Organic Portals: Human variation

[kenlee]

The I-Eye wrote:
The word 'Organic Portal' does convey a human beeing which is not a human beeing but simply organic matter that can be used. In that word is a dehumanizing concept. At least it can be used as negative statement for self classification (which is well attested in this thread).

It is here, I think, where things become topsy turvy. It seems to me you are focusing on the word 'organic portal' and by so doing you are losing focus of the greater idea that is being discussed here. By so doing, prejudice is introduced into the discussions. The prejudice destroys the idea. The destruction of this idea is represented by a term which you use above where you say 'simply organic matter' (or fertilizer?) which seems to me to be where you wish to take this idea. So it is very possible that you are projecting onto this forum what you really think of this idea and it really has nothing to do with the word 'organic portal' at all. If this is the case then any other words you might use such as "dehumanizing" may also fall within this prejudicial framework.

Similarly, contemporary fundamentalist Christianity has created many of the ills and inhibitions within today's society by introducing "word prejudices" to destroy ideas. Actually you can't really destroy an idea but rather, it gets buried into the mind, and this creates a separation between the conscious awareness and the deeper subconscious. Thanks to this we have all the negativity, neuroses, pychosis and all the other mental ills of contemporary psychology. And you can thank fundamentalist Christianity (and all who benifit from fundamentalist Christianity which says A LOT) for much of this. They get hung up on words and create those very things that they oppose, just so they can worship themselves opposing it and at the same time they use the fears and neurosis that they create from all this as a means to control those who fear such words.

Organic portal is simply a word that points to a much more complex idea dealing with soul, soullessness, genetics, psychopathy, physiology, science, chemistry, alchemy, physics, and about every other subject you can think of. When you focus on the word, apart from everything else, you destroy the greater ideas that it can be contexually referenced too.

Complex ideas now become simple words and simple words now become very complex things. All is now topsy turvey.

The word organic portal represents to me a state of being that is conditioned by genetics which determines what is possible and impossible for such a being. The possibilities of connecting to the higher centers, as explicated by Mouravieff and Gurdjieff, is restricted by virtue of these conditions. Thus, possibilities are also restricted for such beings (at least for this cycle). Further, in the study of psychopaths a "twisted molecule" in their genetics can represent a "twisted person" and this may very well explain the psychopaths that are running the governments of the world (enter ponerology). So, as above so below.

By studying the higher we must also study the lower and if we study the idea of organic portal then we must study what is above it and what is below it so we can understand the idea in its wholeness. Anything less would just destroy it. So it can be a complex study!

There s nothing negative in this word apart from the negativity that you might feel towards an idea that you, perhaps, cannot accept. To curtail the negativity that you feel you may project this negativity onto a word that merely points to this idea. However the pointer is not the idea itself. Thus, you will destroy the pointer so you don't have to look in a specific direction where there is a message that contains something which you cannot accept. It's similar to the early Church Fathers refusing to look thru Galileo's telescope because they could not accept any conception of a universe beyond that to which they were comfortably familiar.

In a time of periodic "planetary tensions," where the planetary bodies come closer together causing greater stress in the subconscious of the masses, there will be those who cannot use this stress as a shock to wake up. They will fall below a stress threshold into 'self calming' so as to restore a kind of psycho-emotional equilibrium. They will destroy everything in sight so as to maintain this equilibrium and if a new idea comes about that threathens their self calm then they will attempt to destroy that also, or at least bury it again into the subconscious.

However, the stress does not go away. There is a conscious/subconscious disconnect. It just gets buried deeper and deeper.

.

 

[The I-Eye]

Dear all

I want to apologize myself
And explain my wrongs

1) Self importance.
Things may happen which push a button. This one got me so I delivered here a message which went further than I originally intended. It had nothing to do with the word, but simply with some mail trafic problems. This was the button.
Self importance is the first trap.

2) Wrong procedure because of 1)
I should have simply asked a question and leave all other things out.
the question might have been:
'What does the word organic portal sound like'
Yes there is my backslash and I wanted to know the background of the word.

3) Lack of information also because of 1) and 2)
Know what self importance can do to one. I just lost reading carefully.

and additionaly
4) unneeded suggestion which is completely out of the C's concepts.

So I want to apologize.


I did not yet read the new postings. But I want to tell shortly what I did after reading Lauras first answer.

I went through the first page of this thread.
I carefully collected the data
I too recaputalated the time which led to incident 1) and recorded my feelings.

In other words...
While I instantly knew that i was wrong I had allthough a good day learning and observing.

