Session 4 April 2015

[Sol Logos]

The way I see it is that our view of reality shapes how but also what we will see. So the concept of seeing the universe and not affecting in any way it isn't possible. It is only possible if we could be outside the universe. Because we are in it then the very act of observing anything in it has to have an affect on whatever it is we observe. So I being the subject will always affect the object whenever I observe it (or even when I don't). My observation is subjective.

That's different to saying that objective reality does not exist. As far as I can tell there's two reasons objective reality can be said to exist:

- the idea that the totally of all subjective reality perceptable in one observation means in theory objective reality exists
- the idea that there is an outside of the universe and an inside as a theory means that the possibility of observing completely objectively (no affecting what is observed) exists

 

[Alvalsen]

alkhemst,

haha
looked like this the original?

real picture
Photoshop is not applied
even used for the cover of the book "Myths and Legends of Ancient Egypt. Guide for the curious"

I'm interested in the authenticity of the pictures with reptiles)

 

[13 Twirling Triskeles]

Thank you very much 13 Twirling Triskeles for your explanation, if the Quantum theory is just this thing about the cat or not the cat it is perfect, i can understand a little more... ;) I can understand these two or maybe 3 options or realities. I can understand that till I don't open the box I don't know the reality of the cat in front of me. He can be dead elsewhere, in another dimension, but in my dimension he can be or dead or alive. So objectivity is important. Ok. I am right? So is the theory of Quantum a theory of objectivity?

Just to laugh a little: cats are very intelligent, they will never, ever eat cyanide. or anything like that. :)

loreta -- LOLOL :) -- I'm sure you're right. Cats are certainly more intelligent than human beings who're willing to eat GMO foods and voluntarily get vaccination shots.

As to my explanation re Schrodinger's Cat, there still seem to be some questions. The question I have relates to the statement in red which was part of the article I posted earlier. To wit:

The Copenhagen Interpretation

The two major interpretations of quantum theory's implications for the nature of reality are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds theory. Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that objective reality does not exist. This translates to a principle called superposition that claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check.

But SeekinTruth has stated -- and I'm inclined to agree --

Finally, no matter how you cut it, you can't reasonably interpret quantum theory to mean that objective reality doesn't exist. Put it this way, no matter how weird the quantum world seems, it's exactly how the Universe / Macro-Cosmos as a whole sees itself whatever is happening wherever in the parallel universes / multiverses. So, I don't at all get the impression that quantum theory implies there's no such thing as objective reality in any of its interpretations. If anything, I get the impression that no matter what, we on our level are very subjective in comparison TO Objective Reality. Does that make sense or clear some things up?

Which leaves me still attempting to resolve this real or imaginary conflict.

 

[Sol Logos]

Thank you very much 13 Twirling Triskeles for your explanation, if the Quantum theory is just this thing about the cat or not the cat it is perfect, i can understand a little more... ;) I can understand these two or maybe 3 options or realities. I can understand that till I don't open the box I don't know the reality of the cat in front of me. He can be dead elsewhere, in another dimension, but in my dimension he can be or dead or alive. So objectivity is important. Ok. I am right? So is the theory of Quantum a theory of objectivity?

Just to laugh a little: cats are very intelligent, they will never, ever eat cyanide. or anything like that. :)

loreta -- LOLOL :) -- I'm sure you're right. Cats are certainly more intelligent than human beings who're willing to eat GMO foods and voluntarily get vaccination shots.

As to my explanation re Schrodinger's Cat, there still seem to be some questions. The question I have relates to the statement in red which was part of the article I posted earlier. To wit:

The Copenhagen Interpretation

The two major interpretations of quantum theory's implications for the nature of reality are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds theory. Niels Bohr proposed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which asserts that a particle is whatever it is measured to be (for example, a wave or a particle), but that it cannot be assumed to have specific properties, or even to exist, until it is measured. In short, Bohr was saying that objective reality does not exist. This translates to a principle called superposition that claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check.

