Session 1 December 2018

[Don Genaro]

Yes, I have Heinsohn's ideas in the back of my head all the time. All of these things may be much closer to each other in time than we suppose.

Laura, the above quote reminded me of this thread. I sensed the topic got derailed a bit through misunderstandings and brushed aside too quickly, but think it may be at least worth checking out because it implies exactly that concept; that "ancient" civilization is much more recent than we have imagined, as in 3 or 4 centuries. It may be more noise being close to the Truth but I think there's no better person to see that than you.

The video "What if" by Max Igan is the main one I watched. It feels a bit disarming at first as it feels like an hypnotic induction but the computer graphics that follow are actually quite pleasant and the basic argument is, as you say above. Even if it's not historically accurate, I found it to be an interesting listen. The information on churches as places to go for healing is very interesting as it focuses on sound healing and the beautiful church organs found throughout the world. Worth watching for that part alone.

Sounds interesting and I'm going to try to get time to listen/watch, but maybe some others who have some time could watch and synopsize the main points?

Sorry, not used to new software for quoting etc. The post I was talking about is this one:
Session 1 December 2018

 

[Heaalih]

Thanks for sharing this session.

Concerning the gregorian chants, maybe the best choir I listened at this day is the choir of the monks of Chevetogne. They have recorded several discs. The first I listened with my father when I was young :

The first two minutes are the bells call...

 

[Puma]

That seems to contradict this session Session 6 August 2005

A: Gravity is consciousness "expressed."

(Ark is not happy with answer as it is not helping. Group discussion of what "expressed" might mean)


Maybe there's slightly different concepts and/or contexts to "express" in relation to gravity binding existence?

But there is a big difference as I understand it (and I might be wrong)

1. Gravity is energy without expression
2. Gravity is consciousness "expressed."

Gravity as energy has no expression, it exists as an electromagnetic field, ether, Khora... but once we use it, we apply thought, consciousness, intelligence, we give it form, then it has expression... is energy expressed. IMHO

 

[BlackCartouche]

But there is a big difference as I understand it (and I might be wrong)

1. Gravity is energy without expression
2. Gravity is consciousness "expressed."

Gravity as energy has no expression, it exists as an electromagnetic field, ether, Khora... but once we use it, we apply thought, consciousness, intelligence, we give it form, then it has expression... is energy expressed. IMHO

This is a very good session regards the subject Session 15 June 1996

(The session is 1996 - so is very early on and subject to possible corruption, but the tone of the C's feels authentic enough here)

This is possibly the most important point to always start with:

A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence!


And, whereas "energy expressed":

A: Gravity is all there is.

Q: (L) Is light the emanation of gravity?

A: No.

Q: (L) What is light?

A: Gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the same as the strong and weak nuclear forces?

A: Gravity is "God."

Q: (L) But, I thought God was light?

A: If gravity is everything, what isn't it? Light is energy expression generated by gravity.


However, Im most curious about this next text, because the C's profess such the state of "non-existence" which is described a "mere thought":

Q: (L) Is gravity the "light that cannot be seen," as the Sufis call it: the Source.

A: Please name something that is not gravity.

Q: (L) Well, if gravity is everything, there is nothing that is not gravity. Fine. What is absolute nothingness?

A: A mere thought.

Q: (L) So, there is no such thing as non-existence?

A: Yes, there is.

Q: (L) Do thoughts produce gravity?

A: Yes.


Everything must start with gravity, but a mere thought does not because it is non-existence - yet "thought" a "mere thought" surely must be? Is "mere thought" the faintest imprint of "thought" so miniscule that gravity simply cannot take hold or 'ignite' and enable existence - kinda like using the analogy of a psychopath having such a small trace of a soul-imprint as to never enable Love or growth??

 

[3DStudent]

Everything must start with gravity, but a mere thought does not because it is non-existence - yet "thought" a "mere thought" surely must be? Is "mere thought" the faintest imprint of "thought" so miniscule that gravity simply cannot take hold or 'ignite' and enable existence - kinda like using the analogy of a psychopath having such a small trace of a soul-imprint as to never enable Love or growth??

