Organic Portals: Human variation

[Gawan]

Re: Organic portals - do they really exist?

Yeah, I think there are also probably variations and details to consider.

A souled individual can "lose it" and become ponerized, go full Nazi, and commit unspeakable acts.

Someone else with no soul might be very good at being a "good robot", which might be how they grow a soul, so to speak.

A third person might be 50/50. I mean, who says it's OP or Not? In this case, the person would struggle just like everybody else, and they could also go either way: evil or good!

And then maybe there's 25% OP / 75% souled... And maybe it can even change over a person's lifetime.

So, I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as OP = broken, souled = human. A full OP could end up acting with more humanity than a souled person, no? We don't even have a strict definition of OP because it's basically theoretical at this point. I'll take a robo-human pretending to be good over a souled human slaughtering people any day.

In the end, we don't even really know what it means to "have a soul" or to "grow a soul", so it's all kind of theoretically interesting, but practically much more difficult to deal with effectively.

The first part brings also to mind Jordan Peterson and that he teaches his students to get aware of that anybody can behave cruel and soulless so to speak, unless you get aware of that part and that it can exists as well in yourself and can play out in certain circumstances.

Sometimes it could also go that far that even people that behave sociopathic/psychopathic may be just souls in struggle.

 

[Ruth]

Re: Organic portals - do they really exist?

Since we are almost all are STS, such information is inducting paranoia and racist-like thoughts, and can be used by our vile ego-mind as a "proof" of own supremacy over disliked people, because mind would suppose "Oh i see! Those 'bad/stupid/crazy/psychopath people' are just unworthy organic portals!".

It would be much less painful if OP would be not labeled as 'soulless' but as 'low-level souls, just starting understanding what is to be a human'.
And psychopath are just sick people which have empathy organ reduced, due to certain evolution twist or some wicked DNA mutation. But they do have soul. Everyone do.

Soul undergo certain progression, raising from 1st density.
Say, when animal have developed a certain 'seed' of individuality, it's able to incarnate as human, with some restrictions.
When you inspect some people closely, they have a deep resemblance with certain animal character.

Also, could you imagine that people with which you live, which you love, are soulless robots? Of course such bio-robots *may* exist, but not 50%! I'd say they are would be a rare kind, and definitely not naturally produced.

Did anyone had similar thoughts?

I don't find it too shocking or confronting because I think that OPs (who I don't think are completely 'souless' by the way, although I wouldn't say the same for psychopaths), and those who are not, are a completely natural phenomenon. It's just part of 3rd density and the human species.

Considering there are 7 densities in total, the fact that there appears to be two different 'types' of humans within 3rd density - even if most people can't tell them apart, really isn't too shocking to me. After all, we're only at 3rd density level here, so we cant really assume that we know that much about anything and it may only be one of the non visible differences between people.

I kind of think it's funny that some people (who may very well be OPs) after reading and researching this, think they are not, and end up assuming that their opposite numbers (who aren't OPs), are! Only STS could come up with something that funny, confusing and divisive. It seems to me that is the function of OPs is to work as a bridges between 2nd and 3rd density, then the function of non OPs, is to be bridges between 3rd and 4th density.

Mostly we can't tell them apart, as humanity is totally integrated. Families are totally integrated. Have you ever come across family members who just don't understand each other? That doesn't mean that either type is a 'bad person'.

Psychopaths on the other hand are very, very different kettle of stinky rotten fish. They 'parasite' on everyone, including their own and they wear a 'mask' to hide their agenda. So be wary of them.

I tend to believe 'as above, then so below', as this makes sense to me. If we look below, to 2nd density to understand 3rd, we find an enormous variety of different species, and types of 2nd density beings. From an energetic point of view why can't the same hold true for 3rd density OPs?

I had a very interesting experience at work with an OP who was flying very close to the wind in becoming a psychopath - may even have been one of the more benign types of psychopaths. These people love power and control, they always seek it out because they have nothing else of value in their lives except status. Consequently they love organisations (which are psychopaths because they are legal entities that have no empathy or conscience) and frequently have to use rules and regulations in order to interact with members of their own species. They have no other way of interacting. They don't care about other people enough to intellectually put themselves in another person's place (which an OP would do). They care more about power and control. People are very naturally wary about them.