But SeekinTruth has stated -- and I'm inclined to agree --

Finally, no matter how you cut it, you can't reasonably interpret quantum theory to mean that objective reality doesn't exist. Put it this way, no matter how weird the quantum world seems, it's exactly how the Universe / Macro-Cosmos as a whole sees itself whatever is happening wherever in the parallel universes / multiverses. So, I don't at all get the impression that quantum theory implies there's no such thing as objective reality in any of its interpretations. If anything, I get the impression that no matter what, we on our level are very subjective in comparison TO Objective Reality. Does that make sense or clear some things up?

Which leaves me still attempting to resolve this real or imaginary conflict.

I don't see it as a conflict, you've got Bohr who proposes a theory based on mathematical observations, that says its possible that no objective definable state of anything exists, or at least he's been interpreted that way by whoever wrote that quote above.

So this is a theory that seeks to reconcile pieces of the puzzle, while not having all the pieces available - its one of many possible theories. So there are other theories, such as the possibility that an objecrive and definable state exists for any one thing that exists in the universe.

Both are possibilities and both don't contradict the pieces of the puzzle available to Bohr at the time he came up with his theory. All it means is we will get a better idea when we have more pieces of the puzzle. Having more pieces will actually mean we have a better chance at coming up with a more objective theory, funnily enough!

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yeah, it's just semantics at this point. Like alkhemst wrote above, the totality of the Cosmos - all experiences, events, realities, perceptions, etc., etc. - IS objective reality. It might also help to look at all this from a non-personal point of view. For example if you or I were never born, everything would still work the same way generally in the Universe. In other words, the way the Universe works is the way the Universe works whether we know it or not - THAT'S objective reality. Our challenge is to learn more and more how the Universe DOES work....

 

[goyacobol]

Yeah, it's just semantics at this point. Like alkhemst wrote above, the totality of the Cosmos - all experiences, events, realities, perceptions, etc., etc. - IS objective reality. It might also help to look at all this from a non-personal point of view. For example if you or I were never born, everything would still work the same way generally in the Universe. In other words, the way the Universe works is the way the Universe works whether we know it or not - THAT'S objective reality. Our challenge is to learn more and more how the Universe DOES work....

SeekinTruth,

I think the "totality" that you mention is the important part that we should consider. The more "information" we have the less "entropy" and more "objectivity". I think this ties in with "Information Theory" as described in Pierre and Laura's book Earth Changes and the Human Cosmic Connection: The Secret History of the World - Book 3 by Pierre Lescaudron; Laura Knight-Jadczyk .

Here is an excerpt from CHAPTER 38: INFORMATION THEORY & CONSCIOUSNESS:

Stonier also brings a new interpretation to thermodynamics, a branch of natural science dealing with fundamental notions like heat, temperature, energy and work. One of the main concepts developed in thermodynamics is ‘entropy’, which is a measurement of the level of disorder in a system. According to mainstream science and its second law of thermodynamics, any system tends towards a state of maximum entropy, i.e. maximum disorder. [893] Thus, any given entity is supposed to tend towards disorder and decay. That’s why scientists predict the ‘running down’ of the universe and all its constituents, ultimately leading to entropic death and complete randomization.

Order is highly improbable according to the laws of thermodynamics. Information can make the improbable happen. (© Hyperphysics) The problem is that this law only takes energy and matter into account. For example, a pot of water, when subjected to heat, will see its molecules begin to agitate, leading to an increased level of chaos, whereas cooling down this system would increase its level of organization and reduce its entropy. However, as pointed out by Stonier, there is another way to reduce the entropy of a system: by increasing its information content. Despite the second law of thermodynamics, living forms become increasingly complex, and more organized over time. Instead of following the path of entropic death with an ever-increasing level of disorder, they follow the opposite path, exhibiting an ever-higher level of organization and complexity. [895] While mainstream science posits the existence of only one kind of entropy, solely driven by energy, for engineer Bryant M. Shiller, there are two kinds of entropy: energy-driven entropy and information-driven entropy. While non-living [896] forms are exclusively controlled by energy-driven entropy and tend to lose energy and decay over time, living forms are subjected to both kinds of entropy. While energy-driven entropy tends to increase with time (usual decay process), information-driven entropy can decrease over time if sufficient information or intelligence is present inside the system. [897] Hence the increase in complexity noticed among numerous living forms despite the energy-driven entropy that pushes them towards increased disorder. The time arrow of entropy – the tendency of any system to lose energy over time and to eventually die – is counteracted by another arrow of time, one that’s equally fundamental, where the Universe is progressing through the growth of information, structure, organization and complexity to ever more elaborate states of matter and energy.

