Well, you've just provided enough serious concerns to make any rational human being want to run a mile from this idea IMO. All of it sounds like some kind of sordid internet chat room meet up where everyone's most intimate parts are exposed to one another and no one in control except the most psychopathically-minded.LordBucket said:* EMOTIONAL content may very likely be transmissable via a telepathic network. Think of the most intensely unpleasant, depressing, heart-wrenching experience of your life. Now, imagine that times six billion.
* Hackers? Viruses? Ideas planted in your mind by others, either deliberately or by accident, that create/manipulate mental processes against your wishes, and possibly without your awareness?
* Content and signal/noise ratio considerations. How much of the internet is porn? If people start being able to telepathically communicate across the globe, a lot of the "data transfers" may be things you don't particularly want to participate in, or be made available to your children, at all times, without your knowledge or ability to intervene.
So, yes...obviously there are some serious concerns. And so, fully aware of the reality that these are very much uncharted, and potentially dangerous waters with who-knows-what sort of unknowns...I'd like to suggest a few possible precautions:
* "Firewalls and filters": Don't allow undesired access. Attempt to filter any information and "requests" coming into your being. "How?" I don't know. This entire proposal is an experiment. Be aware of the possibility. That awareness may be useful.
* "Humans only": If we, as humans, are in some way a coherent spiritual "unit," it may be reasonable to suppose that we can maintain a local network amongst ourselves. If two people plug their computers into each other, back to back, with no outside connections, odds of outside interference are much less. It's possible that we, as a species, already enjoy such a relationship with one another, and may be able to make use of it. Of course, keep in mind that just because YOU are only networking with people, doesn't mean that the people you're networking with are only networking with people. [...]
Feedback is welcome. I will try to be "on" tonight.
Absolutely. The question is: what is your perception of "self?"henry:
You might want to think about the comments made about "earning the driver" and this
type of communication coming as the result of work on the self.
Are you unwilling to communicate with yourself, because you are STS?agni:
I am still STS entity with all the consequences. Would you want to "channel" STS
In my mind, some of this appears to support what I'm proposing, some of it contradicts, some of it is off-base. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing contact to an outside 'other' at all. I'm proposing contact between "we, us, ourselves." There may be risk in individual contact to the network, but if Ra suggests that we channel in 'groups,' I don't see any better way of accomplishing the 'group' than by establishing a network of 'us.' If five people in a room is less susceptible to influence than one person singly, is it reasonable that the collective network of all of humanity would be even less susceptible?AdPop:
CHANNEL WATCH 013
it goes into why we think it might be easy for this kind of communication to be compromised easily by 4D STS.
I'm fairly irrelevant to the proposal. You wouldn't want to make contact with "me." But you might want to make contact with "humanity."henry:
The first question that comes to my mind is why would I want this kind of communication
with you? Who are you? Why would I want to make any sort of energetic connection with you?
To omit the risks and present only the benefits would have been an untruth that would have corrupted the potential of the seed.Joe:
>you've just provided enough serious concerns to make any
>rational human being want to run a mile from this idea IMO
I believe so. Having one's 'circuitry fried' is a very real possibility. Though, personally I'm far more concerned about the systemic risks than the individual ones.henry:
Do you understand why others might have these concerns?
Fair enough. Nobody should be convinced to participate in such a thingGeez. Count me out
Maybe an analogy might clarify this exchange. What you propose sounds like : we have walkie talkies (but no batteries), anyway let's try to talk to each other through the walkie talkie.LordBucket said:In my mind, some of this appears to support what I'm proposing, some of it contradicts, some of it is off-base. Keep in mind that I'm not proposing contact to an outside 'other' at all. I'm proposing contact between "we, us, ourselves." There may be risk in individual contact to the network, but if Ra suggests that we channel in 'groups,' I don't see any better way of accomplishing the 'group' than by establishing a network of 'us.' If five people in a room is less susceptible to influence than one person singly, is it reasonable that the collective network of all of humanity would be even less susceptible?AdPop:
CHANNEL WATCH 013
it goes into why we think it might be easy for this kind of communication to be compromised easily by 4D STS.
This STS is part of me. I have no choice in communicating with it. Do I need willingly communicate with additional STS? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not. I would rather be communicating with STO. Besides, don’t you have enough STS caused thoughts in your head ?Are you unwilling to communicate with yourself, because you are STS?
