How is the World Going to End in 2012?

[Mr. Premise]

Re: The last article of Laura

Good article but never mind that cuz every reader here to some extent is familiar with things u have mentioned in article Laura, but it is rlly shame to some readers and so called supporters of ur work that they cant give something in return for all those years of doing such dedicated work. But may as it be only reflects the state that we are in as species where many only talk the walk. For example I don't have means to help, meaning I don't posses credit card. But I asked and as it turns out one of my friend at work has pay pal account. Well almost zero effort and i solved my so called problem. I can understand that people maybe don't have money to send right now but that number of 10k sure give's me load of questions like (yeah like heh) who are all those people anyway...

Lycan, it would be considerate of others if you could use standard spelling in your posts. It isn't that much harder to type 'you' instead of 'u' or 'your' instead of 'ur'. It would make it easier for everyone else to read. Thanks!

 

[Laura]

Re: The last article of Laura

Both ways Laura, because if mass consciouness is what is creating the current "whole reality", this mass consciouness is really generating a lot of garbage. So you remove the nails that make the flat tire (everything you explained) but also work on cleaning as much as possible what is there already.

You can't clean out the mass consciousness the way you are thinking for two primary reasons: 1) it is a violation of free will - a LOT of people LIKE things the way they are and you thus just create more conflict; 2) it's like trying to perform a lobotomy, or to induce subconscious selection and substitution. In short, it is just contributing to the lie, not standing up for the truth.

You also missed the most important point: mass consciousness is just REFLECTING what is happening on the planet, it's not creating anything out of thin air!

 

[Joe]

Re: The last article of Laura

Both ways Laura, because if mass consciouness is what is creating the current "whole reality", this mass consciouness is really generating a lot of garbage. So you remove the nails that make the flat tire (everything you explained) but also work on cleaning as much as possible what is there already.

Hi David, I think the point here is that the mass consciousness is made up of the consciousnesses of each individual. No one individual can clean the consciousness of another, each has to do it for him/herself. Others can help, but the choice is made individually. Each person has to see that something is wrong, understand what is wrong, and take action to do something about it as a sign of conviction of that awareness. They don't have to be able to change things physically, if the masses of humanity were to just see and understand what is wrong, that may be enough for the reality to change in a nonlinear way.

 

[David Topi]

Re: The last article of Laura

Both ways Laura, because if mass consciouness is what is creating the current "whole reality", this mass consciouness is really generating a lot of garbage. So you remove the nails that make the flat tire (everything you explained) but also work on cleaning as much as possible what is there already.

You can't clean out the mass consciousness the way you are thinking for two primary reasons: 1) it is a violation of free will - a LOT of people LIKE things the way they are and you thus just create more conflict; 2) it's like trying to perform a lobotomy, or to induce subconscious selection and substitution. In short, it is just contributing to the lie, not standing up for the truth.

You also missed the most important point: mass consciousness is just REFLECTING what is happening on the planet, it's not creating anything out of thin air!

ok, I understand that. But then the approach of changing people individually to change the global consciouness won't work either, won't it (IMO)?.

Half of the people are OPs, for the other half, most are in a pretty basic state of development (too many homer simpsons), from the ones who want to pay attention, a few will react to your guidelines, advices, etc, most won't.
And because you can't violate their free will, you can not change OPs, you can not try to wake up the homer simpsons (they do not want to "see" the real world either), the ones that could react positively to all your work, plenty are pretty busy with their lives to think about something else (most have lost their jobs, houses, and have so many problems that they do not pay more than superficial attention to anything else).

What is left? A mere hundreds of thousands of people worldwide? If a tiny group can change mass consciouness by working to deal with the current reality, then I fully agree we can do it, but if the "whole human race" is needed, well, I see no way to accomplish that.
In any case, I agree that there is no alternative or option but to keep working in producing that change for those who want to take part of it.

 

[David Topi]

Re: The last article of Laura

Both ways Laura, because if mass consciouness is what is creating the current "whole reality", this mass consciouness is really generating a lot of garbage. So you remove the nails that make the flat tire (everything you explained) but also work on cleaning as much as possible what is there already.