It's kind of like "information"/knowledge protects us from "entropy" and "chaos". Information creates order and structure.

 

[DougEE]

As I recall, Seth maintained that ALL matter has Consciousness Units (CU), even electrons.
I'm thinking that when a human views his world, he is using a human brain and human eyes to process how human CUs interact with the things 'out there'. For the eyes are transmitters as well as receivers. So a human's world view will be quite different from that of a cat, which uses a cat brain and cat eyes to process how cat CUs interact with the world 'out there'.
So in the Schrodinger's Cat experiment, suppose that the human observer has beside him, the mother cat of the cat that is in the box. The humans reality is determined by the opening of the lid to view the alive or dead cat. Whereas, the mother cat's reality could already be determined because of cat eyes using cat brain to process cat CUs amid the mother-kitten bond or entanglement. So human reality (which uses time) is quite different from cat reality (which may not use time), and so maybe Bohr is onto something by saying there is no such thing as Objective Reality. The reality of 'out there' is actually all possibilities.

Moreover, when a human measures the position of an electron, he is focusing his CUs onto the CUs of the electron, and since CUs are an integral part of the universe, as well as gravity, we are altering what the human brain is processing as being the reality 'out there'.

Fun is learning and networking :) :)

 

[meta-agnostic]

Just to laugh a little: cats are very intelligent, they will never, ever eat cyanide. or anything like that. :)

Just a couple more nits to pick on this fascinating subject. I know this is a joke, loreta, but an important aspect of the Schrödinger's Cat experiment is often left out of brief summations. The cyanide is supposed to be attached to a Geiger counter and the Geiger counter is aimed to detect the decay of a radioactive element within a time period where it has a 50% chance of emitting radioactivity thus setting off the Geiger counter and releasing the cyanide to kill the cat. This is how the experiment extrapolates the quantum effects to the macro level. The cat's consciousness may somehow be involved, but its free will is not, assuming there is no way for it to influence the radioactive decay or disable the Geiger counter / poison mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

Also, ec1968 pointed out in this thread that Schrödinger's motivation for the thought experiment is often misinterpreted. My understanding is that it was meant to point out the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation, that there is no way the cat can actually be both dead and alive, so another interpretation needed to be found. As a response, Everett, Wheeler, DeWitt, Graham and others formulated the "Many Worlds" interpretation a couple decades later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Hopefully this does not noisily stir the pot but as someone who has long been fascinated by these subjects but cannot quite do the math, I'm pretty sure there is a way to factor in Bell's theorem of non-locality to the phenomenon of super-luminal communication, I'm just not up to putting it into words at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

edit: typo

 

[Kika]

I think I came to understand the principle. Step by step. No concept. Small steps.
Let me try again.
For starters, look at Christians drawing Sufi rotation. On the right side of purple streaks consider that the 3D and 4D on the left. In 3D we have someone / something that has some kind of goal (4D). This has: the vision, intention, will, and desire, to achieve this. It uses its knowledge and ability to realize (learn how). When realized his intention then was in 4D. Very easy. Here begins a new cycle, and I'll stop there.

Now look Palinurus video. There is a lot more complicated. We have the orchestra, with a lot of different instruments, which produce different sounds, and because they play different music. There are also sets of identical instruments, but each plays a little different (variation on a theme). So, not everyone can be the first violin, someone has to be the drummer. The drummer does not have to become a player on the violin and vice versa, but some of the basics of playing both need to know in order to play together. Then there: choir, various soloists, viewers / listeners and at the end, conductor, encompassing all this. Every man for himself developed some talent (in this case music), are gathered together in the hall (3D) for a common goal (4D), a concert. At the very beginning of the concert it was a great murmur or chaos, and then the sign of the conductor, starts making.