I have now a much clearer picture.
And I am nearer a possible answer why 'organic portals'.

If you like I will submit my collected data.
But to finish this short message I submit my finding:

It is from the gnosis. Gnostics speak about three groups.
One group were the hylians (i'm not sure abot english speling)
So the 'organic' part may stem from gnostic tradition.
Now gnosticis and the Cs teachings have much in common.

So maybe one can compare the other groups too.

Yes the picture becomes clearer. But I must say that even with this information I still have some emotional stress.
And I have to work the next view days to clarify the data.

So I'm finished and now I want to read your new posts

To Laura: I am german speaking - from Switzerland. I am not trained in writing english but read a lot of english contents.

Ufff

 

[Mr. Premise]

No apologies necessary, I-Eye. Your reaction is a natural one when encountering the subject. And your post helped everyone clarify the subject.

I, like many, was brought up in a tradition of liberal universalism ("all men are created equal") so this was a hard concept to confront at first. But it helped explain so much and it helped conserve so much energy that I became more and more comfortable with it as I observed the world.

I also agree that the Gnostic concepts of pneumatics, psychics, and hylics is a similar mapping.

 

[Guest]

I, like many, was brought up in a tradition of liberal universalism ("all men are created equal") so this was a hard concept to confront at first.

I still believe in liberal universalism DJH, and do not think one has to sacrifice it to understand the OP/non-OP distinction. I also believe that the spirit of liberal universalism has been twisted by pathocracts into a guilt generating "correctness" paradigm that can only shackle the human spirit.

In other words, "being created equal" refers IMO to having equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of fulfillment. I do not think the perception that people are different affects that. IMO what we are doing here is expressing that the definition: Pursuit of happiness (fulfillment/destiny potential) is different for different people.

It's as if the acknowledgement that different colors exist is resisted because of a fear that such an idea must lead to the dominance of one color over the other. If one is color-blind it stands to reason that they might see nefarious motives in the very pursuit of trying to understand colors. If one is not color blind, on the other hand, they might have been conditioned by a cultural system geared toward correctness taboos inducing fear in making such distinctions.

Apparently, reactions to topics such as Organic Portals may have similar symptoms with different causes for different people. In some cases it seems we are conditioned to confuse differentiation with inequality, and by proxy equality with sameness. There is a phrase in the "Protocols of the Pathocrats" that drives the point home:

We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM .... They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality ....

 

[moonwalker]

Hi Eso/Everyone

This is probably a dumb question but could someone explain to me what this means?

"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM .... "

Maybe it's the language or maybe I'm an OP but I don't understand what a symbolic unit of collectivism is nor do I get the idea, an idea about the absorption of individuality.

Thanks

 

[Mr. Premise]

Good point. In fact, your formulation is close to what Thomas Jefferson thought about equality.

I still believe in liberal universalism DJH, and do not think one has to sacrifice it to understand the OP/non-OP distinction. I also believe that the spirit of liberal universalism has been twisted by pathocracts into a guilt generating "correctness" paradigm that can only shackle the human spirit.

In other words, "being created equal" refers IMO to having equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of fulfillment. I do not think the perception that people are different affects that. IMO what we are doing here is expressing that the definition: Pursuit of happiness (fulfillment/destiny potential) is different for different people.

It's as if the acknowledgement that different colors exist is resisted because of a fear that such an idea must lead to the dominance of one color over the other. If one is color-blind it stands to reason that they might see nefarious motives in the very pursuit of trying to understand colors. If one is not color blind, on the other hand, they might have been conditioned by a cultural system geared toward correctness taboos inducing fear in making such distinctions.

 

[Guest]

Maybe it's the language or maybe I'm an OP but I don't understand what a symbolic unit of collectivism is nor do I get the idea, an idea about the absorption of individuality.

Thank's for your reply moonwalker. Maybe it's me or the nature of the topic, but I just want to say that if I am thinking out loud here I do not intend those thoughts to imply judgment, although speculation can be confused with it sometimes. When someone tries to disqualify the whole topic or scale it down to nothing I have to disagree, but I don't mean to pondificate while doing so.

For the record, I want to say that I'm also bilingual (speaking Greek all day and writing in English the rest of the time) and sometimes within the context of correct English I translate meanings directly from one language to another, which is something difficult to keep track of for me because in all other respects the expression is structurally correct.

