Session 21 March 2015

Heaalih

Jedi
Laura said:
Q: (L) So, any last wrap-up stuff?

A: Love to group! We are becoming tuned to them.

Q: (L) What do you mean that you're being tuned to the group?

A: They are rising in frequency.

Q: (L) What do you mean? Specific people, or the whole group?

A: Many. And those who have faith in the process will rise with them.

Q: (L) In other words, even if certain individuals are not yet "there", the fact that they're connected with the group and doing the best that they can, they will brought along anyway?

A: Yes
An idea about those connections. I quite feel with you in a certain way, particularly since several days. So a question rose in my mind : could it be of some interest that during a next session, you inform us of the date and hour ? And then we could put us in quiet place and be with you in mind. There might be more "energy". But maybe it is not wise to publish that information in public...
 
Paul said:
About the dog thing, couldn't that be explained by 'morphogenetic fields' that Rupert Sheldrake talks about? Not necessarily telepathy or maybe that's telepathy? I don't know.
Hi again Paul

Thanks to Turgon for supplying this link to me regarding a review of Rupert Sheldrake’s book “The Science Delusion” and Laura’s helpful commentary and Forum members' responses.

Based on what I read there, I’m more inclined to think there may actually be a connection between the concept of Morphogenic Fields and Telepathy after all. I could still be wrong, but you can read through that thread yourself, if you like, and come to your own conclusion, yes?

At any rate, I found this thread very interesting. And not just because of the Morphogenic Fields discussion. The “tear-down” of “scientific materialism” was truly inspiring for those of us who do not subscribe to the scientitistic world view that holds zero space for anything outside of a “dead-matter” universe.

I’ve included some quoted excerpts where the word “telepathy” was specifically referenced.
Thank you Turgon for the link. And thank you Paul for the question which prompted me to find out more about Rupert Sheldrake, Morphogenic Fields, and Telepathy.

Turgon’s link to the Rupert Sheldrake & Morphogenic Fields thread, which he located on the Forum, also helped me realize that I neglected to search the Forum itself for any threads pertaining to RS or MF’s. I had searched via Google. Which taught me that in future I should first search the Forum for answers to my questions and, if I don’t find my answer via a Forum search, I can then extend my search via Google. Another lesson learned.

Wow! This learning is finally becoming FUN as the C’s have told us numerous times. Now I’m experiencing the truth of that statement for myself! And I’m seeing it as another demonstration of the C’s Service To Others — because once an objective truth becomes true for me subjectively, it creates a butterfly effect in my own personal reality. At least so it seems to me.

And just now, writing the words “see” and “C” — because the “sound” is the same, makes me think they’re actually synonymously linked. In other words, the C’s help us to See. :) Sorry. That may be a bit silly. Hope it’s not considered wise-acreing.

OK — without further ado — here are the link and the excerpts.

* * * * *
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26625.msg320561.html#msg320561

Here are a couple reviews of Rupert Sheldrake's new book "The Science Delusion".

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake - review

We must find a new way of understanding human beings

Mary Midgley
guardian.co.uk, Friday 27 January 2012

Whether or no we want to follow Sheldrake's further speculations on topics such as morphic resonance, his insistence on the need to attend to possible wider ways of thinking is surely right. And he has been applying it lately in fields that might get him an even wider public. He has been making claims about two forms of perception that are widely reported to work but which mechanists hold to be impossible: a person's sense of being looked at by somebody behind them, and the power of animals – dogs, say – to anticipate their owners' return. Do these things really happen?

Sheldrake handles his enquiries soberly. People and animals do, it seems, quite often perform these unexpected feats, and some of them regularly perform them much better than others, which is perhaps not surprising. He simply concludes that we need to think much harder about such things.

As a result, some scientists are proposing top-down, holistic explanations. Sheldrake's particular proposal is that such self-organising systems exist in fields of memory or habit. These contain the information required to make the structure.

