Dead dream.

[Bo]

Hi guys,

My mother dreamt last night that I was dead,

well she saw a grave and someone said that I was lying there, there were also flowers on the grave.

any symbological insight on the meaning of such a dream? a warning towards me? or something else?


Yesterday on that day when I was on work I also had a small discussion about religion, racism etc with 2 other co-workers, when one of them told me if I believed in god I said, no , but I do believe that there is something which keeps everything in balance, I said I was an agnost,

I then said , well we rule the animal world, we are more superior, have more awareness then animals, more power, we can control animals, now what if some higher force who is more superior, and has more awareness and more power then humans are actually controlling us?

The discussion continued and went really peacefully, the 2 others were also sharing their views etc, and afterwards I came home.


When I got home my mother told me the next day about her dream, and I told her about the disccussion, and told me that I should not talk about religion with people , and if people tell me if I believe in god that I should just say yes, she said we live in dangerous times, it would be best to tell them what they want to hear, perhaps the message of my dream was, that you need to be more carefull about who you talk to and about what, thinking about what you need to say.


any insight is appreciated.

- Bo

 

[RedFox]

When I got home my mother told me the next day about her dream, and I told her about the disccussion, and told me that I should not talk about religion with people , and if people tell me if I believe in god that I should just say yes, she said we live in dangerous times, it would be best to tell them what they want to hear, perhaps the message of my dream was, that you need to be more carefull about who you talk to and about what, thinking about what you need to say.

Perhaps so. It may be worth rereading about strategic enclosures and general law?
Consider however that those that control the human race can also control there dreams? Perhaps then this was the controllers warning you off persuing such conversations?
So can you find the gray area between those two points of view? Perhaps it was the right time to have that conversation, but maybe other times you need to be more cautious.

My mother dreamt last night that I was dead,

perhaps the message of my dream was

Consider also who had the dream. Although it was about you, it was not you that dreamt it.

Death in dreams usually symbolises change, to have a tombstone of your dead child, perhaps then means a permanent emotional reminder of how they have changed?
More so however is the emotional content, was it fear of loss or grief she was feeling? This may be the key to the dream for her.... :)

I wouldn't take it too literally, but on the off chance perhaps just check your awareness levels.

 

[Bo]

Hi redfox thanks for your input,

My focus is recently based heavily on self-remembering, because I can't exercise strategic enclosure, when I can't even think, or remember what I am doing.

Consider however that those that control the human race can also control there dreams? Perhaps then this was the controllers warning you off persuing such conversations?

This crossed my mind as well, I am always trying to be as carefull as possible when talking about such stuff with people.

More so however is the emotional content, was it fear of loss or grief she was feeling?

I asked her about this, and she told me that it was weird, she did not feel anything, though there was a bit of sadness.

 

[RedFox]

I asked her about this, and she told me that it was weird, she did not feel anything, though there was a bit of sadness.

fwiw then perhaps its simply an observation. Perhaps its as simple as her observing a (permanent?) change in you. The old you is 'dead' as it were. Have you made some permanent changes recently that she may be aware of?
It may be worth noting that the dream may well be unrelated to the conversations you had.

 

[Bo]

It may be worth noting that the dream may well be unrelated to the conversations you had.

That's indeed also a very good possibility.

Well I did change a lot of stuff these last few months, one was that I am paying more attention to my health, I have joined a fitness club, which at the same time forced me to eat more healthy, because you can't eat junk food and you should avoid all unhealty food, eating healty has more benefits, for the body self and also if one is exercising.

I have also recently bumped into an old friend from school, it was really funny..I had not seen her in 4 years, and then that day I was walking to the gym, and we actually bumped into eachother on the street , we went eating somewhere the following week and were talking about politics, narcissism, psychopaths, it was a great talk, and she is also very open-minded.

another old friend also popped up, who is very open-minded and critical and generally a very nice guy with a good hearth.

and I know that I need to be carefull that perhaps the reason I bumped into old friends, is maybe because of distracting me. I also keep that in mind, and try to be as aware and carefull as possible.

 

[daniello]

My mother dreamt last night that I was dead,

When I got home my mother told me the next day about her dream, and I told her about the discussion, and told me that I should not talk about religion with people , and if people tell me if I believe in god that I should just say yes, she said we live in dangerous times, it would be best to tell them what they want to hear, perhaps the message of my dream was, that you need to be more carefull about who you talk to and about what, thinking about what you need to say.

