"Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment

[Laura]

About that quote from whatever transcript

"we believe the overall ratio..."

That is the sign of an astrally limited consciousness. It therefore can only talk about astral enlightenment, which is in total opposition to the integration of light.

Strange that you left out the important part which is: 50/50

The entire whole context is:

Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.

Now, please tell me how this reflects an "astrally limited consciousness"? It was an answer to a specific question. If you were familiar with the Cassiopaean Transcripts, the thousands of pages of material on the Cass website, which gave birth to the Signs of The Times website, which is the product of the owners of this forum which you have joined - one would think, because you are interested in said website and material - then you wouldn't have made such an absurd remark.

Let me suggest that you begin to read the material that most of the members of this forum are already familiar with. You can start with the list of articles here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

The you won't make such absurd remarks as:

"It therefore can only talk about astral enlightenment, which is in total opposition to the integration of light."

... and you won't appear to be either a Troll or part of a "team" playing "good cop, bad cop."

 

[Fifth Way]

Right.

So to start you Unbeliever of with a few basics...

A truth is an intellectual conceptualization...

Disagreed.

The working hypothesis is that Truth is absolute.

In the end there is one final objective absolute Truth. Therefore it can be found and that is what we seek.

Another working hypothesis is that time does not exist.

Therefore your sentence...

Absolutes are static in nature and all that is not absolute and that travels time must be evolutionary in essence.

...is correct but since Truth is absolute and time does not exist Truth is not subject to evolution.

 

[Unbeliever]

@fifth way:
what you are saying, a 'final objective truth' is what I would call a truth.
Such proposition, to me, is seated on the supposition that an 'absolute' level of definition of reality has been achieved. I would say that this is far from being the case at a human psychological level and, even further that it will never be the case at a human psychological level.

There are univeral principles. They are not truths as such. They are living principles regardless of time. Time being the creation that allowed their evolution by projection.

I understand you don't like my stance on this but it is nonetheless my view on the matter.

@Laura:
I am less interested in that material than I am interested in exchanging with intelligent people.

I would like to know though what you mean by a 'team' playing good cop bad cop if you care to explain.

 

[Laura]

I am less interested in that material than I am interested in exchanging with intelligent people.

Then one would think that you might undertake to find out who they are, what they are talking about, and why, and otherwise familiarize yourself with the subjects and level of discourse as a courtesy to the discussants. Asking questions is always a good way to get started and if you find that you are pointed to something to read so as to get up to speed, then it is courteous - if you want to participate in the discussion and not slow it down or divert it - to read fast and then jump back in with some basic information that everyone else already has.

I would like to know though what you mean by a 'team' playing good cop bad cop if you care to explain.

Those things are understood by the discussants, for the most part, because they are familiar with the material on our websites. I can recommend that you read The Wave Series and Adventures With Cassiopaea, for starters. You may or may not agree with what you read there, but it will certainly give you a better idea of whether or not you really want to join the discussion.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

@fifth way:
what you are saying, a 'final objective truth' is what I would call a truth.
Such proposition, to me, is seated on the supposition that an 'absolute' level of definition of reality has been achieved.

I don't think it needs to be achieved for us to seek it. What if we say, "If objective reality exists, we'll try to do our best to find it". And in the spirit of that "if", we search. What else can we do? Even if we can never know the absolute truth, it doesn't mean we cannot have a better understanding of reality than we have now. So in the spirit of the possibility that we can have a relatively better understanding, we search. Just because we may never reach the absolute level of cognition, does not mean we should just abandon the work to constantly understand reality better and better.

There are univeral principles. They are not truths as such. They are living principles regardless of time. Time being the creation that allowed their evolution by projection.

But if a principle is a true principle, as in, it represents an aspect of objective reality as it truly is, then wouldn't it be truth?

I understand you don't like my stance on this but it is nonetheless my view on the matter.

Just as what I said earlier about taking sides, I think "liking" is not the point. If the purpose is to seek truth, then who cares whether someone likes an idea or a stance or not? The point is, is it true? Unless the person doesn't like it because he has evidence or reason that may suggest a flaw in the idea. But then, would you not be interested in hearing it, because it may present you with a possible opportunity to learn and maybe change your stance based on this new evidence?

@Laura:
I am less interested in that material than I am interested in exchanging with intelligent people.

I would like to know though what you mean by a 'team' playing good cop bad cop if you care to explain.

Actually, you wouldn't ask that if you read the material. Part of the reason to read the material is external consideration. And I don't mean offense by this, I just mean that if you read the material, many questions that you might have now and in the future could already be answered there.

