Who is going to love the reptilians

[Laura]

and the chiken doesn't fall far from the egg

??

Maybe you meant to say "an apple doesn't fall far from the tree?"

Funny that this is a good example of what is called a "mixed metaphor"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_metaphor#Common_types

A mixed metaphor is one that leaps from one identification to a second identification inconsistent with the first. "I smell a rat [...] but I'll nip him in the bud" — Irish politician Boyle Roche. This form is often used as a parody of metaphor itself: "If we can hit that bull's-eye then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards... Checkmate." — Futurama character Zapp Brannigan.[6]

See: http://grammar.about.com/od/qaaboutrhetoric/f/QAmixmetaphor.htm

http://www.jimcarlton.com/my_favorite_mixed_metaphors.htm

There are also: "Eggcorns"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

In linguistics, an eggcorn is an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect (sometimes called oronyms). The new phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original, but plausible in the same context, such as "old-timers' disease" for "Alzheimer's disease".[1] This is as opposed to a malapropism, where the substitution creates a nonsensical phrase. Classical malapropisms generally derive their comic effect from the fault of the user, while eggcorns are errors that exhibit creativity or logic.[2] Eggcorns often involve replacing an unfamiliar, archaic, or obscure word with a more common or modern word ("baited breath" for "bated breath").[3]

The term eggcorn was coined by a professor of linguistics, Geoffrey Pullum, in September 2003, in response to an article by Mark Liberman on the website Language Log, a blog for linguists.[4] Liberman discussed the case of a woman who substitutes the phrase egg corn for the word acorn, arguing that the precise phenomenon lacked a name; Pullum suggested using "eggcorn" itself. The phenomenon is very similar to the form of wordplay known as the pun, except that, by definition, the speaker (or writer) intends the pun to have some humorous effect on the recipient, whereas one who speaks or writes an eggcorn is unaware of the mistake.

And Malapropisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism

Spoonerisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism

Neologisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologisms

Possibly, English is not Padme's first language and there is some confusion between "which came first, the chicken or the egg" and "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree".

If Padme's first language IS English, then the situation is more problematical and could indicate some crossed wires in the brain which might explain why s/he has an issue of "who is going to love the reptilians."

 

[Buddy]

and the chiken doesn't fall far from the egg

??

Maybe you meant to say "an apple doesn't fall far from the tree?"

Well, if sparky/Padme had wrote the following instead:

The egg doesn't fall far from the nest

...I would have assumed a rephrasing of Padme's reference to "looking within." However, having inserted "chiken" as the subject and knowing that "chickens" are commonly mocked elsewhere for being hilariously stupid ground fowl, I'd conclude that we just read a signature Lulz. Maybe even from a member of the Chiken Confederation (_http://www.chikens.net/)?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding though, and Padme might help clear up the confusion? :)

 

[astrozombie]

I think Laura's talk with the C's when her friend dreamed about seeing the "insect" aliens eating body parts is also relevant here. Sorry, I'm not trying to make anyone squeamish here.

Imagery aside, that was a very revealing session and really puts us in our place as far as the food chain goes.

Yes, this is all very disgusting to us but as 4D STS, they view as food.

As 3D STS, we view 2D as food. I know we show compassion and try to be as humane as possible (some do anyway) but in the end, we eat.

 

[Scribblenauts]

but isn't it our fear that creates that reality in which they prosecute us? are we not being mislead? I'm saying that maybe it's a matter of perception?
my take is everything needs to be loved and instead of war I hope there is peace

I would say that everything needs to be known - love may follow or not, as the case may be. For example, you can know the rattlesnake that crosses your path, you can know that it may bite you, and that its bite is poisonous. Having knowledge of the snake and understanding its life, you can love it for what it is - a manifestation of the cosmic mind - in a kind of detached way, understanding that it is an aspect of one of the names of god, and that its function is to kill other creatures with its poison and eat them. But would you put yourself in harm's way?

The same goes for the 'reptilians'. We need to learn as much as we can about 'reptilian' psychology and methods of functioning, so we can remove ourselves, as far as possible, from harm's way. For the 'reptilians' most certainly do not have our best interests at heart.

