PDA

View Full Version : Sim Theory - We May Actually Be In The Matrix (2016)



The One
28th March 2016, 13:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfHitaYNZas

Published on Mar 27, 2016
An excellent documentary explaining how Simulation Theory is starting to be taken a lot more seriously at the highest levels of theoretical physics.

pointessa
28th March 2016, 15:55
I watched this video and I think it really does a good job of providing a overview of simulation theory. I feel absolutely sure that we are living in a very high grad interactive simulation.

johnjen325
29th March 2016, 02:23
My 2¢.
This simulation is the s/w and the h/w is comprised of the means for the energetic down shift from frequency to spin (mass), but done so in and as a densification of the supra luminal energetic potential (ɸ-4 field, aka zero point, and pure potential energy, among other descriptors), which is 'influenced' by many other energetic forms of resonant harmonics, such as are formed in and by the fields of our heart and mind and body etc.

This natural function of all of these various energies, to interact with each other, is or has, a 'primary' command and control set of 'inputs' so to speak.

We have access to this level of 'influence', as does any self aware or I AM awareness, because that is the way in which consciousness can come to know itself, to create, using itself as both creator and creation.

IOW we are or can be viewed as a lens, or magnetic 'bubble', or more comprehensively as a toroid, which can perform as both the lens and bubble and so much more.
Which is the interface needed in order to interact with this down shifting into densification of the potential energy that exists everywhere.
This pure potential energy 'reserve', in one way could be thought of as the 'body' of existence.
Which can also be described as the body of source, or Dog, or The One, or other terms used to describe that which is greater then the mere sum of the parts.

But, there is the simulation frame rate to factor in as well.

As Tom Campbell has suggested, and others have presented variations of this theme, namely that our reality 'blinks' on and off at an incredibly fast rate.

This 'rep rate' addresses all kinds of paradoxes such as, the motion is impossible argument.
Specifically before you can reach a destination you 1st have to go 1/2 of the way, but before you can go 1/2 of the way you first have to reach 1/2 of that distance…
And so on.

But in a simulation, with a rep rate, in one clock cycle you were here, then in the next clock cycle you were there, and so on.

But what happens in between?
That's one of the intriguing aspects, because both 'nothing happens' and all potential is realized ('everything happens') both, at the same 'time'.
And it is this 'in between' where ALL of the consciousness and energetic (harmonic) influences (and more) are focused and brought to bare for the next clock cycle.

Of course it's WAY more complex and simple all at the same time and my description is 'off' (will be refined) as new insights and understandings are brought back into our awareness (aka remembered).

But in the middle of all of this, we ourselves are morphing into a more sophisticated toroidal energetic interactive 'node', with greater interactive potential as well.
This is part of the, 'never done before' part of all that is happening in these nows.

So the 'playing field' is a simulation/hologram which has consciousness as, it's 'control function', and as observer, and as experiencer, and that which is experienced.
All at the very same 'time'.

And we, it would seem are, at least from one perspective, in the center of enormous shifts in 'the way of things', which are so fundamental and transformative that our ability to interact with these fields and energy shifts will become 2nd nature for us.

At least that's what it looks like from here… :eyebrows:

JJ

The One
29th March 2016, 10:41
Click on picture for it to play its only a clip

1194970747181149/

Aianawa
29th March 2016, 11:10
I look forward to watching these, ta.

scibuster
29th March 2016, 13:56
The five forms of science:

1.) Youtube science. <---- you are here
2.) Houswife science (with a nap esoteric)
3.) elementary school science
4.) High School science.
5.) A Master Degree Science.



yeah the jehova witnesses are living in the jehova witness simulated matrix downfall awaiting for Armageddon.

https://www.jw.org/de/

This is my conclusion after having approcs. talked
to 2 JW for 15 hours in three sessions
including coffee tea pause with goodies
in my sitting room.

Dreamtimer
29th March 2016, 15:58
What? No PhD?

Don't know what housewife science is. Kitchen science is pretty cool and can be quite yummy.

I never had the 2 hour convo with the JW. I did have some LDS missionaries come to my house to deliver the Book of Mormon - en francais. That was quite the experience.

I think I might go take an esoteric nap...:scrhd::eyebrows::confused::hmm:

scibuster
29th March 2016, 16:36
What? No PhD?

Don't know what housewife science is. Kitchen science is pretty cool and can be quite yummy.

I never had the 2 hour convo with the JW. I did have some LDS missionaries come to my house to deliver the Book of Mormon - en francais. That was quite the experience.

I think I might go take an esoteric nap...:scrhd::eyebrows::confused::hmm:


example of an esoteric sip:

http://spiritualawakeningradio.com/Charts_of_the_Heavens.html

seeing the matrix after 30 000 hours of meditation and rubbing the pineal gland.

citsym
30th March 2016, 13:47
I just can't get my mind around this.
If we are living in a Simulation (and I don't doubt we could be) I would guess that we are part of a conscious entity which has split and sent down a smaller portion of consciousness into a sim/body. At the same time we the smaller part have had our memory suppressed so we don't remember anything. Interestingly we have deep seated memory, or do we? Are we programmed as the Sim from conception to believe a life history that fits with a "purpose" in life?

As a consciousness we are able to act independently, but we are also guided, why I don't know. Maybe to keep the experience going in a certain direction. ( e.g. stop us from blowing up the experiment)

As a consciousness, our thoughts create within the Simulation.

Then where do Extra terrestrials fit in. Do we "create" them?
How do they get in the Simulation. Surely they must come from the server... ?? Are the malevolent ones the Mr Smith from Matrix?

As I said, I just can't figure how it all fits together. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Jengelen
30th March 2016, 15:30
Great find thanks for sharing!

Divine Feminine
31st March 2016, 02:32
I thought the video was a simplified presentation of a complicated topic. Like citsym I had trouble wrapping my head around some of it. After exploring my own reincarnation cases I'm more inclined to believe we are living in a simulation. Let me see if I can explain why I feel this way, using some of the content of the video. I've come across three points that have influenced my stance.
1. Why is the number 3 and number 7 following me around from one incarnation to the next in ways I have no control over, as if by design?
2. How is it that my name is the same as it was 474 years ago as it is for several others who were with me back then? How can all these mothers and fathers 'know' to give everyone the same name at birth? How does one explain this coincidence? How is it dates are marching to the appropriate individuals? Why does it feel like it's by design?
3. How is it possible that one time period can appear to parallel another if we weren't living in a simulation?

Remember this remark from the video? Could this have something to do with it?
Identical Parts
"Every digital symbol created by the same program is identical to every other in the same class. In computing terms objects are simply instances of a general class. The fact that all quantum objects are identical in each class, photon, electron, etc.. correlates to a digital equivalent since in a virtual world every digital object created by the same code is identical. While the objects we see in our world have individual properties, the quantum bits they are built from are all pressed from identical molds. The simulation hypothesis suggests this is the case because each bit is created by the same program."

And it would have to be this way so we all see an object in the same manner, right? Or how could we possibly communicate? The above fact stood out to me as a possible explanation for what I've been uncovering, which could explain why nothing is a coincidence. When you study reincarnation, past life regression and NDE's it becomes more clear that you are living within an illusion here on Earth to learn and grow and it's really the spirit world which is what's real.

There is also an energetic component involved and I'm not sure if I can explain well enough just yet.....The simulation is needed for things to flow...the more I understand, the more brilliant it becomes, but I know I'm missing pieces that would help solidify the understanding. If I'm inaccurate in my correlation please share why, or offer a better explanation, I'm all ears. The above seemed like a plausible possibility to explain my 'discoveries'...Or maybe 'patterns' is a better word as if you are comparing 'digital objects created by the same codes' it could reinforce the identification of patterns?

Dreamtimer
31st March 2016, 12:16
I liked this video the best out of what I've watched/listened to about this idea.

Here's a question: If we can affect outcomes simply with intention and observation, what's happening when people are doing things coupled with prayer and ritual? It seems that these are ways to enhance the amount of effect we have on 'reality'.

So what do the prayers and dances at CERN do? (just as an example)

Joanna
31st March 2016, 12:52
If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.

When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).

The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.

Joanna
31st March 2016, 13:08
I liked this video the best out of what I've watched/listened to about this idea.

Here's a question: If we can affect outcomes simply with intention and observation, what's happening when people are doing things coupled with prayer and ritual? It seems that these are ways to enhance the amount of effect we have on 'reality'.

So what do the prayers and dances at CERN do? (just as an example)

Dreamtimer, I would ask this question, if we take on board the premise that our ideation affects, or indeed creates, our perceived and sensorily experienced reality:

What has greater coherence (greater capacity to affect form-ations) in the energetic field - that which pulls away from it, or that which flows with it?

If the will alone of the non-coherent, focused into rituals and prayers, was all that was needed to create a rift/black hole/leak gravity from another universe or whatever it is they're trying to do at CERN, it would have happened by now....

Dreamtimer
31st March 2016, 13:22
Joanna, thanks for your reply. I like how simply and elegantly you put it, "..that which flows with it?" This of course, has the greater coherence.