Fearlessly, he extends the speculation to embrace a range of phenomena that many people experience. Telephone telepathy is one, when you are thinking about someone just as they phone. Or the sense of being stared at. The idea, roughly, is that our intentions can be communicated across mental fields that are like morphogenetic fields. They connect us – though in the modern world, with its ideological and technological distractions, we are not very good at noticing them.

Sheldrake has continually to fight his corner. In the new book, he records an encounter with Richard Dawkins, when the eminent atheist was making his 2007 TV series Enemies of Reason. Sheldrake suggested they discuss the actual evidence for telepathy. Dawkins resisted. "There isn't time. It's too complicated. And that's not what the programme is about," Sheldrake reports Dawkins saying, before himself retorting that he wasn't interested in taking part in another "low-grade debunking exercise". Dawkins reportedly replied: "It's not a low-grade debunking exercise; it's a high-grade debunking exercise.”
FWIW I found this presentation by Rupert Sheldrake where he describes a few interresting statistical experiments, including telepathy (animal and human): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY
Interesting. There's no evidence of telepathic connections between pet and owner with reptiles. Just with mammals and birds, who form emotional connections with their owners…
I was on the computer the other night and felt like I was being watched from behind, I turned round to find the rabbit was sitting on the window sill watching me intently. The window sill is about 80cm from the ground so quite a height for a rabbit to jump. This was the first time he had done this, but it has now turned into a regular event when he wants to come in.

Also interested to know why this happens with mammals and birds, but not reptiles? What makes us more emotionally connected to mammals and birds as opposed to reptiles. Is it that all cold blooded animals are on a different wave length, so no reception?

Sheldrake does mention that when we go to sleep we go blank and that when we dream we have a projective activity within our brain. I have been reading in The Secret History of Dreaming by Robert Moss about sharing dreams with people that you are close to which sounded similar to the telepathic entanglement. I was a little surprised as a friend and I had a synchronised dream the other night, identical content viewed from our different angles and our timings of waking were identical.
 

gdpetti

Jedi Council Member
Well, while we're on this subject of dogs and Sheldrake, you might like this story:

Dozens of stray dogs attended the funeral of a woman who had been feeding them
By Laron
By Alanna Ketler via Collective Evolution, 2 April 2015

http://www.transients.info/2015/04/dozens-of-stray-dogs-attended-funeral.html#more
 
SeekinTruth said:
13 Twirling Triskeles, you can also search information fields, and the physics of information, and the like on the forum and SOTT. There's been quite a bit of interesting bits about them over the years. Probably quantum physics is some kind of interface with the information field and the physical world, showing how "physical reality" emerges from information transferring into it, so to speak. The general information field being much more abstract and "open", it seems, and then the seemingly "concrete" world we sense around us being much more limited by physical laws in this density. I give a very high probability that information is king, and that nothing would exist without it (and the transfer of it in the many ways throughout the (macro)-cosmos and interaction with consciousnesses that can receive/transmit it).

Lower levels of consciousness tend to be subject to more strict physical laws, until reaching first density, where pretty much ONLY physical laws apply, getting more and more mechanical. But the ways and means of how the different densities interact, and how information comes into "our world", the 3D experience we know, is very fascinating and often unexpected/surprising, as described both by scientific discoveries/experiments and things the C's have said over the years....
Thank you so much for those leads, SeekinTruth.

I've basically neglected learning much about the science subjects because, quite frankly, I've had a difficult time wrapping my little wits around these ideas. They just seem to go right over my head. But if someone is able to offer me an analogy or explanation that I can grok with my limited mind-set (such as Turgon did previously on this thread), then I feel really energized and curious to learn more.

Let me see if I'm understanding what you're saying with respect to the bolded portion of your post, ok?
Might "lower levels of consciousness being subject to more strict physical laws" be similar to how it is with children vs. adults? As children, we are subject to stricter rules than as adults. (Well, that could be a matter for debate, but do you follow "how" I'm meaning it when I use it as an analogy?)