That said, the quote above was from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and it is only part of a paragraph. Here is the whole excerpt:

The GOYIM enter the [masonic] lodges out of curiosity or in the hope by their means to get a nibble at the public pie, and some of them in order to obtain a hearing before the public for their impracticable and groundless fantasies: they thirst for the emotion of success and applause, of which we are remarkably generous. And the reason why we give them this success is to make use of the high conceit of themselves to which it gives birth, for that insensibly disposes them to assimulate our suggestions without being on their guard against them in the fullness of their confidence that it is their own infallibility which is giving utterance to their own thoughts and that it is impossible for them to borrow those of others .... You cannot imagine to what extent the wisest of the GOYIM can be brought to a state of unconscious naivete in the presence of this condition of high conceit of themselves, and at the same time how easy it is to take the heart out of them by the slightest ill-success, though it be nothing more than the stoppage of the applause they had, and to reduce them to a slavish submission for the sake of winning a renewal of success .... BY SO MUCH AS OURS DISREGARD SUCCESS IF ONLY THEY CAN CARRY THROUGH THEIR PLANS, BY SO MUCH THE "GOYIM" ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE ANY PLANS ONLY TO HAVE SUCCESS. This psychology of theirs materially facilitates for us the task of setting them in the required direction. These tigers in appearance have the souls of sheep and the wind blows freely through their heads. We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM .... They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality ....

That's the context, although it doesn't seem to clarify the word "COLLECTIVISM". It describes how people are manipulated through their weaknesses, and one of these manipulations is to deny differences in people and bring everyone to a common denominator, the common denominator is the "symbolic unit of collectivism".

It's "symbolic" because it has nothing to do with reality, while the word "unit" is the substitute for "individual" because it is impersonal. I just wanted to say that the system is geared to make us deny our differences with a false and manipulative ideal (hobby-horse) that locks us into this mass mind zone, afraid of seeing that we are all unique because that might imply we are not equal.

It might be argued that the OP discussion is trying to separate humanity into TWO collectives, two common denominators. That's not the case. We are all unique but we also have things in common with some people we do not have with others. We share traits, talents, weaknesses with others. The distinction of OP's and non-OP's is just one among many differences in humanity.

Maybe I'm the OP here. If so, I'd like to understand what that means. I assume I'm not, but that is because assumption is only human and I've had experiences of others trying to simplify my thoughts or make me feel guilty about them when I did not feel I deserved to feel guilty. There were other reasons I though I was not, but it is obvious to me that those (described in earlier posts) have nothing to do with the distinction.

In any case, no matter what the conclusion, it doesn't change who I am, which is who I always was, and I'm OK with that.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I am having a hard time understanding it too. The English translation of Lobaczewski is very difficult, because he insist on it being published verbatim because there are technical terms in there that he wants preserved. One problem is that the psychiatric technical terms he uses are different than those used in the U.S. and probably other western countries as well.

I think the work could use a good editor, but Red Pill Press is naturally respecting Lobaczewski's wishes in this.

Don

Hi Eso/Everyone

This is probably a dumb question but could someone explain to me what this means?

"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM .... "

Maybe it's the language or maybe I'm an OP but I don't understand what a symbolic unit of collectivism is nor do I get the idea, an idea about the absorption of individuality.

Thanks

 

[Guest]

I pasted the Protocols quote from the following link I googled. I remembered it, and was going to paraphrase from memory, but I wasn't sure if I was going to be true to the letter. Anyway this is the link:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

and the translation is from one Victor E. Marsden. Here are some words about him:

The author of this translation of the famous Protocols was himself a victim of the Revolution. He had lived for many years in Russia and was married to a Russian lady. Among his other activities in Russia he had been for a number of years a Russian Correspondent of the MORNING POST, a position which he occupied when the Revolution broke out, and his vivid descriptions of events in Russia will still be in the recollection of many of the readers of that Journal. Naturally he was singled out for the anger of the Soviet. On the day that Captain Cromie was murdered by Jews, Victor Marsden was arrested and thrown into the Peter-Paul Prison, expecting every day to have his name called out for execution. This, however, he escaped, and eventually he was allowed to return to England very much of a wreck in bodily health. However, he recovered under treatment and the devoted care of his wife and friends. One of the first things he undertook, as soon as he was able, was this translation of the Protocols. Mr. Marsden was eminently well qualified for the work. His intimate acquaintance with Russia, Russian life and the Russian language on the one hand, and his mastery of a terse literary English style on the other, placed him in a position of advantage which few others could claim. The consequence is that we have in his version an eminently readable work, and though the subject-matter is somewhat formless, Mr. Marsden's literary touch reveals the thread running through the twenty-four Protocols.