Needless to say my views on OPs may differ significantly from others.

 

[bjorb]

Re: Organic portals - do they really exist?

Next to the good points already shared.

If you knew who exactly is an OP? Would you treat them with less compassion? Ofcourse not right? Besides that, The state of humanity isn't only dou to 'soulless' (OP) humans. From what I am getting at is that OP's emulate or copy those with an individual soul.

If they aren't good rolemodels in society. (souled individuels that lead by example) They got nothing good to copy from.

So perhaps those with soul potential should take a carefull look at themselves before blaming OP about a lot of misery. If that is the case at least. Not saying that it is, but perhaps it's a thought provoking idea to keep in mind?

My 2 cents.

 

[Corvus]

Re: Organic portals - do they really exist?

I think the rolemodels and programmers are psychopaths and those of negative orientation with a "little" of divine intervention, and their model of society, because they make all the rules. I think it was said they feed of higher centers to emulate those functions, it is just an act.

 

[Εἰρήνη]

Soul or No Soul: That is the Question

Dear Laura, years ago when I first came across your work and C’s transcripts among other many things I was fascinated to lean that some people don’t have souls. Suddenly, a lot of things started to make sense. Since than I have been studying this subject. And besides continuing to read the transcripts, I have read most of the recommended material about psychopaths, narcissism, psychology and so forth. I have also learned a lot by simple observation of people’s behavior. So, by now, I think I can make an educated guess of who has a soul and who does not.

I know that the C’s and you have agreed that the determination whether a person is an organic portal/psychopath (no soul) or not can be done through careful observation. I agree with this statement. However, sometimes we don’t have time to observe and we need to assess someone immediately.

You did a great job spotting one of those people on our forum. This person showed his real face in his comment to the latest C’s session. Curiously, about 2 or 3 weeks prior to this event I was reading an older session (don’t remember which particular one) and my attention stopped on his comment and I felt that he wasn’t sincere. I looked into it further and understood that he has no soul; moreover he is an agent of “lizzies”. I understood this by applying the information I learned from the books, my observations of behavior of many other people, and some sort of inner knowing/sensing (which I am still looking for ways to either validate or dismiss).

I consider myself emphatic, and sometimes I can feel that a person is “empty” (has no soul). But I understand that our forum is a scientific forum and other people will not get any just out of my personal “feelings”. And sometimes I question what I feel. So, I looked for other, more physical, indications.

Many of us noticed that energy imprints upon matter. A good example of this statement might be a well-researched fact that psychopaths lack activity in the frontal lobe of the brain. I also noticed that many people actually resemble some “creatures”. :)For example, Hugh Hefner and Madonna look like a reptilians to me And Jen Psaki looks like and insect to me :P Other laughable observations: I noticed that many (of course not all) reptilians that embodied humans often like khaki green sort of marshy color and buy purses or accessories made of snake or crocodile skin, or buy clothes with animal prints; people that resemble insects are generally very simple-minded and they copy things, rather than create. This is just an example, there many different groups of people that seem not to have souls. I know, it is laughable, and not scientific at all. But I notice this a lot: soulless people have a sort of “imprint” on their genes, which make them look, and of course behave, a certain way. There many people that don’t have souls. And it is important for us to be able to recognize them, because their interest might be different, if not the opposite, from the interest of the souled individuals. It is always good to be aware.
[size=12pt]
So, here are my questions to the C's:

1. How else, besides LONG observation and brain x-rays, can we spot organic portals/ soulless individuals/ reptilians and so forth?

2. Is my assumption correct that some of them can be spotted by simply looking at them and noticing the certain imprint from “others” (such as “lizzies” and insects)?