 

[Ryan]

what you are saying, a 'final objective truth' is what I would call a truth.
Such proposition, to me, is seated on the supposition that an 'absolute' level of definition of reality has been achieved. I would say that this is far from being the case at a human psychological level and, even further that it will never be the case at a human psychological level.

And yet we have things like light, gravity etc which multiple observers have noted acts on everyone in a similar way. To say that there is no "objective truth" to these things is making arguments for arguments' sake, in my opinion.

There are univeral principles. They are not truths as such. They are living principles regardless of time. Time being the creation that allowed their evolution by projection.

I understand you don't like my stance on this but it is nonetheless my view on the matter.

I don't agree with your stance, and that is my view on the matter (at least, unless you are capable of convincing me otherwise with facts and data).

I am less interested in that material than I am interested in exchanging with intelligent people.

I would like to know though what you mean by a 'team' playing good cop bad cop if you care to explain.

There are many forms of "exchange"... some types involve giving genuine seekers a meaningless word salad in return for their energy and attention. This is what the "teams" of schizoids and psychopaths tend to do upon arriving here, although some of them adopt a "nice guy" facade (the good cops) while others immediately go on the attack (the bad cops).

I hope that helps clarify things.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

They also come in "teams" because they would plant somebody here who would try to install himself as part of our group as in, add reasonable comments and seem like he's genuinely seeking truth and is indeed open and critical. Then somebody comes along that may just go on the attack, and the group would start pointing out the inconsistencies and manipulations in the attacker's posts. But suddenly, that previous person who was installed in this group and was previously reasonable and critical, starts to totally defend the attacker and becomes just as unreasonable and manipulative as the attacker himself - tries to rationalize and justify what the attacker says even if it's verifiably incorrect and even logically wrong. But using paralogic and paramoralisms, it may all somehow seem to make sense at first.

And thus, some members of this forum may have gotten familiar with this individual that was planted by the attackers, because they are used to his posts being reasonable, well thought out, and seemingly critical. So when that individual suddenly switches and starts defending the attacker, it has an effect on the minds of those members here who are not familiar with this tactic. They experience a bit of cognitive dissonance and confusion, because they are trying to reconcile the fact that the person who previously seemed so critical and open suddenly seems closed and using really confusing logic, elaborate word salads, and other methods that may really confuse someone. Especially if those members have developed a certain "trust" in the individual over time. Coming from an outsider it is easier to spot. Coming from someone who has been here for a while, and your mind may try to rationalize what they say is "as critical as ever", and that your inability to grok it is your fault alone, not because what the person is now saying is nonsense.

But that is the whole point of the "team of cops" to begin with. That's a known cointelpro tactic, and Laura discusses her experiences with cointelpro in the material that you do not wish to read. Let me ask, why are you not interested in reading the material? It seems reasonable to me that anyone who is interested in the subject matter and is interested in intelligently discussing it would also be interested in reading material published by the very people that he's so interested in communicating with. If not, why not? Are you not really interested in the material and just want idle intellectual exercise? Again, I mean no offense, I really am curious.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

Let me ask, why are you not interested in reading the material? It seems reasonable to me that anyone who is interested in the subject matter and is interested in intelligently discussing it would also be interested in reading material published by the very people that he's so interested in communicating with. If not, why not? Are you not really interested in the material and just want idle intellectual exercise? Again, I mean no offense, I really am curious.

Hello:

If you don't mind answering the above Unbeliever, they are also my questions, and I also have some comments. Since the subject that was brought up was "truth", your statement of

I am less interested in that material than I am interested in exchanging with intelligent people.

tells me something like, well if you have not read the material on this site, and are not interested in reading it, how can you take anything that anyone says here as the "truth" for we all (in this group) have come to a certain understanding by reading the same material. Or at least collinear material to the C's such as Gurdijeff, Mouravieff, Carlos Castaneda, etc.etc. So if you have not read the material and what is being presented how can you even tell if it is the "truth" if you do not do the re-search your self to back-up your findings? After all that is what the C's say to Laura all the time; that they do not just hand answers out on a platter, she has to follow up on the answers she receives in order to find the answers herself and thus, go through a learning process while doing the research which helps growth. Knowledge=growth. For you to state such a comment are you not limiting your self?

Nina

 

[Unbeliever]

Well, a lot of points made and questions. Thank you for such.

I will go quickly through them and concatenate those that were repeated therefore I may not necessarily answer directly to one person or another but rather to the points made.