It may be said with truth that this work was carried out at the cost of Mr. Marsden's own life's blood. He told the writer of this Preface that he could not stand more than an hour at a time of his work on it in the British Museum, as the diabolical spirit of the matter which he was obliged to turn into English made him positively ill.

Mr. Marsden's connection with the MORNING POST was not severed by his return to England, and he was well enough to accept the post of special correspondent of that journal in the suite of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales on his Empire tour. From this he returned with the Prince, apparently in much better health, but within a few days of his landing he was taken suddenly ill, and died after a very brief illness.

May this work be his crowning monument! In it he has performed an immense service to the English-speaking world, and there can be little doubt that it will take its place in the first rank of the English versions of "THE PROTOCOLS of the Meetings of the LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION."

Given the high praise, I figured this would be a reasonable source. Sorry if I was wrong.

 

[Cyre2067]

Lol - everyone posted at once indeed. I edited and reupdated to include all info i missed.

From context i would surmise that it means the PTB have us set on the idea that we can become "successful" by conforming to the status quo and "rising to the top". Since this rising is seen as financial success one will sacrifice any ideals/morals/ethics they had previously in order to gain said success. Keeps you busy by earning money which is literally the current measure of "success". They also force you to give up your moral compass, your conscience if you will, allowing them to do whatever they want in the world without tipping off your radar. Thus keeping you asleep.

 

[Guest]

I guess everyone posted all at once, and the posts got shuffled around a bit. I presented my reply to moonwalker's, DJH's and Cyre2067's queries in two posts above.

 

[moonwalker]

OK thanks Esoquest. The quote does make more sense with your explanation and seen with in the context. By the way I don't know whether you were referring to me, but I was not trying to simplify your thoughts or make you feel guilty about them. I was trying to understand them.

 

[Guest]

I used your comments moonwalker as an exuse to say what I did because I know I can be misunderstood. I know you didn't mean anything personal by it, but I do know that sometimes there can be misunderstandings, and some people have objected to the whole topic and others may continue to do so.

Sometimes objections occur because of how things are expressed rather than what is expressed so I just wanted to state my case. I'm really not so easily offended actually, maybe a bit sensitive about offending others.

 

[Mike]

Of course, I'm sure that Jefferson never imagined that someone who was mentally ill would become president - that is taking "created equal" to an obscene limit. But that's what happened to the term "democracy" in the hands of those with negative intentions.

Good point. In fact, your formulation is close to what Thomas Jefferson thought about equality.

Not contesting what TJ did or didn't think of equality. I haven't specfically read about him other then what is quoted below. I did find the posts reminded me of what I read in a biography of John Adams (that I haven't fully finished) and find interesting how the smallest twist of language can mean so much especially and seems to be the case in light of the OP topic and the discussion about it. From David McCullough's 'John Adams':

He borrowed readily from his own previous writing, particularly from a recent draft for a new Virginia constitution, but also from a declaration of rights for Virginia, which appeared in the Pennsylvannia Evening Post on June 12 (1776). It had been drawn up by George Mason, who wrote that "all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights...amoung which are enjoyment of life and liberty." And there was a pamphlet written by the Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson, published in Philadelphia in 1774, that declared, "All men are, by nature equal and free: no one has a right to any authority over another without his consent: all lawful government is founded on the consent of those who are subject to it." [...]
Adams, in his earlier notes for an oration at Braintree, had written, "Nature throws us all into the world equal and alike.... The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man [kings included] to endanger public liberty."

A number of alterations were made, however, when Jefferson reviewed it with the committee, and several were by Adams. Possibly it was Franklin, or Jefferson himself, who made the small but inspired change in the second paragraph. Where, in the initial draft, certain "truths" were described as "sacred and undeniable," a simpler, stronger "self-evident" was substitued. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Preferring what Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence, the convention revised the first article of the Declaration of Rights, that all men were "born equally and free and independant," to read that all men were "born free and equal," a change Adams did not like and would like even less as time went on. He did not believe all men were created equal, except in the eyes of God, but that all men, for their many obvious differences, were born to equal rights.

Not sure why or what is written about Adams' reason for "like even less as time went on."

 

[The I-Eye]

OP as a description for the primary character? It is exactly this a dangerous thing because without awarenes that what you think for the moment to be a primary character is maybe not.
I remember one post of yours early in this thread introducing the bell curve ans speculating about it's nature and whether there is continuity or discontinuity in that curve. So it was quite visible where this word led your thinking. Later you adjusted and you see that you are trying to fit that word into something from a rather intellectual POV.