3. How many percent of active forum members are soulless?
[/size]

 

[Turgon]

Re: Soul or No Soul: That is the Question

Hi Εἰρήvη,

There are a few issues with the way you are framing your thoughts about those that have the potential for seeding a soul and those that do not. And the thing is, it can be a slippery slope trying to 'spot the OP' that's been talked about a lot on the forum.

So, by now, I think I can make an educated guess of who has a soul and who does not.

It's probably not accurate except after long observation, which ties into your first question. Have you had an opportunity to talk to that person, get to know them, see how they respond and react to different situations? If not, then your judging a book by its cover without taking the time to do a little bit of reading in order to understand who they are first.

You did a great job spotting one of those people on our forum. This person showed his real face in his comment to the latest C’s session. Curiously, about 2 or 3 weeks prior to this event I was reading an older session (don’t remember which particular one) and my attention stopped on his comment and I felt that he wasn’t sincere. I looked into it further and understood that he has no soul; moreover he is an agent of “lizzies”. I understood this by applying the information I learned from the books, my observations of behavior of many other people, and some sort of inner knowing/sensing (which I am still looking for ways to either validate or dismiss).

I'm pretty sure I know who you're talking about and because someone shows a set of traits that espouse arrogance and condescension doesn't mean they are an OP. It doesn't mean they aren't either. It's more indicative of someone with a massively inflated ego and who easily projects their own negative emotions and manifestations onto other people. Is someone who shows these traits soulless? Possibly. But does it mean they can't eventually work through it and 'grow' a soul? I don't think we can know the answer to that right away. Same with someone who wasn't or isn't sincere. Hence the long and careful observation.

But I notice this a lot: soulless people have a sort of “imprint” on their genes, which make them look, and of course behave, a certain way. There many people that don’t have souls. And it is important for us to be able to recognize them, because their interest might be different, if not the opposite, from the interest of the souled individuals. It is always good to be aware.

Western culture is really shallow and narcissistic and so I do think that most people that follow it without question have no chance of developing themselves in a real way, but that doesn't mean some don't have the ability to grow a soul, but it's dormant - and the potential can be wasted. Kind of like Mouravieff's A & B influences. If your surrounded by the 'wrong' kind of influences, then you'll constantly be asleep. These are just my thoughts on it, and maybe others might chime in to help explain things better.

Have you read this transcript yet?

13 July 2002

Q: We have recently been working with some material from Boris Mouravieff. We can see many relationships between that work and so many of the clues and hints scattered throughout the C's transmissions. What seems to be important is his information about the Centers - three lower and three higher that are not "seated" in the body. Then, he talks about the difference between "A" influences and "B" influences, and the necessity for assimilation of "B" influences in order to fuse the "magnetic center" which then enables the soul - or higher centers - to "seat" in the body. Is the information from Mouravieff about these matters fairly accurate?

A: Not just fairly. It has been preserved from the time of the "Fall."

Q: Mouravieff states clearly that this teaching is a "thin thread" of an oral tradition, and that the monks themselves - in various locations - admit that it has not only not been put into writing, but has not ever even been "gathered together" in a single place. This is, of course, problematical, but it seems that Mouravieff has made a sincere effort to present the material of the Tradition itself, even if he has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to weave through it some of the occult traditions of Europe that have been so very popular for so long, particularly the synarchic views of Guenon and so forth. In seems that, in this respect, Mouravieff has interpreted many things in an "A influence" sort of way. And then, there is Mouravieff's presentation of the "worlds." It seems to be very similar to the teaching about "densities," though without the balance of STS and STO.

A: If it is understood in the original context of hyperdimensional realities. Also, there are some distortions and gloss on the subject of the "worlds" and "notes." But even this is only minor.

Q: Mouravieff says that there are two kinds of humans - he calls the "pre-Adamic" and "Adamic," (discussed in book III). The idea is that pre-Adamic human types basically have no "soul" nor any possibility of growing one. This is a pretty shocking idea, but there have been recent scholarly discussions of this matter based on what seems to be clinical evidence that, indeed, there are human beings who are just "mechanical" and have no "inner" or "higher self" at all. [See: "Division of Consciousness"] Gurdjieff talked about this and so did Castaneda. Are these ideas Mouravieff presents about the two basic TYPES of humans, as far as they go, accurate?