@ScioAgapeOmnis
I do not and will not suggest what one should be seeking or not. Seeking is part of the personal and particular experience of the individual. All I might say though on the process of seeking is that the one who seeks always finds the form sought because it is already defined in the psyche in order to formulate a goal. What I mean by this is that the program of the individual has already flagged a form of concept that must be recognized, otherwise the individual would have no idea of the form or even without a form of the principle (which would be a lot more useful too) that he is supposed to seek. He therefore would not be seeking.

I have no business or purpose in telling people what they should do.

Seeking the truth is a normal action for a soul that has gone beyond the simple level of pure materialistic conceptualization. It is one step in a direction that has no absolute destiny although it aims for the absolute.

Likewise it certainly befits well the seeker to get a better 'understanding' of his reality. Ideally, this understanding is of course always tempered with the further comprehension that 'understanding' in itself is always condition by the life program of an incarnate entity.

The point of contention here seems principally the word 'truth', the difference in views about 'truth' and the difference in importance that ensues. As I said earlier, I do not view truth, any truth for that madder to be absolute but always relative because they always are interpretations of a psychological mind. I do understand what you mean by that word though or what is sought after. A truth that transcend all interpretations and that is at the base of reality. The difficulty remains though that so long as we look at things psychologically speaking, we are forced to use our polarized concepts, (good/evil, true/false, positive and negative), that will always force us to fragment and filter. Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite and would therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality. That is why I am more interested in principles that have no psychological values than in truths. On the other hand, a principle may not sound as attractive to the truth seeker, an aspect of it always being in opposition with his sense of comfort towards the information.

About the statement of maybe not liking the stance and my position:
Even is I say that this is my position it in no way suggests that that position cannot be challenged. On the contrary, if one perceives a flaw, it is to my advantage to be presented with that flaw. When we have blind spots, we always need the one who sees it to point it out.
In that sense, we could even say that those who hate us are our best friends. They always do have the knack of putting their finger on the one thing that will irritate. If it irritates too much, we should really pay attention to the reasons.

@Ryan
I do not see that gravity is an 'objective truth' I would say that it is an observed fact that is not understood by current human science under the laws of our senses limited by both our physicality and our separation with our identity. Saying that there is gravity does not provide the principle behind gravity. Furthermore, I do not believe that gravity applies to all and everything, unless we consider the local material universe to be all that there is.

To be objective a truth must not be polarized mentally. Then, it is not a truth. I am not arguing for the sake of such but only trying to point out certain subtleties of a concept such as truth. Many concepts that are held high in esteem by our human philosophical thinking scheme, even worse, our human spiritual aspirations, are also traps that keep us in a state of mind that prevents other aspects of reality to be realized. Any concept can be useful so long as we do not make them sacred. When we sacralize a concept, we become its slave and it becomes the limit of our vision.

That is why I cannot give too much value to truths.

And no, you don't have to agree with me either. One thing I will not do is try and convince you.
Convincing or attempting to is a subtle way of imposing one's intelligence upon that of the other. It is a form of manipulation, even if done with all the apparent respect that one can muster.
People should never be convinced of anything. Convictions, beliefs, all these things that are supported by pride and that act as egoic false security of having found something, until the ego becomes convinced of something else? Actually, truths are far more related to convictions that they are to fundamental principles. This is another aspect I might have pointed at above.

Thank you ScioAgapeOmnis and Ryan for the explanation of good/bad cops. Makes sense.

About reading or not the material:

When I said I was less interested in the material, I did so after reading some of it. I did not read all but got the 'drift' so to speak.

I got wind of the forums and came to see what things were being discussed. I had not at that point realized that the discussions revolved around a specific points, namely channeling.
Many subjects were being discussed and they were all subjects of interest.
It was my mistake to suppose that materials were discussed neutrally and were not specifically tied to a particular school of beliefs.

To answer Knowledge of Self more directly on that matter, as I said above, I did read some of it and what I felt was not aimed at me.
Incarnate consciousnesses on this planet do not all come from the same place and what you would call their 'higher selves' do not have the same universal statuses.
There are races in the cosmos that have seeded the planet and are getting ready to collect the result of their work. Some of those races will bring many back with them. I am not one for the take.
The real disinformation network is the web of occult ties that connect all reincarnated entity together with their disincarnate peers, creating this huge mind matrix that indifferencially influences, controls the psyche by what you could call a form of possession.
We tend to point at others for the attacks on our psychic and physical territory while the real mafia is a hidden, invisible, occult one. Unless we are aware of these influences, that start with the subjective thought process, our polarized conceptualizations will always benefit these forces.
It is the invisible we should hate, not our peers. Unfortunately, we as a spiritual race, are in total awe with the invisible and readily give them way more than the benefit of the doubt.
It is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that we do not realize that even a charlatan is already possessed with a message that will be voiced through subjective processes because he will say what he thinks and because his psychic space does not belong to him even against his conviction to the contrary. This is how Hitler got caught too.

how can you take anything that anyone says here as the "truth"

I don't and I won't. I take what is said with interest but I do not believe. I will not say that I believe what you discuss or state as false but I do not believe it to be true either.