Hi David, I think the point here is that the mass consciousness is made up of the consciousnesses of each individual. No one individual can clean the consciousness of another, each has to do it for him/herself. Others can help, but the choice is made individually. Each person has to see that something is wrong, understand what is wrong, and take action to do something about it as a sign of conviction of that awareness. They don't have to be able to change things physically, if the masses of humanity were to just see and understand what is wrong, that may be enough for the reality to change in a nonlinear way.

Hi Perceval,
yes, yes, I am not arguing that. The way I perceive the mass consciouness is a full of wave energies, the same way the TV puts a lot of fear on the "air" that is picked up by the people, well, I assume that you could "remove" those fear waves. I was not saying that we modify or change the collective mind (I understand what Laura said about free will indeed), but if something is artificially sent to the mass consciouness, why can't not be "removed" artificially either?
It is a theoretical question, basically looking for more approaches as to how to move on towards a better "future"for the planet.

 

[Lycan]

Re: The last article of Laura

The Cs said that what happens in the Solar system is reflective of what is happening on Earth, that as a mass consciousness, we DO very much create our reality - it mirrors us. That's what's been driving me crazy to try to convey: people, we need to deal effectively with psychopathy, clean up our act, behave civilized to each other, and that way the planet will reflect our responsibility and we won't have to go through all that stuff.

And I truly am convinced that such an approach would work.

Then it is a matter (also) of influencing the collective unconscious. Cleaning it, healing it, removing all fears, negative thought patterns,etc. People pick up all the rubbish from there, if they do nothing, it is because (partially), they are bombarded on that level that nothing needs to be done. You clear all that, you put the right message and the right wave forms, and they will perceive something different about the world they live in. Not that I know how to do that, but the posts about Sheldrake in this forum now are starting to resonate strangely good.

No matter how many times u change the water in the dirty pool, the only thing you will get is dirty water. Because it is not water that is the problem but the dirty pool, need to clean the pool first. The pool here being you, me, others. But than again no one else can clean your pool others can help, say where still there is dirt, but u need to get down, take a mop and clean your pool.

@Mr.Premise: sorry about that one, I will keep it in mind.

 

[Psalehesost]

Re: The last article of Laura

If a tiny group can change mass consciouness by working to deal with the current reality, then I fully agree we can do it, but if the "whole human race" is needed, well, I see no way to accomplish that.

Unless, of course, the "whole human race" first dwindles in numbers - those remaining being mostly those who are able to See and deal with objective reality as it presents itself.

 

[Laura]

Re: The last article of Laura

No matter how many times u change the water in the dirty pool, the only thing you will get is dirty water. Because it is not water that is the problem but the dirty pool, need to clean the pool first. The pool here being you, me, others. But than again no one else can clean your pool others can help, say where still there is dirt, but u need to get down, take a mop and clean your pool.

No, the pool is our reality, the water is our consciousness. Get it?

 

[Laura]

Re: The last article of Laura

The way I perceive the mass consciouness is a full of wave energies, the same way the TV puts a lot of fear on the "air" that is picked up by the people, well, I assume that you could "remove" those fear waves. I was not saying that we modify or change the collective mind (I understand what Laura said about free will indeed), but if something is artificially sent to the mass consciouness, why can't not be "removed" artificially either?
It is a theoretical question, basically looking for more approaches as to how to move on towards a better "future"for the planet.

No, the mass consciousness is not "picked up" by the people, it is composed of what is in their psyches as a result of their material experiences. The fear waves are real reactions to reality. Removing "fear waves" in the face of what they OUGHT to be afraid of is turning them into psychopaths. That fear ought to be utilized to drive them to face what they fear and deal with it/change it.

Yes, there are all kinds of "beaming" things going on, but that has much less ability to affect mass consciousness than you seem to think. Again, mass consciousness is what is going on inside every individual as a result of their material experiences, all added together. Most "beaming" activity can only affect an individual who has some frequency already within them that resonates to it. Rather often, this frequency is based on actual physical stuff like parasitic infestations, candida, weakened physiology from wrong diet, etc.

 

[Laura]

Re: The last article of Laura

ok, I understand that. But then the approach of changing people individually to change the global consciouness won't work either, won't it (IMO)?.

