Session 23 March 2019

[duyunne]

"A: Learning how to think has been a big part of the destiny. Now, it must be combined with belief of a particular kind. Belief that is based on subjective wishful thinking is entropic. Belief that is based on firm knowledge of nature is empowering. This is what your grouping has lacked. You now have the opportunity and tools to change that."

I've been floored with Laura's work lately, and the important info being discussed here regarding biology vs the mind. I appreciate the on going stream of data and participation from everyone involved in the discussion. The above was empowering to read as I have been feeling that with this information that I'm more on the mark internally, as if my thoughts and ideas seem more clean and coherent. Experiencing life in all forms, as a living life form myself is a profound experience to me as of late. Bringing plants back to health with a cheery vocal disposition and a little water. It's as if I live in a new world! Born anew as if the old me was alien and didn't belong on Earth. Truly humbling.

This was a great session and I appreciate being able to share in this experience. Thank You <3

 

[Approaching Infinity]

- if there's no time, i.e. there's no starting point of the universe (the universe(s) have always existed), wouldn't the 4D creators have done all their experimenting 'by now'? A possible answer: many 4D creators have completed the 'experimenting cycle' and then moved on to higher levels – the 'newbies' will start from scratch at some 3D location, for 'practice'. So the Earth is a 'course assignment' for a bunch of newbies?

I don't think it's much help to speculate much about there being no time. Because if we don't know the true nature of time, we also don't know the true nature of what it means for there to be 'no time'. Any of our speculations about it just lead to nonsense for the most part. If there is no time, then I have already made all my choices and there is no point in making them 'again'. If everything has already happened, nothing can be changed. And if everything that can happen does happen, then what is the point in choosing one thing over another? Choice becomes meaningless.

We may be able to change how we think about time as a concept, but certain realities associated with time will remain inescapable. Things we did in the past happened. Things we have yet to do haven't happened yet. If we accept free will as real, it is necessary that the future be open. Every individual thought depends upon that, and the development of thought, i.e., history, does too. Ark wrote:

While the future is uncertain and may need quantum description, the past is rather well set and can be described in classical terms. Even if the past can be partly erased, nevertheless it belongs to the classical world. Facts and events are classical, and their formal description should be based on classical concepts. Possibilities (or „propensities") belong to the quantum world.

At least such a way of looking at it aligns with our most basic experience and makes science possible. If the past was only possible (not classical), knowledge of history would be impossible. If the future was certain, we would not have free will and the very idea of scientific discovery would be meaningless.

But the reason I bring that stuff up has to do with some of the ideas in this thread. I do have one problem I can't think through. The progression of 'evolution' is a historical process. It shows signs of development, dependent on what came before. There are signs of innovations: new things being introduced without any certainty of how they will turn out. We see a classical past and an open, quantum future. But how can we make sense of 4D if that is the case? If 4D created life, and 4D are biological forms, did 4D ultimately create themselves? Or something higher, like 6D? If the latter, then using what as raw material?

3D seems to be a development based on 2D - 3D evolves from 2D, and 3D bodies utilize the results of the entire history of 2D experimentation. 10 million years ago, earth humans only existed in potential. And assuming that 3D will eventually graduate to 4D, it seems natural that 4D will be a continuation of 3D in some analogous way: our 4D bodies will be modifications and upgrades to our 3D bodies.

The common critique of the "aliens seeded DNA on earth" idea is: "who designed the aliens?" It's a valid question, because it just pushes the origin of intelligent biological forms back a step and doesn't tell us where the information came from originally. Some people use this to criticize the ID people do. If God created life, who created God? That argument doesn't hold, though, because by definition, God is the fundamental and ultimate source of intelligence. If consciousness is fundamental to the universe, nothing need have created it.

Given our classical past, there was presumably a "time" when no life as we know it existed in the cosmos, only basic chemistry. Or to put it differently, life only existed in potential. But even if there were no such time, and all densities were 'populated' at all time for all history, that doesn't strike me as a very satisfying answer. '4D created the first cell, which was evolved into a 4D being, which created the first cell - but it didn't really happen like that because all these things happened at the same time.' If something like that were the case, there must be an intelligence behind that, the ultimate source of DNA and densities, which designs and coordinates the whole process, and then we come back to the IDers main choice: God/7D/Cosmic Mind. Or 7D as filtered through the other immaterial densities: 6D and 5D.