If you refer to the likes of Gurdijeff for instance, I will not take any of what he may have written as 'truth'. I will give it consideration and I will add to it but I will not have a master, like I will not be the master of any. One has to be his own proof and it is simply not possible to transfer experience. One can speak, write, but one can never interfere more than what is asked of him. Otherwise, it is a sort of black magic. The need to influence stems directly from occult forces that seek to control humanity. These forces are directly connected to the psychological nature of the reincarnated.

If I remain (or even allowed to) on this forum, I will have to look a few things up here and there. That material will never be an influence or indoctrinated by anything but definitely, if I see something I don't like, I would not hesitate to point it out, likewise, if something holds ground, I will do so.

I can already see that some would react by saying 'on what grounds can you give or withhold ground?'. All I would say to this would be that this is the prerogative of the individual to upturn all stones and be prepared to see his own stone upturned until that time when it is untouchable. We have to be free in spirit, free of mind, concepts should not prevail over the right of freedom of a mind.

 

[Fifth Way]

On the other hand, a principle may not sound as attractive to the truth seeker, an aspect of it always being in opposition with his sense of comfort towards the information.

I don't understand. Doesn't a principle has to be verified or falsified, determind whether it is true or not, also?

To be objective a truth must not be polarized mentally. Then, it is not a truth.

I cannot understand what you are saying.

Many concepts that are held high in esteem by our human philosophical thinking scheme, even worse, our human spiritual aspirations, are also traps that keep us in a state of mind that prevents other aspects of reality to be realized.

So what to do if you oppose their verification, to find out whether the are true!

That is why I cannot give too much value to truths.

See, it makes no sence.

And no, you don't have to agree with me either. One thing I will not do is try and convince you.

No? Are you sure you are not in the middle of it?

It was my mistake to suppose that materials were discussed neutrally and were not specifically tied to a particular school of beliefs.

See, this is where a 'drift' may not deliver enough. We are trying specifically not to deal with belives but rather with research, data and verifiable knowledge.

We tend to point at others for the attacks on our psychic and physical territory while the real mafia is a hidden, invisible, occult one. Unless we are aware of these influences, that start with the subjective thought process, our polarized conceptualizations will always benefit these forces.
It is the invisible we should hate, not our peers. Unfortunately, we as a spiritual race, are in total awe with the invisible and readily give them way more than the benefit of the doubt.
It is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that we do not realize that even a charlatan is already possessed with a message that will be voiced through subjective processes because he will say what he thinks and because his psychic space does not belong to him even against his conviction to the contrary. This is how Hitler got caught too.

Would you look into and read more content of this site you would find alot of information regarding ALL the above. Thank you very much.

 

[Unbeliever]

Empiric science works like what you are referring to.
The only way for an individual to verify those principles is to know them, meaning that the individual must become his own proof. Proof will never be given free because the proof would be the end of the evolution, the end of the engaged process for that individual.
As for the principle of falsification, the difficulty that empirical science, based on the development of the intellect, always had was that something had to be verified, with nothing more than what was available as a tool.
The limit of such a science is of course the limit of egoic consciousness.
For instance, lets say that you travel out of your body on occasion.
A scientist may oppose to you that to be 'true' your experience has to be verifiable.
You have verified it but, science in its current form, is not capable of doing so.
That does not invalidate the experience but for the scientist, the statement you may make 'I travel to other planes' for instance, would be receivable because it cannot be verified by his methods.
Of course then the following conclusions may be that you either are delusional or that it is a function of your brain and so on.
By using the same rationale and applying to other levels of consciousness, we have the same problem.

Granted, it is better to use such tool than to fall prey to the next trick of the mind.

What I meant by that sentence is that a principle, an absolute is neither true or false. It has no value; true and false being interpretative values. It simply is.

I do not oppose any verification, (did I say that?). I can only speak my mind, its up to you to how to consider the statement.

Again, I do not give value to truths in the sense I mentioned above. Beyond this, it really becomes a question of semantics.
Lets see... There is the mathematical concept of truth. The Boolean aspect of truth/false and so on. The physical state of positive and negative. These are mathematical values. A mathematical value has no emotional charge, therefore it is not in itself a regressive force. A philosophical truth is another matter. A spiritual truth as well. These truths are emotionally charged, therefore act as ego cement since the ego tends to seek a place to rest. Perhaps that explains better what I mean by truths.
In the end, truths at the metaphysical level are values assigned to concepts. If we think in terms of truths, it is a certain drive towards conviction. A neutral mind would not consider the proposition in terms of truth, as a concept, but rather as raw and take in all the aspects.