Hi
In my opinion dreams are a projection of our perception. Usually, we dream of things on which we'd put our attention. If you watched a movie about skeletons, in future, you might dream of them. Of course it is more complicated, I just wanted to put some little analogy. While dreaming our state is similar to the 5D conditions, so we're better connected to our Higher Self. Then we may receive different impulses, like symbolic(or literal) prophecies, messages from our, or global Awareness and what's obvious here- our dream could be just manipulated by the greys.
After this intro part, I'll let myself claim, that your mother's dream was nothing but a dream. My grandma used to dream about me being hit by a car, or falling from a cliff. None of this happened. Probably your mum was thinking recently about death or graveyards. Because, You're her son - she cares about you and think of You, so her brain somehow connected these two memories. Please, take my word hypothetically. I see no point in her conclusion, supported by her vision, that You should lie about Your opinion "because the world is dangerous".
The world we think of is just a hologram. In our brain it looks like we want it to look.
Secondly, the truth is the most important. During any conversations we shall never lie. It's a lesson we need to understand.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=Daniello]During any conversations we shall never lie[/quote]

It may be helpful for you to reexamine this. Moral statements in this form make their way into the mind from pathological sources to disable critical thinking. A start would be to look up “Third Force” and “Strategic Enclosure” in the Cassiopaea Esoteric Glossary (or the Cassiopedia,) and the search function on the forum.

 

[RedFox]

Hi Daniello

In my opinion dreams are a projection of our perception. Usually, we dream of things on which we'd put our attention. If you watched a movie about skeletons, in future, you might dream of them. Of course it is more complicated, I just wanted to put some little analogy.

This seems to be the case, the unconscious mind takes things that are fresh in our memories and uses them as a way to talk to us. In some cases anyway. Sometimes there is no meaning to them. And sometimes they are disinformation.
Some common symbols that seem to show up are buildings where we spend a lot of our time (home, school, work etc) or vehicles (cars, bikes etc) tend to represent ourselves.

While dreaming our state is similar to the 5D conditions, so we're better connected to our Higher Self.

I do not personally have any conscious experience with 5D, and for me at the moment although I like the idea (and find it highly probable that there is a 5D from what I have read) I do not know what 5D conditions are like, nor if 5D actually exists.
Are you able to explain how a dream is similar to 5D conditions??

I see no point in her conclusion, supported by her vision, that You should lie about Your opinion "because the world is dangerous".

Did you read the links above about Strategic Enclosure and General Law? It may be worth your while doing so as this is an important subject.

The world we think of is just a hologram.

Are you able to provide some data to back up this claim?

In our brain it looks like we want it to look.

I know people can be very Subjective, is this what your referring to? One of the aims of this forum is to help each other see things as Objectively as possible, to all see the same thing, as close to the truth as you can possibly get.

Secondly, the truth is the most important. During any conversations we shall never lie. It's a lesson we need to understand.

I agree, the truth is most important. However there are situations that call for us to not expand on or volunteer the truth for our sakes and the sake of others.
This is known as the Third Force

`There are those who think that truth or lies are always static, that a lie is a lie is a lie and that to be "good," one must ALWAYS tell the "truth." However, it is not always that easy. For example, consider France during the Nazi occupation. Undoubtedly, many of those involved in the resistance lied daily and regularly about their plans and activities. What was different about their lies was the INTENT and the SPECIFIC SITUATION. In such a situation, speaking the truth to a Nazi soldier who would use that truth to destroy one's fellow resistance fighters would be "evil," so to say, and lying would be "good." The greater truth that the lie served was Freedom from Tyranny. The "observer" of the situation knew the objective truth that revealing his plans or betraying his brothers would bring their deaths. The reality of the Nazis was based on subjective lies, and by responding to these lies leading to tyranny with an opposite lie that led to freedom was then an effective canceling of the subjectivity leaving the field clear for objectivity. This simple example ought to give the reader much to think about in terms of the socialized belief in a "black and white" exposition of "truth or lies" and "good and evil".'

It should also be noted that explaining the truth to someone who does not want to hear it is not externally considerate.