I'm thinking that one of the possible "reasons" for this is that, as adults, we "know" more and can be trusted to use our better judgment to make better decisions regarding the applications of our thoughts, words, and deeds in relation to the who, what, where, how, and whys in life. (Again, that's also debatable based on even a cursory observation of the havoc we adults are creating in our world right now. But just for the sake of attempting to understand this principle you've presented, let's "pretend" that adults actually DO know more than chldren.)

If my example is way off-the-mark, would you have a better analogy to offer? Thanks in advance. :)

And going backwards -- to your first paragraph -- I'll hazard a guess here. Would the portion which I bolded be because the "information field" is less dense or solid than the "physical world" -- and "lightness" would be senior to "heaviness"? In other words, the less dense or solid something is, the more abstract it would be? So it would make sense that in-form-ation will "inform" the physical world, but the physical world (because of its more dense nature) would less likely "inform" the information field? In other words, the flow is from less dense to more dense -- but not necessarily the reverse would be true?

Eeeek! I just re-read what I've written and it sounds to me like a lot of gobble-de-gook. It made sense to me as I was writing it, but it reads back like tossed salad. Sorry.

Thank you also for the clues about searching on the Forum for "information fields" and the "physics of information". It might help me understand more of what other Forum members here understand if I do some further research of my own about these subjects. And, if I can upgrade my own understanding to more closely align with others' understanding, would that make me more co-linear with the group as well? Just a thought.

And, speaking of "searching" -- here's what I wrote in my post to Paul just a few minutes ago --

13 Twirling Triskeles - Page 23 - Reply #331 on: Yesterday at 11:23:35 PM said:
Turgon’s link to the Rupert Sheldrake & Morphogenic Fields thread, which he located on the Forum, also helped me realize that I neglected to search the Forum itself for any threads pertaining to RS or MF’s. I had searched via Google. Which taught me that in future I should first search the Forum for answers to my questions and, if I don’t find my answer via a Forum search, I can then extend my search via Google. Another lesson learned.
Blessings and Cheers, SeekinTruth.

P.S. I must say that as I've been posting more in the Forum these past couple of days, my energy levels have risen quite a lot. I'd forgotten about a certain counter-intuitive principle that I've observed in life. Which is -- if I'm feeling resistance to "Doing" something/anything, if I will just force myself to stop "thinking and thinking and thinking" about doing it, but just start doing it, I begin to feel my energy rising. Like overcoming inertia. Then it's a matter of making myself "stop" because I'll do the same thing in reverse -- go and go and go. I think it's called being "out-of-control" -- being able to "start-change-stop" without getting stuck in any one of those three parts of the control cycle.

OK -- enough. Gotta get going -- do some obyvetel tasks today. C ya later.
 
gdpetti said:
Well, while we're on this subject of dogs and Sheldrake, you might like this story:

Dozens of stray dogs attended the funeral of a woman who had been feeding them
By Laron
By Alanna Ketler via Collective Evolution, 2 April 2015

http://www.transients.info/2015/04/dozens-of-stray-dogs-attended-funeral.html#more
Awwww gdpetti -- that was a sweet story. Thanks for posting it. :)

It's kind of amazing to me how skeptical some people are about the possibility of animals telepathically "tuning-in" to their care-givers -- or being skeptical about any paranormal possibility of any kind for that matter.

And then I think -- yeah true -- however, I also have to hold to a certain amount of skepticism about certain ideas and concepts as well -- which may be precisely the ideas and concepts that the paranormal skeptic thinks are obviously self-evident. Go figure.

Strange, yes? And that's all I can say about that.

Cheers!
 

