The Transition

This Poem by Czesław Miłosz is a nice view in my opinion:

The Song on the Day the World Ends

On the day the world ends
A bee circulates
over the flower of nasturtium,
A fisherman repairs shiny net.
Merry dolphins jump in the sea
Young sparrows to the gutter cling
And the snake’s skin is gold, as it should be.

On the day the world ends
Women with the umbrellas walk in the fields,
Drunk man falls asleep
on the edge of the lawn,
Vegetable sellers are on the street shouting
And a boat with a yellow sail to the island is coming,
Sound of a violin in the air lasts
and unlocks the night full of stars.

And those who were waiting
for thunder and lightning
Are disappointed.
And those who were expecting
signs and archangels’ trumpets
Do not believe it is happening now.
As long as the sun and the moon are above,
As long as the bumblebee visits the rose,
As long as children are born rosy,
Nobody believes it is happening now.

And only an old man with gray hair who would be a prophet
But he is not a prophet because he has another thing to do,
He says while tying tomatoes:
There will not be another end of the world,
There will not be another end of the world.
 
Inquorate said:
Here's a question I don't see anyone asking; what happens to the children? :scared:

I think it has been in people's mind under different topics: children and the diet, children and how to protect them from psychopathology, etc. As for the transition specifically, here is a discussion and some contributions about it:

The effect of the Wave/4th D transition on children?
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,3113.msg19603.html#msg19603
 
If you hear a stranger cry out for help and you instantly take action, with no regard for your own safety, you probably have 4D potential.

If you take the necessary time to evaluate the situation that will increase the chances of both of you getting out alive, you are probably 4D "eligible".

In laymen terms, which I am.
 
astrozombie said:
If you hear a stranger cry out for help and you instantly take action, with no regard for your own safety, you probably have 4D potential.

If you take the necessary time to evaluate the situation that will increase the chances of both of you getting out alive, you are probably 4D "eligible".

In laymen terms, which I am.

How did you come to this conclusion? If anything I'd say it's the opposite
 
astrozombie said:
If you hear a stranger cry out for help and you instantly take action, with no regard for your own safety, you probably have 4D potential.

And if the stranger crying out is a psychopath? You've jumped right in without thinking or weighing up the consequences - in that scenario you'd be lunch.

astrozombie said:
If you take the necessary time to evaluate the situation that will increase the chances of both of you getting out alive, you are probably 4D "eligible".

I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking, az.

Carlise said:
How did you come to this conclusion?

I second that question.
 
astrozombie said:
If you hear a stranger cry out for help and you instantly take action, with no regard for your own safety, you probably have 4D potential.

If you take the necessary time to evaluate the situation that will increase the chances of both of you getting out alive, you are probably 4D "eligible".

In laymen terms, which I am.


Hi astrozombie,

I think it's difficult to assign such and such actions as being 4D oriented. There are many possibilites which are probably not accounted for.

I've come to understand that it does not really help me in my daily life to imagine what to 4D would be and how to become more STO oriented. I can only work with what I am now, striving to be more grounded in my daily life in practical terms osit.
 
Tigersoap said:
I've come to understand that it does not really help me in my daily life to imagine what to 4D would be and how to become more STO oriented.

Exactly. When I first read The Wave I longed to be taken out of 3D, 'raptured' up to 4D, and all my troubles would be taken away. Now, I concentrate on my life here, learning how to be a better man.

Tigersoap said:
I can only work with what I am now, striving to be more grounded in my daily life in practical terms osit.