*edit* looks like Mountain Crown beat me to it :)

 

[Bo]

Telling the truth in every conversation is like walking in public with a bullseye on your head, we live in a society where people are not conscience of their actions, people who do not understand one another, and a world where the majority loves the illusion they live in.

If you find yourself among people who understand and feel the same as you do, people who are on the same frequency as you, then yes, telling the truth can be more beneficial to your well being then lying.

As long as people like living in lying, you would only harm yourself by telling the truth in every situation.

from ISOTM;

"Then one must learn to speak the truth. This also appears strange to you. You do not realize that one has to learn to speak the truth. It seems to you that it is enough to wish or to decide to do so. And I tell you that people comparatively rarely tell a deliberate lie. In most cases they think they speak the truth. And yet they lie all the time, both when they wish to lie and when they wish to speak the truth. They lie all the time, both to themselves and to others.

Therefore nobody ever understands either himself or anyone else. Think—could there be such discord, such deep misunderstanding, and such hatred towards the views and opinions of others, if people were able to understand one another? But they cannot understand because they cannot help lying.

To speak the truth is the most difficult thing in the world; and one must study a great deal and for a long time in order to be able to speak the truth. The wish alone is not enough. To speak the truth one must know what the truth is and what a lie is, and first of all in oneself. And this nobody wants to know."

It should also benefit you beside reading strategic enclosure as mentioned by MC, to also take a look at the general law topic.

 

[daniello]

To answer Your questions, I'll try to divide my answer into several parts. Firstly I'll show You my point of wiev so that I could be able to explain, what led me to publish an opinion, on which You had some objections. :)

While dreaming our state is similar to the 5D conditions, so we're better connected to our Higher Self.

I do not personally have any conscious experience with 5D, and for me at the moment although I like the idea (and find it highly probable that there is a 5D from what I have read) I do not know what 5D conditions are like, nor if 5D actually exists.
Are you able to explain how a dream is similar to 5D conditions??

In my opinion, it is that, while dreaming, we are all better connected to our Higher-Self( I'm not sure how to translate it from my native language), which "lives" in 5D, so indirectly we are 'closer' to 5D

The world we think of is just a hologram.

Are you able to provide some data to back up this claim?

I don't have any data, I can tell it from my experiences and "studies" :)
My grandma is in the state, in which the contact with the world is becoming limited up to seing my Grandpa, the walls, and a TV. The last one has the biggest influence on her. The world showed by mass media is full of brutality, cruelties and dangers. She believes it. During my last conversation with her, I heard of a bad ,bad, bad world and "decaying and mannerless youth". She claims, that one can't go outside in the evening without being robbed. Is the whole world alike? Is it that bad? No, it is only her subjective vision, limited by her own experiences. In fact, at this stage, we are all unable to see the world from all points of wiev. So basically, we'll get rid of the hologram, when we all become connected.

In our brain it looks like we want it to look.

I know people can be very Subjective, is this what your referring to? One of the aims of this forum is to help each other see things as Objectively as possible, to all see the same thing, as close to the truth as you can possibly get.

I think You answered it :)

Phew, I must say it was quite time-consuming to reply to all of You guys :)

 

[anart]

To answer Your questions, I'll try to divide my answer into several parts. Firstly I'll show You my point of wiev so that I could be able to explain, what led me to publish an opinion, on which You had some objections. :)

Actually, it would be more valuable for you to actively listen and consider the information you have been given, rather than trying to explain your point of view - simply because your point of view is subjective and not at all what you think it is; it is lacking.

I've read those articles, but there are a few points I don't agree with. Beggining from the term of "the truth". Yes, this term is subjective. None of the text we publish here is "the truth". It is unspoken, and we'll fully understand it at the 7'th level. This does not mean, that we're not supposed to start reaserches and examine truth's nature. As a mass conscioussness, we may reach it by sharing our feelings and achievements.

This is a deflection. The purpose of this forum is to work toward the objective truth - and that absolutely necessitates examining information - however, once something has been figured out, barring the acquisition of very strong conflicting data, it is the Truth. You seem to be giving the same weight to your personal, limited understanding, as you do to the groundwork of this form and they are not equal.

The strategic enclosure suggests to wait with sharing, until the Laws change.