SeekinTruth

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
13 Twirling Triskeles, I think the child/adult analogy works pretty well, actually, to a certain extent. Maybe, "expanding consciousness/awareness" going up the densities in our working hypothesis, also just gives more access to Universal information fields, eliminating restrictions. Like it's more of a natural process that works in the same way as children having more strict rules applied to them/their behavior when they don't have enough knowledge/understanding/insight and therefore responsibility. It just comes about naturally that not knowing/understanding enough to access higher worlds/densities with our minds also keeps us from being able to initiate things in those higher worlds that would have "disastrous" effects as we seem to do so much in 3rd density. Or so I think.

Which ties into your second question. I think the information transmission goes both ways. BUT, the changing/creating of reality only comes down in a mechanical way, so to speak, probably. In other words, information can change/create coming down into a lower density. But information, for example, being process, utilized, or (re)transmitted on our 3rd density will only change how much balancing from above is needed (only one example). Does that make sense/is it clear?

It reminds me of Gurdjieff's explanation of the processes of involution and evolution. The process of involution starts out consciously in the "Absolute" but already in the next step down, it becomes mechanical and continues to become more and more mechanical each step lower. Evolution starts out half-consciously, and becomes more and more conscious as it accesses more.
 

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
gdpetti said:
Well, while we're on this subject of dogs and Sheldrake, you might like this story:

Dozens of stray dogs attended the funeral of a woman who had been feeding them
By Laron
By Alanna Ketler via Collective Evolution, 2 April 2015

http://www.transients.info/2015/04/dozens-of-stray-dogs-attended-funeral.html#more
Awwww gdpetti -- that was a sweet story. Thanks for posting it. :)

It's kind of amazing to me how skeptical some people are about the possibility of animals telepathically "tuning-in" to their care-givers -- or being skeptical about any paranormal possibility of any kind for that matter.

And then I think -- yeah true -- however, I also have to hold to a certain amount of skepticism about certain ideas and concepts as well -- which may be precisely the ideas and concepts that the paranormal skeptic thinks are obviously self-evident. Go figure.

Strange, yes? And that's all I can say about that.

Cheers!
Ditto gdpetti, awesome story you posted.

It certainly is interesting, 13 Twirling Triskeles, these issues of the paranormal and how they can be viewed. Like John Keel, who maintained some healthy skepticism, he fortunately was of the type to also keep things open and noticed some amazing connective aspects across the wide spectrum. Then, strangely, there are the super skeptics of all things paranormal who on Sunday's, rather miraculously, turn into god fearing believers; so like you said, go figure.
 
voyageur said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
gdpetti said:
Well, while we're on this subject of dogs and Sheldrake, you might like this story:

Dozens of stray dogs attended the funeral of a woman who had been feeding them
By Laron
By Alanna Ketler via Collective Evolution, 2 April 2015

http://www.transients.info/2015/04/dozens-of-stray-dogs-attended-funeral.html#more
Awwww gdpetti -- that was a sweet story. Thanks for posting it. :)

It's kind of amazing to me how skeptical some people are about the possibility of animals telepathically "tuning-in" to their care-givers -- or being skeptical about any paranormal possibility of any kind for that matter.

And then I think -- yeah true -- however, I also have to hold to a certain amount of skepticism about certain ideas and concepts as well -- which may be precisely the ideas and concepts that the paranormal skeptic thinks are obviously self-evident. Go figure.

Strange, yes? And that's all I can say about that.

Cheers!
Ditto gdpetti, awesome story you posted.

It certainly is interesting, 13 Twirling Triskeles, these issues of the paranormal and how they can be viewed. Like John Keel, who maintained some healthy skepticism, he fortunately was of the type to also keep things open and noticed some amazing connective aspects across the wide spectrum. Then, strangely, there are the super skeptics of all things paranormal who on Sunday's, rather miraculously, turn into god fearing believers; so like you said, go figure.
Hi Voyageur --

You made me burst out laughing. And today of all days too! Easter Sunday. And behold, He has arisen and is no longer in the tomb. But wait! Hold the phone! An angel is there at the tomb instead and chats with the girls who've come looking for Him! But heckaloney! That's nothing to do with the paranormal at all, is it?! Exactly! Go figure. I love it! :)

As for John Keel -- yes -- an open-minded skeptic. The best kind. Can change his mind if the evidence points to a different conclusion than his previous world-view led him to hold as true.