So what you are saying unless we know the absolute truth and have its awareness it is dangerous to explore and attempt to discover the truth? You seem to be implying that because there are psychopaths manipulating words and the truth, then we should avoid explorations or be in danger of becoming psychopaths ourselves.

I mentioned that I thought your view was the opposite end of the spectrum from Ruth's. They actually do not seem that far apart, since both are pushing for a shut-down of the exploration process.

You also, for all your high words regarding "humanization", underestimate human potential. People manipulate words. Words do not manipulate discriminating people. I believe your gripe is not with the word, but with the concept of definitively identifiable non-physical differences between groups of people.

Isn't it funny though that while those promoting the "levelling of the human playing field" complain against people who want to explore the nature of that field, psychopaths just keep going their merry way making their own destructive distinctions, and laughing all the way to the bank?

It seems it is always sincere people who are prompted to constantly doubt themselves and their motives to understand the situation, especially when those motives tend to lead them to possibilities of dealing with the disctinctions at the root of the underside of the human condition.

While the "well-meaning" cry "STOP DANGER, CEASE AND DESIST, OR YOU WILL BECOME EVIL!", is shouted in the ears of sincere explorers, true evil rampages about. As humanity cries "WHAT DO WE DO?", some are trying to find answers and they have the foresight to understand that these answers are not easy. Have you ever heard of Nazi's discussing ANYTHING?

The 'roots at the underside' in your words I interprete as the teaching that there are two distinguished groups of human beings.
My question dealt with a lexical problem (mixed indeed with a backslash).
But to elaborate the problem: May I give examples how vocabulary affects us on the 'branches' of our reality?

The first example is well known. The second one is not and has to do with my own research.

Antisemitism is a good example of the use of a wrong word. It is such a loaded word that a lot of people dare not even question it. This prohibition even led to some laws that punish questioning some aspects of the holocaust inclusive the word 'holocaust'.
In view cases the ones who accuse questioners should have used another word when in fact there was a certain bias in the questioners.
Such words might have been...
- Anti-Judaism (critizising a national concept)
- Anti-Juweryism (critizising a cultural network)
- Anti-HaShemism (critizising the Jahwistic religion / mysticism)
- Anti-Zionism (critizising a political program based on or disguised within a nationality)

The prohibition discourages to think below a word. Instead we have Anti-Sem-itism where Sem does logically refer to one of the sons of Noah.
It might be a coincidence that this adresses one third of biblical world population.

The second example

Reading the bible one might expect that the jews developped out of shauvinism (natonality focused self esteem) a religion which propagetes their eshatological supremacy through observing laws and codes which are only understood within the adherents of that culture / nation.
One could explain this as self-developping process and say: well it is some kind of precursory nazi-ism.

But when I detected the mystic system of the torah (which I coined Tree of Knowledge) I had to revise this view. There was an element which was not jewish that contributet to this form. The ToK serves as
- a tool to pretect the torah from corruption
- a key to jewish year counting which only became public through Seder Olam
- a initiating system partially subverting the obvious vocabulary
- a command to destruct the temple in 70 AD
- (possibly but not well attested) a plan for some historical realisations in the future.
There is no doubt that the system is dependent on the extant form of the torah - which is attested by texts as the LXX and SamP for those who doubt the age of the MT - and goes back into the late persian era.

There is a non jewish element which created the jewish nation and used it as a tool to accomplish something, which is not jet understood.
But we can observe the obvious: 'Jew' is a code word in world politics. And jewish identiy is much stronger for one whio is born within that culture which is in the same time a nation.

'Jew' is a codeword. It is a button that can be pushed. Even the most aware Jews who try to come to terms with this programming are at some level susceptible to that button.
In short... Some spiritual/psychological entitie(s) created buttons to be pushed in times. We see how words do indeed have a wide ranging function.
The freedom not to be susceptible to the button is not guaranteed. And regarding the mass the button functions any time even when some parts of the programmed people do not switch.

Key words exist. They are like buttons. Semitism is a trigger, Jew is a trigger and obviously 'OP' is a trigger too.

the keys do exist and cannot be denied away. So what can be done?
It must be possible to discuss it.

This was an example how vocabulary does affect the 'branches'.
Now you are right that there might be something at the 'root' namely: that there are not only triggers that can be used but that there is a completely different quality.
The contrversial point is:
- Is it 'the' reality and the word OP does indeed somehow designate that group?
- Or is it another trial to install or reinstall triggers.

I do not decide this but based on my experience with the torah I must ask the second question as a possibility.