No, it doesn't. You do not understand the meaning of Strategic Enclosure. Did you read the links that were provided to you?

Why? We all want to release from the ilusionary world created by the Lizards, and leave the STS system, right? So why do we still play on its rules and automatically extend their control over us? You may say: not to hurt ourselves, not to be regard as a weird one. This are all mind-schemes, that withold us from unfolding! What if the Copernicus didn't present heliocentric theorem? What if a first group of people didn't turn back freedom to their slaves? I could list some other "what if" questions, but there's no point in doing that. My conclusion is, that these people were also displayed for the public offence and troubles. They didn't get matierial benefits at the beggining. The Copernicus was regarded by the Church as a heretic( Church had a great power in medieval), and those, who got rid of slaves, had to employ workers for their f.e. farms. So, they both had "lost" in a way that some think of. After all, the law of the cause-and-effect will always compensate all deeds. If those people stayed silent, some changes would not occur (then). Maybe there was something, that they knew. Right-they had "some" knowledge. The knowledge protects. If we have "some" :) we know, that as a matter of facts, we are all ONE,we are all equal, we are all the same and we are all here, to learn. The way we are regarded doesn't really matter. Stop- it matters here, in the 3D STS reality. If we are able to release from these rules, some cases stop being important, because of the fake nature of these believes.
Why to never lie? Lies extend, and strenghten the illusion we're in. I feel, that lies creates a barrier, at a soul level, which separates us. As I have said before- we are all one, we are all one consciousness. Why to separate and divide? It's not our goal, I think.

The above paragraph indicates, strongly, that you are completely misunderstanding the material - and - no - we are not all one, not at this level, not in this reality. Have you read the Wave Series, in its entirety, yet? If not, please do so to get up to speed.

To sum up: I supported my words, to never say lies I also explained, that all "harmful" effects, are not real.

That is word salad and nothing more.

I don't have any data, I can tell it from my experiences and "studies" :)

It would be wise if you learned to question your own thinking more - it is leading you astray.

Phew, I must say it was quite tiring, and time-consuming to reply to all of You guys :)

As it was for us to read your 'take' on things and make sense of it to see where they problem might reside. Perhaps an essay from Mme de Salzmann might help clarify some things for you, especially about your tendency to trust your own thinking, when it is subjective. It is a very valuable essay, so hopefully it will help:

You will see that in life you receive exactly what you give. Your
life is the mirror of what you are. It is in your image. You are
passive, blind, demanding. You take all, you accept all, without
feeling any obligation. Your attitude toward the world and toward
life is the attitude of one who has the right to make demands and to
take, who has no need to pay or to earn. You believe that all things
are your due, simply because it is you! All your blindness is there!
None of this strikes your attention. And yet this is what keeps one
world separate from another world.

You have no measure with which to measure yourself. You live
exclusively according to "I like" or "I don´t like," you have no
appreciation except for yourself. You recognize nothing above you-
theoretically, logically, perhaps, but actually no. That is why you
are demanding and continue to believe that everything is cheap and
that you have enough in your pocket to buy everything you like. You
recognize nothing above you, either outside yourself or inside. That
is why, I repeat, you have no measure and live passively according to
your likes and dislikes.

Yes, your "appreciation of yourself" blinds you. It is the biggest
obstacle to a new life. You must be able to get over this obstacle,
this threshold, before going further. This test divides men into two
kinds: the "wheat" and the "chaff." No matter how intelligent, how
gifted, how brilliant a man may be, if he does not change his
appreciation of himself, there will be no hope for an inner
development, for a work toward self-knowledge, for a true becoming.
He will remain such as he is all his life. The first requirement, the
first condition, the first test for one who wishes to work on himself
is to change his appreciation of himself. He must not imagine, not
simply believe or think, but see things in himself which he has never
seen before, see them actually. His appreciation will never be able
to change as long as he sees nothing in himself. And in order to see,
he must learn to see; this is the first initiation of man into self-
knowledge.

First of all, he has to know what he must look at. When he knows, he
must make efforts, keep his attention, look constantly with
persistence. Only through maintaining his attention, and not
forgetting to look, one day, perhaps, he will be able to see. If he
sees one time he can see a second time, and if that continues he will
no longer be able not to see. This is the state to be looked for, it
is the aim of our observation; it is from there that the true wish
will be born, the irresistible wish to become: from cold we shall
become warm, vibrant; we shall be touched by our reality.