Thanks for the laughs. :)

Cheers!
 
Paul said:
About the dog thing, couldn't that be explained by 'morphogenetic fields' that Rupert Sheldrake talks about? Not necessarily telepathy or maybe that's telepathy? I don't know.
Hi Paul -- This quote from another C's Session doesn't refer to morphogenic fields, or draw any correlation between MF's and Telepathy -- but it does seem to confirm that telepathic communication does indeed occur between animals and humans. It's not quite spelled out explicitly, but I think it's inferred. The C's are being a bit silly with Laura. :)

Session 7 November 1994
Q: (L) Is there some way to communicate with whales or dolphins and can one find a way to translate the differences and have a reasonable, intelligent exchange with a whale or a dolphin or even an elephant?

A: You don't need conversation "with" when a higher telepathic level.

Q: (L) Dolphins and whales communicate telepathically?

A: Yes. So do dogs and cats and snakes etc. etc. only humans have learned the "superior" art of verbal communication.

Q: (L) But, at the same time, verbal communication can be quite limiting, is that correct?

A: That is the point.

Q: (L) So, you were being sarcastic with me, weren't you?

A: Humorous.
 
SeekinTruth said:
13 Twirling Triskeles, I think the child/adult analogy works pretty well, actually, to a certain extent. Maybe, "expanding consciousness/awareness" going up the densities in our working hypothesis, also just gives more access to Universal information fields, eliminating restrictions. Like it's more of a natural process that works in the same way as children having more strict rules applied to them/their behavior when they don't have enough knowledge/understanding/insight and therefore responsibility. It just comes about naturally that not knowing/understanding enough to access higher worlds/densities with our minds also keeps us from being able to initiate things in those higher worlds that would have "disastrous" effects as we seem to do so much in 3rd density. Or so I think.
OK — thanks SeekinTruth. That sounds pretty much like how I was attempting to explain it myself — only my own explanation sounded more like Tossed Salad than yours does.

And that was precisely my point about needing to operate “ethically” in 4D because thoughts will manifest immediately — no time to re-think and change one’s mind. Just voila! And there it is. That is if I’m understanding what the C’s are saying about instant manifestation of one’s thoughts in 4D.

One would have to be very super self-disciplined about one’s thinking, wouldn’t one? Imagine! Thinking some horrific idea, even accidentally or without full conscious awareness, and abracadabra — there it appears. Like magic. How would one even be able to determine an objective truth in that sort of environment? 4D STO beings would just have to operate very ethically as far as I can tell. Very ethically and very consciously, remaining fully awake, fully aware and alert and continuously monitor their thoughts & feelings. No slacking off at all. Well, I need to stop speculating or anticipating. I could be totally wrong about all that.

However, if it is even "remotely" possible to manifest thoughts into actual "things" (although 4D "things" would be less dense than 3D things), then, as you said — “disastrous” effects would be created by those who don’t have enough knowledge, understanding, or insight and therefore responsibility to be put in charge of higher worlds. Yeah. It would be like letting a 5-yr old fly an airplane in 3D. Yikes! The mind reels!

Thanks for the clarification. :)

SeekinTruth said:
Which ties into your second question. I think the information transmission goes both ways. BUT, the changing/creating of reality only comes down in a mechanical way, so to speak, probably. In other words, information can change/create coming down into a lower density. But information, for example, being process, utilized, or (re)transmitted on our 3rd density will only change how much balancing from above is needed (only one example). Does that make sense/is it clear?
OK — so you’re saying the information transmission goes both ways — not just from top to bottom as I had stated? (i.e., 7D > 6> 5> 4> 3> 2> 1D) It also flows in the reverse direction as well? From 1D> up to 7D too?) Thank you for correcting me. I had that wrong.