Going with the flow is such a powerful thing. I've experienced personally how well this works. I'm not where I am because I struggled to control and change things. I'm here because I tried to make the best out of what was happening. Things have worked out way better than would have been expected or predicted.

Your reply is also comforting. I don't have a lot of fear around these things. People are playing with fire, true. If they're going against the flow then they have to work extra hard to try to do what they want and they'll fail much of the time anyway.

How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?

:pc:

Joanna
31st March 2016, 13:56
How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?

:pc:

Haha, that's a deep one, will sleep on it. :)

From the Rig Veda: "The wise behold with their mind in their heart the Sun, made manifest by the maya of the Asura..."

...'behold with their mind in their heart'....oh I like that...

citsym
31st March 2016, 14:25
The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.

Thank you Joanna.
Really great post. Thanks heaps.

lcam88
31st March 2016, 16:24
If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.



Joanna, thanks for the most excellent explanation. It is worth quoting this again!

What is really interesting to consider, much like how a human embryo can be said to undergo the whole genetic mutation a species has undergone during its evolutionary process during its development during gestation, is how the changes in the meaning or understanding of the term demonstrates the real world obstacles individuals face when mastering the subject.

I underline a part that most certainly is found in our day to day life.


When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).

A change in form that could remain in absolute truth of Spirit requires a 100% impedance match. Perfectionism in form and mind. That is a clue about the nature of the obstacle alluded to above.

Aianawa
31st March 2016, 23:23
If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.

When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).

The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.

Love your explanation, have you read any of Jose Arguelles material ?, similar to it.

Joanna
1st April 2016, 10:41
Going with the flow is such a powerful thing. I've experienced personally how well this works. I'm not where I am because I struggled to control and change things. I'm here because I tried to make the best out of what was happening. Things have worked out way better than would have been expected or predicted.

How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?

:pc:

"I'm not where I am because I struggled to control and change things. I'm here because I tried to make the best out of what was happening. Things have worked out way better than would have been expected or predicted."

Dreamtimer, that is beautiful life wisdom.

"How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?"

Firstly, the possibility for a program to perceive its programmer would depend on whether the programmer desires to be perceived, and how the programmer desires to be perceived. Not to mention where, when and why.
The programmer might decide, for instance, that when its programs reach a certain operational stage, they will be able to perceive the computer and its working....to apprehend the programmer's creative 'touch' in its design, in its recurring, ubiquitous ratios, sequences, patterns...and for the programs to 'discover' all of those patterns within themselves, at which point the program might perceive itself as a synchronous fractal within an infinitely recurring 'family of programs' inside a greater whole.
If this was all the programmer desired, for the programs to be aware of the computer, and how they 'act' within it, then the programs could wander around eternally, admiring the ubiquity. But a program that has perceived the computer and its own relationship to the computer (as a program) will comprehend the implied presence of the programmer (unless code has been added into the program that deletes this awareness). When the idea or illusion of the program as primary reality is seen through, like an exposed magic trick, and the implication of 'a programmer' is absorbed, then we come back to the intention of the programmer, as to how, and in what way, it can be perceived.
Secondly, if the programmer has designed the programs to interact with it more wholistically (rather than say, as an observer watching a stage play it has designed), then the codes of this 'creation program' might be an extension of its own 'primary reality' in a way that the primary reality is continuously, perhaps holographically present (or housed) within every program, no matter how deeply a program has identified itself with the props, set design, lighting, lines, as an actor, a dancer, a muppet (in deference to our current communal avatar, Big Blue Bird)....yet always has the potential in its code to re-focus back along the line of extension from the programmer, as it is itself carrying the code, whether activated or latent, of the programmer's primary reality....

Joanna
1st April 2016, 10:46
Thank you Joanna.
Really great post. Thanks heaps.

:h5:

Joanna
1st April 2016, 11:30
A change in form that could remain in absolute truth of Spirit requires a 100% impedance match. Perfectionism in form and mind. That is a clue about the nature of the obstacle alluded to above.

Indeed it is. Or, is the obstacle only there because we perceive it to be so, in this simulation model?

lcam88
1st April 2016, 12:13
Or, is the obstacle only there because we perceive it to be so, in this simulation model?

Yes! That is a very interesting point.

We interfere with our personal moments of maya by introducing "impurities" which are deviations from the required perfection. To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself.

Like the word "hologram", "simulation" is a term easily misunderstood, especially when associated with the term model, by some people.

I make mention of that only since we happen to on the topic of perceiving imperfections. To allude to artificiality of some kind is the same as an allusion to lack of "spiritual truth", as you mentioned priorly to mean a separation from truth, or declension. And yes, the understanding of artificiality one may have of the terms is a perspective (of understanding) of the individual, and not necessarily a truth in itself.

Joanna
1st April 2016, 12:29
Love your explanation, have you read any of Jose Arguelles material ?, similar to it.

Aianawa, I hadn't heard of him until you spoke of him on a thread at TOT...and then read a bit about him, but no, haven't read his work.

At the time Arguelles was organizing the Harmonic Convergence (1987), I was weaving tapestries, studying medieval manuscripts, and reading a lot of post-structuralism (the critical theory underpinning Postmodernism). The post-structuralists (and deconstructivists) were also into interpreting life as a simulation (Jean Baudrillard's Simulacrum etc)...but rather than the video in the OP of this thread, which puts forward a simulation hypothesis of life based in principles of an inherent order observable by its effects, the post-structuralist view was rooted in materialism ie; that order arises randomly/accidentally out of chaos, and has no inherent meaning. Therefore, life has no meaning other than that which we ascribe to it, and there is no essential significance in any aspect of life, because it's all an illusion made up of a mass of 'floating signifiers' that we ascribe worth to individually and according to random life events/nurture etc.
In other words, as regards the idea of life/lived reality as a simulation, this is the view at the other end of the philosophical spectrum from Plato's concept of an immutable Realm of Ideals which exist as eternal templates from which all that is materially perceivable is a reflection....

Joanna
1st April 2016, 12:45
Yes! That is a very interesting point.

We interfere with our personal moments of maya by introducing "impurities" which are deviations from the required perfection. To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself.

Like the word "hologram", "simulation" is a term easily misunderstood, especially when associated with the term model, by some people.

I make mention of that only since we happen to on the topic of perceiving imperfections. To allude to artificiality of some kind is the same as an allusion to lack of "spiritual truth", as you mentioned priorly to mean a separation from truth, or declension. And yes, the understanding of artificiality one may have of the terms is a perspective (of understanding) of the individual, and not necessarily a truth in itself.

Good point, and yes, it is all about perspective and interpretation....

"To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself." Right, and if that is so, then the wisdom of seeing through the eyes of love becomes clear...

lcam88
1st April 2016, 19:18
"To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself." Right, and if that is so, then the wisdom of seeing through the eyes of love becomes clear...

Perfectly crystal clear.

"Seeing through the eyes of love" is a perfect way to express maya as per the oldest texts meaning "a power or attribute of the gods". The 100% match.

pointessa
3rd April 2016, 13:20
If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.

When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).

The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.



This is a most magnificent post!! Thank you, Joanna. You are a wise and articulate woman.

Joanna
3rd April 2016, 14:29
Perfectly crystal clear.

"Seeing through the eyes of love" is a perfect way to express maya as per the oldest texts meaning "a power or attribute of the gods". The 100% match.

"Bingo!" (to quote a program from The Matrix, lol)

Joanna
3rd April 2016, 14:38
This is a most magnificent post!! Thank you, Joanna. You are a wise and articulate woman.

Thanks, pointessa. A work in progress, I'd say....& that is the fun of it!

lcam88
4th April 2016, 14:45
"Bingo!" (to quote a program from The Matrix, lol)

To then suppose we exist in a Matrix, a holographic construct, especially while the movie "The Matrix" is in context, suggests that an artificiality or superficiality is present. Would you care to elaborate or comment on that?

To preface one type of "superficiality" notable in the construct: GMO's are food like substances; it is a perfectly valid to suggest that GMO foods are misaligned energetically. Is it a valid analogy to suppose that such a misalignment is a larger deviation from truth than "earth normal"?

lift the veil
5th April 2016, 19:30
http://www.amnh.org/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/amnh/images/home-page/asimov_16_homepageslide.jpg/2219984-1-eng-US/asimov_16_homepageslide.jpg_homepage_slide.jpg

Link to livestream of debate http://www.amnh.org/2016-asimov-debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/universe-simulation-live-debate_us_5703d091e4b0a06d5806e344

Our universe certainly seems real, but in recent years, a growing number of scientists have begun to wonder if it’s all just a sophisticated simulation. Are we and everything around us nothing more than points of data in some sort of cosmic hologram?

A group of celebrated scientists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, will sit down on Tuesday for a serious discussion of what may sound more like a sci-fi movie plot than reality.

The event at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History starts at 7 p.m. Eastern time. You can watch it live in the video above.

Tyson will be joined by Lisa Randall, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University; Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; David Chalmers, a professor of philosophy at New York University; Zohreh Davoudi, a theoretical physicist at MIT; and James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland.

The event is part of the museum’s Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate series, which is held each year to commemorate the life of the iconic science fiction author.