Today we have nothing but the illusion of what we are. We think too
highly of ourselves. We do not respect ourselves. In order to respect
myself, I have to recognize a part in myself which is above the other
parts, and my attitude toward this part should bear witness to the
respect that I have for it. In this way I shall respect myself. And
my relations with others will be governed by the same respect.

You must understand that all the other measures-talent, education,
culture, genius-are changing measures, measures of detail. The only
exact measure, the only unchanging, objective real measure is the
measure of inner vision. I see-I see myself-by this, you have
measured. With one higher real part, you have measured another lower
part, also real. And this measure, defining by itself the role of
each part, will lead you to respect for yourself.

But you will see that it is not easy. And it is not cheap. You must
pay dearly. For bad payers, lazy people, parasites, no hope. You must
pay, pay a lot, and pay immediately, pay in advance. Pay with
yourself. By sincere, conscientious, disinterested efforts. The more
you are prepared to pay without economizing, without cheating,
without any falsification, the more you will receive. And from that
time on you will become acquainted with your nature. And you will see
all the tricks, all the dishonesties that your nature resorts to in
order to avoid paying hard cash. Because you have to pay with your
ready-made theories, with your rooted convictions, with your
prejudices, your conventions, your "I like" and "I don´t like."
Without bargaining, honestly, without pretending. Trying "sincerely"
to see as you offer your counterfeit money.

Try for a moment to accept the idea that you are not what you believe
yourself to be, that you overestimate yourself, in fact that you lie
to yourself. That you always lie to yourself every moment, all day,
all your life. That this lying rules you to such an extent that you
cannot control it any more. You are the prey of lying. You lie,
everywhere. Your relations with others-lies. The upbringing you give,
the conventions-lies. Your teaching-lies. Your theories, your art
lies. Your social life, your family life-lies. And what you think of
yourself-lies also.

But you never stop yourself in what you are doing or in what you are
saying because you believe in yourself. You must stop inwardly and
observe. Observe without preconceptions, accepting for a time this
idea of lying. And if you observe in this way, paying with yourself,
without self-pity, giving up all your supposed riches for a moment of
reality, perhaps you will suddenly see something you have never
before seen in yourself until this day. You will see that you are
different from what you think you are. You will see that you are two.
One who is not, but takes the place and plays the role of the other.
And one who is, yet so weak, so insubstantial, that he no sooner
appears than he immediately disappears. He cannot endure lies. The
least lie makes him faint away. He does not struggle, he does not
resist, he is defeated in advance. Learn to look until you have seen
the difference between your two natures, until you have seen the
lies, the deception in yourself. When you have seen your two natures,
that day, in yourself, the truth will be born.

 

[Mountain Crown]

[quote author=Daniello][quote author=Mountain Crown]
Moral statements in this form make their way into the mind from pathological sources to disable critical thinking.[/quote]

Could You please explain it more clearly...? [/quote]

The material dealing with the “third force” was the explanation. To summarize, neither absolutism nor relativism adequately deal with morality. It can easily be shown that sometimes lying is the morally appropriate act. It is also clear that there is an appropriate act for a given situation. The third force is the context of the situation that determines the moral choice.

Stating that lying is always wrong is using moral terminology as a cloak to express something not grounded in reality, the apprehension of which the faculty of critical thinking is responsible. Such usage of moral terminology has the ability to influence people who posess an intrinsic sense that there is a “right and wrong” - without using their own head.

[quote author=Political Ponerology]The conviction that moral values exist but that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man’s instinctive endowment level, and is not just a representation of centuries of experience, culture, religions, and socialization. Thus, any insinuation enclosed in a “moral slogan” is always suggestive even if the “moral” criteria used are just an ad hoc invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of using “paramoralisms” through active suggestion and people who will succumb to this manipulation are plentiful.
In searching for an example of an evil act whose negative value would not elicit doubt in any social situation, ethics scholars frequently mention child abuse. However, psychologists often meet with paramoral affirmations of such behavior in their practice.[/quote]

 

[daniello]

To answer Your questions, I'll try to divide my answer into several parts. Firstly I'll show You my point of wiev so that I could be able to explain, what led me to publish an opinion, on which You had some objections. :)

Actually, it would be more valuable for you to actively listen and consider the information you have been given, rather than trying to explain your point of view - simply because your point of view is subjective and not at all what you think it is; it is lacking.

