The work of Pofessor Corrado Malanga-Gensis I

[mkrnhr]

Hypnosis doesn't reach the soul, only the unconscious mind, and this later can be programmed. Some people in the Pentagon or elsewhere may know some things, but not everything. They too, can be deceived.
You may have more insight about how complicated is the subject by reading "High Strangeness": http://www.qfgpublishing.com/product_info.php?products_id=79&osCsid=6600709fd707a855501c9436d06e84c8
Anyone who tells that the answer is simple is either ignorant or is lying IMHO.

 

[Venusya]

soul stays into the right side of brain ..and hypnosis can reach she. And mind ..is just only "alien mind". Malanfa was able to speak eithr with mind or soul. Remember: human being own mind..but is alien one. Malanga calls it : "atcive alien mind" . Souls is not alien. Soul is soul..that thing aliens want.
When you put on hypnosis someone ,you can meet jst only two chance:
1) you contact the mind (i.e active alien mind)
2) you contact the soul (you 'll know if she is the soul when will ask same question ,for example, as: what's your name, or question about age, or time. So she will not know the answer. So you'll know sh is the soul and not the mind. Becouse Souls doesn't know whar the time is or what a name means. In her dimension those are thing w/o meaning.

You all should can see a movie named "6 days on earth" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VugfU-kir2U

 

[obyvatel]

Re: Genesis by Corrado Malanga (as referred to by Eve Lorgen)

Relying on data obtained from hypnosis of abductees to draw conclusions about hyperdimensional realities is problematic. What is remembered could simply be the message that the abductors implanted there. And from what we have learned here, the abductors could be hyperdimensional or higher echelons of the ptb.

The "story" described above is disinfo in my opinion. The cosmology established is anthropomorphic at its core - which gives it a distinctly STS feel. I doubt that this "hypothesis" is going to be revised in the direction of objectivity.

Richard,
Are you familiar with Cosmology as described in Mouravieff's Gnosis part 2 , Ibn al Arabi's "Sufi Path of Knowledge", some of Michael Topper's works, and Laura's Secret History and Wave series? . The first two suffer from religious gloss but are still useful.

Regarding the alien abduction phenomena, John Keel's works, Carla Turner's works as well as Laura's High Strangeness are the ones to be read first in order to establish a good baseline for discussing other works.

BAALLS**T! Cosmology has not understand a tube (and gnosim too). The solution and the key is mechanics and quantum physics expecially the Bohm Universe Theory: Universe is a sort of hologram and we all are into a sort of a mega-giant "Truman Show" or "Matrix". Universe (actually more than one) is virtual: time,space and matter are virtual things: they do not exist fo real. All is just a changeable/mutable energy. The key is Bohm, Aspect and theories as/like theirs.

Hi Venusya,
The works mentioned in the above post are suggested reading material in this forum. Please read the forum guidelines for a better understanding how this forum works.

soul stays into the right side of brain ..and hypnosis can reach she. And mind ..is just only "alien mind". Malanfa was able to speak eithr with mind or soul. Remember: human being own mind..but is alien one. Malanga calls it : "atcive alien mind" . Souls is not alien. Soul is soul..that thing aliens want.
When you put on hypnosis someone ,you can meet jst only two chance:
1) you contact the mind (i.e active alien mind)
2) you contact the soul (you 'll know if she is the soul when will ask same question ,for example, as: what's your name, or question about age, or time. So she will not know the answer. So you'll know sh is the soul and not the mind. Becouse Souls doesn't know whar the time is or what a name means. In her dimension those are thing w/o meaning.
You all should can see a movie named "6 days on earth" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VugfU-kir2U

You seem to be quite certain of yourself and Malanga's theories. If you are here to enlighten us, you are in the wrong place. If however you want to sincerely participate here, please read the forum guidelines and start getting up to speed on the reading material suggested to you in your newbie thread.