The problem is we do not live in a natural environment. We live in the matrix or World 96 of Gurdjieff, (the level of the moon or the world of 'false personality') and so we are literally on the butt end of the universe. In the matrix ‘absurdity’ reaches is limit. So how can you form an objective ‘telepathic network' when you are beginning from the maximum level of absurdity to begin with?LordBucket said:That's possible.Deckard:
there is a lot of work to be done before our hardware is capabable
But again, if 2nd density can do it, why couldn't we?
I suppose if I thought that were an accurate appraisal of our situation, I might agree with you. :PAxel_Dunor:
What you propose sounds like : we have walkie talkies (but no batteries), anyway let's try to talk to each other through the walkie talkie.
Well, like you said previously:By the way the mission of this forum : "building up colinear objectivity" might not be very far away from this higher centers egregore
I've considered the possibility that pursuing what I've proposed as an end unto itself may be seeking 'symptoms' of a state rather than the state itself, but I'm not convinced it's not possible, nor am I convinced there's no value in the attempt. As I said in my initial post, though, to date my own personal efforts have been inadequete. I suspect it's something that's possible for an individual to pioneer on behalf of the group, but an individual trying to build a network is more than a little bit self-contrary.this kind of union seems to be an outcome of the Work
...would you stop if you could...?agni:
This STS is part of me. I have no choice in communicating with it.
Why are you here then? Why are you talking to me? Do you avoid talking to people on the street? They're all STS. Do you have friends? Family? Pets? Aren't they all STS, too?Do I need willingly communicate with additional STS? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not.
I don't subscribe to this way of thinking. STS is part of my being. I don't think of it as some vague and nebulous "other" that is "out there, somewhere" trying to "get" me.Besides, don’t you have enough STS caused thoughts in your head ?
But, you do. In fact, you've already demonstrated it by virtue of your existence here in this realm. What is third density, if not a state of fractionalized awareness of "All?"I have no choice in communicating with it.
Couldn't this reasoning be applied to just about anything? You and I presumably live in more or less the same realm of absurdity. If I can't be objective about my pursuits, what makes you think you can be objective about yours? Even if we conclude that neither of us can be objective, what exactly do you propose? Sit around and do nothing? Wait and hope for the best? Listen to a guru and hope that fate delivered us to the right one?kenlee:
So how can you form an objective ‘telepathic network' when you are beginning from the maximum level of absurdity to begin with?
What exactly is 'unnatural' about seeking something? Are you only an observer, or are you also a participant in this universe?Maybe as we become more aware we can become more telepathic naturally...but to “seek telepathy' is, in my view, seeking enslavement
Bucket ManWilling is not enough; we must do. Knowing is not enough; we must apply --Bruce Lee
Sure... so, we can also seek to astral travel, or why not channeling ?LordBucket said:[What exactly is 'unnatural' about seeking something? Are you only an observer, or are you also a participant in this universe?Maybe as we become more aware we can become more telepathic naturally...but to “seek telepathy' is, in my view, seeking enslavement
...if I may quote your signature...
Bucket ManWilling is not enough; we must do. Knowing is not enough; we must apply --Bruce Lee
I would bring it to perfect balance, if I could....would you stop if you could...?
Do not confuse our 3d interactions vs. telepathic communication. Words are quite different from thoughts.Why are you here then? Why are you talking to me? Do you avoid talking to people on the street? They're all STS. Do you have friends? Family? Pets? Aren't they all STS, too?
I am aware that all is one. I am not fleeing from it, what happens happens. It is what it is. This is not a question of ignoring STS. You are talking about direct and willing telepathic link to STS.I don't subscribe to this way of thinking. STS is part of my being. I don't think of it as some vague and nebulous "other" that is "out there, somewhere" trying to "get" me.
Oh...there may very well be dark and nefarious STS things out there trying to get me...but at some point, you may have to face the notion that you are the darkness from which you flee. I don't think enlightenment is likely to come from denying and ignoring your own self. With free will comes the capacity to change your nature...but it might help to know what it is first.
You are right from absolute standpoint. Level of my awarenes does not allow me to make a clear choice yet.But, you do. In fact, you've already demonstrated it by virtue of your existence here in this realm. What is third density, if not a state of fractionalized awareness of "All?"
