Knowledge protects ?

[Laura]

I came across a couple of articles today that are about the "animal kingdom," but they apply as well to human beings and their "predators," i.e. 4 D STS via OPs and psychopaths:

Snakes may have driven human evolution: researchers

Jul. 24 2006 5:22 PM ET

Kimberly Fu , DiscoveryChannel.ca

A new study shows that early forms of snakes may have contributed to the evolution of man.

Researchers from the University of California suggest that primates developed traits to avoid being eaten by snakes.

The study claims that primates' senses of smell and sight were sharpened to battle predators.

Scientists have long believed that primates' hand-eye coordination came from grabbing food, picking fruit, or swinging through trees.

But early primates, the researchers say, developed a better judgment of colour, faster reflexes and sometimes even an enlarged brain in order to have the upper hand with the snakes.

The researchers claim the snake fossils and DNA they studied date back to when mammals were in the early stages of evolving, some 100 million years ago.

This suggests that snakes were one of the earliest predators known to man.

Scientists say that this would explain why certain primate traits developed, such as forward-facing eyes, as opposed to eyes on the side of the head like other mammals.

This allowed the mammals to have a way of seeing called 'orbital convergence' yielding a three-dimensional view to spot predators.

The study was published in the July issue of Journal of Human Evolution.
http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/discovery/1/20060724/060724_discovery_primate_snake?s_name=&no_ads=

Large predators like to feast on prey with smaller brains

Wed. Aug. 2 2006 4:45 PM ET

Kimberly Fu , DiscoveryChannel.ca

If you're prey for a predatory species, you'd better be smart and flexible, the latest research says.

Scientists from the University of Liverpool studied a number of different predators, such as jaguars, pumas, and chimps throughout Africa and South America.

Their study showed that the predators hunted on small antelope, mongooses, and red river hogs - all which have relatively small brains.

The scientists say this is because animals with smaller brains lack behavioural flexibility and are probably less capable of developing new strategies to fend off predators.

For example, chimpanzees would prey on red colobus monkeys, which have relatively small brains compared to their body size.

But the researchers noted chimps avoid Diana monkeys, which have larger brains.

Larger-brained animals are more sociable, or they're better at cracking ecological problems, claim the scientists.

The researchers' study was published in the current issue of the Royal Society Journal Biology Letters.
http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/discovery/1/20060802/060801_discovery_predator_dumb_prey/20060802?hub=DiscoveryReport

I think that what we are looking at is the human application of certain ecological models of wildlife. When the rabbits become too numerous, the foxes increase and eat more of them until they are almost gone and then the foxes begin to die off from starvation and the rabbits then begin to increase. And of course, during any given period, "only the strong and smart" of either population survive during the dominance of the other.

We are presently in such a period. But, since we are human beings with an "invisible" predator in our midst, the strategies will be more geared to the human mind rather than stalking and jumping on the critter and chowing down. The psychopaths/predators try to use our minds to make victims of us. They stalk us with carefully crafted lies and deceptions designed to make us weak and vulnerable. These lies and deceptions include religions and all sorts of philosophies (including a ton of New Age nonsense) that essentially just teach people how to be food.

 

[samvado]

Ahhh yes indeed, but what if the smartest horse is really the stupid horse who is hypnotised to believe himself to be the smartest horse?

remember my master gave us a gauge to measure in an objective -scientific if you will- way wether or not we are really smart horses or just smart a**es: the amount of pain felt for each new lesson learned. pain itself may be subjective but the amount felt can be compared to other individual's pain felt and therefor is gaugable in some way.
In any case, repetition (due to lack of awareness) tends to lead to inceasing pain with each new emergence of the same lesson. thusly the smart horse is identified.

 

[Russ]

"make us weak and vunerable"

I think we are already like that, but what happens is, those parts of us are exploited in order to make us even more weak and vunerable, and to destroy every last ounce of strength that we have.

"teach people how to be food"

Again I think we are already food, but its like, we are not as nutritious as we could be. So its more like we are being made into a more nutritious type of food. Kind of like making us sugar free.

What we need to do, I suppose, is to become like we are made of a type of "meta" metal - metal that can turn into solid, gas or liquid, and have "electromagnetic" properties. We are inedible, like a rock, but free to move. If we become like a rock, we don't get anywhere. But if we can change form, resist and attract, we can go anywhere, and at the same time, not be vunerable to being seen as "delicious".

On the whole though I agree with what you are saying, I just thought I would note a few observations :)

 

[samvado]

Again I think we are already food, but its like, we are not as nutritious as we could be.

somewhere in wave III i read the way to be of bad taste for the Lizzies is to be unwilling to be ingested.
according to the theory the free will decision plays a part - strong willed willing victims taste best (that had to be strong willed stupid victims IMHO

so maybe all you need to do is get more and more conscious - recognizing and rejecting STS on more and more occasions and levels until its literally impossible to ingest you without food poisioning (great if that theory worked because it would mean many of my friends and I are on the right track for decades without even having known about the entire scenario until recently)

 

[Russ]

Samvado, I think maybe the smartest horse would just stand there, no matter how much pain it went through, because it knows that when it gives into the pain, it will be a slave to it. It will just turn into a coward. Eventually, the people who are whipping it will give up, and get some other horse to do their work. Sure, the horse may go through lots of pain, but at least it has some kind of a will, instead of just being an "engine".