 

[FASTWALKER]

Hi Kniall,
Yes, I have read the Wave and High Strangeness multiple times. I am not fooled by titles either. I read of Malanga's investigations and saw many parallels. I thought it was interesting. Either you do or you don't. Did you read all of his information? I am not saying he has all the answers by any means. I took the time to see what he was doing and read all that I could that was in English.
Do you propose that The Wave and High Strangeness is the finial word? Did you read all of his information or just one article to come to your conclusions? Do you see the parallels to the C's information? There are many. Not all of it lines up but much of it does. So much of it is similar that a Q&A session would add further clarifications. You won't know for sure if you don't ask...

 

[Niall]

Hi Kniall,
Yes, I have read the Wave and High Strangeness multiple times. I am not fooled by titles either. I read of Malanga's investigations and saw many parallels. I thought it was interesting. Either you do or you don't.

You may find it interesting, but here it's considered noise.

Did you read all of his information?

I couldn't make any sense out of it.

I am not saying he has all the answers by any means. I took the time to see what he was doing and read all that I could that was in English.
Do you propose that The Wave and High Strangeness is the finial word?

No, but once you've understood them - especially after reading them multiple times - you should be able to discern New Age word salad.

Did you read all of his information or just one article to come to your conclusions?

In case you haven't noticed, time is short and we have many important research areas to cover.

Do you see the parallels to the C's information? There are many. Not all of it lines up but much of it does.

It's called vectoring, and you've been completely taken in by it.

So much of it is similar that a Q&A session would add further clarifications. You won't know for sure if you don't ask...

What question would you like to ask?

 

[Joe]

Re: Genesis by Corrado Malanga (as referred to by Eve Lorgen)

Yes, this could be disinfo but by the same token, everything else could be as well, which is what makes it all so confusing.

Richard, I meant to say at the time your wrote this that such an attitude is totally illogical and amounts to an admission that you have no brainpower at all to discern truth from lies. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest this, but instead were trying to justify your position by saying, more or less, "well, who knows if anything is true or false!". The point is, you are MEANT to be able to at least assign probabilities to what is likely disinfo and what is closer to the truth of any given matter. Otherwise, what's the point in having a brain?

 

[Joe]

Do you propose that The Wave and High Strangeness is the finial word? Did you read all of his information or just one article to come to your conclusions? Do you see the parallels to the C's information? There are many. Not all of it lines up but much of it does. So much of it is similar that a Q&A session would add further clarifications. You won't know for sure if you don't ask...

We propose that the Wave and High strangeness be used as a yardstick to measure other works. For example, most of the conclusions of John Keel jive very well with High Strangeness, and very little of Keel's work stands in contradiction to his main hypothesis. Malanga's stuff mirrors some of the work that we have decided is probably reliable, (including the Cs) but there is much in there that clearly diverges greatly. This fact puts it into the category of the very common new age disinfo, where the truth is mixed with lies to confuse and distract.

So, there ya have it.

 

[SoCurious]

Re: Genesis by Corrado Malanga (as referred to by Eve Lorgen)

Yes, this could be disinfo but by the same token, everything else could be as well, which is what makes it all so confusing.

Richard, I meant to say at the time your wrote this that such an attitude is totally illogical and amounts to an admission that you have no brainpower at all to discern truth from lies. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest this, but instead were trying to justify your position by saying, more or less, "well, who knows if anything is true or false!". The point is, you are MEANT to be able to at least assign probabilities to what is likely disinfo and what is closer to the truth of any given matter. Otherwise, what's the point in having a brain?

Perceval,

Do any of the following statements suggest to you that I've bought into the totality of Malanga's viewpoint?


"I have an idea that Prof. Malanga may need to further revise his hypothesis"

"This strongly indicates his work should be taken with a large pinch of salt"

"I'm not overly excited about Malanga right now"


Just so you know, the Cassiopaean material is the yardstick by which I judge other channelings or "knowledge". By keeping them in the forefront of my mind constantly I find it useful in seperating obvious rubbish from obvious truth. Yet I'm no expert and never claimed I was. I still have way too much to learn and would thus rather leave it up to those here who do have the knowledge and experience to judge. I thought maybe people here might find Malanga interesting. Probably you're right - I have no brainpower.