Now look at us, human beings on planet earth, or as exemplary, us in this forum. We have: the will, intention, ability and knowledge (each of us, as musicians) to go to 4D. To achieve this we need a common repertoire, the vision of the final goal, according to which we will together develop our capabilities, to the maximum, each in its environment.
We need to define the target.

For me, the goal would be the answer to the questions:
What is the next stop on the evolutionary tape?
Towards what to strive for or what are we trying to accomplish?

Yours sincerely

Kika,

I think your observations are good ones. They describe some of the things we should be doing to come closer together on the forum. To see more details of the goal/goals I always go to the previous sessions for review and research.

Here is one session that hints at the goal and direction we could be working towards:

Session 14 January 1995

Q: (L) You have said that when the wave arrives that you will merge with us. Is this the same thing
that you are talking about when you say that you are us in the future?
A: No.
Q: (L) So, we are talking about two separate events or subjects, or two separate points in space/time,
is that correct?
A: No. You are again slipping into trying to apply 3rd density logic to higher levels of density reality.
Q: (L) So, this is pick on Laura night!
A: No. We are trying to help everyone to advance.
Q: (L) So, we are not talking about the same event...
A: What is "future," anyway?
Q: (L) The future is simultaneous events, just different locales in space/time, just a different focus of
consciousness, is that correct?
A: Yea, so if that is true, why try to apply linear thinking here, you see, we are merging with you right
now!
Q: (L) I see. (T) So, what you are trying to say is that when the wave comes it is going to take us to
4th density, if we are ready, but we are not actually going to merge with you in 6th density at that
point, but we may experience a "merge" at that point because all points of focus merge during
transition from one density to another?
A: Partly correct, partly way off.
Q: (J) What part is right and what part is wrong? (T) The wave is going to take those of us who are, at
that point ready, to move us into 4th density, is this part correct?
A: Open.
Q: (T) Which part of it is open?
A: You are a 4th density candidate.

I guess a question we all may have when discovering the Cs and the sessions is whether we are 4th density candidates?
And we wonder what we would do if we didn't have Laura, Ark and the session members there to be a "conduit" for the clues to give us hope and direction?

Q: (L) Are we anchoring frequency to create a split?
A: One developing conduit.
Q: (L) We are developing a conduit?
A: Yes. One.
Q: (J) How many conduits do we need?
A: Open.
Q: (T) Is this conduit going to allow those who remain behind to be able to move to 4th density easier
when they are ready?
A: No.
Q: (T) What is the conduit for?
A: You and those who will follow you.
Q: (T) Oh, this is for those of us who will move to 4th density. We will move through and they will
follow us through the conduit. (J) Oh, others who are ready?
A: Your group here tonight.
Q: (L) Does this mean we will have followers or just us here now?
A: Open. Up to you.
Q: (L) This conduit. Is this a conduit through which an entire planet will transition?
A: You are one. There are others.
Q: (L) There are other planets...
A: No. Conduit.
Q: We are one conduit and there are conduits...
A: No. Developing at this point.
Q: (J) So, at this point we are developing a conduit?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) There are other groups on this planet developing their own conduits?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) These are conduits for us to move to 4th density in?
A: Knowledge is the key to developing a conduit.
Q: (T) I am working on the assumption that all of us here are part of the family of light, is this true?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) And we have been drawn together in order to develop this conduit from where we are?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are there others in this area?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Are they supposed to join with us or are they working on their own?
Q: (T) Okay, so it is up in the air as to whether we join with them, they join with us, or we all work
independently.
A: It is up to how much publicity you manage to get.
Q: (T) Do we want publicity on this?
A: Open.
Q: (L) Would it help us?
A: Open.
Q: (T) We're developing a conduit to move us from 3rd density to 4th density. Once we have moved
through the conduit does that mean we have completed what we came here to do, and that is anchor
the frequency?
A: Partly.
Q: (T) Is the conduit kind of like an escape hatch for us?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Let me get this straight. When we move through this conduit, are the other...
A: You will be on the 4th level earth as opposed to 3rd level earth.
Q: (L) What I am trying to get here, once again, old practical Laura, is trying to get a handle on
practical terms here. Does this mean that a 4th density earth and a 3rd density earth will coexist side
by side...
A: Not side by side, totally different realms.
Q: (L) Do these realms interpenetrate one another but in different dimensions...
A: Close.
Q: (L) So, in other words, a being from say, 6th density, could look at this planet we call the earth and
see it spinning through space and see several dimensions of earth, and yet the point of space/time
occupation is the same, in other words, simultaneous. (J) They can look down but we can't look up.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, in other words, while all of this cataclysmic activity is happening on the 3rd dimensional
earth, we will be just on our 4th dimensional earth and this sort of thing won't be there, and we won't
see the 3rd dimensional people and they won't see us because we will be in different densities which
are not "en rapport", so to speak?
A: You understand concept, now you must decide if it is factual.