I agree my point of wiev is subjective, I've never said it's not. Would You please tell me, how to say that I'd like to present my opinion in order to reply the answers I was given? The fact that I'm not native speaker causes that I may have problems with putting my thoughts into the text in a satisfactory way. Whatever, putting our thoughts into words is a difficult art.

This is a deflection. The purpose of this forum is to work toward the objective truth - and that absolutely necessitates examining information - however, once something has been figured out, barring the acquisition of very strong conflicting data, it is the Truth. You seem to be giving the same weight to your personal, limited understanding, as you do to the groundwork of this form and they are not equal.

The strategic enclosure suggests to wait with sharing, until the Laws change.

No, it doesn't. You do not understand the meaning of Strategic Enclosure. Did you read the links that were provided to you?

The reason why I mentioned about this by thename is because I've read them. Again, words blocked me from putting my true intention.
The SE claims, to create an eclosure, in which we'll be "working on the process of awakening and assimilating knowledge". And when we'll finish it, then we can step out of the current laws. So I'm questioning the part, why shouldn't we share the "effects of our work" before, we'll get the whole concept.

- and - no - we are not all one, not at this level, not in this reality. Have you read the Wave Series, in its entirety, yet? If not, please do so to get up to speed.

We are all one family, we are all the part of Everything. Everything is a part of us. We were all one whilst the "big bang", and only the illusion of ego prevents from 'feeling' we're one. This is my-subjective opinion.

I don't have any data, I can tell it from my experiences and "studies" :)

It would be wise if you learned to question your own thinking more - it is leading you astray.[/quote]
What's leading me astray?At this particular case I don't have any data at the form of external links or literature. So I support this opinion by my experience.

Phew, I must say it was quite tiring, and time-consuming to reply to all of You guys :)

As it was for us to read your 'take' on things and make sense of it to see where they problem might reside. Perhaps an essay from Mme de Salzmann might help clarify some things for you, especially about your tendency to trust your own thinking, when it is subjective. It is a very valuable essay, so hopefully it will help:

Anart, If I had a tendency to trust my own thinking, I'd never read The Wave and change under its influence. I don't know, how many times I have to point, that what I'm sharing with You is just theoretical, hypothetical and subjective. The reason why I am here is to check my thoughts and confrontate them in order to determine what is an objective true. If You still try to point, that what I am posting here is contradictory to my aims, than sorry, the barrier of network prevents me from revealing my true intentions.
Anyway, thanks for the essay.

 

[anart]

I agree my point of wiev is subjective, I've never said it's not. Would You please tell me, how to say that I'd like to present my opinion in order to reply the answers I was given? The fact that I'm not native speaker causes that I may have problems with putting my thoughts into the text in a satisfactory way. Whatever, putting our thoughts into words is a difficult art.

Yes, I understand that you are not a native English speaker, though your English is very good. The issue I was trying to address is the fact that you appear to not be listening to the input, so much as you are discounting it, in order to explain your point of view - it would be more beneficial for you to actually consider that what you have been told about these subjects is correct, so you can broaden your understanding - instead of explaining why you think what you think and others are mistaken.

The reason why I mentioned about this by thename is because I've read them. Again, words blocked me from putting my true intention.
The SE claims, to create an eclosure, in which we'll be "working on the process of awakening and assimilating knowledge". And when we'll finish it, then we can step out of the current laws. So I'm questioning the part, why shouldn't we share the "effects of our work" before, we'll get the whole concept.

No, I don't think it was 'words' that blocked your true intention, at least not from this explanation. We cannot "share the effects of the work before" because of the General Law -- there can be no Real effect of the work until one escapes the General Law and one cannot escape the General Law without a Strategic Enclosure (and even sharing the precursory effects of the Work, without a Strategic Enclosure can dissipate the effects of the Work). To think one can, means that one truly does not understand the process and that any information they would be sharing would be incorrect anyway! Never underestimate the power of the General Law to keep you in your place. I think further study on the General Law might help your understanding. In short, one must move outside of the Law of Accident - the General Law - before they can Do anything - you are putting the cart before the horse - and a Strategic Enclosure is fundamental in being able to escape the General Law. This is the basic understanding you seem to be missing.