I can sort of grok 5D-7D existing 'before' the development of the physical world: as eternal potentials and templates for development within materiality. But I can't grok a higher part of the biological world existing before the other parts of biology which are its precursors.

And all that isn't to deny that I think something like a 4D being CAN'T do all the stuff described - just that I don't see how they would be able to do it before themselves coming into being. So apologies if the above was a confusing mess! I guess I needed to think confusedly to get to my main question: who designed the 4D beings who design 2D and 3D lifeforms?

 

[Justin]

Wow! Thanks for a great session!

I especially liked this part...

If Love is the power of creation, that’s why 4D STS can’t create; they can only modify or interfere, suppress, etc. So in a real sense, our world was created by Love and is truly, jaw-droppingly amazing.

 

[Xico]

Thank you very much for sharing another great session!!

 

[flashgordonv]

I can sort of grok 5D-7D existing 'before' the development of the physical world: as eternal potentials and templates for development within materiality. But I can't grok a higher part of the biological world existing before the other parts of biology which are its precursors.

And all that isn't to deny that I think something like a 4D being CAN'T do all the stuff described - just that I don't see how they would be able to do it before themselves coming into being. So apologies if the above was a confusing mess! I guess I needed to think confusedly to get to my main question: who designed the 4D beings who design 2D and 3D lifeforms?

That is a really interesting thought AI. If existence is a continuous cycle, and we continually progress from 1D to 7D, and we are told the Cs are us in 6D, maybe we did create ourselves.

As far as the contents of this session, wow, really mind blowing. I've always had a problem with materialist evolution. I grew up as a Catholic lapsed, them became a Pentecostal a few years later. Being curious of mind I signed up with a correspondence course with the Creation Science Institute who were creationists obviously, but that didn't hang together for me either - a young earth and fossils designed to give the appearance of age seemed like nonsense to me. I couldn't get past what now know as irreducible compexity and it was particularly the eye for me. How on earth could the eye have evolved through random mutations.

But now with the concepts of universal consciousness, intelligent design, and the sheer wonder of creation, I have a much greater sense fo how things hang together, and one that doesn't stretch my sense of credibility

 

[syldan]

Can't help but say THANK YOU!
There is so much information, can't wait to read it again in the morning! That is such wonderful news: like a Batman punch: POW!!! There goes everything the entire planet was lead to believe for at least a few centuries: or am I in heaven?!

 

[focus.evans]

Thank you for continuing to share knowledge and experience.

 

[whitecoast]

Thanks for the interesting session!

(PoB) Why we cannot fly?

(L) Because we don't have the right antenna!

(Ark) We don't have the hardware for flying.

A: When you get enough knowledge, sure!

Q: (L) In other words, what they're saying is that when you get enough knowledge that you can engineer a living creature, then you can engineer yourself to fly. But first you need the knowledge to engineer a butterfly - at least! And based on what I’ve been studying, we have a ways to go yet!

I'm not so sure. For what it's worth, there's quite a few reports of people who have acquired levitation abilities though their spiritual practice. I'm certain it takes one kind of knowledge to fly with butterfly proteins, and knowledge of a different kind altogether for human beings to levitate.

From wikipedia:

Saint Francis of Assisi is recorded as having been "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits" (around 1.3 to 1.8 m). St. Alphonsus Liguori, when preaching at Foggia, was lifted before the eyes of the whole congregation several feet from the ground.[2] Liguori is also said to have had the power of bilocation. In the Orthodox tradition St. John the Wonderworker (1896-1966) was said to be levitating while in prayer, an individual witnessed this while checking in on him while the Saint was in prayer. Flying or levitation was also associated with witchcraft.

I've even heard stories of monks who would start levitating and then get disiplined by the abbots because it was a distraction from prayer.

 

[Anthony]

And all that isn't to deny that I think something like a 4D being CAN'T do all the stuff described - just that I don't see how they would be able to do it before themselves coming into being. So apologies if the above was a confusing mess! I guess I needed to think confusedly to get to my main question: who designed the 4D beings who design 2D and 3D lifeforms?

My own speculative thoughts on the subject is that it must have been a Mind of a higher order, just like in our case. And what is the purpose of it all? Perhaps it is like Collingwood wrote, in order for Mind to learn about itself, in other words to evolve and get closer to the source, expansion, growth etc. When 4D create beings, they leave traces of design, of Mind, in their work, they are putting those that get to know that on a step behind them. But I suppose it's like shooting in the dark at our level, and we won't know unitl we can see from "above".