 

[Joe]

Re: Genesis by Corrado Malanga (as referred to by Eve Lorgen)

Probably you're right - I have no brainpower.

I wasn't suggesting you have no brainpower. I was just trying to point out the problem with saying that "everything could be disinfo", because that suggests we can never discern disinfo from truth, and therefore our brain power is useless.

 

[SoCurious]

the problem with saying that "everything could be disinfo", because that suggests we can never discern disinfo from truth, and therefore our brain power is useless.

I see what you're getting at. Ok - that would be a terribly sad state of affairs. From our point of view it would mean our entire existence is worthless and if that were the case we may as well take immediate steps to go 5D.

We have also been told that all is illusion, we are the products of thought, our minds are controlled and so on. Taking statements such as these into account, is there truly any objective way of knowing we're not dreaming we even have brains - or lives - or that what we would think is objective really is? This is like Descartes' "I think therefore I am" leading to circular thinking. It's a loop we could live in forever so it's better to ignore it and carry on with what we believe to be real.

To my current understanding the question remains even though the attempt to answer it is probably best left alone.

LOL! I just realized you're going to want to get your giant noggin working on it - I know I shouldn't, but I'm eagerly anticipating the result of your cogitations :)

 

[Joe]

the problem with saying that "everything could be disinfo", because that suggests we can never discern disinfo from truth, and therefore our brain power is useless.

I see what you're getting at. Ok - that would be a terribly sad state of affairs. From our point of view it would mean our entire existence is worthless and if that were the case we may as well take immediate steps to go 5D.

We have also been told that all is illusion, we are the products of thought, our minds are controlled and so on. Taking statements such as these into account, is there truly any objective way of knowing we're not dreaming we even have brains - or lives - or that what we would think is objective really is? This is like Descartes' "I think therefore I am" leading to circular thinking. It's a loop we could live in forever so it's better to ignore it and carry on with what we believe to be real.

To my current understanding the question remains even though the attempt to answer it is probably best left alone.

LOL! I just realized you're going to want to get your giant noggin working on it - I know I shouldn't, but I'm eagerly anticipating the result of your cogitations :)

We can be living in a dream world, but there are still 'dream truths' and 'dream lies' based on the observable reality as most humans are able to see it. For example, you could start with:

"snow is usually white"

"snow is usually black"

 

[EmeraldHope]

the problem with saying that "everything could be disinfo", because that suggests we can never discern disinfo from truth, and therefore our brain power is useless.

I see what you're getting at. Ok - that would be a terribly sad state of affairs. From our point of view it would mean our entire existence is worthless and if that were the case we may as well take immediate steps to go 5D.

We have also been told that all is illusion, we are the products of thought, our minds are controlled and so on. Taking statements such as these into account, is there truly any objective way of knowing we're not dreaming we even have brains - or lives - or that what we would think is objective really is? This is like Descartes' "I think therefore I am" leading to circular thinking. It's a loop we could live in forever so it's better to ignore it and carry on with what we believe to be real.

To my current understanding the question remains even though the attempt to answer it is probably best left alone.

LOL! I just realized you're going to want to get your giant noggin working on it - I know I shouldn't, but I'm eagerly anticipating the result of your cogitations :)

In a nutshell Richard, I think it really is a matter of objectivity as to whether the question remains. Also note the reference there to Descartes. :)

In general usage, objectivity is the capacity to see things as they are. The striving towards objectivity is a central precept of esoteric work, as seen by the 4th Way or QFS. We will look at the question of objectivity from various angles. Few people will directly claim that objectivity or truth are undesirable as such but many will muddle the picture in various ways.[

First, before we can speak of objectivity or lack thereof we must recognize that there exists an outside world and a meaningful separation between this world and the observer. Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' [I think therefore I am] for example states that the only knowable reality is thought and the outside world is unknowable, thus may even exist in the thinker's thought alone. This is called solipsism and is a logically possible proposition but forms a sort of philosophical dead end. The concept of objectivity has no or little place in such a system.