This is about learning the 'rules' of third density - the 'karmic and simple understandings' as the Cs call it. It could almost be the definition of a good obyvatel. Here's Gurdjieff talking about the obyvatel:

Gurdjieff said:
Obyvatel is a strange word in the Russian language. It is used in the sense of 'inhabitant,' without any particular shade. At the same time it is used to express contempt or derision--'obyvatel'--as though there could be nothing worse. But those who speak in this way do not understand that the obyvatel is the healthy kernel of life. And from the point of view of the possibility of evolution, a good obyvatel has many more chances than a 'lunatic' or a 'tramp.' Afterwards I will perhaps explain what I mean by these two words. In the meantime we will talk about the obyvatel. I do not at all wish to say that all obyvatels are people of the objective way. Nothing of the kind. Among them are thieves, rascals, and fools; but there are others. I merely wish to say that being a good obyvatel by itself does not hinder the 'way.' And finally there are different types of obyvatel. Imagine, for example, the type of obyvatel who lives all his life just as the other people round him, conspicuous in nothing, perhaps a good master, who makes money, and is perhaps even close-fisted. At the same time he dreams all his life of monasteries, for instance, and dreams that some time or other he will leave everything and go into a monastery. And such things happen in the East and in Russia. A man lives and works, then, when his children or his grandchildren are grown up, he gives everything to them and goes into a monastery. This is the obyvatel of which I speak. Perhaps he does not go into a monastery, perhaps he does not need this. His own life as an obyvatel can be his way.

"People who are definitely thinking about ways, particularly people of intellectual ways, very often look down on the obyvatel and in general despise the virtues of the obyvatel. But they only show by this their own personal unsuitability for any way whatever. Because no way can begin from a level lower than the obyvatel. This is very often lost sight of on people who are unable to organize their own personal lives, who are too weak to struggle with and conquer life, dream of the ways, or what they consider are ways, because they think it will be easier for them than life and because this, so to speak, justifies their weakness and inadaptability. A man who can be a good obyvatel is much more helpful from the point of view of the way than a 'tramp' who thinks himself much higher than an obyvatel. I call 'tramps' all the so-called 'intelligentsia'--artists, poets, any kind of 'bohemian' in general, who despises the obyvatel and who at the same time would be unable to exist without him. Ability to orientate oneself in life is a very useful quality from the point of view of the work. A good obyvatel should be able to support at least twenty persons by his own labor. What is a man worth who is unable to do this?"

"What does obyvatel actually mean?" asked somebody. "Can it be said that an obyvatel is a good citizen?"

"Ought an obyvatel to be patriotic?" someone else asked. "Let us suppose there is war. What attitude should an obyvatel have towards war?"

"There can be different wars and there can be different patriots," said G. "You all still believe in words. An obyvatel, if he is a good obyvatel, does not believe in words. He realizes how much idle talk is hidden behind them. People who shout about their patriotism are psychopaths for him and he looks upon them as such."

"And how would an obyvatel look upon pacifists or upon people who refuse to go to the war?"

"Equally as lunatics! They are probably still worse." (...)

"When I say that an obyvatel is more serious than a 'tramp' or a 'lunatic,' I mean by this that, accustomed to deal with real values, an obyvatel values the possibilities of the 'ways' and the possibilities of 'liberation' or 'salvation' better and quicker than a man who is accustomed all his life to a circle of imaginary values, imaginary interests, and imaginary possibilities.

"People who are not serious for the obyvatel are people who live by fantasies, chiefly by the fantasy that they are able to do something. The obyvatel knows that they only deceive people, promise them God knows what, and that actually they are simply arranging affairs for themselves--or they are lunatics, which is still worse, in other words they believe everything that people say. (...)

"The obyvatel perhaps may not know it in a philosophical way, that is to say, he is not able to formulate it, but he knows that things 'do themselves' simply through his own practical shrewdness, therefore, in his heart, he laughs at people who think, or who want to assure him, that they signify anything, that anything depends on their decisions, that they can change or, in general, do anything. This for him is not being serious. An understanding of what is not serious can help him to value that which is serious."
 
I agree with everyone her when they say that we will never understand 4d terms from a 3d perspective but we (at least I do) think about it.

It's also impossible to condense our life lessons into a single scenario such as the one I proposed or any other for that matter.

However, I thought that we were all trying to avoid being a free lunch, like running into a burning building without taking a minimal amount of time to spot a second exit which may be needed.

What use is knowledge if not applied?