 

[jhonny]

- what about diseases, like cancer => do the 'antennas' in that case receive a wrong kind of signal (on purpose by STS?) or is there a 'bug' or 'breaking down' of the modulating process of the soul? Or, if the soul decides it wants to 'move on' it signals the proteins to shut down?

I suppose that cells also have their “free will” (as above so below), so the ‘antenna’ is a receptor, but they decide what to do with that information, like us in our life...just my thought

 

[Joe]

If there is no time, then I have already made all my choices and there is no point in making them 'again'. If everything has already happened, nothing can be changed. And if everything that can happen does happen, then what is the point in choosing one thing over another? Choice becomes meaningless.

But if there is no time, then there is also limitlessness or infinity (since time is what limits), which by definition would allow for an infinite number of events and choices, so everything can't "already have happened", in fact, it never can.

 

[luc]

But if there is no time, then there is also limitlessness or infinity (since time is what limits), which by definition would allow for an infinite number of events and choices, so everything can't "already have happened", in fact, it never can.

The way I think about it is that our "illusion of time" has to do with our consciousness perceiving the world a certain way. Our mind's eye is "hardwired" here on 3D to perceive processes, i.e. changes, in such a way that they are "in time". But God's mind, or the mind of higher beings, perceive processes in a very different way - happening all at once. But of course there are still changes, only there is an additional dimension to those changes that we cannot see or even imagine from where we are.

Perhaps an analogy would be walking a path (3D) versus looking at a map (higher existence). Only that the map has an additional dimension that makes the 2D map dynamic as opposed to "fixed". Like a map depicting conscious observers, including the effects of their perception and decisions, as well as probable futures - all wobbling and changing in weird ways :) But since our sense of time is so hard-wired here, we cannot even imagine such a thing without reference to time as we perceive it. Dunno!

 

[Ocean]

Wow, what an amazing session. Thank you guys
I never believed in Darwin's theory of evolution. I thought it was moronic.

 

[Chu]

I think we can be sure there is natural selection - it just gets elevated to an unrealistic degree by Darwinists. For example, read the section in Darwin Devolves about the Galapagos finches. All natural selection means is that organisms with certain traits can no longer survive in their environment for whatever reason. It could be as simple as a particularly harsh winter. And accidents can cause extinctions, like a volcano or meteor explosion.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that part of those accidents aren't included in the design. What I'm trying to say is that we should be careful not to be too rigid with our definitions, when we are just discovering how little we know about this design, the designer and its actual level of intelligence and knowledge.

As for new environmental conditions which are themselves designed, I agree, kind of. But I don't think it's as direct as a cook increasing the temperature. Lifeforms themselves seem to have terraformed the planet, creating different chemical conditions and affecting environments in various ways to support new forms of life that couldn't have existed in the previous conditions. Changes like that could be planned in the sense of a desired progression from "World A" to "World B", etc. Basically, "OK, we need more oxygen now, so we need to make these kinds of organisms." The conditions change drastically, and then it's a matter of just watching to see which parts still work and which don't. The ones that don't will die off. Parts can be reused, or maybe those forms serve no purpose in the new phase of life.

Yes, like in a lab. So, it could be part of the design, and then you watch how things develop. So, we're basically saying the same, I think.

Simply put, with this new information, we don't know how any of it happened. When you posit certain "engineers" essentially creating "life" through thought, then there are, in theory, no limits to what they can create. Entire worlds, from scratch, could be conceived of and 'manifested'. That might be a good question for another session (assuming we want to delve into such an abstract - for us - topic). There does seem to be some contradictory things said over the course of the sessions. For example, human 'souls' entering into neanderthals and directly changing them into modern humans by the 'soul' changing DNA, and then the excerpt that Altair posted here where it is said that different modern human types were "engineered in an orion lab".

Yes, that's a bit puzzling. I suppose that there is more than one way to implement designs. You can plant (literally) a seed on a ground that is already there. You can also create a special kind of soil by mixing compounds. You can add stuff to the soil. You can grow the seed in a test tube and then plant it in the ground, or plant it directly before it sprouts. The ground may grow moldy by accident (or because you made a mistake or caused it on purpose) and kill the plant, or you can burn the plant down. And so on. So, it's easy to imagine that there are different ways for creation to manifest and develop, and be "ditched".

My 2 cents!

 

[treesparrow]

Many thanks for a truly flabbergasting and dumbfounding session ( In fact I don't think my flabber has ever been so gasted or my dumb so founded - as for astounding.. well.. ).