Others, such as many promoters of the new Age, recognize that there is a reality but claim that all in this reality are in fact one and that this reality is a shared illusion brought about by the participant's belief in this same reality. There is no objectivity, aside from shared beliefs producing a semblance of a consistent world about which it is possible to say things.

This argument is a sort of confusion of levels. We may agree that the universe is at some fundamental level a result of consciousness, at least many traditions and modern day channeled sources claim so. From this does not follow that the human level of experience would respond to human thought in any significant or obvious sense. Experience of 'conscious creation' by human thought in the sense of wish fulfillment is scarce and flaky. If man were God, thoughts might create but man isn't God, nor does he become such by suggesting to himself he already were God.

Quantum physics consistently demonstrate observer effects. The state of a system cannot be known without measurement and measurement affects the system. It is unclear whether measurement can be defined completely without involving consciousness at some stage of the process. In this sense, 'objective knowledge' of the specific pre-measurement state of a system is not possible but formulating testable statistical models of a system's behavior is possible. These are 'objective' in the measure they correspond to observation, thus a criterion of objective knowledge may be applied. Nature is not arbitrary even if it is nondeterministic from the human perspective.

In philosophy hermeneutic and phenomenological thinking have arisen as a response to naturalism. These critique the strict observer/observed dichotomy inherent in earlier thought. For example, behavioristic psychology may be criticized of 'objectivating' the experimental subject, in fact a priori denying it being a conscious entity. However, recognizing that in many situations the observational setting is not to be separated from the observation does in no way invalidate the precept of objectivity as we understand it, on the contrary it enriches it by pointing out facts about the world.

Objectivity should not be confused with reductionism. Reductionism or determinism states that given complete information of a system's state, it is possible to make arbitrarily far reaching projections of the system's state into the past and future. There are many obstacles to strict determinism, starting from quantum uncertainty, probable non-local effects, no system being absolutely closed, possible effects of consciousness and observership and so forth. Partly relating to this, Godel has demonstrated that a system cannot be its own meta-system, i.e. contain complete knowledge of itself. This suggests that attaining objective knowledge of any universe from within it is an open-ended quest.

Objectivity, in the sense understood here implies ''epistemological realism,' which is simply the proposition that reality is knowable by many observers in a compatible and contradiction free manner. This does not imply that absolute identity of experience or experiment were possible but does propose that an apprehension of the world shared between multiple observers can be approached, even while the observers cannot be entirely or demonstrably free of all bias or 'reading error.'


In a social setting, the word objectivity is sometimes used in the meaning of absence of emotion or in the sense of listening to all parties of a situation. An 'objective assessment' in such a sense could be the average of all claims made about a question. The term is not used in this sense in the present work. Firstly, we note that if objectivity is to aim at knowledge of all which is, it cannot start with the premise of a priori declaring that some part of the observed situation simply does not exist or is irrelevant. Secondly, we can note that the average of a lie and a truth would be a half-truth, thus drawing an average of views is not a reliable or indeed objective means of knowledge.
Specially as regards issues of human interactions, complete objectivity may be elusive but we can give criteria of method even if we cannot formally prove statements.

From the viewpoint of esoteric work, truth or objectivity should be one's principal goal, in other words 'knowing God.' The study of the universe cannot be entirely separated from this. However, for esoteric purposes we cannot use criteria of knowledge directly copied from natural science. The internal nature of the work requires a certain openness and good faith or at least suspension of disbelief. After this, internal verification of esoteric precepts may be possible. Because of the personal and experiential nature of many observations, making an effort at objectivity is even more important than in natural sciences where this objectivity is more readily verifiable.

Also, we cannot exclude study and work on emotions from esoteric work. Psychology seeks to attain reliable knowledge of emotions by experiments, questionnaires and statistical methods. This works to a degree on 'exterior man' but is not a directly viable approach in esoteric work. The numbers are not large and the issues relevant in each cases may be quite dissimilar, hence a mechanical 'cookie cutter' approach is problematical.