In regards of the stranger being a psychopath...it's not something that I would put into the equation, not in the heat of the moment anyhow. :)
 
astrozombie said:
[..]
In regards of the stranger being a psychopath...it's not something that I would put into the equation, not in the heat of the moment anyhow. :)

Having no regard for ones own safety by assuming 'everyone is good' or 'only good can come of this'...or even just 'nothing bad will ever happen' is foolish. Especially in the heat of the moment! I presume some similar thought lays behind saying that would put that into the equation?

In the heat of the moment you mostly rely on your automatic learnt behaviour, and if it is based on false premises then you are at the mercy of those assumptions.
Painful life changing/ending lessons can follow.

_http://www.snopes.com/fraud/distress/stranded.asp
Distress Cull
Scam: Stranger pretends to need cabfare to get to a hospital or money to buy gasoline or baby formula.

Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004]

There's a new scam in Omaha. A woman walks up to you and says "I've locked my keys and purse in my car" or "I've locked myself out of my house. My purse is in there." She then asks you to give her money to pay for a locksmith. You feel sorry for her and give her $40, and never see her again. Or maybe you drive her to a locksmith's office, give her the money, and drive away. She never goes in the locksmith's office. She doesn't need a locksmith. She wants your $40. She has even tried to scam a church, but they wrote a check to the locksmith and the b**** tried to get the locksmith to cash it.

Origins: You're refueling your car at the local gas station when you find your eye caught by a somewhat bedraggled looking 20-something gal standing beside a beat-up van parked near the property's perimeter. The girl returns your gaze, smiles in an embarrassed way, then hesitantly makes her way over to you.

"Mister, can you help me? Me and my husband ran out of gas, and we've no money to buy any — we spent what little we had on formula for the baby. If you could spare a twenty, we could get her home 'cause it's getting awfully cold out." Her voice drops a bit. "It's just a loan I'm asking for, mister. I'll mail it right back to you, soon as I get my paycheck this Friday." At this point you see an equally scroungy-looking young man standing by the van clutching a blanket-swaddled bundle you assume is the couple's infant.

Your kind heart says to give this young woman the twenty dollars she asks for. But your common sense says otherwise. So which do you listen to?

If you're like a great many folks, you fork over the twenty . . . only to later discover you've been had. The "stranded baby-toting couple at the gas station" is but one of the many successful "distressed stranger" scams common to the urban experience.

These swindles are a fact of modern life, and it is only a matter of time before you encounter one being run on you. Our desire to believe what we've been told coupled with our urge to perform occasional good deeds leaves us vulnerable to such cons. We take folks at
face value, which sets us up as pigeons to be taken advantage of.

When presented with tales of woe and asked for relatively small sums that will help set things to rights, only the very rarest among us will as a matter of course turn down direct appeals for help. The vast majority will hear the unfortunates out, then make their decision to help or not based on the believability of the stories.

Yet that filtering is often not enough because successful con artists know how to spin plausible-sounding yet touching yarns. They also know how to employ props (such as the swaddled "baby") that further increase the probability of their prospective pigeons falling for their cons.

In March 2001, a writer for the South Bend Tribune reported on his encounter with not one, but two "Please help my baby!" con artists in the space of a few minutes. Flim flammer #1 approached him on the street, saying she needed a few dollars to buy formula and diapers for her baby. When asked where the infant was, she claimed he was sleeping in a car parked a block away. When the reporter insisted upon being taken to the baby (who he'd just been told had been left alone in a freezing cold car), the "needy mom" turned tail and ran.

He ran into scam mom #2 a couple of blocks further on. She was carrying what appeared to be a baby wrapped in a receiving blanket to keep out the cold. Her car was at a local gas station, she said, and she needed a few dollars to get home with her young one. The reporter lifted a corner of the blanket to peep at the child only to find a doll staring back at him. This swindler walked away defiantly with her head held high, knowing that there were other sheep to be fleeced.

In 2004 a reporter for The Daily Telegraph in London ruefully detailed his run-in with the "stranger in distress" con. Half-asleep, he answered the door late one evening only to find there a young woman who claimed to live in nearby Apartment 2A, "the one with the black door." Her mother had suffered a heart attack, announced the distraught neighbor — could he lend her cab fare to the hospital? The taxi, she said, was waiting, and the police had told her she could "get a docket from the hospital" which would reimburse him. The projected cab fare was £22.50, so he gave her £25.