See what Perceval wrote above. It can work only if enough people can do it.

Half of the people are OPs, for the other half, most are in a pretty basic state of development (too many homer simpsons), from the ones who want to pay attention, a few will react to your guidelines, advices, etc, most won't.
And because you can't violate their free will, you can not change OPs, you can not try to wake up the homer simpsons (they do not want to "see" the real world either), the ones that could react positively to all your work, plenty are pretty busy with their lives to think about something else (most have lost their jobs, houses, and have so many problems that they do not pay more than superficial attention to anything else).

What is left? A mere hundreds of thousands of people worldwide? If a tiny group can change mass consciouness by working to deal with the current reality, then I fully agree we can do it, but if the "whole human race" is needed, well, I see no way to accomplish that.

Only a small group is needed to form a nucleus of a new "being." The reason being quality vs. quantity. This is depicted in many ancient systems as gold vs feathers. The man of knowledge is much, much, much "heavier" than the man of "wishful thinking".

In any case, I agree that there is no alternative or option but to keep working in producing that change for those who want to take part of it.

True. And who knows when the day comes that the "hundredth monkey" will acquire the requisite knowledge so that it can then be shared and other people will start "washing their potatoes." But notice that in this analogy, it is a physical action that is passed around...

 

[David Topi]

Re: The last article of Laura

The way I perceive the mass consciouness is a full of wave energies, the same way the TV puts a lot of fear on the "air" that is picked up by the people, well, I assume that you could "remove" those fear waves. I was not saying that we modify or change the collective mind (I understand what Laura said about free will indeed), but if something is artificially sent to the mass consciouness, why can't not be "removed" artificially either?
It is a theoretical question, basically looking for more approaches as to how to move on towards a better "future"for the planet.

No, the mass consciousness is not "picked up" by the people, it is composed of what is in their psyches as a result of their material experiences. The fear waves are real reactions to reality. Removing "fear waves" in the face of what they OUGHT to be afraid of is turning them into psychopaths. That fear ought to be utilized to drive them to face what they fear and deal with it/change it.

Yes, there are all kinds of "beaming" things going on, but that has much less ability to affect mass consciousness than you seem to think. Again, mass consciousness is what is going on inside every individual as a result of their material experiences, all added together. Most "beaming" activity can only affect an individual who has some frequency already within them that resonates to it. Rather often, this frequency is based on actual physical stuff like parasitic infestations, candida, weakened physiology from wrong diet, etc.

Ok, if I understood you correctly:

It is a one way direction, you project into mass consciousness what's going on inside you as a result of your real life, but you can not pick anything from it back.

You can only be affected by the "beaming" activity into that mass consciousness if you resonate somehow with it (which, well, for what i see, a big chunk of the people on this planet are resonating in one way of another, so it really affects them).

I am reading currently the work of Sheldrake, about the morphic fields. The explanation that animal morphic fields are used by new borns to "know" what to do, how to behave, etc, does not seem to apply to humans for what I understand then. Sheldrake talks about any new member of a species using the general information into the collective mind of that species to "download data". And the 100th monkey experiment comes to mind, if 100 monkeys learned to do something, then they "projected it" into their collective mind and other monkeys did not pick it up from there, how can that be explained? ( I am not rebating your argument, merely looking to make sense of opposite informations).

 

[tschai]

Re: The last article of Laura

The way I perceive the mass consciouness is a full of wave energies, the same way the TV puts a lot of fear on the "air" that is picked up by the people, well, I assume that you could "remove" those fear waves. I was not saying that we modify or change the collective mind (I understand what Laura said about free will indeed), but if something is artificially sent to the mass consciouness, why can't not be "removed" artificially either?
It is a theoretical question, basically looking for more approaches as to how to move on towards a better "future"for the planet.

No, the mass consciousness is not "picked up" by the people, it is composed of what is in their psyches as a result of their material experiences. The fear waves are real reactions to reality. Removing "fear waves" in the face of what they OUGHT to be afraid of is turning them into psychopaths. That fear ought to be utilized to drive them to face what they fear and deal with it/change it.