It promises to be a lively discussion — or maybe it will just seem that way

Joanna
6th April 2016, 10:20
To then suppose we exist in a Matrix, a holographic construct, especially while the movie "The Matrix" is in context, suggests that an artificiality or superficiality is present. Would you care to elaborate or comment on that?

To preface one type of "superficiality" notable in the construct: GMO's are food like substances; it is a perfectly valid to suggest that GMO foods are misaligned energetically. Is it a valid analogy to suppose that such a misalignment is a larger deviation from truth than "earth normal"?

Well, that would depend on what your prime sense/perception of value is within the construct. If your value is Life, integrity of life - the integrity and inherent worth of the energy itself that is changing its form representations within the simulation (which could indeed be vastly multi-layered), valuing that energy within your form and all form appearances - then you would be inclined to prefer and be drawn toward that which supports the integrity of life, no matter what its 'form appearances'....rather than that which depletes or damages it, such as GM mono-crops that are limiting biodiversity, or preferring a natural nutritious sweetener like stevia rather than a synthetic sweetener like aspartame, that is potentially carcinogenic, among other things....

TimeSensitive
6th April 2016, 10:50
Is there a repeat of this somewhere? I didn't get to see it last night.

lcam88
6th April 2016, 14:30
Well, that would depend on what your prime sense/perception of value is within the construct. If your value is Life, integrity of life - the integrity and inherent worth of the energy itself that is changing its form representations within the simulation (which could indeed be vastly multi-layered), valuing that energy within your form and all form appearances - then you would be inclined to prefer and be drawn toward that which supports the integrity of life, no matter what its 'form appearances'....rather than that which depletes or damages it, such as GM mono-crops that are limiting biodiversity, or preferring a natural nutritious sweetener like stevia rather than a synthetic sweetener like aspartame, that is potentially carcinogenic, among other things....

Yes Joanna, however it is important to remember that life is more than survival. It is not good enough to live in a cage, we want freedom, we want diversity and joy and sadness and bliss and everything there is to experience.

Maybe it is about growth, all living things growing, right? About prospering? Perhaps fundamentally even about existing forever in as many forms as possible?

And as things fall into an ever more stable equilibrium, they become more and more aligned with a "truth" that is their persistent symbiotic/interdependent co-existence. Is there really a different sense/perception of value within any construct that is worth considering?

GMO's are like a mortal construct of life that are misaligned with the other forms. It kills insects that ordinarily may feed on them, or the modification kills its descendants, or in some other way it disrupts, blocks or deviates from the "prime sense/perception" of value I have elaborated above.

Can that fit within the definition you gave earlier for a later understanding of maya, a separation from truth? And if so, are there other such deviations worth mentioning?

Dreamtimer
6th April 2016, 15:57
Bob, looks like if you go the the Huff Post link it plays like a video. (I just started it) It's just a bit over two hours. Go to the 7min. mark.

lcam88
6th April 2016, 18:18
I think the following video shares another such great example, given by the guest, of a separation from truth in our society, specifically in the media.

Pardon me if I'm off topic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&nohtml5=False

Dreamtimer
6th April 2016, 18:48
So long ago... I don't think they really got John's genuine appeal, though the audience does. John's about America, not himself. The media was his foil and he was a comedian and satirist.

(I'd rather not have had to watch Tucker again...:fpalm: ) :)

To remain on topic I'll just say that the real intelligence at the table was John's and the rest was a poor simulation. (imo)

(They actually cut him off as soon as he said he wasn't there to be a comedian. The T man just kept interrupting.)

lcam88
6th April 2016, 19:47
To remain on topic I'll just say that the real intelligence at the table was John's and the rest was a poor simulation.

Yes exactly. Also, Jon's direct and absolute honesty vs the hosts' who where very deceptive/evasive.

No doubt that the media in general, misrepresenting issues in their attempts to manipulate their audience, is an equivalent form of dishonesty, especially when it isn't obvious and the audience accepts the signal.

GMO's being dishonest to the purpose of nutrition/life is as the media [manipulations] are dishonest to their audience, both of which are "lower" than "earth normal" levels of honesty to life in general. [Where honesty and dishonesty refers to the level of separation from truth that Joanna mapped to a term => maya.]

This understanding then begs the question of why it is important to now rename our realm/reality/life as being "in the matrix" especially in context of the matrix being a prison for survivors on the losing side of a war as elaborated in a movie?

Thanks for the honest comment and elaboration Dreamtimer. <sigh of relief/> I am genuinely afraid I am still at risk of being unintelligible or at least un-understood.

Joanna
13th April 2016, 07:18
Yes Joanna, however it is important to remember that life is more than survival. It is not good enough to live in a cage, we want freedom, we want diversity and joy and sadness and bliss and everything there is to experience.

Maybe it is about growth, all living things growing, right? About prospering? Perhaps fundamentally even about existing forever in as many forms as possible?


lcam, I totally agree. Life is really about thriving, not just surviving in a cage. Life as survival (survival of the fittest/competition/eat or be eaten) is an engineered condition, imo...for if you hold the premise that Life is infinite - that the energy within it just changes form but is itself eternal - then life is about unlimited, irrepressible, abundant, vitalized growth, expansion, in all 'levels' or layers of the simulation, in all circumstances.
The tiny everyday miracle of a flower blooming from a crack between concrete slabs with hardly a drop of rain in its life shows us how Life is designed to thrive, even under the condition of survival.

And as things fall into an ever more stable equilibrium, they become more and more aligned with a "truth" that is their persistent symbiotic/interdependent co-existence. Is there really a different sense/perception of value within any construct that is worth considering?

There is, to those who value control and power. They don't want stable equilibrium, let alone harmony, which tends to raise reverence for the interdependent, interweaving co-existence. They want controlled chaos ie; perpetuating fear of annihilation, conflict, danger, so as to justify control - and have it acquiesced to.

Can that fit within the definition you gave earlier for a later understanding of maya, a separation from truth? And if so, are there other such deviations worth mentioning?

Actually, yes. There are other ancient concepts/perceptions that like 'maya', darkened over time.
One of them is the concept of a 'Demiurge'.
The Demiurge as the craftsman of living forms is intrinsically connected with Plato's Realm of perfect Ideas behind the 'simulation' of changing forms (as put forth in the OP vid). Plato first described the Demiurge in Timaeus as the craftsman of the universe ie; the active creative principle shaping energy as based on the forms or templates of the Realm of Ideas....and thus perceived as a benevolent, positive universal Creator.
But later on, the Gnostics took a completely different view of the Demiurge as the ultimate evil, a malevolent being - because they viewed through dualism, opposing the material and non-material realms - with the non-material being 'good' and the material creation level, as 'evil', and as such, to be escaped from by certain practices and beliefs, into the goodness of the non-material realm....
Much like the twist of maya, isn't it?
Another such shift was that in the ancient Indo-Iranian perception of the multiple gods/angels/creator beings. In ancient Persian Zoroastrianism, the Ahura were seen as benevolent, loving beings, while the Divs were those who should not be heeded, as they would lead humans false. In India, in those early times of maya perceived as a magical creative power of the gods, the Sanskrit word for Ahura, which is Asura, were seen as high benevolent creators who brought the formless light of Parama Purusa into forms, and the devas (divs) were mischievous, sometimes malign beings to be avoided. Yet, congruent with the shift of the meaning of maya, into the entrapment of the realm of material illusions, the Asuras also shifted in meaning to be seen as demons, and the Devas became seen as the 'good gods'. A complete reversal...

All of these shifts and reversals of perception in the ancient world (and the energies behind these shifts) have been instrumental in cementing the type of dualistic perspective and experience that seeks to maintain its dominance now - only the forms and terms have changed over time....

lcam88
13th April 2016, 16:57
Joanna:

Very interesting posting. It brings to my mind:

What I'm understanding is metaphorically a "fall from innocence". In may ways the examples you give follow a similar pattern. Perhaps the pattern can be found in a love relationship between a man and woman.

When they first meet and fall in love with each other they establish a beginning a moment of perfection where the glimmer in their eyes only sees those golden rays reflected from the face of the other. They certainly try to live that moment for as long as they can but eventually someone leaves the toothpaste tube open, or squeezes it in the middle. A moment where a fall from innocence occurs that tarnishes the golden, demanding a fix. The passage of time and the tit for tat cause and effect from subsequent investments in energy to maintain the golden surely follows.

As years go by and the glimmer of gold has all but faded into memory they may look upon each other as familiar company, family and would have to find from within that which sustains their continuing love and when they pause to remember, the gold can still be seen.

That perhaps is a best case scenario where two people grow old together.

Perhaps a separation of truth happens when the golden is first tarnished upon discovery of the tooth paste tube. Perhaps that is just the inevitable. And perhaps...

Another level of separation of truth, that is of a completely different nature from the discovery of each other as above, is when one deceives the other from the beginning. It can be argued that beauty (golden rays metaphor) is always an illusion, and so perhaps, that forcing oneself to behave or coexist in a way that requires constant attention to maintain the illusion is an example of such deception.

