Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection

[whitecoast]

This was such a great book, thanks for writing it Pierre!

I have one question about the elites of the past versus the elites of today. Many today are prepping for catastrophe while demonizing the little folk who do the same. Was this also exhibited in the studies on the Roman Empire? The knowledge of the human-cosmic connection seemed to be more widespread back then than now. Did this lead to the oligarchs to taking similar precautions in limiting the preparedness of others? Or do the quiet periods so thoroughly condition everyone to just sit on their behinds until the stones start falling on their heads?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Laurelayn, are you in the Southern US? I was flying back from California to New England yesterday and had a three hour layover in Atlanta. Because of the storms in the South it turned into an 8 hour layover. And I was lucky, I came within five minutes of having to sleep in the airport (there were hundreds who had to). But the clouds looked really wild and different flying over them coming into Atlanta. They were very high cumulus.

And it so happens that I was finishing Pierre's book yesterday. And as you and Pierre mentioned, I noticed that I reacted to the day much differently while reading the book. In the past I might have gotten frustrated with an 8 hour layover with constant delays (not to mention the fact that I don't have much time at home, since I have to go back to California Monday morning), but, armed with knowledge of what is happening and why, I was very calm and patient the whole day (even, pretty much, when I reached my home airport at 3 AM and had trouble finding my car keys!). I think this is the real advantage of facing facts with a group of people dedicated to seeing things as they are. When things get really crazy we may be able to keep our feet under us.

Another thing that really struck me at the end of the book was the part about the three pairs, one where both think 1+1=2, one where one thinks it equals 3 and the other thinks is equals 4 and the third where each one thinks it equals the same wrong thing. For the first time, I really could understand the anxiety that authoritarian followers feel when you don't agree with them. I think they feel that if EVERYONE believes the exact same lie, the lie will have enough power to become true. So anyone who doesn't agree with them is a threat to their whole existence.

I was looking for an appropriate place for discussion about the book Earth Changes and hopefully this is an appropriate place for one.
I just finished it yesterday and it was life changing for me, actually all of the recommended books are to some extent, but this changed how I choose to experience the world on a fundamental level.

Yes, while our modern culture hammers into our minds a materialistic, linear, individualistic, atheistic, mechanistic worldview, ECHCC proposes almost the exact opposite: a deeply interconnected, non-linear, non-local world ruled by information and consciousness.

I have observed many many thunderstorms in a lot of different places. I am one of those that stands outside watching, feeling, and smelling the experience until the rain or hail drives me under cover, to me it is energizing and exciting.

There might be some tangible explanations for those feelings. Our body in general and our brain in particular being highly electric instruments and the rain being a re-balancing phenomena carrying negative charges (electrons) back to the ground, the rain may indeed have a very tangible influence on the electromagnetic state of our bodies and brains.

I had never watched a storm that was as active as this one was, it was non stop lightening for over an hour as it came right over the top of us and it was fascinating to look at it through a different level of knowledge than I had ever had before.

True. Several readers told me that now when they look at clouds, rain, lightning they see something totally different.

The human horrors are very painful to be aware of but if I can't change it I can at least choose to see it for what it is.

And, the human-cosmic connection may make those human horrors more bearable in the sense that it attributes them meaning and effects that, on a cosmic level, are positive ones: some kind of global reset serving the highest principles of the Universe: evolution, information, creation. Although on a personal level it may only seem to be suffering and destruction.

 

[Pierre]

I have one question about the elites of the past versus the elites of today. Many today are prepping for catastrophe while demonizing the little folk who do the same. Was this also exhibited in the studies on the Roman Empire? The knowledge of the human-cosmic connection seemed to be more widespread back then than now. Did this lead to the oligarchs to taking similar precautions in limiting the preparedness of others? Or do the quiet periods so thoroughly condition everyone to just sit on their behinds until the stones start falling on their heads?

I didn't find any source mentioning the Roman elites prepping for coming catastrophes. However they had chroniclers at the time drawing parallels between political events and natural wonders, so the Human-Cosmic Connection hadn't been totally severed at the time. I guess therefore, that some leaders knew, to some extent, what was brewing.