But it does not mean you have to constantly burn yourself or try to experiment with high teperature ovens to learn the lesson or get more out of it. To be aware that I get burned by oven I do not need to touch it from time to time. It's not because I am ignoring it, it's because there is no need there for me ! If it's going to happen accidently, be it. But I am not going to be looking towards burning myself intentionaly !There are times when even incorrect action is better than no action at all. When you put your hand on the stove, it may be uncomfortable, but if you pay attention you might just learn something in the process.
In truth, about a week ago I was praying to be presented with a means of serving humanity that I was suitable for. This came to mind. Though it wasn't exactly a new idea. I've certainly considered it before, as Axel_Dunor mentioned, it is an "outcome of The Work," and there is even literature that discusses it. For example, Serial Experiments Lain touches upon the idea, though the wiki writeup doesn't do it a very much justice.Deckard:
So when you look into your heart, what are the reasons you want to start telepathically comunicating with others?
...some have. Would you say it was foolish for them to have done so? Have the rewards not been worthwhile?Prayers for rain:
Sure... so, we can also seek to astral travel, or why not channeling ?
The way you've slanted the question, yes, of course it sounds logical. I simply dispute that telepathy requires mastery of 3rd level 'stuff.' Even your own material appears to dispute this:before seeking to "do" anything that *beforehand* requires a mastering of the 3rd level stuff, why not FIRST mastering the 3rd level stuff ? It sounds logical, doesn't it ?
Second density communicates telepathically. I've asked what makes people here think we could not also. So far the only answer I've been given is that "such a network could not be objective, because we live in Gurdjieff's matrix." To this I have two responses:session941107 wrote:
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.
What do you mean by "natural?" If a person lifts weights for the purpose of becoming stronger, is that unnatural? Why is it unnatural if the purpose is mental or spiritual instead of physical?seeking any "capacity" that doesn't comes naturally
session941107 wrote:
A: Well, sort of, but... Remember... There is no "supernatural" or "paranormal," only natural and normal. Your 'Noah Syndrome' implied, originally, a discrimination between "wicked" and good. Being ready does not recognize such distinctions!
1) Why do you disclude the possibility that humans creating a telepathic network could be a manifestation of "the work?"Prayers for rain:
as the result of the process of the Work on the 3rd lower level AND its limitations
The written word, the radio, the telephone, the Internet...which of these things enhanced chaos? Which of them would you say we would be better off without?ScioAgapeOmnis:
Talking telepathically will at best enhance the chaos
HAARP is on the way. I propose that we already have experience dealing with direct mental communication by the time it goes into full operation.Imagine the power they will hold when they are able to transmit
their distortions directly into your mind.
A road will be built more quickly if you build from both ends simultaneously.Our problem is not lack of communication - our inability to communicate clearly stems from our inability to think clearly. We gotta fix that first, I don't see how anything else can be fixed or improved without learning to think clearly and critically first.
In what way is their difference relevant? Would your statement be so very different from a cow at a slaughterhouse telling another cow: "Spoken language is quite different from smelling and mooing. We shouldn't try to learn to speak, because if we did third density would surely take advantage of us."agni:
Do not confuse our 3d interactions vs. telepathic communication. Words are quite different from thoughts
I read that to mean: Telepathic communication is the norm, even at second density. Verbal communication is limiting, and that's why we've been conditioned to use it.session941107 wrote:
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.
They are indeed. They are different because they are part of what limits us.agni:
words are quite different from thoughts
I am talking about direct and willing telepathic contact with self serving HUMANS. Yes. I am asserting that increased quality and quantity of communication between and amongst humans would be good, helpful and beneficial. Despite the fact that we are STS. And I am asserting that "we" as a collective entity would benefit tremendously from a willigness to look into our collective hearts and minds, in exactly the same way that we, as individuals, benefit from looking into our own.You are talking about direct and willing telepathic link to STS.
Seems to me that a considerable portion of my original post was describing possible dangers. In particular, the very two first items on the list largely summarized most of the objections that have been raised since.Cyre2067:
if you can't understand why
Hmm.perhaps you should read the wave and adventure series
Imagine if could create automobiles that could move people faster than 20mph. I think we'd be crushed by the sheer force of the speed.Tigersoap:
Imagine if we could share our thoughts right know, I think we'd go insane with all the chatter going on.