Gurdjieff stresses the attaining of objective reason and objective conscience throughout Beelzebub's Tales. We could say that objective emotion is possible, then in the sense of the emotional center conveying accurate information on the emotional state of the environment. Objective conscience is the simultaneous seeing of one's own emotional state and its response to the broader self's state and actions. In Gurdjieff's words, some impulses are proper to man having 'attained objective reason and conscience.' These are of a generally ethical character such as good will and consideration towards others, striving for self-perfection, striving for knowledge, striving to pay for one's arising and so forth.

QFS links the quest for objectivity to the duality between service to others and service to self. Pronounced subjectivity or wishful thinking are seen as hallmarks of STS. If thoughts or a general internal disposition of observers affects reality, then the QFS proposes that this happen as follows: Observation which corresponds to reality creates order in the observer/observed system. Observation which disagrees with reality reduces the amount of order and adds to the entropy of the observer/observed system. Order and entropy are opposites. Entropy corresponds to loss of information and of consciousness, order corresponds to creation. By attempting to force their own conception of reality on the universe, magicians and wishful thinkers in fact add to chaos and dissolution. Any creation compatible with the service to others polarity must start with recognition of what is and needs to take action based on this, not based on a partial reading. The type of action may be freely chosen, depending on which polarity the actor decides to be aligned with.

Objectivity ties in with the concept of free will in the sense that free will without knowledge of possibilities is ineffectual. Also, will which is misinformed cannot be said to be free because it is limited by factors which are outside itself. A near objective knowledge of self, then including knowledge of one's typical subjective bias, is a prerequisite for free will. See Free Will for discussion on the ontological possibility of such in the first place.

Note to mods- I am at home on the whacko computer so if the fonts come up small or funny, I cannot tell and it is not on purpose.

 

[Venusya]

he was not interested in creating any science or theory. he was just trying to figure out the abduction phenomenon. He was a chemist and taught at university/college. Not to mention started to work for CUN (UFO National Center). They gave him a case..the case of Robert Longhi ,a guy who was abducted by aliens. So Malanga met Robert and started his "opera". He didn't know nothing. But he was a genius and one of the most rational people on the planet. studied the body language, ancient languages​​, hypnosis techniques, the data have to CUN and everything in the world was about the UFO phenomenon and abductions, including the quantum Bohm and other things. He came to the conclusion that the universe and all that is done by archetypes. Archetypes are like bricks of the Universe, according to his theory. However, he was one of the first human beings on the planet (maybe the first, at least in Europe) to have learned to heal abductees and make them free from aliens and UFO problem. He got to go/enter in contact with the part animic of abductees, making she learn about bad aliens purpouses. Once soul understood, so no alien was able to take abducte anymore, 'coz soul had gained consciousness and was electrocuted any alien. He doscovered all humans own a active alien mind,a he named it, made by aliens and installed into all us in order to detaching our own soul and our own human mind and own spirit. Alien want divide spirit,mind and soul 'cos we,human beeings ,would be very strong and powerful, and could face aliens...so they try to divide us from our own energy/soul, in order to trap she. Soul is difficult to get in touch. Active alien mind come out first. Only 20% of the population has no soul, at least that's what souls said to Corrado: Souls taught all that "story" to Corrado. He saved the life to thousand thousands abductees. He never asked/taken not even one penny. For free. He has preferred work alone by his own.
The question is: What do you do to free your abductees in your conutries?

 

[Venusya]

Hypnosis doesn't reach the soul, only the unconscious mind, ...

not, it's wrong. Hypnosis can reach soul: there are three steps: the human mind (it's the first to entry in contact with), the active alien mind (the 2th) then tyhe soul (the last). Evidently you are not able. Just only Malanga ,here,discovered that. i hope you own experts who know about contact soul too.

 

[Venusya]

the active alien mind try and play all his own chances and axes to win you ...she does NOT want hypnotist meet soul...so alien active-mind will try to stop in any case