When they say that absolute nothingness is a mere thought and then that there is such a thing as non-existence, it sounds contradictory at first. But I think they were responding to the words used. So there is no absolute nothingness, but there is non-existence, which would be the reflections of STS at 6D I suppose. And that would balance existence. Maybe someone else can clarify it better.

 

[Divide by Zero]

When they say that absolute nothingness is a mere thought and then that there is such a thing as non-existence, it sounds contradictory at first. But I think they were responding to the words used. So there is no absolute nothingness, but there is non-existence, which would be the reflections of STS at 6D I suppose. And that would balance existence. Maybe someone else can clarify it better.

In my own troubles of facing 3d in these days, I have realized one thing that confirms the issue. Not existing is a thought produced by consciousness, whether it be in 3d, 4d or whatever. It requires a prerequisite: consciousness/awareness of existing. Descartes came up with "I think, therefore I am" only after spending a deep dark time of doubting everything. He wanted to find what was real after disposing of the subjective. All that was left was that.

I don't think it has anything to do with psychopaths. Psychopathic/sociopathic individuals have all the drive to exist, even if they shouldn't exist. It's like that joke how the dumb/psychos procreate much more than the people who are intelligent and think twice. Sorry, 3d just reinforces mechanical existence that doesn't seem to question existing. You can't question your purpose of being if you are so sure of your goals and success in this exact 3d game that breeds that kind of drive. Entropy of this system leads to the "creative" idea of survival in such dire odds. Only someone so confident/ignorant would face bad odds and still play the game. Someone with experience would recognize that the game is rigged and choose not to play because it does not change anything.

For addicts, even if the game is unwinnable, the brain tells them that if they work hard enough they will win. Despite losses, they keep going on.

That's my conundrum regarding surviving vs not surviving. Some who have no choice, will choose survival/existence at all costs because that is their only choice. Meanwhile, being given the choice affords great suffering of "to be or not to be".

 

[Divide by Zero]

Another thought on gravity. On a small scale you could say that the gravity is what takes the millions/billions of organisms that work together to keep me alive. It binds them to me and me to them. Gravity in space is the force that forces (yes, I see it as a byproduct of 3d) individual molecules to HAVE TO work together. In other words, gravity seems to be what forces a situation where things HAVE TO interact. Without gravity, every molecule with it's tiny bit of "consciousness" would just deal with it's own consciousness.

STS conglomerates consciousness for a purpose of power/control. STO does ???????? I'm having a hard time here in 3d to understand what is the alternative.... If you realize that you are made up of billions of organisms that are essentially tricked/coerced into doing work for you by you offering them survival, how is that NOT STS on a deeper level?

 

[adamos]

This is a very good session regards the subject Session 15 June 1996

(The session is 1996 - so is very early on and subject to possible corruption, but the tone of the C's feels authentic enough here)

This is possibly the most important point to always start with:

A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence!


And, whereas "energy expressed":

A: Gravity is all there is.

Q: (L) Is light the emanation of gravity?

A: No.

Q: (L) What is light?

A: Gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the same as the strong and weak nuclear forces?

A: Gravity is "God."

Q: (L) But, I thought God was light?

A: If gravity is everything, what isn't it? Light is energy expression generated by gravity.


However, Im most curious about this next text, because the C's profess such the state of "non-existence" which is described a "mere thought":

Q: (L) Is gravity the "light that cannot be seen," as the Sufis call it: the Source.

A: Please name something that is not gravity.

Q: (L) Well, if gravity is everything, there is nothing that is not gravity. Fine. What is absolute nothingness?

A: A mere thought.

Q: (L) So, there is no such thing as non-existence?

A: Yes, there is.

Q: (L) Do thoughts produce gravity?

A: Yes.


Everything must start with gravity, but a mere thought does not because it is non-existence - yet "thought" a "mere thought" surely must be? Is "mere thought" the faintest imprint of "thought" so miniscule that gravity simply cannot take hold or 'ignite' and enable existence - kinda like using the analogy of a psychopath having such a small trace of a soul-imprint as to never enable Love or growth??