I also suppose that they were trying to suppress any apocalyptic movement because it is a source of chaos / civil unrest that threatens the power held by the elites.

As mentioned in a recent session today's elites also have interpreters linking cosmic and human affairs (the disappearance of MH 370 being interprated as an indicator of the Universe reacting to the growing WWIII threat)

In any case, today, like in Roman day, I don't think all the elites know and behave the same. Some are probably totally oblivious of what is coming, some think something is coming but have it totally wrong (global warming), some only have part of the picture: global cooling or economic collapse or food shortages or overhead explosions...

 

[Niall]

And it so happens that I was finishing Pierre's book yesterday. And as you and Pierre mentioned, I noticed that I reacted to the day much differently while reading the book. In the past I might have gotten frustrated with an 8 hour layover with constant delays (not to mention the fact that I don't have much time at home, since I have to go back to California Monday morning), but, armed with knowledge of what is happening and why, I was very calm and patient the whole day (even, pretty much, when I reached my home airport at 3 AM and had trouble finding my car keys!). I think this is the real advantage of facing facts with a group of people dedicated to seeing things as they are. When things get really crazy we may be able to keep our feet under us.

That's why constant (true) information input is essential. EE and diet are helpful, but it's constant knowledge input that really enables us to cope during these times.

 

[Nienna]

Great job Pierre and Laura.
You've managed to make plasma physics and the electric universe theory accessible to the masses which is no small feat.

I totally agree! It was a fascinating, easy-to-understand read full of so much knowledge that is sorely needed. Thank you!

 

[Altair]

Just finished the book. Very clearly and understandably written. Thank you very much Pierre and Laura for your work.

 

[Roger]

A very well written electrical science manual which should be put into High School and College level courses to explain the "Electric Universe Theory".....Thank you Laura and Pierre.

 

[Mal7]

Great book! I just finished it today. The latter half of the book becomes very philosophical in the best sense of that term, e.g. looking at the big questions, like what are humans? what is the universe? how does it work?

The idea that information may be of more primary importance than physical laws and then matter (page 295, also John 1:1-3) seems closely linked with the idea that comet-related catastrophes are induced by the psycho-political realities humans create. (A nuts-and-bolts physicist by contrast, who thinks matter and physical laws have primacy, and that information and consciousness and their non-entropic properties are of little importance and do not cause or determine events, could accept the correlation of cosmic catastrophes and pathological political realities, but think that there was no point doing anything about those political realities because the comets will turn up regardless like clockwork every X number of years.)

That is not to say that the coming of comets is a bad thing. As Pierre quotes from Sedir on page 334, "If comets are a cure for the world, their role is to get rid of what is no longer useful to the world, and it is always a blessing."

This idea that we will get the cosmic blessing that we deserve, even if that blessing is a destructive one, is interesting to think about in relation to the idea that 200 conscious people could prevent a cataclysmic future (page 325). The reason 200 conscious people on a planet of 7 billion could prevent a cataclysm would have to be that they are resonating in accord with greater truth, or have become much "heavier" with information. One could still ask perhaps whether 200 people equally "heavy" with information and truth, but hell-bent on bringing on a cataclysm and social chaos, could counter the effects of the 200 conscious people aiming to prevent a cataclysm (and if not, then why not?).

I find it an interesting thought experiment to carry the idea of non-uniformity, dynastic cycles, and periodic cataclysmic destructions of advanced civilizations back to a much longer period of time. What if for example this has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years? Why should anyone think they would be able to create a non-pathocratic society that breaks the cycle? If that were possible, wouldn't some advanced or conscious people many thousands of years ago have worked it out?

Then the point seems to me to be that even if (at least going on the historical track record) it were not possible to create a non-pathocratic society after the fall of a pathocratic one, the important thing is that we as individuals are able to make the choice to try, i.e. to "make our stand", or make an attempt to live as individuals and as societies in accord with our values. Among possible worlds, there must be some very dark totalitarian planets even worse than where our planet presently stands, and if we don't want to be on one of those, then we should not underestimate the importance of our having the power to make that choice, and should not underestimate what small numbers of people can do when they have a common higher vision.