Only after she'd gone did he realize that there was no Apartment 2A in his complex.

In talking over his experience with colleagues, he discovered this form of swindle was common in London, with men its principal targets because they tend to answer the door after dark more often than do women. A female co-worker of the bamboozled journalist recounted how her husband, a tough criminal lawyer, had been about to hand over taxi money to a distraught woman who claimed to have been mugged until she intervened to insist the "victim" come inside to telephone the police. At that point the "mugging victim" turned tail.

Men run versions of the "stranger in distress" scam too. In 1998 a Pittsburgh man was arrested on four counts of theft by deception after going door to door with a tale about needing money to get to the hospital to see his son who'd just been injured in a car accident in a city some distance away. Folks who heard his sad story routinely gave him $40 or $50 apiece. The man, of course, had no son, injured or otherwise.

In 1995 a con man successfully ran a version of the "injured son" tale on a number of Denver restaurants and bars. He would telephone these establishments and tell bartenders or managers that one of his sons had either just been killed or injured in a car accident and that he needed money so his other son could catch a taxi and go to the hospital to the hurt or dead son. To collect the money, he'd either go to the restaurant, or he would have the restaurant employee meet him at a convenience store or gas station.

In 1996 in Providence, a swindler working the "I need money for gas" con admitted in a signed statement made after his arrest that he made between $50 and $350 a day from this endeavor. "I usually call any business and tell them" a relative's car "broke down and needs help, and usually people give me money, thinking it's for real." He'd been taken into custody when he arrived to pick up the $20 he'd persuaded a filling station owner to give him to get his pregnant niece's car towed. The money he made on this con he used to fund his drug habit.

A number of readers have written to describe their experiences with the 'distressed stranger' con. We quote from five of those e-mails on our "Using Regular People" page, an article about a widely-circulated account that might have been an encounter of this sort.

Although there are real cases of need out there, this scam is so common that one needs keep it in mind when approached by strangers seeking assistance.

Barbara "samaritan up" Mikkelson

How To Avoid Falling Victim To 'Distressed Stranger' Scams:
These sorts of scams work because the amounts pleaded for are relatively small, and people want to help others, both for the ordinary feel-goodness of it all and as a form of karmic protection against those inevitable days when their cars break down or when they are chagrined to discover they've left their wallets on dressers at home. While fraud is sorry repayment for a kind heart and generous nature, the only way to entirely safeguard yourself against falling victim to "stranger in distress" scams is to refuse to help those unknown to you who appear to be in dire straits. Such a course of (non)action will appeal to some but will be heartily eschewed by others who will view the occasional $20 lost on a con artist as but the cost of maintaining a positive view of their fellow man. Therefore, portions of the following advice will apply to some but not to others.


  • Beware the pull on your heartstrings — it's often the pursestrings that are actually being reached for. When approached with tales of woe, keep in mind those making the request should have other avenues of relief available to them beyond that of asking random strangers for cash. Is it reasonable to assume they have no family or friends who could come to their assistance, either monetarily or to give them a drive home? Or that they do not have so much as one credit card they could charge a necessity against? Remind yourself that a great many taxis do accept credit cards and so regard with suspicion any well-heeled stranger's claim of needing $20 for cabfare.
  • When strangers seeking your assistance hit you up with sob stories, become comfortable with saying "No, I'm sorry but I just can't do that" and walking away or hanging up. If you cannot bring yourself to say no and instead feel you must make some attempt to aid those who appear to be in need, proffer your assistance rather than the cash that has been asked for. Offer to telephone on their behalf whichever friend or relative the stranded couple believes could come for them, or to ask the police for help in getting the child home. Insist that mugging victims contact the police and indeed place those calls for them. Strictly limit your help to non-monetary forms: making phone calls, brainstorming possible solutions, mucking about under the hood of non-functioning cars, etc. But above all, keep your hand away from your wallet.
  • Never let strangers into your house to use the phone. Instead, offer to place whatever calls they need made on their behalf. Likewise, those seeking the use of a bathroom should be given directions to the nearest gas station or restaurant. People have been robbed or sexually assaulted in their homes by those whose "car broke down" or who needed "a glass of water" or "to call a doctor for the baby." Those not assaulted immediately still run the risk of being burgled later by thieves who have inventoried the home's contents and are now familiar with its layout.
  • Churches in some communities have adopted a policy of refusing to provide cash to those who appeal to them for emergency assistance. Instead, those thrown upon hard times are given whatever other kind of material assistance they have requested (e.g.; tank of gas, place to stay for the night, transportation to another city where a relative is supposedly languishing, something to eat), but are refused money.