What's leading me astray?

Your current understanding, which you seem to take as truth - this is okay, it can be remedied with the input of more Knowledge - which you are working on.

At this particular case I don't have any data at the form of external links or literature. So I support this opinion by my experience.

Did you read the Mme de Salzmann essay and try to directly apply it to yourself? If you had, I don't think you would have written the second sentence above.

Anart, If I had a tendency to trust my own thinking, I'd never read The Wave and change under its influence.

Sure you would, if you found it interesting or that it served some image you have of yourself as someone who is interested in the extraordinary.

I don't know, how many times I have to point, that what I'm sharing with You is just theoretical, hypothetical and subjective. The reason why I am here is to check my thoughts and confrontate them in order to determine what is an objective true.

Yet you argue against the input you are given! If you were truly here to check your thoughts, then it seems you would take the input seriously and to heart and not automatically explain why you are correct. Can you see that dynamic at play? You are saying one thing, yet doing another.

If You still try to point, that what I am posting here is contradictory to my aims, than sorry, the barrier of network prevents me from revealing my true intentions.

Actually, that is never the case. The network never prevents anyone from revealing their true intentions - in fact, the network does the exact opposite, whether one is aware of their true intentions or not. Try to not be upset by this input you have received, it is not intended to offend, it is offered in an attempt to assist you - and that is why you are here, correct?

Anyway, thanks for the essay.

That Essay is one of the most important things I've ever read and I still read it very often and apply it directly to myself - because of the benefit doing that has. Perhaps you could try to do the same? By the way, your English is very good, so I think it might also be beneficial for you to stop assuming that you are being misunderstood due to a language issue, when it is the meaning behind your words that seems to be the issue. fwiw. :)

 

[daniello]

No, I don't think it was 'words' that blocked your true intention, at least not from this explanation. We cannot "share the effects of the work before" because of the General Law -- there can be no Real effect of the work until one escapes the General Law and one cannot escape the General Law without a Strategic Enclosure (and even sharing the precursory effects of the Work, without a Strategic Enclosure can dissipate the effects of the Work). To think one can, means that one truly does not understand the process and that any information they would be sharing would be incorrect anyway! Never underestimate the power of the General Law to keep you in your place. I think further study on the General Law might help your understanding. In short, one must move outside of the Law of Accident - the General Law - before they can Do anything - you are putting the cart before the horse - and a Strategic Enclosure is fundamental in being able to escape the General Law. This is the basic understanding you seem to be missing.

I'll follow Your tip, thank You.
I had to edit this one: There would be no "The Wave" if Laura didn't share her first effects of the work!

At this particular case I don't have any data at the form of external links or literature. So I support this opinion by my experience.

Did you read the Mme de Salzmann essay and try to directly apply it to yourself? If you had, I don't think you would have written the second sentence above.

Is the statement: "based on the observation" satisfactory?

I don't know, how many times I have to point, that what I'm sharing with You is just theoretical, hypothetical and subjective. The reason why I am here is to check my thoughts and confrontate them in order to determine what is an objective true.

Yet you argue against the input you are given! If you were truly here to check your thoughts, then it seems you would take the input seriously and to heart and not automatically explain why you are correct. Can you see that dynamic at play? You are saying one thing, yet doing another.

The reason why I publish my thoughts and support it by the way I think and also the processes that led me to think in such way is simple. I find it more helpful to hear any clues showing me that the way I observe might be wrong somehow. However, my first post in this topic concerned mostly the opinion. I was asked to explain it more clearly and support it. This is why I tried to present constructive arguments. I feel that You try to tell me that I argue a point not listening to the input. But You do it, when I am to explain my suggestions! Isn't it like asking a postman for the reason why he brought you a letter? Or do I get something wrong?

That Essay is one of the most important things I've ever read and I still read it very often and apply it directly to myself - because of the benefit doing that has. Perhaps you could try to do the same? By the way, your English is very good, so I think it might also be beneficial for you to stop assuming that you are being misunderstood due to a language issue, when it is the meaning behind your words that the issue. fwiw. :)

I'll surely put an attention while reading the essay anytime. :)