Hopefully, the description of the "conduit" is helpful in determining at least one of the main goals of the forum. Of course we must first Work on ourselves to clean our machines and tune up.

If you want more detail there were other sessions before this section that could can check our here: Re: Session 14 March 2015

Goyacobol,

In short, as I understand it, you alluding that our purpose is to become a conduit for someone or something. In this case, I am an instrument, not a musician. (The question remains as to what / whom?) Is it important instrument, whether playing or not playing (STO-STS)? If I am only an instrument, why do I need to learn the lesson? Who actually teaches? (If I do not decide anything

A: Divine will manifests through humanity.

)
Life is what it is. Learning must be one that is not, and he wants to be.
I also know ... Ok I will alleviate, I suppose; crossing the border of reality and a trip to the "4D", physically, nothing changes. It changes only the perception of reality, and we are again in 3D (school) a second level (infinite loop). Like when the goldfish, when outgrow the aquarium, you shift into larger.
If the principle of "All that is and all that is not" - freedom of choice. Why, then, freedom is restricted to only two options (1 or 0), and not an infinite amount? Why is under selection were sold something that was not the right choice?
Similarly, as well as political elections. We need to choose who will represent us, this or that. Who will speak for us and decide on our lives (legislate). About life important issues adults, may decide another adult, only if the first adult has a serious mental illness. The announcement of the election all of us declared mentally ill. The right choice is; do I want to be represented by someone else, or I myself, free, make decisions about my life.
If the STS and STO are working on how to choose the way we serve. We are servants anyway. The right choice is; I want to serve or be free. I choose freedom and life.
The present system density, is exactly that system, and it is perfectly balanced and systematic.
The true nature, nothing is perfect. Why "strikes the eye" IF THEN ELSE loop? If STO, then, you go on, else, nothingness. Black - white, there is nothing in between. If everything is predetermined and simultaneous why it is needed our choice? Is this some kind of consent?

A: As above, so below.

Q: (L) Okay, if...

(Pierre) As above, so below is a reference to below it's human beings... The information we believe or process has an influence on energetic patterns and activity on the humanity and earth level?

(Chu) Or the opposite.

(Pierre) Both ways maybe.

A: Not quite. Human activity may reflect cosmic processes.

Q: (L) So when the ancients talked about divine will, when they say history unfolding is a consequence of divine will, they may not have been too far off?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So there are some things that simply happen, and nothing we can do can change that.

A: Yes

Q: (L) There are cosmic processes that must take place, and we as humanity are really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

A: Yes indeed!

And so year after year we're back to the Bible. What am I supposed to say? As a mother, Mary: "I am your servant. Let it be, according to your will. I will bring forth a son, who will hold you for a father, speak in your name, to be tortured life, in your glory. Amen. "

 

[Kn0w1llusions]

Well, that's interesting. A couple of times, you've given messages to the group. Is there anything you'd like to say to the group?

A: Those of you who are waiting for "The Wave" to save or change you should be aware that you are really like the frog being gradually cooked.

Q: (Galatea) So, you're saying people should act as much as possible as if the Wave is already here?

A: Yes. In fact, it is!

I often get anxious when the C's mention in their transcripts to get our collective acts together as I tend to always assume I'm not doing enough and I'll "miss the ride" so to speak. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. I always feel I'm not posting enough, or doing enough reading on the forum or material, or not doing enough of "the work".