So you point out that at first I proposed a continuity between OP's and "Adamics" in the bell-curve. You assume that the word has led me to "conform" and say the two are now different. The phenomenon that the term OP describes is not new to me. I had observed it long before I logged on here, so it was always real for me. Because I observed it over YEARS you cannot convince me it is not real.

WHAT is not real? Did you observe that it IS absolutely so but did not have a word for it? Or is it that the systems explains your observation?
we should not forget that the idea of a division is not new. Calvin thought it is predetermined who is from god and who is from the devil.

The terminology used here, however, IS new the me. Even so, I would be a fool if I allowed some word to carry me along, and throw out all my former and current observations. The thread on Organic Portals is as complex as the topic. Issues are presented back and forth and many angles are explored. On the one hand there is a discontinuity between OP's and non-OP's because these two groups EVOLVE differently.

The word - as it is - is new and unique indeed. But doing some research there might be some connections to older traditions. I would not want to suggest, that the Cs teaching incorporates the gnostic concensus. But the gnostics divided humantiy in three types:
- pneumatics
- psychics
- hylians
The last one designated the 'fleshly' ones. But we should know that within eastern and alexandrian vocabulary 'fleshly' meant 'earthen' as opposed to such which knew the 'spiritual'.
Gnosis does not always put the 'pneumatics' in the first place. In the East in non greek vocabulary they rather put the 'souled' before the 'ghostly'. It is in the greek gnosis that 'pneuma' (ghost) is first because psychic did not equal 'souled' as such.
Considering the somewhat mixed terminology one cannot easily compare them. But the word 'organic portals' might match the 'hylians'.
organic has a double meaning.
- Scientifically C-based matter (no pun intended)
- from Organum (a tool in a broader sense. It can even be a concept. From 'Erga' it means 'work')

However: 'organic portals' does not match 'hylians' one to one and the meaning is perhaps within the Cs teachings.
The troublesom part is the 'portals' because it rather reflects how OP are perceaved than what they are.
The Cs say the serve as a bridge between 2D and 3D. Since OPs have a group soul they are connected. 'portals' does not express this.

On the other hand, the behaviour characteristics can be observed in both groups, and in that context they DO overlap.

Would this apply to 'degees of susceptibility' to triggers such as i gave for the 'branches' of our reality?

I am not just going along with the crowd here to conform my understanding to a mere word. I am deepening my understanding in considering the validity of all the viewpoints presented as compared to my own experience and that of others. Contrary to your own misgivings, what I have noticed as the thread here has progressed, was a GREATER humanization of the OP concept.

If you have not observed this then you are obviously seeing things in terms of black and white, and have missed the point of the thread entirely. The term OP is also complex in that it ties to other ideas presented here such as the concept of soul pools. It seems that instead of viewing the word as ONE element in a greater tapestry of understanding you have myopically glued your Eye to this one tree and refuse to notice the greater forest we are all exploring.

It is the discussion which gives words a meaning. Any given word has multiple connectors. But they often lay hidden and it depends completely upon how and where a word is used.
Let me give you an example. Would you use 'organic portals' in a newspaper?
That is a master trigger.
But discussing a word where conflicting aproaches may broaden or enlighten the sense is completely different. While i would not say it is a process to 'humanize' a word I'd rather think it is the process to explain it within a broader scheme where. Considering the C transcriptions the word has much more connectors as you say.

'Humanization' (just some free thoughts)
Gnostics put indeed the human being in the center of their teaching. This is true for religions in general.
But indeed it is not so easy to explain what a human is. A human being is anithing else than just a assembly of parts. The whole of a human being is his life, the meaning of life. But the meaning is not complete if one forgets to presence of one singular human being.

"Rather intellectual"?

How are my first posts any less "intellectual" than the later ones? What you are trying to say is that my later posts attempt to go into greater philisophical depth. Perhaps some of my ideas are too complex for you, but this is not compatible with your admonition that the OP concept is too simplistic in and of itself.

There are two things: A concept and a word. Imagine one (me) who read Lauras material which starts using that word. The reader is left with the newspaper view. (A newspaper gives a dayly progress of political processes. It is up to the reader to collect all parts).
In this approach the word is not explained within a broader context. One is left to collect the data of the material and somehow find a way through it and he may end missunderstanding a concept. This is the danger to simplify a word and it then may function as a trigger.
But a forum is different. It helps finding the connectors within a rather complex framework. Then at least the meaning of the word might be acuratly understood.

So there are two sides. The QFG group has a school and it has a publication framework.