But you’re saying that information flows differently, yes? Depending on which direction it flows? That when information flows from the less dense levels downward into the more dense levels (7D>1D) the information flows in a more “mechanical” way? Am I understanding that correctly?

I’m sort of lost on the next part, however. About the amount of balancing from above that is needed in order for information to flow from the more dense level of 1D-3D upward to the less dense levels of 4D-6D? Can you clarify what you mean by “balancing”? Thank you so much, SeekinTruth.

SeekinTruth said:
It reminds me of Gurdjieff's explanation of the processes of involution and evolution. The process of involution starts out consciously in the "Absolute" but already in the next step down, it becomes mechanical and continues to become more and more mechanical each step lower. Evolution starts out half-consciously, and becomes more and more conscious as it accesses more.
OK — I get it. At first I was not understanding, but after reading it several times and hammering my mind with a sledge-hammer, it now makes perfect sense. Thank you very much for your explanations and examples as well as the Gurdjieff involution/evolution explanation.

So the part I’m still unclear about is that portion about the amount of “balancing” being needed from above in order for a transmission of information to flow upwards — i.e., from 1D>7D.

Thank you so much for your help SeekinTruth. Every little bit of knowledge that I can “make my own” — in the sense of totally comprehending it — makes it more possible for me to “apply” it I think. I have to think more about the purpose for doing all that and how it makes a difference.

There are steps, yes? Step 1 - Taking in, or acquiring by learning, true objective information/data. Step 2 - Radiating outwardly by “doing” as in “applying” the information/data to life — thereby transforming that information into true knowledge? Step 3 - True knowledge leads to an increase in one’s Beingness. The knowledge becomes “grounded” within our Beingness? Is this like a fusion process? We are fusing a magnetic center? We are grounding ourselves with knowledge? As if we have merged the Knowledge with our Beingness? We have made a miracle? OMG Is this like alchemy? We’re creating a philosopher’s stone? And “we” are the Stone? And is this just an individual process each person goes through? Or is it both individual, and collective? Meaning -- do we each individually fuse a magnetic center -- then after we've each fused our individual magnetic centers, we then fuse a bigger magnetic -- a collective magnetic center?

Am I being crazy here? I think I must be. I cannot be understanding this correctly.

This sounds very similar to the Be-Do-Have Scale. In order to Be, one must Do, and in order to Do, one must Have. But in 3D we have to reverse the flow so that "Be-Do-Have" becomes "Have-Do-Be". First, we must Have (learn or acquire objective information) in order to Do. Second, we must Do (apply the objective information we have acquired and learned) in order to Be. And by “Be” we are meaning to Be our true I.

Oh Jeeze. I’ve gone so off-topic. I’ve got to stop right now. This is just what I was writing about in the Swamp earlier today. How once I “start”, I just keep going & going and one idea leads to the next and it just continues until I put a stop to it. Which is what I intend to do right now. Stop!

Cheers!

P.S. Just some thoughts I’m trying to hammer out here so I more fully comprehend the AIMs and Purposes of the Network.

If I’m off the mark, maybe you — or anyone else — can re-direct me or correct me. Thanks in advance. And goodnight.
 

SeekinTruth

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
@13 T T

What I meant about the balancing from above example is that if humans take in more or less objective information and act on it by, for instance, changing their actions/reactions and/or putting out a stronger truth signal, so to speak, that is then also info that gives a feedback loop to higher densities to know how much balancing is needed on the lower densities (and what info is needed to have particular manifestation below). What humans don't do in the way of balancing would need more "initiative" from above, probably in a more violent/destructive way from the human perspective when things get very out of balance preventing enough creative potential coming into our world.