I'm more interested in physical aspect of gravity.
Thus gravity (means as curvature/deformation of space) is consciousness "expressed" too !
Let's supose that consciousness (a being which has certain level of consciousness) deforms space (infinitely many-dimensional space) in some manner: the less conscious being are - the more deformation of bit of space surrounding the being is. We could say: gravity=1/consciousness (I'll repeat: gravity in meaning "curvatrue of space"). I think there is a close link between consciousness of being and the being's ability to perceive (to "feel", to be aware of) certain number of dimenssion of space. Why it is ? Maybe the being deforms space (or space deforms itself ?) "to hide" other dimensions that being can't be aware of because its level of consciousness.
Matter (subatoms particles as beings) has extremely low level of consciousness, so space surrounded proton (for example) is deformed in extremely way: every dimension of infinitely many-dimensional space in near surroungings of proton looks like 4th dimension of space from Kaluza-Klein theory - that is "quantum world"...
There are so many, many, many beings (different levels of consciousness) in space - so space hasn't certain number of ("flat") dimension "everywhere" (for example 3 - like we, humans perceive space), thus we "have" EM, gravity (gravity force), we perceive time in that not another way (cause deformation of space I think).
What I wrote is in accordance (I think) with the bolded sentences from C's session quoted above (15 June 1996) , especially: "A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence! " and "A: Gravity is consciousness "expressed."" (6 August 2005 )

(sorry for my English )

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

Another thought on gravity. On a small scale you could say that the gravity is what takes the millions/billions of organisms that work together to keep me alive. It binds them to me and me to them. Gravity in space is the force that forces (yes, I see it as a byproduct of 3d) individual molecules to HAVE TO work together. In other words, gravity seems to be what forces a situation where things HAVE TO interact. Without gravity, every molecule with it's tiny bit of "consciousness" would just deal with it's own consciousness.

STS conglomerates consciousness for a purpose of power/control. STO does ???????? I'm having a hard time here in 3d to understand what is the alternative.... If you realize that you are made up of billions of organisms that are essentially tricked/coerced into doing work for you by you offering them survival, how is that NOT STS on a deeper level?

You mention that billions of organisms are essentially tricked/coerced by you offering them survival. By reading THE STRANGE ORDER OF THINGS by DAMASIO I learned how these organisms took eons to develop by trial and error. i.e what worked or didn't work. Those that combined flourished and developed, those that didn't were discarded. This was before even emotions were brought into the picture. The C's say there are no tricks. This was a symbiosis I think not a question of STS or STO.

Combining what works seems to be the trick, in everything.

Caesar said it has to start early, with the education of children. We are born to parents who do not know what to teach, etc, etc. It's only when someone like Laura takes on the enormous discipline of finding out what DAMASIO is saying in relation to how the central nervous system, brain consciousness, etc all strive to work together do we begin to learn what we should have known and treated as everyday knowledge as kids. If that were known to us
what a head start we would have. The evil that men do would not be as able to infect so many of us as they do now and the memories from one generation to the next would be much easier to retain and not as many people mired in materialism. Molecules or people don't have to work together. They just do because it works.

 

[Divide by Zero]

You mention that billions of organisms are essentially tricked/coerced by you offering them survival. By reading THE STRANGE ORDER OF THINGS by DAMASIO I learned how these organisms took eons to develop by trial and error. i.e what worked or didn't work. Those that combined flourished and developed, those that didn't were discarded. This was before even emotions were brought into the picture. The C's say there are no tricks. This was a symbiosis I think not a question of STS or STO.

Combining what works seems to be the trick, in everything.

Caesar said it has to start early, with the education of children. We are born to parents who do not know what to teach, etc, etc. It's only when someone like Laura takes on the enormous discipline of finding out what DAMASIO is saying in relation to how the central nervous system, brain consciousness, etc all strive to work together do we begin to learn what we should have known and treated as everyday knowledge as kids. If that were known to us
what a head start we would have. The evil that men do would not be as able to infect so many of us as they do now and the memories from one generation to the next would be much easier to retain and not as many people mired in materialism. Molecules or people don't have to work together. They just do because it works.