 

[samvado]

Samvado, I think maybe the smartest horse would just stand there, no matter how much pain it went through, because it knows that when it gives into the pain, it will be a slave to it. It will just turn into a coward. Eventually, the people who are whipping it will give up, and get some other horse to do their work. Sure, the horse may go through lots of pain, but at least it has some kind of a will, instead of just being an "engine".

well, that may be heroic - but is it smart? why not avoid situations where whipping can occur? smartness can show in forsight. if, however, the situation is already without observable way out I would tend to agree (as an old samurai)

of course in my understanding in the parable the whipping entity would not be 4d STS but life itself. if one recognized the next lesson early and acted with awareness to get thru it repetition would not be needed avoiding unnecessary pain.

 

[ark]

... he answered:
The stupid horse needs to feel the whip, the less stupid horse needs only to hear its crack, the smart horse only needs to see it and the smartest horse only needs to see the shadow of the whip. He tought us to recognize the shadow while G.'s desciples it seems needed to be whipped.

Question is: what kind of a horse your master was. Can you tell us the details? It can be instructive.

 

[samvado]

Question is: what kind of a horse your master was. Can you tell us the details? It can be instructive.

of course - but horse only applies to those who still have to learn - horseship ends where masterhood begins.

there are two ways to go about this: name him and have you find out about him
describe him without naming and have you find him by way of deduction
which one would you prefer?
although off hand the first seems the best he is very controversial, a description could eliminate the possibility of prejudice.

to start with:
he never wrote a single book but over 600 contain only his words
although he was a professor he explained knowledge to be a barrier to overcome to gain ultimate insight
compromise was not in his vocabulary
he was killed by dark spiritual forces (his own last publicly spoken words) after being physically poinsoned

 

[Fifth Way]

Question is: what kind of a horse your master was. Can you tell us the details? It can be instructive.

of course - but horse only applies to those who still have to learn - horseship ends where masterhood begins.

there are two ways to go about this: name him and have you find out about him
describe him without naming and have you find him by way of deduction
which one would you prefer?
although off hand the first seems the best he is very controversial, a description could eliminate the possibility of prejudice.

to start with:
he never wrote a single book but over 600 contain only his words
although he was a professor he explained knowledge to be a barrier to overcome to gain ultimate insight
compromise was not in his vocabulary
he was killed by dark spiritual forces (his own last publicly spoken words) after being physically poinsoned

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh / Osho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh

 

[samvado]

well yeah, it was clear that someone would know it (especially as I had already mentioned it elsewhere on this forum) but alas - not enough self discipline to not spoil it for arc whom i EXPLICITELY talked to. Thank you Jedi Knight fifthway!

 

[arkmod]

Question is: what kind of a horse your master was. Can you tell us the details? It can be instructive.

of course - but horse only applies to those who still have to learn - horseship ends where masterhood begins.

You are avoiding answering the question by using arbirarily invented arguments that have no basis.

there are two ways to go about this: name him and have you find out about him
describe him without naming and have you find him by way of deduction
which one would you prefer?

I prefer answering my question.

although off hand the first seems the best he is very controversial, a description could eliminate the possibility of prejudice.

There is no prejudice. There is my question.

to start with:
he never wrote a single book but over 600 contain only his words
although he was a professor he explained knowledge to be a barrier to overcome to gain ultimate insight
compromise was not in his vocabulary
he was killed by dark spiritual forces (his own last publicly spoken words) after being physically poinsoned

If so, what makes him a "master"? What kind of a master. Please, details! Otherwise what you write contains no information regarding my question.

 

[samvado]

If so, what makes him a "master"? What kind of a master. Please, details! Otherwise what you write contains no information regarding my question.

arkmod = ark?

 

[arkmod]

U.G. Krishnamurti, a famous maverick anti-guru, was even more critical of Rajneesh. During the mid 1970s Rajneesh deemphasized his own meditation methods and started selling Western style group therapies as a way to gain income. It was difficult to make money from authentic meditation techniques because they are all easy to learn and can be done alone, without the aid of a teacher. One of the groups Rajneesh sold to students was the "Tantra" group, which was basically just male and female disciples having sex with each other. U.G. Krishnamurti publicly called Rajneesh the "worlds biggest pimp" because "He made money from the boys and the girls and he kept it for himself." In 1971 Rajneesh told me directly in a face to face meeting that U.G. Krishnamurti was "realized." After much public criticism from U.G., Rajneesh counterattacked by calling U.G. a "phony guru." [...] After Rajneesh started having sexual intercourse on a regular basis, the spiritual need for him to "feel the chakras" of his female disciples mysteriously vanished. Rajneesh rationalized having sex with his female disciples by claiming that the act would bless them so much that they would become enlightened in some future lifetime. His admission years later that there is no such thing as reincarnation made his sexual rationalizations appear even more ridiculous and self-serving.

For more see here: http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html

Now we know what kind of a horse he was....

 

[Fifth Way]

well yeah, it was clear that someone would know it (especially as I had already mentioned it elsewhere on this forum) but alas - not enough self discipline to not spoil it for arc whom i EXPLICITELY talked to. Thank you Jedi Knight fifthway!

Oh, please samvado!

I don't think you understand the concept behind this forum nor behind this network.

 

[samvado]

I don't think you understand the concept behind this forum nor behind this network.

you may be right on that one. the great arc just gave me a lesson though ...