Also, it's worth considering that we humans have a part of our brain that is sometimes called the 'reptilian brain'. It's the most primitive part of the brain and can be extremely cold, calculating, ruthless and lacking in empathy and conscience. Some creatures on this planet - psychopaths - look exactly like you and me, but they are, in essence, functionally reptilian.

Therefore one could say that, if our aim is to develop conscience and being, the battle against the reptilians is within and through us - against the reptilian parts of our mind - just as the Cs say.

- (love may follow or not)
Love must follow, otherwise all is in vain, I mean what is the point?, knowledge protects, so the point is protection, so until you become knowledgeable you are in danger i.e in fear (opposite of love) (we fear the unknown, but knowledge makes it known), so protection is simply the absence of fear = love, i.e to experience protection is to experience love as it really is

- (a manifestation of the cosmic mind - in a kind of detached way)
Why to detach? detachment is an illusion, so why to consider illusions?

- (its function is to kill other creatures with its poison and eat them.)
you made it sound evil.. think of it that way, snakes have no legs and no arms, how can they catch a prey and keep it still to eat it?, so comes the poison, and it must be powerful enough to tranquil the prey as quickly as possible, snakes are not danger (that's subjective) they are helpless, weak and delicate (the more delicate the creature the more danger its survival tools may seem to you)
also don't forget that the antidotes are most of the time made by the use of the the poison itself, so if some snake bites you, there will be another snake saving you.. or someone else (=paying the price), it is balanced, I mean the big picture, do you get the big picture now ?

- ('reptilians' most certainly do not have our best interests at heart.)
in 3D thinking.. yes, but it is still 3D, those words are like coming from a state of fear, and I said knowledge protects and protection is love, I think you still need more knowledge then

- (psychopaths look exactly like you and me, but they are, in essence, functionally reptilian. )
True, they're kind of the 3D reflection of 4D reptilian, their actions and behavior here in 3D mirrors the actions and behavior of reptilians and their interactions on 4D, but that also means there will be other humans who are a 3D reflection of 4D entities other than reptilians, they will look exactly like you and me, but they are, in essence, functionally 4D entities of another sort, it's just because they are not getting the attention psychopaths do

- (the battle against the reptilians is "within and through us" - against the reptilian parts of our mind - just as the Cs say.)
Indeed I agree, we are literally like a sandbox.. a playground.. a virtual reality.. an arena where 4D entities can engage each other in battles, and being conscious and aware of the fact helps you become an active participant / player in those battles, you will start to see, behave, act and react according to your new understandings, and this I think to some extent leads to being.

 

[Scribblenauts]

I think part of the problem is the definition of the word "love". For the STO side, love means to reverence the god within the other and celebrate creative diversity. For STS, love means to assimilate and reduce all to singleness.

So, when one of the STO orientation "loves" one of the STS orientation, or vice versa, obviously, there are going to be issues.

See: Stalking or Precis on The Good and The Evil
http://cassiopaea.org/2010/09/14/michael-topper-on-stalking/

- (part of the problem is the definition of the word "love")
indeed, love as it really is.. is not just a word or an emotion, it's not just acceptance or tolerance, it's a valid firm expression on all levels emotionally, mentally, physically, metaphysically... etc to experience love as it really is is to experience it with your whole being on all levels, you will find it everywhere that there will be nothing else other than love itself, it will become like the Source, and it really is, and to understand the Source you have to think like the Source :D

 

[Scribblenauts]

and the chiken doesn't fall far from the egg

Yes this one is really confusing
Do you mean the egg like in my signature ?!

 

[Renaissance]

- (part of the problem is the definition of the word "love")
indeed, love as it really is.. is not just a word or an emotion, it's not just acceptance or tolerance, it's a valid firm expression on all levels emotionally, mentally, physically, metaphysically... etc to experience love as it really is is to experience it with your whole being on all levels, you will find it everywhere that there will be nothing else other than love itself, it will become like the Source, and it really is, and to understand the Source you have to think like the Source :D

I think our limited understanding of these things combined with the distortions of 'heart-centered' approaches makes for quite a sticky wicket. Interesting how the topic of love can get so muddy! Regarding the distortions (or polarity) of definitions, there's a good video called Love, Reality and the Time of Transition that is worth checking out. There's also a transcript of the video here.