    A group of churches in another community has worked out an arrangement with that city's police department whereby those looking for aid are directed to the police station for a bit of vetting of their stories and their identities. Those who appear to check out are provided with vouchers (paid for by the local churches) for whatever it was they had appealed for. Once again, money is never given.
Last updated: 27 February 2012


Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2013 by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

Sources:

Lyvers, Glenn.
"Those Being Asked For Assistance Can Defend Themselves Against Scams."
South Bend Tribune [Indiana]. 22 March 2001 (p. A13).

Pankratz, Howard. "Con Man Allegedly At It Again."
The Denver Post. 18 December 1995 (p. B3).

Robinson, Marilyn. "Many Fall For Tow Truck Scam."
The Denver Post. 17 April 1998 (p. B2).

Robinson, Stephen.
"Shame On Me: I Was Conned By a Damsel in Distress On My Own Doorstep."
The [London] Daily Telegraph. 5 February 2004 (p. 19).

Sabar, Ariel. "Target of Borrowing Scam Alerts Police; Suspect Arrested, Charged."
Providence Journal-Bulletin. 22 August 1996 (p. 1D).

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Swindling Suspect Arrested."
30 March 1998 (p. A12).

Beware of the Dragon – for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

In the end, it's down to giving what is being asked for - and being able to distinguish that difference. Sometimes people ask for things out of a genuine need for help, sometimes they fake that to attempt to fulfil a hidden agenda.

A small snippet from _http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/stalking.htm
[..]
The natural question to ask is how, considering factors such as "karma" and psychic "laws" of like attracting like, etc, that an apparently positively-inclined personality such as Strieber should be caught up in the net of Negativity which he details? Isn't his tendency toward "goodness" enough? Is there some unknown element involved in all this which accounts for the seeming collapse of protection that ought to surround a "good man?" [�]

In Transformation Strieber recounts the otherworldly interdiction whereby a "voice" bade him refrain forever from sweets, his one true vice. Addicted as he was, Strieber couldn't stop, even though the "beings" engineered circumstances so as to bombard him with dire implications. As a result, one evening he is visited by a malevolent presence which he himself - as always - describes best, i.e. as "monstrously ugly, so filthy and dark and sinister. Of course they were demons. They had to be." Again, "the sense of being infested was powerful and awful. It was as if the whole house were full of filthy, stinking insects the size of tigers." The entity, rising up beside his bed like a "huge, predatory spider," places something at his forehead and with an electric tingle he is "transported" to a dungeon-like place where his attention is fixed upon a scene of excruciating torture. The victim, a normal looking though quite naked man, is being whipped to shreds amidst agonized screams by a cowled figure. His "entity" explains to him that "he failed to get you to obey him and now he must bear the consequences." This disclosure is followed by a very interesting and significant "assurance" that "it isn't real, Whitty, it isn't real." [�]

The purpose of soothing Strieber with such assurance as to the ultimate unreality of the convincing scene experienced, should be familiar to anyone who's heard of the torture tactics employed in any good Banana Republic (i.e. those in which the victim is subjected to excruciating pain on the one hand while being simultaneously stroked and reassured on the other, often by the same party). The object is to elicit the full cooperation of the victim under duress, by making him instinctively gravitate toward the implicit salvation extended through the "motherly" touch demonstrated in that schizoid Grasp. [�]