For example, lets suppose that a man present himself as wealthier than he really is. From that point onwards the effort demanded by the ordinary passage of time as I elaborated above is divided with the requirement that he continues to maintain his initial deception of wealth.

His personal energies are divided. The nature of separation of truth creates a type of "impedance" to the full flow of his energies as a result of a mismatch. Electrical engineering defines an electrical impedance as "the measure of the opposition that a circuit presents to a current when a voltage is applied."

If part of his "force to gold" is diverted for a motive that is not about the common "golden rays", then obviously the gold should tarnish faster and more.

If you consider the forces in opposition in these scenarios perhaps it is interesting to observe "the golden expectation" vs "the reality of man". Adding deception into the reality of man certainly must either be offset by a reduced golden expectation, or increased perfection in the application of the energies of man since deception is by its nature something that requires energy to maintain.

In the reality of duality, as you mention it, there is always a vector that points towards an "absolute truth" and one that points away. Sometimes it may not be clear how and why, like hot and cold, but once you immerse yourself into the hot Arizona summer, hot is certainly in excess and is certainly less comfortable. That is the truth.

To further that analogy I had mentioned GMOs. If you consider the expectation that food be nutrition for the body and soul of person who consumes it, the energetic misalignment genetically present in the GMO creates a similar type of balance upset. The GMO nature represents a deception in the very reason of the existence of food even if it be simple because it harms insects that may be a pest in our view. (Live vs Death duality). And perhaps because when we consume that food, we are left less nourished or tainted in some other way.

I had shared a very very funny Jon Stewart video; If you consider the expectation that the media be honest about representations of our leaders, shows that are "knee-jerk reactionary commentary" that serve the purpose of manipulating the audience is also a deception to the very nature of genuine information.

The depth to which declensions from absolute truth go would be the net sum of all the "negative" of the world combined as though they are vectors that subtract from the "golden".

So it stand that if we can identify such declensions in our midst where we can then do something so that as individuals, and/or as a collective we move closer to the truth.

In response to the GMO thing, we obviously would want to watch what we eat. In response to the Jon Stewart vid, maybe we just get rid of the TV, and/or maybe find new sources of information. Very obvious stuff...

If indeed we exist in a Sim Theory type paradigm where there are similarities to the Matrix, it stands as perfectly reasonable to understand that it can be as real as we make it, and it can also be as artificial and non-substancial as we permit it. There would be absolutely no merit disregard it as a figment of the imagination or as something of no consequence unless that is how we feel about ourselves.

If what I understand of "maya" as you are sharing the term having to do with a separation of truth, the equal flip side of that is having to do with defining our truth as something different from absolute truth. So here I am, identifying aspects of the way we define our truth that are oppositional to this notion of absolute truth I have in my imagination (mind).

As far as we can create impedance matches between our truth and that absolute truth, we should see equal "opposition" between "ourselves" and "the reality" which in turn brings us closer to "unimpeded energy exchanges". IE more perfection in our energetic environment, presumably to the point where another abstraction of the matrix may naturally form "over" our presence. Perhaps that would be a stronger collective consciousness, perhaps it is something else, but certainly it is more than the Corporation.

I'm examining this all merely because it can serve as a metric for establishing who we are and where we want to be going. Absent a metric, we are out there just floating by aimless perhaps.

I think it might be helpful to identify "separations of truth" and how they can be addressed.

Joanna
14th April 2016, 06:58
Joanna:

Very interesting posting. It brings to my mind:

What I'm understanding is metaphorically a "fall from innocence". In may ways the examples you give follow a similar pattern. Perhaps the pattern can be found in a love relationship between a man and woman.

When they first meet and fall in love with each other they establish a beginning a moment of perfection where the glimmer in their eyes only sees those golden rays reflected from the face of the other. They certainly try to live that moment for as long as they can but eventually someone leaves the toothpaste tube open, or squeezes it in the middle. A moment where a fall from innocence occurs that tarnishes the golden, demanding a fix. The passage of time and the tit for tat cause and effect from subsequent investments in energy to maintain the golden surely follows.

As years go by and the glimmer of gold has all but faded into memory they may look upon each other as familiar company, family and would have to find from within that which sustains their continuing love and when they pause to remember, the gold can still be seen.

That perhaps is a best case scenario where two people grow old together.

Perhaps a separation of truth happens when the golden is first tarnished upon discovery of the tooth paste tube. Perhaps that is just the inevitable. And perhaps...

Another level of separation of truth, that is of a completely different nature from the discovery of each other as above, is when one deceives the other from the beginning. It can be argued that beauty (golden rays metaphor) is always an illusion, and so perhaps, that forcing oneself to behave or coexist in a way that requires constant attention to maintain the illusion is an example of such deception.

For example, lets suppose that a man present himself as wealthier than he really is. From that point onwards the effort demanded by the ordinary passage of time as I elaborated above is divided with the requirement that he continues to maintain his initial deception of wealth.

His personal energies are divided. The nature of separation of truth creates a type of "impedance" to the full flow of his energies as a result of a mismatch. Electrical engineering defines an electrical impedance as "the measure of the opposition that a circuit presents to a current when a voltage is applied."

If part of his "force to gold" is diverted for a motive that is not about the common "golden rays", then obviously the gold should tarnish faster and more.

If you consider the forces in opposition in these scenarios perhaps it is interesting to observe "the golden expectation" vs "the reality of man". Adding deception into the reality of man certainly must either be offset by a reduced golden expectation, or increased perfection in the application of the energies of man since deception is by its nature something that requires energy to maintain.

In the reality of duality, as you mention it, there is always a vector that points towards an "absolute truth" and one that points away. Sometimes it may not be clear how and why, like hot and cold, but once you immerse yourself into the hot Arizona summer, hot is certainly in excess and is certainly less comfortable. That is the truth.

To further that analogy I had mentioned GMOs. If you consider the expectation that food be nutrition for the body and soul of person who consumes it, the energetic misalignment genetically present in the GMO creates a similar type of balance upset. The GMO nature represents a deception in the very reason of the existence of food even if it be simple because it harms insects that may be a pest in our view. (Live vs Death duality). And perhaps because when we consume that food, we are left less nourished or tainted in some other way.

I had shared a very very funny Jon Stewart video; If you consider the expectation that the media be honest about representations of our leaders, shows that are "knee-jerk reactionary commentary" that serve the purpose of manipulating the audience is also a deception to the very nature of genuine information.

The depth to which declensions from absolute truth go would be the net sum of all the "negative" of the world combined as though they are vectors that subtract from the "golden".

So it stand that if we can identify such declensions in our midst where we can then do something so that as individuals, and/or as a collective we move closer to the truth.

In response to the GMO thing, we obviously would want to watch what we eat. In response to the Jon Stewart vid, maybe we just get rid of the TV, and/or maybe find new sources of information. Very obvious stuff...

If indeed we exist in a Sim Theory type paradigm where there are similarities to the Matrix, it stands as perfectly reasonable to understand that it can be as real as we make it, and it can also be as artificial and non-substancial as we permit it. There would be absolutely no merit disregard it as a figment of the imagination or as something of no consequence unless that is how we feel about ourselves.

If what I understand of "maya" as you are sharing the term having to do with a separation of truth, the equal flip side of that is having to do with defining our truth as something different from absolute truth. So here I am, identifying aspects of the way we define our truth that are oppositional to this notion of absolute truth I have in my imagination (mind).

As far as we can create impedance matches between our truth and that absolute truth, we should see equal "opposition" between "ourselves" and "the reality" which in turn brings us closer to "unimpeded energy exchanges". IE more perfection in our energetic environment, presumably to the point where another abstraction of the matrix may naturally form "over" our presence. Perhaps that would be a stronger collective consciousness, perhaps it is something else, but certainly it is more than the Corporation.

I'm examining this all merely because it can serve as a metric for establishing who we are and where we want to be going. Absent a metric, we are out there just floating by aimless perhaps.

I think it might be helpful to identify "separations of truth" and how they can be addressed.

Oh, there's a lot to respond to here!
For the moment, I'd just like to say - about that open toothpaste tube, squeezed in the middle, which began the tarnishing of the 'golden ray' state of love.....was the 'fall' from perfection ie; diminishing of love, in the actual left-open toothpaste tube, with its squeezed middle, or did the diminishing of that love come from the reaction to a perceived imperfection?
For another person, viewing through a different perspective, might have found the no longer pristine, perfectionistic toothpaste tube somehow endearing. They might have smiled at how the tube now had a pleasant curve through the middle, that only their lover could have put there just so.

The reaction of offense and judgement begins the dimming of the golden ray, yes, because it leaves the innocence of being, of trusting what is, and not needing to control or force conformity (of perfection).
Loss of innocence leads to loss of inner sense, imo (I'm not talking about loss of innocence in the religious sexual way, just for clarification...but in how we respond to life, and what perspective we create from). When the inner sense is diminished, people lose their natural ability to recognize the energies imbuing, or behind, the forms moving within the simulation ie; is it a god, a demon, an AI, a programme, Prime Creator itself? A benevolent Platonic demiurge...or a malevolent Gnostic one? A random anomaly? And so forth....