A: Indeed, though again, there is a "Biblical Gloss."

Q: Mouravieff says that the "pre-Adamic" humans do not have the higher centers, nor the possibility of developing them in this cycle - which we assume to be the Grand Cycle you have previously described, the length of which is around 300,000 years. Is this an accurate representation of "pre-Adamic" beings?

A: Yes, they are "organic" portals between levels of density.

Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.

A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines. The ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation.

Q: (V) Have I, or anyone in this room, ever encountered any, and if so, can you give us an example for reference?

A: If you consider that the population is equally distributed, then you will understand that in an ordinary "souled" person's life, that person will encounter half as many organic portals as souled individuals. BUT, when someone is in the process of "growing" and strengthening the soul, the Control System will seek to insert even more "units" into that person's life. Now, think of all the people you have ever met and particularly those with whom you have been, or are, intimate. Which half of this number would YOU designate as being organic portals? Hard to tell, eh?

Q: (BT) Is this the original meaning of the "pollution of the bloodline" that the Bible talks about?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) This certainly gives a whole new meaning to all the experiences we have had with people like "Frank" and Vincent Bridges and Terri Burns, Olga and the rest of the gang! What this means is that the work of discerning these organic portals from souled human beings is CRUCIAL to the so-called ascension process. Without the basic understanding of transformation of, and conservation of energies, there is no possibility of fusing a magnetic center. No wonder the Bridges gang and the COINTELPRO types went bananas while I was publishing the Adventures Series! And sheesh! They will go bonkers with this organic portal stuff! (V) In thinking back over my life, it seems to me that my father is certainly one of these organic portals.

A: Now, do not start labeling without due consideration. Remember that very often the individual who displays contradictory behavior may be a souled being in struggle.

Q: (L) I would say that the chief thing they are saying is that the really good ones - you could never tell except by long observation. The one key we discovered from studying psychopaths was that their actions do not match their words. But what if that is a symptom of just being weak and having no will? (A) How can I know if I have a soul?

A: Do you ever hurt for another?

Q: (V) I think they are talking about empathy. These soulless humans simply don't care what happens to another person. If another person is in pain or misery, they don't know how to care.

A: The only pain they experience is "withdrawal" of "food" or comfort, or what they want. They are also masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic. But, in general, such actions are simply to retain control.

Q: (A) What does having a soul or not having a soul have to do with bloodline?

A: Genetics marry with soul if present.

Q: Do "organic portals" go to fifth density when they die?

A: Only temporarily until the "second death."

Q: (V) What is the "origin" of these organic portal human types? In the scheme of creation, where did they come from?

A: They were originally part of the bridge between 2nd density and 3rd density. Review transcripts on the subject of short wave cycles and long wave cycles.

Q: (A) Now, I was reading in the transcripts that sleep is necessary for human beings because it was a period of rest and recharging. You also said that the SOUL rests while the body is sleeping. So, the question is: what source of energy is tapped to recharge both the body and the soul?

A: The question needs to be separated. What happens to a souled individual is different from an organic portal unit.

Q: (L) I guess that means that the life force energy that is embodied in Organic Portals is something like the soul pool that is theorized to exist for flora and fauna. This would, of course, explain the striking and inexplicable similarity of psychopaths, that is so well defined that they only differ from one another in the way that different species of trees are different in the overall class of Tree-ness. So, if they don't have souls, where does the energy come from that recharges Organic Portals?

A: The pool you have described.

Q: Does the recharging of the souled being come from a similar pool, only maybe the "human" pool?

A: No - it recharges from the so-called sexual center which is a higher center of creative energy. During sleep, the emotional center, not being blocked by the lower intellectual cener and the moving center, transduces the energy from the sexual center. It is also the time during which the higher emotional and intellectual centers can rest from the "drain" of the lower centers' interaction with those pesky organic portals so much loved by the lower centers. This respite alone is sufficient to make a difference. But, more than that, the energy of the sexual center is also more available to the other higher centers.