The following statement is an example of accepted truths:
'I think therefore I am'.
But, is it? It is actually both true and false.

I am not trying to convince, only answering to your questions and detailing some points that are being raised. If I wanted to convince you, I would probably say that what I am offering is 'the truth' ;)

See, this is where a 'drift' may not deliver enough. We are trying specifically not to deal with belives but rather with research, data and verifiable knowledge.

Understood.

Would you look into and read more content of this site you would find alot of information regarding ALL the above. Thank you very much.

As I mentioned above, I will give a closer look to some of that material.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

All I might say though on the process of seeking is that the one who seeks always finds the form sought because it is already defined in the psyche in order to formulate a goal.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "form"? My understanding is that if you seek truth with any sort of assumptions or preconceived notions about what the truth is, then you'll not find it, or find only a part of it until you can let go of all assumptions. All I know about truth, as a concept, is that it is objective reality as it truly is. The only thing I know about finding objective reality is to make no assumptions and only use the data that is available to me, and my own logic (which could be wrong of course). But that's also why I can never say "I know the truth" - only say that I know a potential truth that I think is probable from the data I have seen and the reasoning I have used to try to collectively make sense of the data.

Seeking the truth is a normal action for a soul that has gone beyond the simple level of pure materialistic conceptualization. It is one step in a direction that has no absolute destiny although it aims for the absolute.

A few questions. First, what's a soul? How do you know what is a normal action for it and what is not? Why do you think "pure materialistic conceptualization" comes before seeking truth - can a soul, whatever it may be, seek truth without first having to have a materialistic conceptualization? If not, why not? Why do you call "materialistic conceptualization" simple - simple for whom, and could you define what you mean by materialistic conceptualization please? Finally, who says there is no absolute destiny in the direction of seeking truth? The C's, for example, think that there is an absolute destiny - union with the One, aka 7th density. Do you disagree? If so, why and how do you know?

Likewise it certainly befits well the seeker to get a better 'understanding' of his reality. Ideally, this understanding is of course always tempered with the further comprehension that 'understanding' in itself is always condition by the life program of an incarnate entity.

Does this include ALL understanding, or only some?

As I said earlier, I do not view truth, any truth for that madder to be absolute but always relative because they always are interpretations of a psychological mind.

I agree that perception is always subjective to some degree, if that's what you meant. But it doesn't mean that truth itself does not exist as an absolute, that there is no objective reality. It just means that we cannot be 100% sure just what it is due to limitations of our perception alone. Sometimes what is true for one reality is not true for another, but that is not a universal truth then, it is a very "local" truth. What is true for one time period may not be true for another, but again, in order to call any of these truths, the locality of the truth must be accurately expressed. If I say "911 was done by islamic terrorists" - there may be an alternate reality where this is in fact what happened. Most likely not ours though! So perhaps if you have a hyperdimentional perspective, then you are not subject to only experiencing one possible reality, you may be able to see many. However, as long as we're all experiencing the same "local reality", then to pretend otherwise would not be truth, osit. I think some truths are absolute, some are only true within a limited context - whether that context be a specific reality or a specific level of awareness or something else. But it does not mean that they are not truths, because as long as the context is included, they remain true.

Here's an example:

Q: (T) When we do the channeling and Reiki does that generate body heat?
A: Higher energy.
Q: (T) Does that translate into heat?
A: Yes in third density.

So IF this is true, then it would seem that it would seem that it's only true in 3rd density. But it doesn't make it false, because as long as we are in 3rd density, and if this is indeed a constant of 3rd density, then it will be true for us, osit.

I do understand what you mean by that word though or what is sought after. A truth that transcend all interpretations and that is at the base of reality. The difficulty remains though that so long as we look at things psychologically speaking, we are forced to use our polarized concepts, (good/evil, true/false, positive and negative), that will always force us to fragment and filter.

At 7th density, according to the C's and others, the only truth is "One". There is no fragmentation, only infinity, no polarity, no finity. But I don't see how knowing that can help us right now other than give us food for thought. On our reality polarities seem to not only exist objectively, but constitute an integral part of existance itself. Without using polarized concepts, we could never understand the nature of STS and STO, we could never understand the nature of the control system of this planet, we would never be able to free ourselves from the slavery we're currently in - knowledge protects, does it not?

Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite and would therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality.

I don't understand how truth is a polarized concept of reality. If truth = objective reality, aka, the way things really work in the universe, then one would think it would include all, not just either polarized or unpolarized versions of reality. However, context is important, and if from a certain level of reality polarization is an objective fact existance - then truth, by its definition, must acknowledge it fully. If there is a level of reality where there is no polarization, then again truth, by definition, must acknowledge that fully. But to pretend you are on one level while being on another is not truth - that's a lie. Speaking of which, the only thing opposite to the truth is the lie, the illusion, the falsehood. Yes the lie is a very present aspect of reality, but so what? I think you have it backwards - the truth does not mask the lie, the lie tries to mask/conceal the truth. The truth reveals the lie as a lie, that's all. Truth doesn't "reject" anything - it is what it is. But when someone seeks truth, he by default "rejects" the lie. He's not interested in illusion, he wants to understand what IS.

That is why I am more interested in principles that have no psychological values than in truths. On the other hand, a principle may not sound as attractive to the truth seeker, an aspect of it always being in opposition with his sense of comfort towards the information.

Could you explain? If a pricinple is a true principle - one that really defines an aspect of reality as it truly is, then that is the truth, is it not? And can you define your usage of principle? What if I say STO follows one principle, STS follows another, does that not make principle polarized? Interestingly, I cannot say the same about truth - STO follows truth, STS follows both, truth and lies, the devil being in the details. But the truth remains the same regardless of whether an STO being knows it or an STS being knows it, because it is objective reality.

To be objective a truth must not be polarized mentally. Then, it is not a truth. I am not arguing for the sake of such but only trying to point out certain subtleties of a concept such as truth.

So you do not use the term truth interchangeably with "objective reality", right? You keep saying it is polarized mentally - can you explain what you mean by that, or give examples? I agree that we cannot know the absolute truth and be absolutey certain of it without having an absolute awareness of all things as they truly are. So we can never say with absolute certainty that what we know is the truth - but we CAN say that we're looking for truth, and trying to come as close to truth as we possibly can. Is there a limit to how close we can get? Ultimately, probably not.

Many concepts that are held high in esteem by our human philosophical thinking scheme, even worse, our human spiritual aspirations, are also traps that keep us in a state of mind that prevents other aspects of reality to be realized. Any concept can be useful so long as we do not make them sacred. When we sacralize a concept, we become its slave and it becomes the limit of our vision.
That is why I cannot give too much value to truths.

I understand and agree with what you say about making concepts sacred, but I totally lose you when you inexplicably (to me) follow that up with "that is why I cannot give too much value to truths".

Personally, I give all value to truth. So either, as you say, you and I are on different "polarities" that "reject" one another, or we have an entirely different definition of truth. Can you define truth?

Convincing or attempting to is a subtle way of imposing one's intelligence upon that of the other.

Sometimes subtle, other times not so much - and it's not always intelligence, sometimes it's imposing one's lack of intelligence too :P

It is a form of manipulation, even if done with all the apparent respect that one can muster.
People should never be convinced of anything. Convictions, beliefs, all these things that are supported by pride and that act as egoic false security of having found something, until the ego becomes convinced of something else? Actually, truths are far more related to convictions that they are to fundamental principles.

And there you go again lol. I agree with that paragraph, but get completely dumbfounded when you bring up truths and label them convictions. Now I really want to know how you define the term "truth" as you use it. Also, please define "principle", as you use it.

When I said I was less interested in the material, I did so after reading some of it. I did not read all but got the 'drift' so to speak.

Could your lack of interest in the material have anything to do with the fact that the goal of the material is to seek truth, something that you have no interest in according to you?

I got wind of the forums and came to see what things were being discussed. I had not at that point realized that the discussions revolved around a specific points, namely channeling.

Actually, I don't think channeling is a "main" point, although it is one of them. It is certainly an important point, but did you see the huge number of topics on this forum where discussions do not even mention channeling?

It was my mistake to suppose that materials were discussed neutrally and were not specifically tied to a particular school of beliefs.

What school of beliefs is it that you think exists on this forum? Could you point out some of those beliefs? And could you point out an example of things where the discussion is not neutral and why you think this is so?

To answer Knowledge of Self more directly on that matter, as I said above, I did read some of it and what I felt was not aimed at me.

It was written for truth seekers, for anyone who wishes to learn and explore and research the true nature of our world and reality with no assumptions.

There are races in the cosmos that have seeded the planet and are getting ready to collect the result of their work. Some of those races will bring many back with them. I am not one for the take.