Returning to the Op vid, and their equation of Plato's Ideas with the proving of life as a (generated) simulation. Actually, it would be more accurate to describe Plato's Ideas as they are expressed in all forms in the material level as an emulation, not a simulation. Feel the difference?
A simulation presupposes a certain level or kind of deception, or at least, illusion, an illusory, ephemeral state.
But an emulation is closer to Plato's precept, that all that exists in form is a material elaboration (in countless variations) on an Idea, which he would term 'perfect' (the perfect chair, the perfect sphere etc). Not therefore intrinsically deceiving, false or artificial, but more understood as 'variations on a theme'. A Neoplatonist would not identify themselves/ their inner reality with the variations as 'perfect Truth', but they wouldn't (and didn't) go down the Gnostic & others' road of seeing the variations as evil...and originating from an evil entity that robbed life/the world of its innocence....

Your toothpaste tube analogy - the dimming of Love through a reaction to perceived loss of perfection - has its converse in the Raku potters of Japan, a rather perfectionist society, who mould a 'perfect pot' and then deliberately put into it a single flaw, in an act of appreciation of human fallibility...instead of fear of it, and the desire to control.

lcam88
14th April 2016, 14:15
Oh, there's a lot to respond to here!
For the moment, I'd just like to say - about that open toothpaste tube, squeezed in the middle, which began the tarnishing of the 'golden ray' state of love.....was the 'fall' from perfection ie; diminishing of love, in the actual left-open toothpaste tube, with its squeezed middle, or did the diminishing of that love come from the reaction to a perceived imperfection?

For another person, viewing through a different perspective, might have found the no longer pristine, perfectionistic toothpaste tube somehow endearing. They might have smiled at how the tube now had a pleasant curve through the middle, that only their lover could have put there just so.


Yes. Indeed. If both likes the middle squeeze, it wouldn't be a tarnishing at all. I suppose I meant it to be the most mild form of tarnishing possible; a car wreak would be another example of a tarnish to the golden. But regardless, the point is that effort is required to permit the golden to persist. For those of us who maintain that golden, the efforts are well worth the results.



The reaction of offense and judgement begins the dimming of the golden ray, yes, because it leaves the innocence of being, of trusting what is, and not needing to control or force conformity (of perfection).
Loss of innocence leads to loss of inner sense, imo (I'm not talking about loss of innocence in the religious sexual way, just for clarification...but in how we respond to life, and what perspective we create from). When the inner sense is diminished, people lose their natural ability to recognize the energies imbuing, or behind, the forms moving within the simulation ie; is it a god, a demon, an AI, a programme, Prime Creator itself? A benevolent Platonic demiurge...or a malevolent Gnostic one? A random anomaly? And so forth....


Yes. Offense could indeed by a negative if perceived that way; it causes the need for defense, and subsequently the "golden efforts" are sapped to maintain a duality that works towards each perspective, and not truth itself.



Returning to the Op vid, and their equation of Plato's Ideas with the proving of life as a (generated) simulation. Actually, it would be more accurate to describe Plato's Ideas as they are expressed in all forms in the material level as an emulation, not a simulation. Feel the difference?

Yes and No Joanna. The breakdown is what references from our lives we are associating with the very words used. <= that is as good an analogy for the emulation/simulation as any other.

Without reference it is very very difficult to understand or even know ( in the sense of rationalizing, not "just knowing"). The concept "nothing" for example, requires that we conceptualize something, then induce its absence for the concluding notion of "nothing". But that strategy of rationalizing nothing can be argued to be flawed because in and of itself, it is still something. A something required as reference that comes from our experience. :p

But yes, I feel the difference because of the way you said it.


A simulation presupposes a certain level or kind of deception, or at least, illusion, an illusory, ephemeral state.
But an emulation is closer to Plato's precept, that all that exists in form is a material elaboration (in countless variations) on an Idea, which he would term 'perfect' (the perfect chair, the perfect sphere etc). Not therefore intrinsically deceiving, false or artificial, but more understood as 'variations on a theme'. A Neoplatonist would not identify themselves/ their inner reality with the variations as 'perfect Truth', but they wouldn't (and didn't) go down the Gnostic & others' road of seeing the variations as evil...and originating from an evil entity that robbed life/the world of its innocence....

OK, eloquently stated.

Identification of self, inner reality with 'perfect Truth': That sounds like trying to be celestially aligned. Telestai.

Neoplatonism aside, disregarding alignment from truth is a dangerous way; embracing the illusion, proposing deceptions... for what? Ideas of perfect form? If indeed it was understood that the emulation/simulation is a manifestation of form, form can take any shape indeed. How can you decide which form is perfect? Your good sense of preference? So then, GMO's are good because we can appear to feed more from the plant. It would seem indeed the case is that such a view has lost sight of "the golden" or true north?

Another such "neoplatonist" type idea is that when Moses returned from Mt Sinai. He returned with a message from God to his disciples to follow some orientation described as commandments. The idea is that the disciples could put aside their values (perhaps an orientation to perfect truth vis-a-vee their application of good judgement), and start following another set of values decided to be "perfect" (perhaps examples of perfect forms). Perhaps the separation from truth there is fundamentally deciding that perfect is something "outside", rather than "inside". If that conjecture is correct, you can understand why neoplatonism has survived the ages that had seen so much of human history censored [as Sylvie's Survivor series Ellen has been sharing is suggesting].


Your toothpaste tube analogy - the dimming of Love through a reaction to perceived loss of perfection - has its converse in the Raku potters of Japan, a rather perfectionist society, who mould a 'perfect pot' and then deliberately put into it a single flaw, in an act of appreciation of human fallibility...instead of fear of it, and the desire to control.

That is beautiful.

Maybe the loss of perfection by the first squeeze of the toothpaste tube, in a similar light, is simply a metaphor of human fallibility too? That our efforts from then on is to ever work to "fix" that instead of fear or try to control it.

Indeed having your imperfection out there so that it may be seen is not a demonstration of fear of it, or desire to control it, but it is an acknowledgment that something does require attention.

ADDENDUM (I'll make it short)

The aspect of "fall from innocence" that is important, whether in the religious context or the context of "tarnishing of the golden", is simply that somethings can never return to the prestine state that it was.

Can't unbreak an egg.

Once you curse at your neighbor, forever will those words have been said and there is no undoing it.

Similar to opening "Pandora's Box" in that the box can never be closed to contain what was let out.

Once we start seeing flaws in others around us, our reaction to their presence cannot return to what it was priorly...

Once the bio-life in a lake has been damaged by pollution, it can never return to the same point, but it can recover to a new state that is equally thriving of life even while the scars remain.

Perhaps even you could say that once a celestial alignment is lost, you can never find it again. You are left ever searching for a new alignment that may never be as complete. Not to say it is impossible.

It is impossible until we get on track to making it possible. <smile/>

scibuster
14th April 2016, 14:39
Only those who are fully asleep love the Matrix.

Chester
16th April 2016, 14:01
The "Absolute" which then finds a way to manifest in form sets up relativity and has entered a simulation by that very action.

From the perspective of the Absolute, this is all simulation and in every way "it" arises.

Maggie
16th April 2016, 16:04
double posted....

Maggie
16th April 2016, 16:15
ADDENDUM (I'll make it short)

The aspect of "fall from innocence" that is important, whether in the religious context or the context of "tarnishing of the golden", is simply that somethings can never return to the prestine state that it was.

Can't unbreak an egg.

Once you curse at your neighbor, forever will those words have been said and there is no undoing it.

Similar to opening "Pandora's Box" in that the box can never be closed to contain what was let out.

Once we start seeing flaws in others around us, our reaction to their presence cannot return to what it was priorly...

Once the bio-life in a lake has been damaged by pollution, it can never return to the same point, but it can recover to a new state that is equally thriving of life even while the scars remain.

Perhaps even you could say that once a celestial alignment is lost, you can never find it again. You are left ever searching for a new alignment that may never be as complete. Not to say it is impossible.

It is impossible until we get on track to making it possible. <smile/>

I enjoyed reading this thread. In lots of ways, I think I come form the same POV that Joanna observes. I personally agree that this seems like a simulation but that does only validate the blameless and purposeful point of experience. IMO our experience is the most important point and how can one experience without breaking some eggs???

Those "forces" that would have us be paralyzed by our angst over making mistakes are holding all to a value system that is the simulation ON TOP of a natural set of lawful relationships. The holding our hands to the flames of torture for our "sins" is form that which IMO hates the alive, the changing and the EXPERIENCING of what is divine human in form.

Synchronistically this was in my inbox today from a Seth (Jane Roberts) group.



THE NATURE OF THE PSYCHE
IT'S HUMAN EXPRESSION

Chapter 11

THE UNIVERSE AND THE PSYCHE


Session 799..... continued


"Now: Make a distinction in your mind between man and man's work. Argue all you want against his works, as you read in your newspapers of errors, stupidities, treachery or war. Collect pages and reams of such material if it suits your fancy - and I am speaking not only to you, or to Ruburt, but to anyone who hopes to find a hint of truth, peace of mind, or creativity."