 

[Scribblenauts]

I think our limited understanding of these things combined with the distortions of 'heart-centered' approaches makes for quite a sticky wicket. Interesting how the topic of love can get so muddy! Regarding the distortions (or polarity) of definitions, there's a good video called Love, Reality and the Time of Transition that is worth checking out. There's also a transcript of the video here.

- (distortions)
Yes it's "distortions", thank you very much, look at this for example.. they say God is love, and they say it a way that makes people immediately consider God to be an emotion !!, while the true meaning of that statement is (first drop all the definitions you know) : love is God, I mean the true definition of love is simply the definition of God, now what is the definition of God?, or rather what is God?, now if you know God then you know love, I mean love as it really is

Now some people may say God is the source, God is everything, God is just, God is good... etc, OK then the truth is God is all of this, all of it, simply God is infinite, love is infinite

Another misunderstood statement is : everything came from God and to God everything shall return
the true meaning of this statement is this : shall return = to become God again, and came from God = was God, so God was.. then He became everything = all that is.. then He will return / be again
so to return to God is to literally become God (i.e become all that is), knowing that He is the One.. the real deal.. there is nothing else, you were God (were, are and will be simply because there is no one else), you just have to realize what happened that caused separation and made you forget your truth?, call it then enlightenment, dissolving the Ego, spiritual evolution.. or whatever, the important thing is.. you work on your return or you will remain separated.. detached or whatever you call it

Now to know love is to know God, and to be love is to be God, i.e to think, to do, to react.. etc as God, Ibn Arabi calls such a person "the perfect human", and in the light of what he said about the Names, the perfect human is the one able to achieve the balance i.e to put the opposition of all the Names to an end, to express them = allow them to exist in perfect harmony, i.e when it's required for him to be loving, he is loving, and when it's required for him to be angry, he is angry, strong, sad, funny.. etc, i.e "he is capable of aligning himself perfectly with the right name at the right moment no matters what = without any bias or personal input", this way he becomes a reflection of the divine a perfect mirror for love
so to be love is : to give each and every thing what is meant for it.. i.e to put everything in its right place, I hope you get the idea by now

The definition of the heart is also distorted so that it suits the distorted definition of love of course

now in terms of what I said about fear vs love, and love as God, the fall.. etc, consider the following
(If the mind realizes 'I am no one' then fear will come - but if the heart knows 'I am no one' fear is gone ~ Mooji)
(GOD is the One who initiates the creation and repeats it. Ultimately, you will be returned to Him. Quran 30:11)

- and the video is great, a real piece of art, thank you very much, I went quickly through it for now it amazed me and it almost has and says everything, I'll watch it and take notes, but first I want to ask about cataclysm, are we pro cataclysm or anti cataclysm here? did it already happen or is it yet to happen? I mean are we already suffering its aftermath, or nothing happened yet ?

 

[Eongar]

On the issue of the cataclysms, I recommend reading Sott.net and Laura's book "Comets and Horns of Moses" (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30678.0.html ) and also to look in the forum section Earth Changes and Environmental Issues.

 

[astrozombie]

On the issue of the cataclysms, I recommend reading Sott.net and Laura's book "Comets and Horns of Moses" (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30678.0.html ) and also to look in the forum section Earth Changes and Environmental Issues.

I keep seeing that book recommended. I'm almost done with the wave series and I really want to read ISOTM next. Is this advisable or is there a suggested order to read the material?

 

[Iron]

On the issue of the cataclysms, I recommend reading Sott.net and Laura's book "Comets and Horns of Moses" (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30678.0.html ) and also to look in the forum section Earth Changes and Environmental Issues.

I keep seeing that book recommended. I'm almost done with the wave series and I really want to read ISOTM next. Is this advisable or is there a suggested order to read the material?

