannot answer because it is too complex for you to understand.
was there any kind of worship of God, or religious activity in this pre- Fall state; this Edenic, 4th density state? A: No need when one has a clue.
I am trying to understand what was worshipped. Okay, we had these guys; they fell from Eden, but they were still fairly close to the original concepts, in some terms. Once they jumped into the physical bodies, as you put it, what was their level of conceptualization regarding the universe? Did they still retain some understanding at that point? A: Kind of like the understanding one has after severe head trauma, vis a vis your normal understanding in your current state. Q: So, they were traumatized; they may have had bits and pieces of ideas and memories, but they may also have lost a great deal altogether. There may have even been a sort of “coma” state of mankind for many millennia. But, after they woke up, with the bits and pieces floating around in their heads, they may have begun to attempt to piece it all together. So, they started putting it all back together. What was the first thing they put together regarding the cosmos around them? A: Sex. Q: What did they decide about sex? I mean, sex was there. They were having sex. Is that it? Or, did they understand the cosmos as sex? A: More like the former. After all, that is what got you guys in this mess in the first place! Just imagine the sales job if you can: “Look how much fun this is! Want to try it?!? Oops, sorry, we forgot to tell you, you cannot go back!” Q: I really fail to understand - and I know it is a big issue that has been hinted at and alluded to, and outright claims have been made regarding sex in all religions and mythologies - but I fail to understand the mechanics of how this can be the engineering of a ‘fall.’ What, precisely, are the mechanics of it? What energy is generated? How is it generated? What is the conceptualization of the misuse of this energy, or the use of the energy? A: It is simply the introduction of the concept of self- gratification of a physical sort.
On many occasions you have said that the ideal thing is to have perfect balance of physicality and ethereality. This has been said on a number of occasions. Now, I don’t understand how it can be that gratification of a physical body can be the mechanics by which one is entrapped? Is it not gratifying to look at something beautiful? Is it wrong, sinful, or a form of a fall, to look at beauty, to hear something beautiful such as music, or to touch something that is sensually delightful such as a piece of silk or the skin of a loved one? These various things that the human being derives pleasure from very often elevate them to a spiritual state. A: Possession is the key. Q: What do you mean? A: In STS, you possess. Q: That’s what I am saying here… A: If you move through the beautiful flowers, the silk, the skin of another, but do not seek to possess… Q: It seems to me that it is possible to experience all of these things, including sex, without the need or desire to possess; only to give. In which case, I still don’t understand how it can be a mechanism for a ‘fall.’ A: If it is desired, then the mechanism is not to give. Do you eat a piece of chocolate cake because it is good to give to the stomach? Q: Well, you could! A: No, in STS, which is your realm do not forget, one gives because of the pleasant sensation which results.
A: If one seeks to suffer, they do so in expectation of future reward. They desire to possess something in the end.
What I am saying is: if a person can simply BE, in the doing and being of who and what they are, in simplicity; to become involved in doing everything as a meditation, or as a consecration, whether they are walking down the street and being at one with the air, the sunshine, the birds and trees and other people; in this state of oneness, doesn’t that constitute a giving to the universe as giving oneself up as a channel for the universe to experience all these things? A: Not if one is “feeling this oneness.”
We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want… just BE? A: Yes, but STS does not do that.
___________________________
I WILL CONTINUE NEXT TIME
Trending content
-
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