 

[Pierre]

The reason 200 conscious people on a planet of 7 billion could prevent a cataclysm would have to be that they are resonating in accord with greater truth, or have become much "heavier" with information.

This hypothesized group of 200 or so, may not necessarily "prevent" the coming cataclysm for all human beings. Maybe it will just be mitigated for the group members because of increased knowledge (preparedness) and/or access to a branching Universe and/or access to a higher density.

 

[Palinurus]

The famous two hundred are mentioned here for instance: Forum Guidelines-(non members section)

One would've thought that this were common knowledge for most forum members by now:

...two hundred conscious people, if they existed and if they found it necessary and legitimate, could change the whole of life on the earth. But either there are not enough of them, or they do not want to, or perhaps the time has not yet come, or perhaps other people are sleeping too soundly.

In other words, it is suggested that 200 fully conscious beings, who...

"have attained the highest development possible for man, each one of whom possesses individuality in the fullest degree, that is to say, an indivisible 'I,' all forms of consciousness possible for man, full control over these states of consciousness, the whole of knowledge possible for man, and a free and independent will. They cannot perform actions opposed to their understanding or have an understanding which is not expressed by actions. At the same time there can be no discords among them, no differences of understanding. Therefore their activity is entirely co-ordinated and leads to one common aim without any kind of compulsion because it is based upon a common and identical understanding."

...could change the course of our world.

It's a tall order to reach such a state of being, that's for sure...

 

[Psalehesost]

And regarding how a small group of people could change the world when, as is now the case, "others are sleeping too soundly", there is the thread "The frequency ratio in humanity and the times to come". In short - and we've learned even more about that since the time of that discussion - the world population is probably going to decrease very drastically in the near future - and once that happens, if the group survives, its influence will drastically increase in proportion.

 

[Palinurus]

Thank you Psalehesost for digging that one up and sharing it with us. You must've been reading my mind!

I had a vague recollection of something like that in the back of my head and tried searching for it in my bookmarks but couldn't find anything. Now that you've brought it up again, it has become clear why: I didn't bookmark this one as of yet, but I made sure of that now.

Couldn't search the forum for it, as I didn't remember the exact phrasing of the subject matter.

Anyway, it sure fits in here.

 

[Jones]

Thanks for this book, I've found that it ties some profound concepts into a neat package and that it supports and gives some 'meat' to other teachings.

I've also found it easy to recommend to others as the title seems fitting to some of the subjects and ideas they they seem open to.

I have found an error in chapter 39. It's a common enough error, and for that reason I was about to let it slide, but since the aim is to as far as possible align with the truth I figured I'd put it out there.

"If the rats followed the right routine and went to the right door they got food (positive reinforcement)"

This is indeed positive reinforcement - something added (in this instance, food) in order to strengthen a behaviour.

"If they followed the wrong routine they fell into water (negative reinforcement)"

The above is actually positive punishment - something added (a fall into water) in order to weaken the behaviour of following the incorrect routine.

For the water to be a negative reinforcer the rats would need to be in the water and have the water removed when they followed the correct routine.

 

[Mal7]

"If they followed the wrong routine they fell into water (negative reinforcement)"

The above is actually positive punishment - something added (a fall into water) in order to weaken the behaviour of following the incorrect routine.

For the water to be a negative reinforcer the rats would need to be in the water and have the water removed when they followed the correct routine.

That doesn't seem like an error to me, as I take negative reinforcement to mean much the same thing as a punishment, or a positive punishment. I don't think the "negative" means something has to be taken away, but that whatever happens (something added or taken away) the reinforcement of the "negative" type counts as a dis-incentive to perform the same action again. Or is there some specific proper technical usage in the literature of these words that I am not aware of?

 

[Jones]

Perhaps these descriptions will help Mal7.
http://www2.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/wasserman/glossary/reinforcement.html

Like I said, it's a common enough error