Q: (L) Well, the next logical question was: where does the so-called "sexual center" get ITS energy?

A: The sexual center is in direct contact with 7th density in its "feminine" creative thought of "Thou, I Love." The "outbreath" of "God" in the relief of constriction. Pulsation. Unstable Gravity Waves.

Q: Do the "centers" as described by Mouravieff relate at all to the idea of "chakras?"

A: Quite closely. In an individual of the organic variety, the so-called higher chakras are "produced in effect" by stealing that energy from souled beings. This is what gives them the ability to emulate souled beings. The souled being is, in effect, perceiving a mirror of their own soul when they ascribe "soul qualities" to such beings.

Q: Is this a correspondence that starts at the basal chakra which relates to the sexual center as described by Mouravieff?

A: No. The "sexual center" corresponds to the solar plexus.
Lower moving center - basal chakra
Lower emotional - sexual chakra
Lower intellectual - throat chakra
Higher emotional - heart chakra
Higher intellectual - crown chakra

Q: (L) What about the so-called seventh, or "third eye" chakra?

A: Seer. The union of the heart and intellectual higher centers.

[Laura's note: This would "close the circuit" in the "shepherd's crook"
configuration.]

Q: (V) What about the many ideas about 12 chakras, and so forth, that are currently being taught by many new age sources? [Barbara Marciniak, for one.]

A: There are no such. This is a corrupted conceptualization based on the false belief that the activation of the physical endocrine system is the same as the creation and fusion of the magnetic center. The higher centers are only "seated" by being "magnetized." And this more or less "External" condition [location of the higher centers] has been perceived by some individuals and later joined to the perceived "seating" locations, in potential. This has led to "cross conceptualization" based on assumption!

Q: Are the levels of initiation and levels of the staircase as presented by Mouravieff fairly accurate?

A: Yes, but different levels accessed in other so-called lives can relieve the intensity of some levels in "another" life.

Q: (L) So work on the self in different incarnations - assuming one is not an organic portal - can be cumulative? You can pick up where you left off if you screw up?

A: Yes. To some extent.

 

[Εἰρήνη]

Re: Soul or No Soul: That is the Question

Hello, Turgon,
thank you for your response.

I know that generally we should not judge a book by its cover. However, I did take my time “reading” many people, and my long empirical study on this topic showed that there are some features in SOME people that can give them away as being soulless.

I am sure organic portals can be of any ethnicity and occupation. So we must be very careful not to blindly label anyone. But after years of observation of my own relatives, friends and people I know, I can tell which one of them is most likely a soulless individual. And realize that some of those “diagnosed” by me as soulless have certain common traits that could have been “spotted” earlier.
Another “feature” of soulless individuals I forgot to mention is a lack of originality (creativity) and a lack of natural curiosity.

Just to be clear: by soulless I mean people that do not have a potential to grow souls.

A: Now, do not start labeling without due consideration. Remember that very often the individual who displays contradictory behavior may be a souled being in struggle.

Thank you for bringing this up. I did read this transcript.

This is true. There are many souled beings in struggle that display contradictory behavior. I see this happening every day. I guess the best way to distinguish between the 2 groups would be the long observation and “sensing” whether they are empty or not.

But statistically, I see a pattern of certain traits that might be useful in some cases.

Maybe C’s can add something to what they have already said on this topic.

 

[Phill4]

Re: Soul or No Soul: That is the Question

I think this is a very difficult thing to determine, alot of what we perceive about people is translated to us in terms that we are familiar to, meaning that we are no tuned naturally to have accurate set of parameters to determine that.

Alot of times can be a person who has depression, or who has a number of issues preventing the full expression of their self. The point in their lives may not be at one when one requires to actually make use of these properties.

I have known people who I met personally who I would theorize come close to not having a soul, as well as others who I think DO have a soul but are negatively oriented more than average.

So there are distinctions between these people, and we would need to remove ourselves from the equation, meaning that we cannot equate our personal feeling to give value to observation, or else we are bound to have misconceptions arising from our personal biases.