I was just giving one example that there is a two-way feedback loop going up and coming down. What I meant by the coming down being "mechanical" is what I added about G's processes of involution/evolution. And I'd made remarks in an earlier post speculating about physical laws becoming more and more restrictive and mechanical as level of consciousness decreases. As the evolutionary process continues, consciousness increases (the opposite of the involutionary/creative process becoming more and more mechanical ending in physical laws only). This would apply to both STS and STO - both would be enacted more and more consciously thus becoming more and more strongly polarized at higher levels compared to lower levels - and give rise to conscious "evil", so to say, as compared to certain predators in 2D which just act that way in a biologically programed way rather than objectively being considered "evil"/strongly polarized to STS.
 
SeekinTruth said:
@13 T T

What I meant about the balancing from above example is that if humans take in more or less objective information and act on it by, for instance, changing their actions/reactions and/or putting out a stronger truth signal, so to speak, that is then also info that gives a feedback loop to higher densities to know how much balancing is needed on the lower densities (and what info is needed to have particular manifestation below). What humans don't do in the way of balancing would need more "initiative" from above, probably in a more violent/destructive way from the human perspective when things get very out of balance preventing enough creative potential coming into our world.

I was just giving one example that there is a two-way feedback loop going up and coming down. What I meant by the coming down being "mechanical" is what I added about G's processes of involution/evolution. And I'd made remarks in an earlier post speculating about physical laws becoming more and more restrictive and mechanical as level of consciousness decreases. As the evolutionary process continues, consciousness increases (the opposite of the involutionary/creative process becoming more and more mechanical ending in physical laws only). This would apply to both STS and STO - both would be enacted more and more consciously thus becoming more and more strongly polarized at higher levels compared to lower levels - and give rise to conscious "evil", so to say, as compared to certain predators in 2D which just act that way in a biologically programed way rather than objectively being considered "evil"/strongly polarized to STS.
OK - OK - OK -- Yay! I think I've got it! Thanks so much for taking the time and making the effort to explain all this so I can use it. And by use it, I mean that when I understand a concept as fully as I can, it goes into my inner filing cabinet -- and can be retrieved by my inner filing clerk at some future date -- when I can apply it for understanding some dynamic occurring in real life in front of me.

I think that's what's happening with my realizations lately. All this material I've been gathering and reading and inputing for so many years, it's beginning to coalesce. And I've noticed that when I'm logged on to the Forum and I'm typing out a post, it's as if I'm picking up on some frequency of the Network which jolts these memories and they start making connections and create realizations. Being Logged In actually seems to make my mind work better -- or think more clearly.

But coming back to your answer -- especially about the balancing part. Balancing sounds a little like giving what is due. Which could possibly be considered a sort of karmic principle in a way, yes? A sort of Justice or Reciprocity principle in action? Or maybe an illustration of the Law-of-Attraction going sideways? Oh ouch! LOL :)

As for your 2nd paragraph -- about STS and STO - and that both would be enacted more and more consciously as they evolve up the densities -- thus becoming more and more strongly polarized at higher levels compared to lower levels. That makes total sense to me. Yes, I can see how it would happen that way.

OK SeekinTruth -- thank you again for all your help and clarification.

"C" ya.
 

MusicMan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
voyageur said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
gdpetti said:
Well, while we're on this subject of dogs and Sheldrake, you might like this story:

Dozens of stray dogs attended the funeral of a woman who had been feeding them
By Laron
By Alanna Ketler via Collective Evolution, 2 April 2015

http://www.transients.info/2015/04/dozens-of-stray-dogs-attended-funeral.html#more
Awwww gdpetti -- that was a sweet story. Thanks for posting it. :)

It's kind of amazing to me how skeptical some people are about the possibility of animals telepathically "tuning-in" to their care-givers -- or being skeptical about any paranormal possibility of any kind for that matter.