Indeed, Strieber proves himself the compliant guinea pig; even having been told that it's all a thought form, his compassion for the unsuccessful "bidder" persists so that finally he collapses into repentant love for the very roaches that bedevil him. "Again, though, I felt love. Despite all the ugliness and the terrible things that had been done, I found myself longing for them, missing them! How was this possible?" Again, "I regretted the contempt I had shown for its [the other reality's] needs and its laws and felt a desperate desire to make amends. [�] I had felt a pain greater than the pain of punishment. It was the pain of their love� I had the sense that they had on my behalf turned away from perfect love, and that they had done this to help me. [�] I suspect that the ugliness I had seen last night was not them, but me. I was so ashamed of myself that I almost retched."

Giving Love to such a being is a yielding to the Negative requirements.

Should there remain any reluctance to grasp this point, or some desire to conserve the liberal-humanistic proposal to which Strieber often turns (i.e. to call such things truly Negative or Evil is "simplistic," you know) we find a passage in the Ra Material, that anticipates Strieber's account by years and furnishes a framework before the fact, which not only fits the Strieber-entities' behaviors like a key in a lock, but gives us a needed perspective of evaluation.

On page 21 of Volume III, The Law of One, the Ra entity characterizes a prototypical tactic of the [4th Density STS], that of "bidding." "Bidding" is described in such a way to make it clear that Strieber's experience represents a concrete instance of the phenomenon.

"Bidding" is a contest of will, rendering the consciousness that obeys into enslavement through its own free will. It is a command of obedience, precisely such as that issued without explanation against Strieber's lust for sweets. It's sole purpose is to bend the subject into accepting the command, the actual content of the order being largely beside the point. [�] To possess a legion of servants in this way is an actual nourishment to the centers and systems of 4th density; a kind of "food-chain pyramid." [�]

Thus we find the Strieber entity virtually paraphrasing the earlier Ra recitation of the modus operandi that identifies the Negative beings - the failure to exact obedience bears punishable consequence. It is a continuing illustration of the way in which the Negative polarity extorts the desired obedience - and thus soul capture - through manipulation of Love.
[..]
 
RedFox, I want to thank you for taking the time to put that together. Most people wouldn't bother as they assume it will go unread. I have learned that this forum does not consist of most people. I mean that in a positive way. :) :)
 
Psyche said:
Inquorate said:
Here's a question I don't see anyone asking; what happens to the children? :scared:

I think it has been in people's mind under different topics: children and the diet, children and how to protect them from psychopathology, etc. As for the transition specifically, here is a discussion and some contributions about it:

The effect of the Wave/4th D transition on children?
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,3113.msg19603.html#msg19603

Indeed, that's one of the things that drew me to this forum - I had been searching for information on that subject when I joined here. I had found that there was very little information - just the usual "don't worry, you, and the kids and the family dog will all be okay in the upcoming magical ascension to the 5th dimension" type stuff, which wasn't really convincing to me. I mean, it may be that children will, indeed make the transition quite easily but at what age do they stop being children? Is there an over 16's or over 18's cut off point? Lol! So when I found the abovementioned thread a couple of years back, I was relieved to see that the question had been asked and hadn't been brushed aside with a "dooon't worry about it - you'll all be raptured"response. There were others who were also concerned about their children and hadn't settled for a belief in magic!

Endymion said:
Tigersoap said:
I've come to understand that it does not really help me in my daily life to imagine what to 4D would be and how to become more STO oriented.

Exactly. When I first read The Wave I longed to be taken out of 3D, 'raptured' up to 4D, and all my troubles would be taken away. Now, I concentrate on my life here, learning how to be a better man.

Yep, just recently I was thinking about how things have changed here over the last couple of years. Not too long ago there seemed to be a much heavier focus on the whole ascension to 4th density theme, which is cool because it's one of the main questions tthat has inspired the forum but I also find it encouraging to see a shift in focus to 3rd density, where we are - a shift which as far as I can see, just seems to have happened naturally. But maybe I'm seeing it differently or has anyone else had the same thoughts?
 