I think the dynastic cycle gives a good picture of why it succeeds at first, then fails.
At the start, there is a society based in truth and fairness... like this symbiosis that benefits both parties in our bodies.
However, it repeatedly leads to complacency which leads to many who follow authority blindly (for ease/feel good/laziness). Then, by mere brain chemistry alone, the society is ripe for these corrupt authority figures to dominate. Why do the corrupt authorities dominate over the honest authorities? The corrupt ones sell an idea that is more addictive... The Wave explained that addiction is built into our biology, our brains. Why addiction? This is the same mechanism that helps one go through tough times, to color things better than they are, to keep going when the going gets tough. However, in that first/second step of the dynastic cycle, it becomes the same mechanism that says "I like that, it feels good, it must be good, give me more, more".

The same thing leads to history being rewritten, terminology changing meaning (doublespeak) and so on. Eventually that leads into corruption and lopsidedness that brings failure. A failure leads to the people going back to the roots of survival, which takes what it needs and doesn't dream (wishfully think) the delusion of endless optimism that was sold during the "good times".

Gravity seems to follow the same cycle. The beginnings create more stable molecules that have more purpose. As things become more massive, the inertia to becoming bigger and bigger speeds up. At some point, there is this pinnacle of being a star, giving out energy/light. Too much of that (no limits- much like our hope/optimism based dream society), become too big without being able to expand, it leads into a black hole. The black hole is the complete opposite of what gravity originally did- instead of uniting to improve, it unites into a singularity- sort of a nothingness.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

I think the dynastic cycle gives a good picture of why it succeeds at first, then fails.
At the start, there is a society based in truth and fairness... like this symbiosis that benefits both parties in our bodies.
However, it repeatedly leads to complacency which leads to many who follow authority blindly (for ease/feel good/laziness). Then, by mere brain chemistry alone, the society is ripe for these corrupt authority figures to dominate. Why do the corrupt authorities dominate over the honest authorities? The corrupt ones sell an idea that is more addictive... The Wave explained that addiction is built into our biology, our brains. Why addiction? This is the same mechanism that helps one go through tough times, to color things better than they are, to keep going when the going gets tough. However, in that first/second step of the dynastic cycle, it becomes the same mechanism that says "I like that, it feels good, it must be good, give me more, more".

The same thing leads to history being rewritten, terminology changing meaning (doublespeak) and so on. Eventually that leads into corruption and lopsidedness that brings failure. A failure leads to the people going back to the roots of survival, which takes what it needs and doesn't dream (wishfully think) the delusion of endless optimism that was sold during the "good times".

Gravity seems to follow the same cycle. The beginnings create more stable molecules that have more purpose. As things become more massive, the inertia to becoming bigger and bigger speeds up. At some point, there is this pinnacle of being a star, giving out energy/light. Too much of that (no limits- much like our hope/optimism based dream society), become too big without being able to expand, it leads into a black hole. The black hole is the complete opposite of what gravity originally did- instead of uniting to improve, it unites into a singularity- sort of a nothingness.

Divide by Zero
Thank you for replying. I agree with everything you say and we have the history to back you up.
You say; However, it leads to complacency which leads to many who follow authority blindly......

I may be wrong but what we are hoping for this time, with the knowledge of psychopathy, how our bodies work, where our weak points are that we may come through on the other side, (if we survive) armed with this knowledge. If this knowledge survives the psychopaths warped ramblings won't be able to take hold. They can, of course, kill the lot of us, but then there is no one left and 4D STS loose. That to me is the real challenge to us and one that should excite and terrify us in equal measure. Without this challenge I'm just left with the terrify bit. I don't think I've answered your point. I just feel yours is one point and mine another. Typical of 3D, having to make a choice.

 

[Evan]

To add to what Divide By Zero said about dynasties, there is-on a side note-something Laura touched on regarding coming back from catastrophe. In essence, it begins with the “lucky” family in the aftermath, which revolves around the offerings to ancestors for protection from another catastrophe; then a religion evolves from that; a common, deified ancestor (a Hercules or some such) is found between families, creating a “tribe”, and so on. Eventually you have a dynasty, entropy prevails, and then the fall of the dynasty. That’s a really rough summation, but hopefully close enough.