"Collect books of man's failures. I do not personally know why anyone would collect the worst works of any artist, and get pleasure in ripping them apart. Man has produced some fine works: The high level of verbal communication, the multitudinous varieties of emotional interactions and of cultural exchange, the facility with exteriorization of ideas and concepts, the reaches of the imagination - all of these, and many others, are unique in the universe."

I imagine that this "world" is a created physical realm. I am flabbergasted by the perfect proportions that occur in nature as in the ones between the sun and moon and earth. I read quite a bit of writing on sacred geometry form John Michell and others.




“A tradition which has been credited by many learned men over the centuries is that the ancients encoded their knowledge of the world in the dimensions of their sacred monuments.” They used “… an esoteric code of number, harmony and proportion which was supposed to reflect the perfectly structured mind of the Creator. — John Michell (http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/the-new-jerusalem-diagram/)

Our perceptions of what is are very limited. It has been shown that we screen out the majority of what is in front of us. So there is MUCH more than what senses can take in.
As far as making models, even now people are extending the sacred geometric understandings as Buckminster Fuller did and Frank Chester is doing.


Frank Chester (http://www.frankchester.com/about/) has been exploring the relation between form and spirit. This has led him to take up research concerning the number seven, and in 2000 he discovered a new geometric form never seen before. Putting this form through the alchemical transformative process of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire, many previously unknown geometric structures have emerged. Also this geometric form demonstrates a remarkable correlation to the form and functioning of the human heart. On the basis of experimentation with various related geometric forms and the movement of water in a vortex, Frank is uncovering indications concerning the relationship between etheric formative forces and the geometry, structure, and physiology of the human heart. Thus the form is called the Chestahedron, both after its discoverer and because the form relates to the geometry of the heart, which sits in the chest.

The sacred relationships exist in nature everywhere so there is no denying the existence of "intelligence" in the design. What I suspect is that human minds have emulated the way that a Divine Creator operates but not so well. I imagine that presence in LIFE in this "world" is quite an honor rather than a punishment and that our ability to recognize the beauty and Majesty is a sign that we are connected to this whole enterprise.

When we appreciate and FEEL the joy of being a part of this opportunity, we are different than when we fear this earth as an enemy. IMO we are creating from a very definite and very contrasting and very polarized divine perspective as humans. The experience in this matrix of consequences of choices seems like maybe being placed in a simulation FOR the purpose of a larger reason????

What supports LIFE is LOVE. I have no doubt that we can directly sense what LOVE is on a human scale and see how it's workings can swell to encompass everything we could possibly perceive. To love and to thwart love make very different paths...

I take on that Creator is not static and changeless and that any attempt to make up a "perfect" set of changeless forms which will then be adhered to repeating is thwarting love! THIS sounds like the workings of the antithesis of LIFE. If I were Creator learning about the consequences of choice, I'd have some place to observe this process. Then I'd gather the life loving energies and leave the rest. Why would that which hates life want to continue anyway? Loving what is created and wishing to extend that distinguishes the really valuable from the chaff.

lcam88
16th April 2016, 19:12
Very insightful response.

I especially like the view you share supporting the idea of purpose and responsibility (validate blameless). I identify very much with the perfect proportions in nature though I will confess I am less read up the specific literature you mention.


“A tradition which has been credited by many learned men over the centuries is that the ancients encoded their knowledge of the world in the dimensions of their sacred monuments.” They used “… an esoteric code of number, harmony and proportion which was supposed to reflect the perfectly structured mind of the Creator. — John Michell

Here again we can identify an example of "perfection in form", being the codifications of knowledge engraved in stone reflecting a perfect structured mind, VS the "perfection in truth" being a reminder set in stone so that we may remember, or access knowledge held within as though our own mind is one with the Creator.

By the latter, records and/or encodings of knowledge as on a stone table or monuments have actually been created only to remind posterity (us), and to provide a way to stimulate ourselves to see something already right before us, something in our mind. It is quite a "fall" when suddenly we look upon the reminders to be the knowledge in and of itself.

This difference is exactly the same type as the neoplatonic example of Moses I shared earlier. A difference in perspective possible only when we knows who we are.

Put as a question: does the perfect form before our senses help us better know who we are?

Fundamentally it must be about self knowledge, knowing oneself, because even to interpret and decode knowledge from a perfect form one must match the information with references within. That idea itself is meaningless indeed unless you can retrieve a memory of an experience or emotion that has a relationship (create an impedance match within the mind).

Indeed all spoken language requires it. Languages we don't speak are not understood not because they are meaningless, but because we can't match the encoded idea to our own experiences.

When we refer to inner knowledge or universal knowledge, a type of telos (greek: aim, end, purpose) is required for understanding for the same reasons.

I don't know how else to describe what I mean by "perfection in truth".


Our perceptions of what is are very limited. It has been shown that we screen out the majority of what is in front of us. So there is MUCH more than what senses can take in. As far as making models, even now people are extending the sacred geometric understandings as Buckminster Fuller did and Frank Chester is doing.

As far as being a part of the matrix and our disposition at the current moment, consider that modern society has had us bludgeoned into a submission of the mind to think and believe that we are limited. Indeed it is only because we believe we are limited that the reminders (above) appear to be a source of knowledge. Our society and our ego has punished us for "being wrong" to such extent that we prefer to be unreceptive of truth.

Models then are helpful as we try to identify our errors before we get punished "by them". But if indeed they are regarded as a source of truth, they are perfections in form only.

Mind you Joanna, Maggie and everyone else this view is one I'm exploring right now; I haven't spent a lot of time elaborating the nuances in preparations. It is very much an idea that has come into mind at this very moment.


Those "forces" that would have us be paralyzed by our angst over making mistakes are holding all to a value system that is the simulation ON TOP of a natural set of lawful relationships. The holding our hands to the flames of torture for our "sins" is form that which IMO hates the alive, the changing and the EXPERIENCING of what is divine human in form.

:)

To hold us all to a value system of any kind requires that we seek or at least accept authority from some something outside (something accepted as perfection in form). Indeed the institution of law is exactly that, something that demands acceptance as an unquestionable authority, (a claim to perfect form). Because it is so flawed nobody would seek it out, indeed it must be made so that it must be accepted; the threat of harm being the underpinning of conformity, harm that threatens survival and existence. That is the nature of the "simulation ON TOP of the natural set".


"Now: Make a distinction in your mind between man and man's work. Argue all you want against his works, as you read in your newspapers of errors, stupidities, treachery or war. Collect pages and reams of such material if it suits your fancy - and I am speaking not only to you, or to Ruburt, but to anyone who hopes to find a hint of truth, peace of mind, or creativity."

"Collect books of man's failures. I do not personally know why anyone would collect the worst works of any artist, and get pleasure in ripping them apart. Man has produced some fine works: The high level of verbal communication, the multitudinous varieties of emotional interactions and of cultural exchange, the facility with exteriorization of ideas and concepts, the reaches of the imagination - all of these, and many others, are unique in the universe."

I didn't understand, the quote appears to be an incomplete idea Maggie. Everything seems to be in reference to a man's work, and not the man himself. If the author wishes to visit a distinction between man and man's work, he need make mention to more than just his work.

Maybe all of mans work in deriving pleasure from the horrid is all a gentle protest. Something that emerges as matching impedance with the negative value of the system imposed by force. A souring of the milk so to speak. What does that say about man?

Chester
17th April 2016, 14:54
The "Absolute" which then finds a way to manifest in form sets up relativity and has entered a simulation by that very action.

From the perspective of the Absolute, this is all simulation and in every way "it" arises.

Any mystics on this forum?

How can we discuss matters without regard to the ineffable?

Where does form begin to manifest?

When does form become "real?"

Lot's of views on this thread yet what seems missing is an agreement as to what might be the single foundation from which all these discussions are anchored? Do we start at 3D, material realm physicality? Is that all there is? Do we start at some imaginative realm we might call "the spiritual" or at least "spiritual in nature?" And where ever we start, "who" or "what" made that?

Just Sunday morning wonderings...

scibuster
17th April 2016, 16:44
I have no explanation for this funny and not so funny coincidences
which happened to me for example approcs. once per month.
(follow the white rabbit)
are we (humans) in a special sleep state and or hypnotize each other
without a non stop end.

modwiz
17th April 2016, 18:24
I am a life long mystic and discussing the ineffable is a fool's game. Act upon what is given to one in their heart and we will see the Ineffable in action. Words are inadequate to the task of describing this deeply personal, intimate is a better word, communication. In person a conversation might produce fruit, in a forum it is a circle jerk.

johnjen325
17th April 2016, 20:39
Any mystics on this forum?

How can we discuss matters without regard to the ineffable?

Where does form begin to manifest?

When does form become "real?"

Lot's of views on this thread yet what seems missing is an agreement as to what might be the single foundation from which all these discussions are anchored? Do we start at 3D, material realm physicality? Is that all there is? Do we start at some imaginative realm we might call "the spiritual" or at least "spiritual in nature?" And where ever we start, "who" or "what" made that?

Just Sunday morning wonderings...

What I see as the heart of your "Sunday morning wonderings..." is the whole notion of creativity.
In its entirety.
Not just, "Where does form begin to manifest"
nor, "When does form become "real?""
nor, the "the single foundation" etc.