I find it incredibly interesting that nobody expressed reservations regarding the OP concept until AFTER the discussion started getting deeper and more complex.

A discussion does refer to members inputs too.
Without a discussion one may always create a distance between a concept and oneself. But once a discussion is started it becomes apparent how deep this can go.

Is this simply a coincidence? I would understand if people dissagreed if the discussion came to PREMATURE conclusions, and I myself would be among those. It seems, however, the opposite is occuring.

The question is whether there is a feedback mechanism in the topic and the concept itself when speaker becomes himself the battelfield of the topic.
Any input shows a psychological imprint which becomes data within the exploration of the topic.

And in all of this we have not reached definitive conclusions, although there is much greater clarity in my view. The discussion, in other words, does not tell you what to think, but it provides a load of food for thought.

It seems THAT seems to generate cognitive dissonance in some readers. Again, if there were objections among people who have read the C's material (presumably), why didn't anyone come out even before this thread was generated and say "hey, I don't feel good about this OP thing"? Apparently, what seems to bother some people is that the topic is being successfully discussed, and disturbance seems to be in proportion to the complexity and depth of the understandings reached. |/quote]

I think the QFG group has got a lot of mails concerning this. I send myself one. And this is data that escapes your knowledge.
But does absence of such a thread (before Laura opened it) explain something about agreement? Or did she open it because the topic needs some thaughts?
I think she did because there were a lot of mails.

Rather: Consider the whole concept. In a concept where each contribution is under test there is some inherent fear to expose oneself as incompatible with the concept (or rather not be compatible with one group for which this teaching was given).

(self observation 14:10 GMT: strong pulsating headaches and flat breath)

I know myself asking in the past about what's the true character of some people. But you will not come to closure to watch a person till you definitely know it. Live is too complicated and OP tends to be too simplicistic. I admit the dicussions about OP were not :)

The second sentence is just circular.

Regarding the third sentence of the above quote, let me get this straight: a)Life is too complicated, b)OP tends to be too simplistic, c) discussions about OP were not [simplistic]. Point (b) is redundant IMO here, because the point of the discussion was to go beyond the surface simplicity of the idea. So: Life is too complicated and the OP discussions are seeking to match life's complexity as much as possible. You do not believe this is possible, so you urge for the whole exploration to be aborted. If you are correct, then you are only correct for yourself. This may not be a topic for you, but do not presume that what applies to you applies to others. People are different, are they not? :)

I regret my trigger has destorted my original question.
Again it's is a difference to grasp a concept and to promote simple ideas.
It needs a framework for discussion. When one is left with the published papers then there is a danger that OP can be uses as some trigger.
All information is open to distortion.
As you know yourself I contributet in another thread because I have my own question: Does the C's concept match the waterprooved results of my research (or at least not contradict it).
Or could there be additional information to see a coherent picture.
Sorry I stumbled about my Self (if I have one). Indeed it would be better for my to quitly lerne the concept.

But I have my reasons to stay alerted concerning this concept. These reasons have nothing to do with my selfimportance, but with my experiences i had with the bible and all it might imply.
I want to explain this in the next post.

snip

APPENDIX

Could someone confirm the data or mark the wrong conclusions?
I put some questions/thesis in {brackets} because they are not yet based on data.

50% ca of the human world population are Organic Portals (O.P.)
{is this
a) an all time equilibrum in a STS controlled 3D section?
b) a todays equilibrum restricted to earth?
}

The other 50% ca. are Souled Beings (S.B.)

There are rare cases of other variety.

O.P.s are a bridge between 2D and 3D
{what is crossing the bridge?
a) is it the group soul which transits to become a 3D human group soul?
}

S.B.'s are in the stadium of individualization.
This indicidualization does imply but not guarantee Free Will
There are two orientations. STO and STS
O.P.s are rather group minded. There is a possibility that there are different Groupsouls.
{(?) Free Will designates primarily the free choice of orientation.
Religions show templates of groupsouls and portrai totemsitic/animalistic remnants. For instance: Jesus the Lamb of god and the shepherd who searches his lost sheep.
However there is a possibility that animalis (birds) refer to something else (shamanism)
}

S.B.s and O.P.s are different stadiums in the evolution within the grant cycle.
Todays O.P.'s will become S.B.s in the next grant cycle.
{Is this a general rule?
Laura opted that evolution is upwards only against a combined upwards & downwards evolution.
There is a transition point at the grant cycle within this part of the universe.
question:
There is no possibility that an O.P. can evolve to a S.B. within this span?
}

S.B.s have the propriety to activate/have higher centers.
However there is no physiological distinction between S.B and O.P.
{That means the ability is not with the body/genetics but with the incarnating Self}

There is a complete cultural mix of O.P.s and S.B.s even within families.
However families do have a specific tendency.
{'family' is an arbitrary snipet from a unlimited unidirectional 'wickerwork'
}

As water seeks its own level S.B.s search S.B.s, However in the material we find often cases to the contrary.