Don Genaro said:
Yep, just recently I was thinking about how things have changed here over the last couple of years. Not too long ago there seemed to be a much heavier focus on the whole ascension to 4th density theme, which is cool because it's one of the main questions tthat has inspired the forum but I also find it encouraging to see a shift in focus to 3rd density, where we are - a shift which as far as I can see, just seems to have happened naturally. But maybe I'm seeing it differently or has anyone else had the same thoughts?

I think things tend to evolve naturally and focuses change over time based on new data, or so you'd hope if the goal is to become as objective as possible.
I viewed things somewhat similar to yourself when I first got here, however I think their can be quite a lot of filtering and projection going on - assumption of what the focus is. So it can be quite hard to tell how much of the evolution is actually in your own understanding.
In retrospect I would think that the 'transition to 4th density' was one of the driving impetus that was relayed in the first C's sessions way back when they started, but more as an aid to getting us to where we are now in our understanding of the 3d world.

Which brings us back to...
Tigersoap said:
I've come to understand that it does not really help me in my daily life to imagine what to 4D would be and how to become more STO oriented. I can only work with what I am now, striving to be more grounded in my daily life in practical terms osit.

It's all about the practical reality we are faced with right now - and trying to do things to get humanity through the 3d physical changes (comets, ice age etc). Any theoretic transition to 4d although appealing is really just an afterthought osit
 
Endymion said:
astrozombie said:
If you hear a stranger cry out for help and you instantly take action, with no regard for your own safety, you probably have 4D potential.

And if the stranger crying out is a psychopath? You've jumped right in without thinking or weighing up the consequences - in that scenario you'd be lunch.

astrozombie said:
If you take the necessary time to evaluate the situation that will increase the chances of both of you getting out alive, you are probably 4D "eligible".

I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking, az.

Carlise said:
How did you come to this conclusion?

Sorry to repeat myself but I realize that I never answered your questions. I think we can all agree that we are trying to gain knowledge to avoid being a free lunch.

In that respect, it would serve no one (self or other) to involve yourself in an emergency situation without taking some time to think about it. This could be done as easily as looking for an alternate exit while rushing in to help.

If you are unable to get yourself back out of the situation, then you have most likely failed at helping the stranger as well. Maybe it was the inclusion of the word {both} that made this statement seem so STS.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if it was a STO to determine that it was too much of a risk to help and thus not. I only meant that it's best to see how you can really be of service instead of rushing in gung-ho.

We are curious and inquisitive beings. As such, I could be doing worse things with my time than occasionally pondering marvelous concepts.
 
astrozombie said:
Endymion said:
astrozombie said:
If you hear a stranger cry out for help and you instantly take action, with no regard for your own safety, you probably have 4D potential.

And if the stranger crying out is a psychopath? You've jumped right in without thinking or weighing up the consequences - in that scenario you'd be lunch.

astrozombie said:
If you take the necessary time to evaluate the situation that will increase the chances of both of you getting out alive, you are probably 4D "eligible".

I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking, az.

Carlise said:
How did you come to this conclusion?

Sorry to repeat myself but I realize that I never answered your questions. I think we can all agree that we are trying to gain knowledge to avoid being a free lunch.

In that respect, it would serve no one (self or other) to involve yourself in an emergency situation without taking some time to think about it. This could be done as easily as looking for an alternate exit while rushing in to help.

If you are unable to get yourself back out of the situation, then you have most likely failed at helping the stranger as well. Maybe it was the inclusion of the word {both} that made this statement seem so STS.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if it was a STO to determine that it was too much of a risk to help and thus not. I only meant that it's best to see how you can really be of service instead of rushing in gung-ho.

We are curious and inquisitive beings. As such, I could be doing worse things with my time than occasionally pondering marvelous concepts.

Sorry, I actually misunderstood what you wrote. I thought you were saying that it was more like 4d/STO to just rush in gung-ho.

I think anyone with a conscience would feel the urge to rush in and help somebody in need, and in most situations I would take a risk to do so. It's just with the world we live in, we have to utilize system 2 in these situations as well. Redfox's post was spot on in that regard.
 
Back
Top Bottom