And since we are creatures of and deeply involved with creativity, this query encompasses not only the who and what we are, but the very nature of reality itself.

And as modwiz stated "this deeply personal, intimate is a better word, communication" is our own connection to the source of this creativity, which resides within and which can manifest without.

This is, at least for me, of key significance, especially these days as the changes we are in the midst of are morphing us, from the inside out.
Or perhaps, unlocking our inherent but constrained and contained full potential is another perspective from which to approach and view these internal, individual and foundational changes.

And the common aspect of significance is that these foundational changes of creativity itself, both our personal as well as their 'bigger picture' aspects, apply to our reality, and are morphing right before our eyes, and is 'originating' and manifesting from within us.
Right now.

Which means answers to these sorts of inquiries will become known more fully as we 'remember' how to access our own creativity more completely.

In essence "the ineffable" is directly accessible from within via our own consciousness such that we can come to understand ourselves all the more.
Which is akin to #3 of my sigline.

JJ

Joanna
18th April 2016, 09:48
Really enjoying all the comments above, Maggie, lcam, Sam, and this from Modwiz:

"Act upon what is given to one in their heart and we will see the Ineffable in action. Words are inadequate to the task of describing this deeply personal, intimate is a better word, communication."

And this from johnjen:

" these foundational changes of creativity itself, both our personal as well as their 'bigger picture' aspects, apply to our reality, and are morphing right before our eyes, and is 'originating' and manifesting from within us.
Right now.

Which means answers to these sorts of inquiries will become known more fully as we 'remember' how to access our own creativity more completely.

In essence "the ineffable" is directly accessible from within via our own consciousness such that we can come to understand ourselves all the more."


Beautifully expressed, thank you.

johnjen325
2nd May 2016, 06:17
Creativity Part Deux (DO)

When I wrote the preceding post about creativity I knew there was a whole bunch that wasn't included, but I didn't want to dive right into the deep end right from the start so I waited and wrote this up as a follow up…

Now,
to drop the other shoe.

Creativity is at the heart, indeed IS the very heart of these changes we are experiencing. It is the central theme that encompasses what we will become, that being truly empowered creative beings.
And this reflects both the power and responsibility that creativity brings to the fore.
As in what we create we must also take responsibility for and learn from.

So what do we choose to do with our newly acquired ancient creative abilities?
To what and where do we choose to aim our creative potential?
And how do we effectively focus ourselves to make manifest what our creative potential is fully capable of?

My answer anyways is, by what we focus our awareness and make a conscious choice upon, using our understanding and accrued wisdom we have at hand.
And do so as our guide and as the base of our awareness of what is not only possible, but desireable.

IOW what we focus upon, and involve ourselves with, manifests as a result of our creativity…

Let that sink in for a minute…
Now.

This points directly at the key to the lock, our own personal lock of and to ourselves, which is also the lock that binds us to our self maintained perception of what is, all of which is based upon our past.

Now,
we can refocus upon what we desire, what we know of as a ‘Better’ way, if we should so choose…
In essence using the wisdom gained from the past and directing it forward into our own future.

And what we choose to create ripples outward from us to all those we influence, in one way or another.
And we do influence many more folks than we are aware of.

A striking case in point is, think of all those internet trolls and those of their ilk that ‘pollute’ the web.
What do they spend their time doing?
What are they focussed upon?
How is their creativity being used?
And for what purpose?
Because that is what they are creating for themselves, as well as for those who choose to engage in such activities.

Our ability to consciously manifest our creativity is more than just what we think about, thankfully.
It also must involve a conscious choice coupled with a desire and intent.
This is the heart of the key itself.

When we combine/couple our mental acuity with our heart felt power of our emotional selves, then we fully ‘engage’ and enable our full potential creative ability.,
here and
Now.

This speaks directly to the degree of “Know Thyself” which leads to some very important and primary fundamental changes to our self perception of what, and who, and where we TRULY are.

And a few very interesting concepts that are directly associated with our creative potential include, Sovereignty, Freedom, and being fully responsible, for, and of, and to, ourselves and all to others, for what we create.
This is where not being afraid to make ‘mistakes’ can be a HUGE step up in the rate and degree of complexity of the life lessons which are presented as a result of making the choices we do.

IOW be careful of the choices that are made, as they just might (& now really will and much more quickly) come to pass.
And all of this is based upon our own choices.

So as the saying goes, “Choose Wisely”.

And there are other aspects of this key as well, such as how to best couple our minds analytic and intellectual prowess and our hearts inner guidance and knowing.
This is the conjoining and coupling of our full capability of being creative.

So if I were to choose just one summation of how to optimize our creative potential it would be idealized in the saying,
“Do what you Love and Love what you Do”.

For most this might (still) seem like wishful thinking, or perhaps is unrealistic, or is pure fantasy.
But the consequences of that type of imprinting and all manner of other self limitations, for some, may take some time to see thru.
But others may see the beautiful simplicity and utter elegance of how we are ‘wired’ to enable ourselves, in just this manner.


JJ

Dreamtimer
2nd May 2016, 11:14
Beautiful post, johnjen325.:love:

Elen
2nd May 2016, 13:57
My answer anyways is, by what we focus our awareness and make a conscious choice upon, using our understanding and accrued wisdom we have at hand.
And do so as our guide and as the base of our awareness of what is not only possible, but desireable.

IOW what we focus upon, and involve ourselves with, manifests as a result of our creativity…

Just hitting the nail on the head there...

Chester
2nd May 2016, 14:12
The night before last I dreamed one of the most lucidly dreamed dreams I ever experienced. In the dream I recall being the "waking state me" observing "me" in the dream. The "me" in the dream was exploring a futuristic city that I "knew" in the dream was London. I ran into David Gilmour (guitarist for Pink Floyd) who treated me as an old friend. I recalled the "waking state me" thinking how incredible this virtual reality was.

Suddenly up walks Roger Waters (an ex-Pink Floyd band mate who left the band in an adversarial way) who also engaged with both me and Gilmour. Gilmour and Waters were cordial if not outright kind with each other. I then found myself alone talking just with Waters.

Both the "waking state me" and "me" in the dream were thinking about it but always in a separate way. I suddenly noticed that Roger Waters had walked off. I then saw him about 30 feet away with his back to me. I started talking to him again. Then he turned around and when he did I saw he had those virtual reality goggles on and he seemed very absorbed in his current experience and either waved me off or told me he was "busy" telepathically...

I recalled both the "waking state me" and the "me" in the dream thinking wow... three levels of virtual reality. Note that this implies the waking state as a virtual reality level just as much as the dream state VR just as much as Roger Water's current experience with the goggles.

The three levels I thought about were -

"the waking state me" (the same "me" that is typing this post at this time).

the "me" in the dream that was on the same level as Roger Waters.

The VR that Roger Waters was experiencing through the glasses.


All this made me ponder that it certainly is possible there are levels and layers of VR all on top of each other. And that if that is the case, how could I know which level this "waking state" experience might be?


Another thought I had was, if this is a virtual reality... why am I taking it so seriously?


And the last thought I had was... just like all types of "programs" (simulated realities seem very much to be programs)... a program can be hacked. I then reconsidered again the suggestion of "the archontic paradigm myth" and realized that some of my actions as well as some of the actions of others could have been influenced by a third party agency such as an archon (or a group of archons or an AI system created by the archons). And that if that maybe is the case, how can I possibly be upset with another based on their behavior?

Suddenly I saw the word - "Compassion" float past my own mindscape screen.

We shall see how long this revelation will last as to its current profound effect.

Chester
2nd May 2016, 17:12
I just saw what may be a true "gem" in what I wrote in the post above...

Even though at least two realities were occur for me simultaneously, I recalled how each of the two "me"s had their own separate thoughts even though I the primary me (the one I referred to as "the waking state me" which is also in this case the lucid dreamer) is the only one I sensed was aware of both "me"s.

So if I imagine there be an individuated being... then perhaps to that being's "level 1" "individuated self" may be the ultimate primary point of view that considers all the views of each "me" at each level and that THAT is what makes up the theoretical "soul!"

Perhaps for me one of the greatest mysteries I have yet to solve to my satisfaction is the following group of questions.

Is the ultimate "me" a spirit being? Meaning the very first iteration of source individuated?

If so... where does "soul" enter into the picture if there even is such?

Some say "spirit" and "soul" (to them) are the same thing.

My gut tells me that is not the case.

So then what might really be the truth?



And then these thoughts - if we are all "individuated spirit beings" and there is a difference between that and "a soul" then... is it possible some individuated spirit beings have no soul and others do?

The way so many people act lead me to believe this may very well be possible. Having said that, I have worried that if this could be true, maybe I don't have a soul. I worry about this because at times I can become viscous.

Dreamtimer
2nd May 2016, 17:31
Sam, I don't think the fact that you become vicious is anything other than that you are human. It's a possibility to a greater or lesser degree depending on when and who.

I don't know the answer to soul and spirit. Some believe there can be many. Some very powerful individuals are believed to have many souls. Don't know how they've accumulated.