It's an old bad habit of always assuming I'm bad, wrong or not doing it correctly, likely due to an abusive and neglectful upbringing. But as much as I make "progress" in life I always feel it's always short. I've overcome decades of depression but it seems internalized even though I don't "feel" depressed on a conscious, emotional level. You can't be suicidal for decades of your life with out it taking it's toll on you.

I always have a very big lack of drive, motivation, or passion. I feel as thought I have no fuel in my gas tank emotionally speaking. What ever I would like to do, I automatically "shut down" and even if I make some progress I don't get much satisfaction from it. I believe if I had a healthy intimate relationship, something at 33 I've never had, it would help lift me out of my funk but I'm always worried that it would cause me more harm than good, so I end up stuck in this catch 22 situation.

I try my best to eat paleo, do EE, and try to remain positive and help others. I've done one session with Patrick and Heather with SRT and plan to do more. It just never feels like enough and in the mean time, time passes by quickly, I still struggle to make ends meet, and core issues never seem to go away. I don't suppose anybody has any advice or recommend anything that might help.

 

[goyacobol]

Goyacobol,

In short, as I understand it, you alluding that our purpose is to become a conduit for someone or something.

Kika, I was thinking of "conduit" as a group line of communication and not as an individual becoming a conduit. Here is one concept as the Cs describe it:

Session 24 February 1996

Q: (L) Well, along this line, MM has a very strange object appearing in aura photographs in her house and, more or less with her. It
appears to be a column of light, or a luminescent tube of some sort. What is it?
A: Represents conduit created by presence at locator which is in direct communication with higher density levels. And, in fact, there is
some degree of convergence between same.
Q: (L) What presence are we talking about?
A: Many and varied.
Q: (L) And this is also a convergence point of densities?
A: Not exactly; convergence is taking place to some degree.
Q: (L) Are these presences STS or STO?
A: Both.
Q: (L) It is like a portal?
A: Not a portal, it is a conduit. A portal is an opening allowing influences to manifest from higher density levels and downward. A
conduit is a "two way street."

In this case, I am an instrument, not a musician. (The question remains as to what / whom?) Is it important instrument, whether playing or not playing (STO-STS)? If I am only an instrument, why do I need to learn the lesson? Who actually teaches? (If I do not decide anything

A: Divine will manifests through humanity.

)
Life is what it is. Learning must be one that is not, and he wants to be.

I think you can be both an instrument and a musician at the same time. And as far as STO/STS we are all STS for now. We are just possible 4D STO candidates. The C's say "All there is is lessons" and this is one big school ("Life is religion").
If you "do not decide anything" why are you here thinking about so many possibilities? "Life is what it is", Does that mean you have no choice or responsibilities? I don't think so. Maybe our freewill can be a "tool". I know that our choices sometimes seem limited but here is one thing the Cs say about "freewill":

(A) You see a tool is something which you must know exactly how it operates, because
otherwise it's not a tool; you are the tool of something else - the originator of the tool who may not have your best interests at heart.
So you must exactly know, and have precise knowledge of, the tool if it is to be a tool. So a tool is a projection - an extension - of
what is in you.
A: Otherwise you are the tool of the tool
(L) Right. I think it is as much a matter of "here is a person who needs it" and "there's the person who instinctively knows what to do
and how to do it and they do because they can do it." They're the person of the moment - the "man of the hour" - and it is there in
front of them. It's like walking down the street and there's a piece of paper: do you walk by it or pick it up?
(A) But there may be something more. I'm thinking about this Bulgarian guy D**. He apparently has some psychic abilities and he
went into research. So now he was telling me about these bad guys who are using this ability for mind control and such things. But
he wrote one thing that was kind of unexpected from him. Maybe he read it from our pages, but probably not. He said that even
those people cannot do anything unless the given person is willing to be controlled.
(L) But that is true only at a deep level. It's pretty clear that STS can violate the free will of those who are ignorant of their existence
and abilities. So D** is just repeating New Age nonsense. That's what the folks doing mind control experiments would like us all to
think. Yes, it is true that the person must, of their own free will, choose. A person who has chosen, at a very deep level, to seek
truth, to ultimately receive positive energy, will be motivated by negative experiences to increase their knowledge, which then
increases their awareness, which then increases their abilities of STO to communicate with and interact with other similar people.
People use their free will - at very deep levels - to choose to be duped and manipulated. This is either because STS is their ultimate
choice and destination, or it is because they need to learn the lesson about growing their awareness. When they choose to refuse to
seek knowledge they have already chosen. When they choose belief over seeking and being open they have already chosen.
A: In all cases freewill is paramount even if it is not apparent at this level.
Q: (L) My son read the last session notes and he wants to ask what kind of instrument he is?
A: Base Viol.