A person who thrives in negativity isn't necessarily a psychopath in every case, it could be a person with a soul who is polarizing negatively but has the functions.

Even when I have known people like that, there is a chance I am wrong and the type of behavior I am seeing is a transitory thing, meaning that they acted in certain ways BECAUSE i was a factor in the equation, or because they were under a certain set of unaccounted influences that made them to act a certain way.

I think if a person was to be removed from their routine, it would show more information about what they really are, but even there it is difficult to tell.

 

[Laura]

Re: Soul or No Soul: That is the Question


I think that the first thing to consider is that no being is entirely soul-less. That is, the question ought not to be framed as one who has or does not have a soul. Rather I think it is the "type" of soul. There are, apparently, discrete soul fragments of larger souls that do not have the development to retain that individuality, but rather go back and re-merge with the larger soul or group soul upon death; and then there are souls that have grown to the point that they are individuated and survive death as consciousness units. I think Gurdjieff perceived something about this and concluded that no people have souls at all unless they "work on themselves" and crystallize a soul in some way. (The Tamdgidi book goes into this a little bit.)

Years before I had my encounter with Gurdjieff, I had observed that there were a LOT of people that I simply called "cardboard cutouts" because they were "as deep as a thimble". It was puzzling to me how some people could be so "empty". Then, Gurdjieff came along in my reading and I tentatively accepted his description though, even then, I modified it because I was quite sure that reincarnation was a fact and G disavowed this idea.

Then, after some years of the Cs, they explicated the "organic portal" idea which made quite a bit more sense to me, especially after a long period studying psychopathology.

What the Cs said, basically, was that one could probably tell the nature of the being if they were "failures" but the really good ones were difficult.

The idea put forth in the book "Darkness Over Tibet" seemed to be useful: that there are ways you can tell a "soul on the way up or way down". The test was that if a person (or critter) could turn against someone who had helped them. In a sense, this goes along with G's "scratch test". However, after long consideration, I don't think that is as useful as one might think.

Now, you are speculating a bit.

I also noticed that many people actually resemble some “creatures”. :)For example, Hugh Hefner and Madonna look like a reptilians to me And Jen Psaki looks like and insect to me :P Other laughable observations: I noticed that many (of course not all) reptilians that embodied humans often like khaki green sort of marshy color and buy purses or accessories made of snake or crocodile skin, or buy clothes with animal prints; people that resemble insects are generally very simple-minded and they copy things, rather than create. This is just an example, there many different groups of people that seem not to have souls. I know, it is laughable, and not scientific at all. But I notice this a lot: soulless people have a sort of “imprint” on their genes, which make them look, and of course behave, a certain way. There many people that don’t have souls. And it is important for us to be able to recognize them, because their interest might be different, if not the opposite, from the interest of the souled individuals. It is always good to be aware.

And:

Another “feature” of soulless individuals I forgot to mention is a lack of originality (creativity) and a lack of natural curiosity.

And:

This is true. There are many souled beings in struggle that display contradictory behavior. I see this happening every day. I guess the best way to distinguish between the 2 groups would be the long observation and “sensing” whether they are empty or not.

But statistically, I see a pattern of certain traits that might be useful in some cases.

So, as I wrote above, as the Cs said, more or less, the ones you can "read" are the failures but the really good ones take awhile.

I don't know if the "signs" that you notice are particularly significant. For example, I like animal prints because I like animals in general and think that Nature has done a marvelous job clothing them. I would never use a real animal skin but I like some of their markings, like tigers and leopards and so on. I like fake fur, too because I like furriness in general but, again, I wouldn't have a real fur because it would involve harming a critter. I don't like and won't have snake-like prints around me because I don't like snakes. So I don't think this is quite as cut and dried as you would like it to be.

As to your statement about "reptilians that embody humans": Do you mean humans (really, organic portals) that derive from a reptilian gene pool or "reptilians" in the sense of 4D STS? In the latter case, I think that they only temporarily "embody humans", though in the former case, it might be accurate.