And then I think -- yeah true -- however, I also have to hold to a certain amount of skepticism about certain ideas and concepts as well -- which may be precisely the ideas and concepts that the paranormal skeptic thinks are obviously self-evident. Go figure.

Strange, yes? And that's all I can say about that.

Cheers!
Ditto gdpetti, awesome story you posted.

It certainly is interesting, 13 Twirling Triskeles, these issues of the paranormal and how they can be viewed. Like John Keel, who maintained some healthy skepticism, he fortunately was of the type to also keep things open and noticed some amazing connective aspects across the wide spectrum. Then, strangely, there are the super skeptics of all things paranormal who on Sunday's, rather miraculously, turn into god fearing believers; so like you said, go figure.
Hi Voyageur --

You made me burst out laughing. And today of all days too! Easter Sunday. And behold, He has arisen and is no longer in the tomb. But wait! Hold the phone! An angel is there at the tomb instead and chats with the girls who've come looking for Him! But heckaloney! That's nothing to do with the paranormal at all, is it?! Exactly! Go figure. I love it! :)

As for John Keel -- yes -- an open-minded skeptic. The best kind. Can change his mind if the evidence points to a different conclusion than his previous world-view led him to hold as true.

Thanks for the laughs. :)

Cheers!
We need to keep in mind that the Greek word for Angel (angelos) simply means 'messenger' and does not imply that they have wings or anything other than a normal human body.
So not necessarily paranormal.
 
MusicMan said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
voyageur said:
13 Twirling Triskeles said:
gdpetti said:
Well, while we're on this subject of dogs and Sheldrake, you might like this story:

Dozens of stray dogs attended the funeral of a woman who had been feeding them
By Laron
By Alanna Ketler via Collective Evolution, 2 April 2015

http://www.transients.info/2015/04/dozens-of-stray-dogs-attended-funeral.html#more
Awwww gdpetti -- that was a sweet story. Thanks for posting it. :)

It's kind of amazing to me how skeptical some people are about the possibility of animals telepathically "tuning-in" to their care-givers -- or being skeptical about any paranormal possibility of any kind for that matter.

And then I think -- yeah true -- however, I also have to hold to a certain amount of skepticism about certain ideas and concepts as well -- which may be precisely the ideas and concepts that the paranormal skeptic thinks are obviously self-evident. Go figure.

Strange, yes? And that's all I can say about that.

Cheers!
Ditto gdpetti, awesome story you posted.

It certainly is interesting, 13 Twirling Triskeles, these issues of the paranormal and how they can be viewed. Like John Keel, who maintained some healthy skepticism, he fortunately was of the type to also keep things open and noticed some amazing connective aspects across the wide spectrum. Then, strangely, there are the super skeptics of all things paranormal who on Sunday's, rather miraculously, turn into god fearing believers; so like you said, go figure.
Hi Voyageur --

You made me burst out laughing. And today of all days too! Easter Sunday. And behold, He has arisen and is no longer in the tomb. But wait! Hold the phone! An angel is there at the tomb instead and chats with the girls who've come looking for Him! But heckaloney! That's nothing to do with the paranormal at all, is it?! Exactly! Go figure. I love it! :)

As for John Keel -- yes -- an open-minded skeptic. The best kind. Can change his mind if the evidence points to a different conclusion than his previous world-view led him to hold as true.

Thanks for the laughs. :)

Cheers!
We need to keep in mind that the Greek word for Angel (angelos) simply means 'messenger' and does not imply that they have wings or anything other than a normal human body.
So not necessarily paranormal.
MusicMan -- LOLOL :) Too true! Drat! You bursted my little bubble. Which made me laugh out loud. I'd forgotten that angels were referred to as messengers. And you're quite right too. The artists, painters, and sculpturers were taking great liberties and exercising their imaginations by illustrating them with wings were they not? Does that mean little old Mercury doesn't have wings on his heels either? Ooops! Silly rhetorical question. Please ignore.
 
Top Bottom