I also know ... Ok I will alleviate, I suppose; crossing the border of reality and a trip to the "4D", physically, nothing changes. It changes only the perception of reality, and we are again in 3D (school) a second level (infinite loop). Like when the goldfish, when outgrow the aquarium, you shift into larger.

Kika, if and only if anyone is a 4D candidate will anything change but yes, there definitely would be a "change" to "variable physicality" you are no longer in 3D.
But are our lessons over? I would think we would be learning new/different lessons. And maybe you could look at that as a bigger aquarium. I really don't know.

If the principle of "All that is and all that is not" - freedom of choice. Why, then, freedom is restricted to only two options (1 or 0), and not an infinite amount? Why is under selection were sold something that was not the right choice?
Similarly, as well as political elections. We need to choose who will represent us, this or that. Who will speak for us and decide on our lives (legislate). About life important issues adults, may decide another adult, only if the first adult has a serious mental illness. The announcement of the election all of us declared mentally ill. The right choice is; do I want to be represented by someone else, or I myself, free, make decisions about my life.
If the STS and STO are working on how to choose the way we serve. We are servants anyway. The right choice is; I want to serve or be free. I choose freedom and life.
The present system density, is exactly that system, and it is perfectly balanced and systematic.
The true nature, nothing is perfect. Why "strikes the eye" IF THEN ELSE loop? If STO, then, you go on, else, nothingness. Black - white, there is nothing in between.

I think we do live in a programmed 3D STS world that encourages "Black and White Thinking". It seems that you are not sure that that is the best situation to be in from the above remarks.

Many of us on the forum have realized we get into these "Black and White thinking "loops". Here is a WikiPedia definition of this kind of thinking or Splitting:

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_white_thinking

Splitting (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Black and white thinking)

Splitting (also called black and white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defence mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground.)

The concept of splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory;[2] it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, but sees the good and bad as separate. In psychoanalytic theory this functions as a defence mechanism.[3] It is a relatively common defence mechanism for people with borderline personality disorder in DSM-IV-TR.

I don't know if you are thinking this way or just realizing that it doesn't feel right for you or it makes you feel "what's the use?".

If everything is predetermined and simultaneous why it is needed our choice? Is this some kind of consent?

A: As above, so below.

Q: (L) Okay, if...

(Pierre) As above, so below is a reference to below it's human beings... The information we believe or process has an influence on energetic patterns and activity on the humanity and earth level?

(Chu) Or the opposite.

(Pierre) Both ways maybe.

A: Not quite. Human activity may reflect cosmic processes.

Q: (L) So when the ancients talked about divine will, when they say history unfolding is a consequence of divine will, they may not have been too far off?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So there are some things that simply happen, and nothing we can do can change that.

A: Yes

Q: (L) There are cosmic processes that must take place, and we as humanity are really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

A: Yes indeed!

You will notice in the above quote that not "everything" "simply happen"s but just "some" things. We all have to accept our place in the Cosmos I think.

And so year after year we're back to the Bible. What am I supposed to say? As a mother, Mary: "I am your servant. Let it be, according to your will. I will bring forth a son, who will hold you for a father, speak in your name, to be tortured life, in your glory. Amen. "

I am not quite sure how you mean the statement above. If you are a mother I am sure you care for your child and want to do everything you can to provide protection and safety. I have a son and a daughter and two grandchildren. I still love my family and want good things for them as well. It is a difficult time for most of us here I think considering all the events we see happening around us. Sometimes I am glad that I am not totally in charge of the universe. I'd like to think there just might be a wiser minds that are STO to give me some advice and inspiration to hope for better things like more knowledge to protect myself and others.