But do you want to be included in this "taking"? If so, I know some people you could contact that can arrange it for you in no time. In case you do wish to be taken, I'll include some of the people that I think can help, you can look their contact information up on google.

Sollog
Rael
Prophet Yahweh
Dove of Oneness

If you need more, please let me know.

We tend to point at others for the attacks on our psychic and physical territory while the real mafia is a hidden, invisible, occult one. Unless we are aware of these influences, that start with the subjective thought process, our polarized conceptualizations will always benefit these forces.

Just to be on the same page - every time you use the term "polarized conceptualizations", are you referring to truth?

It is the invisible we should hate, not our peers.

Wait, but you said:

I have no business or purpose in telling people what they should do.

How do you reconcile that? Why hate anyone at all, what's the purpose of hating? Also, very often the invisible shows up and tells us that they are our peers too, sometimes even call themselves our space brothers! So then what's the difference between our earthly "peers" and our invisible "peers"?

Unfortunately, we as a spiritual race, are in total awe with the invisible and readily give them way more than the benefit of the doubt.

What if:

Unfortunately, we as a spiritually-dead race are in total awe with the visible, and give our visible "peers" more than the benefit of the doubt.

One has to be his own proof and it is simply not possible to transfer experience.

Doesn't that equate to subjective reality? What if it is possible to transfer experience? Not so long ago people said it is simply impossible to fly in anything heavier than air too, but they all turned out to be totally wrong.

One can speak, write, but one can never interfere more than what is asked of him. Otherwise, it is a sort of black magic. The need to influence stems directly from occult forces that seek to control humanity.

What if it stems from something else like, something more internal inside each one of us?

I can already see that some would react by saying 'on what grounds can you give or withhold ground?'.

How can you have grounds to give or withhold ground, if you're not grounded in the truth, since you do not perceive truth as a viable ground on which to ground your foundation? Er.. wait.. :P

We have to be free in spirit, free of mind, concepts should not prevail over the right of freedom of a mind.

And you know what they say don't you?

The Truth shall set you Free

Then again, nobody knows who "they" are, the bastards have been wrong before, and they sure say a lot of things lol (mirth)

P.S. - There is no such thing as "should" or "have to" objectively. Nobody "has to" do or be anything, no one "should" do or be anything. I know you're not really into truth, but in case you may wish to consider it, in my personal understanding, objectivity is absolutely essential to seeing truth.

 

[kenlee]

what you are saying, a 'final objective truth' is what I would call a truth.
Such proposition, to me, is seated on the supposition that an 'absolute' level of definition of reality has been achieved. I would say that this is far from being the case at a human psychological level and, even further that it will never be the case at a human psychological level.

It seems to me that you are viewing a 'final objective truth' in only relative terms when you speak of it in terms of 'a truth.' It's like saying that a half circle exists, or that a quadrant exists, but yet the circle does not exist (or cannot be defined) because the circle is "seated on the supposition that an 'absolute' level of definition of reality has been achieved."

To me this is like saying that our perceptions define reality but, yet, there is no reality that can be perceived.

Also, If you can compare absolute truth with a circle then I get the impression you are saying that that a circle does not exist because it cannot be "achieved?

So, like the circle, it seems to me you are also saying that the absolute truth does not exist because it cannot be "achieved?"

But before anything can be "achieved" should it not first be conceived?

If it cannot be conceived then how can it be "achieved"?

Also if we compare absolute truth to a circle and if our "human psychological level "is part of this circle then, based on your statement above, there can be no truth on the psychological level because the whole circle does not exist because it's conception is " "seated on the supposition that an 'absolute' level of definition of reality has been achieved."

Thus are we to "suppose" that the parts of the circle can be defined but the whole circle cannot be defined because it is beyond our conception? Or perhaps nothing can be defined?

You see, I get the impression that you see truth as only relative. Well I guess in a sense it is relative. A man might be a son. That is true. But, yet, the son can be a father. That is true also. So it is true that he is both a father and son. That is 'relative truth.' But yet, these relationships are connected to even larger relationships. The man is also a part of humanity. Humanity is part of the earth. Earth is part of the solar system...and so on. So truth may be relative from different points of view, but is not each point of view a part that points to a greater whole?

Perhaps lies have no 'wholeness'. Thus there could be millions of'em, all of the lies being only parts with no connection to any whole apart from the deceptive intent of the liars themselves. But is seems to me that there is only one absolute truth and all that has proper relationship to it is also true, which would include all that is on a "psychological level' as well.

 

[Mr. Premise]

How about this definition from Bob Marley: "Truth is an offence, but not a sin." From the song called, ironically in the context of this thread, "Jah Live."