There is information for S.B. which concerns theyr protection against beeing sucked.
Often O.P.'s emulate 'spirituality' by connecting to S.B.s
{Theses: this aplies for both Orientations of S.B.}


(!) Discard the following if you object to the collection above.


In one of the early transcripts it's said that Jesus serves as a suspended soul template. Any one who preaches (?) to him receives a complete soul.
{where does that fit into?
Is this an alegory of the rather gnostic part which expresses: It is the moment of the choice that counts. To know the savior is salvation.
A complication...
A duplicated soul in not realy a individualized soul. But the process of individualization might start with _getting_ a soul . (note my underscores here).
This is a difficult topic because one could read this as a alegory of the connection to the group soul.
Following the gnostic principle the 'pneumatic' remembers his being 'pneumatic' and it is rather like a reconnection.
}

{Is Jesus suspension in the 6th density (?).
Are group souls part of 6th density?}

The 6th density is the top of a STS STO split.
{I assume there is a equilibrum (?)
I would not suggest that the group souls ARE the 6D beings but are 'in the hands' of 6D beings.
This cycle is under dominion of 6D STS. Does this imply the group souls are STS too?
There seems to be a variety of group souls.
Using the functions of O.P.s as a bridge: This seems to indicate a evolution of the group soul.
But while the group soul is in 6D can it evolve? I think it must in a certain time because of the Jesus example that souls must be ready for individualization in the next cycle.
}


O.P.s have/are a group soul. This grant cycle is under STS domination.
{In some sense the STS / STO orientation has no meaning for the O.P.'s
But since they are/have a groupsoul there might be some influence on the group soul as such (which is hard to describe)
question:
O.P.s will start in the next grant cycle where their group soul left of. Is this predetermining a next STS cycle or are there influences on the group souls that might result in different location/orientation in the next cycle?
}


Assuming that there is a constant equilibrum of S.B. and O.P.
{what does establish that equilibrum?
In what way does the reincarnation rate of S.B.'s influence the reincarnation rate of O.P.s?
Considering the world population today the reincarnation process must be pretty busy. In the meantime the fauna is partially dying.
Is the dying of a species synonym the passing the bridge in O.P.s?
}

S.B.'s are in the process of individualization. While they are in a STS area of the universe there is an option of STO orientation.
They will divide during transition.
{The Transition is understood to be a cataclysmic event.
(?) Will this event _fragmentate_ the group souls in 6D?
Using the soul template example: will the group soul become diplicable? }

The last grant cycle started 309'000 years from now.
{309'000 / 12 = 25750 , which is near the precission of the equinox cycle which is rather theoretical.
I believe this duration was no novelty by the Cs.
'do not anticipate - time is an illusion - learning is fun'}

{Each time a S.B. is making his choice, his soul unit in the 6D STS Sector moves away,
correction: it prepares the seating of the soul. but in the meantime: as if the magnetic center points to another locator
a magnet is a dual. A magnet may move ironical things (rather 3D example I know)
51% is an expression for the switched orientation while the moving is done independent of it.
Gnostics explain this moving as the ascend of the soul.
I try to visualize the difference:
- polarization of a group soul
- polarization of a fragmented group soul
(?) O.P.s may have an effekt on the group soul, but because the group soul is not fragmented it does affect the group soul as a whole}

How do 4D STS perceive 6D STS?
The STS Realm is a food chain.
However 4D STS rather feed on some specific properties of S.B.
O.P.s are rarely abducted by greys.
{The group souls are in 6D above them. So the 4D STS cannot get at them directly. But because the polarization of the group soul might be changable they fear to loose their capital of the next cycle.
So they try to manipulate the mass of O.P.s by introducing STS rules.
Do they do it directly? Or do they rather use the 3D S.B. to do this for them?
}


There must be balance within the universe.
Balance is expressed in the balance between S.B. and O.P.
{I decline there is a similar strict balance between STS and STO S.B. because this would make the choice to a purely statistical phenomenon}

Nuff for today
By the way
UTF : the C's say they are the 'Unified Thought Forms'
UFT : short for 'Unified Field Theorie'