We actually have a rather long thread discussing this topic already and in a day or so, I think this new thread should be merged with the older one if someone can find it. And you should read it. We've gone over this quite a bit already and concluded that it really isn't that important to make a determination, just to know that it is possible and to take action when presented with certain situations and conditions; but then, to always leave the door open a crack.

 

[luc]

Re: Soul or No Soul: That is the Question

I consider myself emphatic, and sometimes I can feel that a person is “empty” (has no soul). But I understand that our forum is a scientific forum and other people will not get any just out of my personal “feelings”. And sometimes I question what I feel. So, I looked for other, more physical, indications.

Well, there have been occasions where me too, I was/am fairly sure I'm dealing with an OP, based on careful observation and feeling, such as when I feel a distinct energy drain and/or I observe someone subtly draining someone else's energy and I tried hard to get to the bottom of the dynamic. BUT, we should always question ourselves when making such observations, because not only can "souled" individuals engage in similar behavior, but perhaps most importantly, in order to make such judgments, we would have to know ourselves perfectly - and who can say that?

For example, you talk about physical traits, but what if you had a bad experience with someone in your childhood who had certain traits, the experience got imprinted on you with a feeling of revulsion, which then gets activated whenever you encounter someone with similar traits? Sometimes, it can even be just the color of someone's t-shirt! Or you get triggered by something someone does or say, or the way someone behaves, and your automatic response is negative? All of these things happen unconsciously of course.

So first order of business, as always, is to work on oneself, I think. And that's extremely tricky, to say the least, and part of it involves conserving energy by getting rid of energy drains in one's life, which include OPs. But getting rid of "triggers" is not part of the process, rather we need to learn not to be triggered and get over our programming. Tricky situation indeed!

BTW, here is the other thread on the topic: Organic Portals: The Other Race

 

[Laura]

Thanks. Topics now merged to one thread for reading convenience.

 

[rws]

Hope this is appropriate here.

Had a dream one night when I had been pondering the whole organic portal thing and animal soul pools and all. In the dream a large WWII type bomber was coming in low toward me and some other people. I thought it was going to hit us but the pilot managed to turn it and it plowed into a grass landing strip. Rough landing but plane intact. Next scene the commanding officer of the base (as it turns out it was some kind of military airstrip I guess) is going inside the plane and congratulating and thanking the crew. Interestingly, the crew, all in old leather hats and coats of WWII era flight crews, look like spooks. I mean, they look sort of like Casper-the-ghost type spirits but in uniform. After the commander extends his gratitude and congratulations one of them says, "we're garter snakes sir," and they dissolve before our eyes. And in the dream I "knew" that they had run out of the energy to maintain that form or embodiment.

 

[meta-agnostic]

I've been seeing these memes of NPCs - a reference to video game 'non-player characters' go around social media for a few weeks now so I finally decided to look it up on knowyourmeme.com. It must belong somewhere, maybe here. Who knows what form the next spiritual battle will take?

NPC Wojak | Know Your Meme

About

NPC Wojak is a depiction of the MS Paint character Wojak with a blank stare and facial expression, named after non-player characters within video games. The character is meant to represent people who do not think for themselves or are incapable of having an internal monologue, bearing many similarities to the terms "basic" and "normie".
Origin

On July 7th, 2016, an anonymous 4chan user submitted a thread titled "Are You an NPC?" to the /v/ (video games) board,[5] which referred to people who "autonomously follow group thinks and social trends" as "NPCs" (shown below).




On September 5th, 2018, several threads were submitted to 4chan[7][8][9][10] discussing people who did not have an "inner-voice." In the comments sections, many described those who do not have an internal monologue as "NPCs." On September 7th, a grey-colored variation of Wojak began appearing in threads about NPCs (shown below).[12]





Spread

On September 10th, 2018, Twitter user @SpookyStirnman[6] tweeted a comic in which Wojak is changed into an NPC, along with the message "All will be converted" (shown below).