 

[Frai Jonah]

the one who seeks always finds the form sought because it is already defined in the psyche in order to formulate a goal. What I mean by this is that the program of the individual has already flagged a form of concept that must be recognized, otherwise the individual would have no idea of the form or even without a form of the principle (which would be a lot more useful too) that he is supposed to seek. He therefore
would not be seeking.

Comment: In other words, only that which one already knows can be found? This may be so if the "seeker" is obsessed, but then obsession is contrary to learning. I can conceive of two types of seeking, call them the STS and the STO variant, to use the C's terms. The first seeks to find its premise and force whatever is found to validate this premise. The world is shrunk to fit the seeker. The second acknowledges that reality is larger than the seeker and the seeker welcomes the new. The sensory and cognitive limits of the seeker in both cases put some limits on what can be found but these limits are not necessarily fixed. Also cooperation with other seekers may introduce new contents that would not otherwise have been found.

The absolute statement that experience cannot be transferred is too categorical. There is throughout UB's discourse a tendency to make absolute statements while at the same time denying the possibility of complete knowledge. This is contradictory.

It is better to say that experience does not transfer easily.

Seeking the truth is a normal action for a soul that has gone beyond the simple level of pure materialistic conceptualization. It is one step in a direction that has no absolute destiny although it aims for the absolute.

The point of contention here seems principally the word 'truth', the difference in views about 'truth' and the difference in importance that ensues. As I said earlier, I do not view truth, any truth for that madder to be absolute but always relative because they always are interpretations of a psychological mind. I do understand what you mean by that word though or what is sought after. A truth that transcend all interpretations and that is at the base of reality. The difficulty remains though that so long as we look at things psychologically speaking, we are forced to use our polarized concepts, (good/evil, true/false, positive and negative), that will always force us to fragment and filter. Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite and would therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality. That is why I am more interested in principles that have no psychological values than in truths. On the other hand, a principle may not sound as attractive to the truth seeker, an aspect of it always being in opposition with
his sense of comfort towards the information.

Comment: Again, the above sees seeking as seeking something a priori determined, something that the seeker "likes," not as an open ended process.

UB uses the word truth similarly to "system of beliefs" or "world view." There are many such and the "seeker" has an emotional attachment to one or another. So UB says that he does not care about truths. It would be better to say UB does not care about closed systems of beliefs.

It is true that some New Agers say "my truth" or "I have found the truth" and so forth when they mean that they have been impressed by and fallen in love with a system of beliefs. But we do not use "truth" in this meaning.

Seeking is driven by some sort of motivation. But the motivation can be of two qualities, as outlined above. The one that seeks validation of a subjectively chosen model and the kind that seeks to learn for the sake of learning and thereby to expand without prejudice. Both processes produce a certain kind of psychological reward but they have a different "taste."

I do not see that gravity is an 'objective truth' I would say that it is an observed fact that is not understood by current human science under the laws of our senses limited by both our physicality and our separation with our identity. Saying that there is gravity does not provide the principle behind gravity. Furthermore, I do not believe that gravity applies to all and everything, unless we consider the local material universe to be all that there is.

Comment: Again truth. Gravity is not a system of beliefs, true enough. But in our local estate gravity is an interpersonally observable something and we can agree on some of its properties, even though we do not understand its fundamental nature.

We see truth as an empirical scientist might see it, as an expanding body of knowledge that is consistent with itself and with observation. But it is not a solid, homogenous object, In our case it is more like islands of specialities emerging out of a sea of all there is. To the degree we can discuss it, truth must be qualified. Even mathematical truths are qualified by a syystem of unprovable axioms. However, unlike many empirical scientists, we do not automatically reject data that does not fit the general paradigm or hypothesis at hand. Still, data must be filtered for relevance. It is a thin line, not reject too much and not get drawn in by every spurious piece of information.

When seeking this truth, we must acknowledge that it is larger than the seeker and that the part cannot contain the whole. Hence there are limits to how accurate the representation can be. But there are still criteria of verification, consistency etc that may be used to approach a better approximation of truth.

This concerns the cognitive aspect of truth. There can be other aspects of truth that cannot be readily reduced into cognitiv processes or external rules. One example of this is the sense of discernment, an "instinct for truth," as it were, something that can be part of the seeker and yet the seeker cannot in detail explain how this operates. This is skill more than information, yet this can be in relation to truth.

As for gravity itself, the C's say that it indeed does relate to absolutely everything, matter and consciousness alike, across all realms. But since we do not have exact definitions of matter or consciousness or the realms these occupy we cannot say very much about this statement.