 

[BHelmet]

In this case, I am an instrument, not a musician. (The question remains as to what / whom?) Is it important instrument, whether playing or not playing (STO-STS)? If I am only an instrument, why do I need to learn the lesson? Who actually teaches? (If I do not decide anything

A: Divine will manifests through humanity.

)
Life is what it is. Learning must be one that is not, and he wants to be.

If you are a mother I am sure you care for your child and want to do everything you can to provide protection and safety. I have a son and a daughter and two grandchildren. I still love my family and want good things for them as well. It is a difficult time for most of us here I think considering all the events we see happening around us. Sometimes I am glad that I am not totally in charge of the universe. I'd like to think there just might be a wiser minds that are STO to give me some advice and inspiration to hope for better things like more knowledge to protect myself and others.

goyacobol sez: I think you can be both an instrument and a musician at the same time. And as far as STO/STS we are all STS for now. We are just possible 4D STO candidates.
===========

I too am a Musinstrument...or... Instrusician

When I pick up the guitar and play a melody (literally), where does the melody come from? I may feel it or I may think it or it may just come out/through my fingers. I keep getting the bidirectional dance meme. There was an old commercial with a line: "Stop! You're both right!" I guess I am suggesting to be open to both possibilities: that our idea that it is "I" who is doing the playing is as valid or invalid as the idea that "I am being played"

This comes into focus regarding my own children. While I made a conscious decision to choose my wife when she 'showed up', I also know the universe/cosmos/will of creation/fill-in-your-word-for-god chose her for me as well. (but also chose us to produce the physical receptacles for the souls who are our children; this being a purpose beyond what we could see in the beginning of our relationship) It was my choice to accept or reject in the context of the larger dance. I said 'yes (what the hell, why not?)'

I also know I need to allow our kids to interface with creation on their own terms - to play their own songs; and to respond in their own way to the baton of the cosmic maestro(s)/stimuli of our illusional reality.

 

[monotonic]

Here's an interesting idea. If Schrodinger's cat is in multiple states at once but none of those states are bound to our our reality, does this make the box a hyperdimensional portal?

Also, on the topic of diet and non-ketosis, I have a friend who follows D'Adamo's current work. He correctly guessed my blood type from my symptoms upon going ketogenic. He says some people have a problem with IAP (Intestinal Alkaline Phosphatase) that keeps them from thriving on a ketogenic diet. Here is one link I found:

http://n-equals-one.com/blogs/2015/03/13/fats-blood-groups-and-the-intestines/

I remember that in one session Laura asked something like "is D'Adamo's stuff BS?" and the reply was "not really". So I wonder if there is some useful stuff in D'Adamo's current books. There are two classifications, blood type and phenotype, and phenotype sometimes matters more than blood type.

 

[MusicMan]

Schrodinger's Cat: The mother cat outside the box knows exactly what's going on, because she is telepathic and can communicate with the cat inside the box.
The human experimenter outside the box doesn't have a clue, because he has lost the telepathic ability.
FWIW

 

[Kika]

Yes, Goyacobol, I am a mother, and the desire to be my children better than me, is what moves me.
"Good will is the way to hell," said the people. With good will, knowledge is needed. Since I do not have any advisors from higher dimensions, I have to turn my surroundings and what I perceive. Therefore, always turn to "Mother Nature" as a divine manifestation.
In nature there are two types of relationships.
1. Symbiosis - cooperation between at least two of the organism in a common goal (progress in existence).
2. Parasitism - relationship between two organisms where one serves the other.
Is it any inappropriate, if someone asks for my cooperation, (not service) to ask; what is the purpose and the goal?
I have written more, but you did not comment on it. Is it because you did not notice, or because the Cs has not said anything about this? (Did not have the quote)
For example Mr. COBOL, are not IF THEN loop reminded of something else?
Or let's say that someone asked what was the will of your: father, mother, wife, child?
Would you answered like this:

A: Energy of information configurations of infinite permutations.

And I add, all as Cs say I consider pure truth, it is important to interpret the words, and consider this one of the options.