 

[Pierre]

o add to what Divide By Zero said about dynasties, there is-on a side note-something Laura touched on regarding coming back from catastrophe. In essence, it begins with the “lucky” family in the aftermath, which revolves around the offerings to ancestors for protection from another catastrophe; then a religion evolves from that; a common, deified ancestor (a Hercules or some such) is found between families, creating a “tribe”, and so on. Eventually you have a dynasty, entropy prevails, and then the fall of the dynasty. That’s a really rough summation, but hopefully close enough.

In the Earth Changes book, there is a chapter titled "The Dynastic Cycle" that deals with this topic. From this chapter, here is a chart that summarizes the Dynastic Dynamics:

 

[Ca.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1078895906999681024

In a week in which there is a great deal of interest in very large volcanic landslides, it is worth taking a look at very well-preserved example, Chaos Jumbles in California. This landslide – or more precisely, this set of three large volcanic landslides – lies within Lassen Volcanic National Park in California. There are few large volcanic landslides that are so well preserved and so accessible as this one. As a bonus, the landslides are described in a paper (Eppler et al. 1987) that can be downloaded for free.

The wonderfully named Chaos Jumbles landslides were formed from three collapses of the Chaos Crags dacite volcanic dome complex. The three collapses are all thought to have occurred over a comparatively short time period about 350 years ago. The three landslides are very clear in the landscape because erosion is slow and vegetation is sparse:-

The smallest and youngest deposit is easy to see – it extends from the large scar in the dome to just below te label that says Chaos Jumbles. Under this are two slightly earlier landslide deposits – these are clear in the map from Eppler et al. (1987) below:


These are very large landslides – the runout of the largest extends about 4.5 km from the base of the dome, and the elevation change from the top of the scar to the toe of the landslide is about 650 m. The landslide cover an area of almost 7 km². The volume of the three landslides combined is thought to be about 120 million cubic metres, with the largest event (Deposit II) having a volume of about 50 – 70 million cubic metres.

A really interesting feature of this landslide deposit is the presence of very clear ridge structures in the landslide depsoits. These can be seen nicely in the Google Earth images collected when the sun was low:-

Google Earth imagery showing the clear ridge structures within the Chaos Jumbles landslide deposit.

These ridge and trough structures were taken by Eppler et al. (1987) to indicate that the landslide was undergoing compression and internal deformation in the later stages of its movement.

The cause of the collapses 350 years ago is not clear, but an earthquake is probably a strong candidate. Whilst the Chaos Jumbles landslides are of course not identical to those at Anak Krakatau, imaging what would happen if one of these landslides had entered the sea rather than running out across the desert plain serves to illustrate the processes in Indonesia. And note that there were three closely-spaced landslides at Chaos Jumbles; at Anak Krakatau one of the major worries is a further tsunami-generating collapse.
Reference
Eppler, D. B., Fink, J., & Fletcher, R. 1987. Rheologic properties and kinematics of emplacement of the Chaos Jumbles rockfall avalanche, Lassen Volcanic National Park, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth (1978–2012), 92(B5), 3623-3633.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1078430701526175744

Translated from Spanish by Microsoft
them #ChalecosAmarillos, a symbol of discontent that spreads across the world. #YellowVests #GiletsJaunes

https://twitter.com/x/status/1078673123971608576

 

[goyacobol]

I should really focus on one to be honest but there are so many things to read, so much knowledge and so little time...

Gravity seems to follow the same cycle. The beginnings create more stable molecules that have more purpose. As things become more massive, the inertia to becoming bigger and bigger speeds up. At some point, there is this pinnacle of being a star, giving out energy/light. Too much of that (no limits- much like our hope/optimism based dream society), become too big without being able to expand, it leads into a black hole. The black hole is the complete opposite of what gravity originally did- instead of uniting to improve, it unites into a singularity- sort of a nothingness.

By golly, Divide by Zero I think you've got it. It's the out of balance optimism being ahead of it's "being" that gets us in trouble. But on the "other hand". If we don't have a plan of our own we just let the "hope/optimism" die and that too just ends up in entropy as well.

Also, I think that is the nature of the "dualism" we are born into in this 3D dualistic world where we continually have to make decisions one way or the other. And it's not easy to determine if the decision it positive or negative. I think you sometimes are saying the same thing with your own personal twist.