ISOTM is a good primer for entering the works of Gurdjieff, so it is not directly related to Comets and the Horns of Moses, as far I can tell (have not read Comets yet).
In a case like that, I would follow my curiosity. :)

 

[lloyd]

, I would follow my curiosity. :)

Me too, read what you are interested in, after all its all about knowledge. Each has its own flavour

 

[Scribblenauts]

On the issue of the cataclysms, I recommend reading Sott.net and Laura's book "Comets and Horns of Moses" (http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30678.0.html ) and also to look in the forum section Earth Changes and Environmental Issues.

OK, I'll try to keep up as possible, and Comets and Horns of Moses definitely got my attention since came out, but I'm still with Secret history, High Strangeness, also started with The Wave .. I mean I just don't want to crack here

 

[Sol Logos]

Now some people may say God is the source, God is everything, God is just, God is good... etc, OK then the truth is God is all of this, all of it, simply God is infinite, love is infinite

Another misunderstood statement is : everything came from God and to God everything shall return
the true meaning of this statement is this : shall return = to become God again, and came from God = was God, so God was.. then He became everything = all that is.. then He will return / be again
so to return to God is to literally become God (i.e become all that is), knowing that He is the One.. the real deal.. there is nothing else, you were God (were, are and will be simply because there is no one else), you just have to realize what happened that caused separation and made you forget your truth?, call it then enlightenment, dissolving the Ego, spiritual evolution.. or whatever, the important thing is.. you work on your return or you will remain separated.. detached or whatever you call it

I wonder if its possible to become God in the way you've said. If God always views everything from complete objectivity, God couldn't be fragmented in parts at any point in time, otherwise objectivity would have to be compromised. From where we stand, I believe, we can't know and sense the whole universe and all it contains from every possible infinite angle. I assume that is what God's perspective would be.

I can see however that we can grow towards becoming more and more objective through learning and personal work, and so closer and closer to God's perspective. However, if God is infinite as you say (and that makes sense), that process would in the same way be ongoing in an infinite way as well.

Thought, its always going to be difficult talking in infinites, and in some ways I feel its going to involve speculation when we do, but anyway that's just my subjective take on it ;)

 

[Scribblenauts]

I wonder if its possible to become God in the way you've said. If God always views everything from complete objectivity, God couldn't be fragmented in parts at any point in time, otherwise objectivity would have to be compromised. From where we stand, I believe, we can't know and sense the whole universe and all it contains from every possible infinite angle. I assume that is what God's perspective would be.

I can see however that we can grow towards becoming more and more objective through learning and personal work, and so closer and closer to God's perspective. However, if God is infinite as you say (and that makes sense), that process would in the same way be ongoing in an infinite way as well.

Thought, its always going to be difficult talking in infinites, and in some ways I feel its going to involve speculation when we do, but anyway that's just my subjective take on it ;)

(...God couldn't be fragmented in parts at any point in time...)
true, He wasn't, He isn't, and He never will be fragmented, it can't be and that is the point "there is no fragments", in truth there is nothing so that it can be fragmented in the first place
for example try to imagine a planet, then populate it, then set it in motion, are you fragmented now?, or rather have you been fragmented at any of these stages?, I guess a more better question will be : are you really the one who did all of this?, btw what happened to the planet when you stopped thinking about it ?, was it freezed or destroyed ?, where does it even go when you think about something else ?
anyway you are still a whole (or should we call an ambulance? :D) , yet somehow fragments were produced, now consider terms like "sacrifice", "consciousness reading units", "focus points"..etc

(...we can't know and sense the whole universe and all it contains from every possible infinite angle...)
we can't, and we don't even have to, you just said it (I assume that is what "God's" perspective would be), so as long as we still considering "we", we remain under "our" prospective

(...that process would in the same way be ongoing in an infinite way as well..)
yes.. I think.. as long as there is "God's perspective" and "our prospective" which always considered to be far from each other (and this is the truth) and you even used the word "closer and closer" to help them reach each other

Oh this may help : (I said "to literally become God" and not "to turn yourself into God".. that's not going to happen or will require infinity maybe as you said, anyway there is a very big difference, we need to work on ourselves (I mean by that the fragments), not to turn ourselves into Gods, but to gain control over ourselves for a certain purpose, think about this for a while)

(...difficult talking in infinites... involve speculation... subjective take)
of course.. when still considering the finite, and you clarified a lot of things, so yes that was subjective indeed ;)