Yes, there are all kinds of "beaming" things going on, but that has much less ability to affect mass consciousness than you seem to think. Again, mass consciousness is what is going on inside every individual as a result of their material experiences, all added together. Most "beaming" activity can only affect an individual who has some frequency already within them that resonates to it. Rather often, this frequency is based on actual physical stuff like parasitic infestations, candida, weakened physiology from wrong diet, etc.

Ok, if I understood you correctly:

It is a one way direction, you project into mass consciousness what's going on inside you as a result of your real life, but you can not pick anything from it back.

You can only be affected by the "beaming" activity into that mass consciousness if you resonate somehow with it (which, well, for what i see, a big chunk of the people on this planet are resonating in one way of another, so it really affects them).

I am reading currently the work of Sheldrake, about the morphic fields. The explanation that animal morphic fields are used by new borns to "know" what to do, how to behave, etc, does not seem to apply to humans for what I understand then. Sheldrake talks about any new member of a species using the general information into the collective mind of that species to "download data". And the 100th monkey experiment comes to mind, if 100 monkeys learned to do something, then they "projected it" into their collective mind and other monkeys did not pick it up from there, how can that be explained? ( I am not rebating your argument, merely looking to make sense of opposite informations).

if 100 monkeys learned to do something

If the monkeys "learned" whatever it is, could it not be the 100th monkey "learned" the behavior also from the other 99 monkeys-and it was not "projected" into the conciousness at all? This would be different than "instinct" - the "knowing" how to behave / react in new born animals that might be explained by these "morphic fields"
I have not read Sheldrake's hypothesis- I wonder if this morphic field in humans is something that was never present or was "artificially" expunged for sake of enslavement-or maybe simply a case of use it or lose it? Interesting

 

[SoCurious]

Re: The last article of Laura

I read about the 100th monkey phenomenon sometime around the fall of the Roman Empire so I don't remember the precise facts although the essence is very clear.

Lucy (as I remember) was a young monkey which found that by gently dipping wheat lying on the palm of her hand into water she was thus able to easily and effectively separate the wheat from the chaff. It was interesting to note that other youngsters were able to learn from her faster than older monkeys. Eventually they too learned the trick.

The "100th monkey" was a point where a critical mass of monkeys had individually learned the trick was attained. Immediately upon this critical mass being reached, all the other monkeys on all the other islands knew how to clean their wheat in the same manner.

Exactly how the knowledge was transmitted I admit I don't have the foggiest notion although I like to think it was something like a telepathic meme.

This brings us to the 10% figure of people who have the same knowledge, strongly held, being the critical mass or 100th monkey. Individually we have to learn until the 10% figure is reached, then the telepathic meme (telememe?) will effectively ensure that everyone else has the knowledge.

What they choose to do with it is up to them.

 

[Al Today]

Re: The last article of Laura

[..]
No, the pool is our reality, the water is our consciousness. Get it?

And as this pool of reality grows ever more nasty, we absorb nasty... We can see the nasty pool. We can fight the nastiness within ourselves. As others see the nasty pool of reality, the more that can help clean the pool. Very well could be too little too late. For the whole of humanity that is. But for those who see the nasty, perhaps they can break out when the opportunity arises.
:( :)

 

[tschai]

Re: The last article of Laura

I read about the 100th monkey phenomenon sometime around the fall of the Roman Empire so I don't remember the precise facts although the essence is very clear.

Lucy (as I remember) was a young monkey which found that by gently dipping wheat lying on the palm of her hand into water she was thus able to easily and effectively separate the wheat from the chaff. It was interesting to note that other youngsters were able to learn from her faster than older monkeys. Eventually they too learned the trick.

The "100th monkey" was a point where a critical mass of monkeys had individually learned the trick was attained. Immediately upon this critical mass being reached, all the other monkeys on all the other islands knew how to clean their wheat in the same manner.

Exactly how the knowledge was transmitted I admit I don't have the foggiest notion although I like to think it was something like a telepathic meme.

This brings us to the 10% figure of people who have the same knowledge, strongly held, being the critical mass or 100th monkey. Individually we have to learn until the 10% figure is reached, then the telepathic meme (telememe?) will effectively ensure that everyone else has the knowledge.

What they choose to do with it is up to them.

Ah. Much clearer! Thanks Richard! I was not familiar with this.