On September 14th, Twitter user @brightabyss[3] posted a tweet accusing those who "refer to living humans being as NPCs" as being "facist" (shown below). Within 48 hours, the tweet received more than 170 likes and 25 retweets.




On September 15th, Twitter user @DreddByDawn tweeted that NPC was "dog whistle" used by "fascists." The same day, Twitter user @Sharessan accused a centrist of being a "fascist in denial" after labeling them an NPC. Meanwhile, Twitter user @stackflow33 tweeted a screenshot of the tweets along with the message "What the fuck is even going on anymore? Lmao."[2]




Meanwhile, Twitter user @0x49fa98 posted an essay about the NPC memes on Thread Reader,[4] claiming that NPCs "instinctively turn away from avenues of heretical thought" and were "above all, safe." On September 17th, Lushsux posted a photograph of an NPC Wojak graffiti on Instagram[1] (shown below). Within seven hours, the post garnered more than 16,500 likes.

Twitter Accounts

On October 14th, 2018, Twitter user @josh_emerson tweeted a screenshot and spreadsheet of various NPC Wojak-themed Twitter accounts, referring to them as bots (shown below). Within 24 hours, the tweet gained over 800 likes and 580 retweets.







Meanwhile, Twitter user @StormResist[13] posted a call for viewers to "report and block" the NPC accounts, claiming they were "providing misinformation and pretending to be Democrats or progressives" (shown below).




That day, the @SubsidiarityMan[14] Twitter feed accused Twitter of banning "hundreds of NPC accounts along with the hashtag #GreyLiveMatter (shown below).



Search Interest






External References

[1] Instagram – lushsux
[2] Twitter – stackflow33
[3] Twitter – @brightabyss
[4] Thread Reader – Thread by @0x49fa98
[5] Fireden – /v/ thread
[6] Twitter – @SpookyStirnman
[7] 4plebs – inner voice thread
[8] 4plebs – inner voice thread
[9] 4plebs – inner voice thread
[10] 4plebs – inner voice thread
[11] Fireden – /v/ thread
[12] 4plebs – /pol/ thread
[13] Twitter – @StormResist
[14] Twitter – @SubsidiarityMan

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I've been seeing these memes of NPCs - a reference to video game 'non-player characters' go around social media for a few weeks now so I finally decided to look it up on knowyourmeme.com. It must belong somewhere, maybe here. Who knows what form the next spiritual battle will take?

This is a good a place as any - maybe even the perfect place. Have you checked out this Focus on SOTT yet:
'Dangerous Dehumanization' And The NPC Meme -- Sott.net

I hadn't heard of this finding before:

In 2008 a study was published in the journal Consciousness & Cognition. According to the study, five qualities are present during moments of naturally-occurring inner experience. Five qualities present themselves during such 'Descriptive Experience Sampling' (DES) inner speech, inner seeing, unsymbolized thinking, feelings and sensory awareness. According to the study conducted on just 30 participants "selected from a stratified sample of college students..."

"We found that each of the five phenomena occurred in approximately one quarter of sampled moments, that the frequency of these phenomena varied widely across individuals, that there were no significant gender differences in the relative frequencies of these phenomena, and that higher frequencies of inner speech were associated with lower levels of psychological distress.

"1/3 of the participants had none of the five qualities that represent "inner experience." In addition to inner sensory experience, the lack of "symbolized thinking" is troublesome. Symbolic thought, according to developmental psychologist Jean Piaget, arises first in the preschool years. It involves being able to imitate and imagine, and to extrapolate, extrapolation itself in a sense."​

​

Sometimes 4chan gets things scarily right...

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I just read the study, and the description above is misleading. it's not true that "1/3 of the participants had none of the five qualities". Rather, they found that anywhere from 4 to 9 (out of 30) participants didn't experience any instances of any one of the 5 inner experiences. In other words, 5 didn't experience any inner speech, 9 didn't experience any sensory awareness, etc. But it's possible that any number of the people who didn't experience sensory awareness DID experience some of the other 5. They authors don't break it down by individual and say how many individuals didn't experience ANY inner experiences.