I think it's fantastic being aware of different states of being at once. Awesome.

"wow... three levels of virtual reality." Each of them equally important (I think you're saying).

Just today people are talking about us being avatars in this world. A dreamer dreaming of a dream...

It all matters because our experiences all matter. And we have possibilities and thus choices. :smiley-dance013::hug::congratulations::winner::cool::clou d::flame::meditating:

lcam88
2nd May 2016, 18:04
Sam: I've asked those same questions. Pondered them, even answered them.

And regardless of any answers whether they be right, wrong, aligned with the golden triangle or metaphoric, I've concluded that knowing doesn't really change anything.

I think the reason is, the true knowledge of ones self, as a rationalization of all the references we have is still, at most, on the same "Great Plain of the mind" where the rest of our consciousness connects and "interacts" with the experiences and the universe. No amount of rationalized "truth" can override or circumvent that which we are.

Your dream is interesting; can it be that we exist as a loop may exist within another loop?

Consider the "loop" that we may exist in now. An individual? Then as the "container loop", the spirit or soul that also exists "as part of us". Perhaps as not quite so individual as it can "see" it is composed of other individuals on the "inside"... Indeed if we look closely at our bodies we may notice we too are composed of individuals: cells indeed are individually living.

I like to notice all of that as "the fractal". Perhaps parts of a fibonacci spiral (we are the sum of our parts, conscious and otherwise, at least).

Perhaps that which we are is an issue of perspective.

You do have your perspective don't you? Perhaps that is the only thing "truth" or knowledge is good for: the perspective. And then a twist: deciding if the perspective is indeed yours, or if you belong to the perspective. But does it really matter? (I like that "You are not your thoughts thread")

Your dream can easily just be the issue of what perspective you have of yourself.

Artists often must have a very refined sense of their "work"; self-examination through ones art is not a new idea. Dianetics is about self examination while revisiting a painful moment, perhaps to desensitize the mind to automatic reactionaries code in or overwritten somehow. Zen is about getting to know yourself "at rest" or "at ease"...

Thanks for sharing BTW.

Chester
2nd May 2016, 21:39
Perhaps that which we are is an issue of perspective.


Ahhh but that was also what I had hoped to describe and distinguish. In the two realities which a "me" experienced... which was occurring simultaneously by two distinctly different "me"s had different perspectives and in some ways, different thoughts.

For example, the "waking state me" thought about "the me in the dream" and considered the thoughts that the me in the dream was having... while also sensing it was the "waking state me" at that same time! Yet the "me in the dream" only seemed to recognize itself and had no clue of "the waking state me" that was dreaming him.

And when the "me in the dream" saw Rogers Waters with the goggles in, he thought... "wow, Roger waters wants me to leave him alone and the reason is that he is engaged in experiencing the virtual reality experienced via the combination of his perceptions and what he saw through the goggles. Yet "the waking state me" (which was lucidly dreaming this all was thinking - "wow! three levels of reality where I knw at least two are virtual... could the one I experience when I am "awake" be virtual as well?

And so maybe to the "spirit" (be there one or to "the soul" be there one or to that "spirit/soul complex" be there one... this waking sate reality might be seen as a virtual reality from that perspective.

All pretty mind blowing to consider these things (IMHO).

johnjen325
2nd May 2016, 22:37
My 2¢…


I just saw what may be a true "gem" in what I wrote in the post above...

Even though at least two realities were occur for me simultaneously, I recalled how each of the two "me"s had their own separate thoughts even though I the primary me (the one I referred to as "the waking state me" which is also in this case the lucid dreamer) is the only one I sensed was aware of both "me"s.

So if I imagine there be an individuated being... then perhaps to that being's "level 1" "individuated self" may be the ultimate primary point of view that considers all the views of each "me" at each level and that THAT is what makes up the theoretical "soul!"

Perhaps for me one of the greatest mysteries I have yet to solve to my satisfaction is the following group of questions.

Is the ultimate "me" a spirit being? Meaning the very first iteration of source individuated?

If so... where does "soul" enter into the picture if there even is such?

Some say "spirit" and "soul" (to them) are the same thing.

My gut tells me that is not the case.

So then what might really be the truth?

And then these thoughts - if we are all "individuated spirit beings" and there is a difference between that and "a soul" then... is it possible some individuated spirit beings have no soul and others do?

The way so many people act lead me to believe this may very well be possible. Having said that, I have worried that if this could be true, maybe I don't have a soul. I worry about this because at times I can become viscous.

The concept/idea/reality of the ONE has surfaced of late and has permeated my identity and will continue to do so.
One of the 'interesting' results of incorporating/inculcating/internalizing this is that, ALL of 'me' is becoming available for and to 'me', as in each of these aspects of 'me' are merging and at the same time differentiating themselves from each other and from 'me', even though it is all 'me'.
IOW I can now 'see' where aspects of my personality originate and that they combine to form 'me' as I AM.

Put another way, what I call my personality matrix is composed of many aspects that combine to contribute to the who, what, and where that I AM, Here and Now.
Each of these personality matrix components are aspects of my greater self but my specific mix is 'unique' to 'me'.
Some of these aspects are really kewl, others, not so much.
But the life lessons that all of these personality matrix aspects create, present the opportunity for maximal growth based upon how they intermix and manifest.

But by including the "other, not so much" kewl aspects, means the familiarity with those personality aspects is available and so having to become 'acquainted' with them all over again is not necessary.

Yet another way of perceiving these various aspects is as different 'voices', each with their own 'attitude' and perspective.
Each 'voice' contributes to make up 'me' as I AM.
And yet I can 'hear' each separate 'voice' as being unique and as an integral portion of all that I AM.

The trick is to recognize these various aspects along with their 'origin' and all the pertinent details (how they are triggered, how to release their seeming mandatory insistence, etc.) and embrace them and their value as a life lesson, for 'me'.

IOW love yourself AS, and for WHO you truly ARE.

Which is the totality of all of our 'parts' which are all of, and make up, ONE.

I could go into ever more detail, but writing lengthy posts tends to dilute the essential message, which is, as you see yourself as a unique expression of ONE, including ALL of your aspects, the ability to appreciate not just the sum total but the specific aspects that make up the whole, becomes all the more insightful and helps our inner balance and appreciation of ONE.

JJ

Chester
3rd May 2016, 02:02
Great post JJ

Maggie
3rd May 2016, 04:00
My 2¢…

The concept/idea/reality of the ONE has surfaced of late and has permeated my identity and will continue to do so.
One of the 'interesting' results of incorporating/inculcating/internalizing this is that, ALL of 'me' is becoming available for and to 'me', as in each of these aspects of 'me' are merging and at the same time differentiating themselves from each other and from 'me', even though it is all 'me'.
IOW I can now 'see' where aspects of my personality originate and that they combine to form 'me' as I AM.

Put another way, what I call my personality matrix is composed of many aspects that combine to contribute to the who, what, and where that I AM, Here and Now.
Each of these personality matrix components are aspects of my greater self but my specific mix is 'unique' to 'me'.

(OR NOT YOU but ideas from the collective delivered by some source TO you)

Some of these aspects are really kewl, others, not so much.
But the life lessons that all of these personality matrix aspects create, present the opportunity for maximal growth based upon how they intermix and manifest.

But by including the "other, not so much" kewl aspects, means the familiarity with those personality aspects is available and so having to become 'acquainted' with them all over again is not necessary.

Yet another way of perceiving these various aspects is as different 'voices', each with their own 'attitude' and perspective.
Each 'voice' contributes to make up 'me' as I AM.
And yet I can 'hear' each separate 'voice' as being unique and as an integral portion of all that I AM.

The trick is to recognize these various aspects along with their 'origin' and all the pertinent details (how they are triggered, how to release their seeming mandatory insistence, etc.) and embrace them and their value as a life lesson, for 'me'.

IOW love yourself AS, and for WHO you truly ARE.

Which is the totality of all of our 'parts' which are all of, and make up, ONE.

I could go into ever more detail, but writing lengthy posts tends to dilute the essential message, which is, as you see yourself as a unique expression of ONE, including ALL of your aspects, the ability to appreciate not just the sum total but the specific aspects that make up the whole, becomes all the more insightful and helps our inner balance and appreciation of ONE.

JJ

I am listening to this talk below and it seems pertinent. I would include in the concept of collectivism the alt collective. I look at how many people in the alt community are persuaded to buy intowhat is " BETTER AND MORE "Kewl"in THIS alternative collective. IMO we are meant to observe the collective mind and deconstruct our allegiance to all concepts that are poisonous to the real self.

Tsarian talks here about monarchy and religion.

Monarchy is a belief that some are intrinsically "more important" by right of their presence (through birth or even perhaps an authority they claim) that we allow is true. The monarch is privaleged and more "important"and is due something by right. We make the monarchy possible. It could be anyone we make more important than I am important. leaders are given much and who gives? The collective is made up of individuals who have agreed. So as to the matrix simulation, we create it also by agreement.

Religion, even if we don't accept a theocracy of the pope or Islam or any particular church, depends on the acceptance that there is some "right" path which cannot be argued...so "science"can also be religion.In religion we agree on the need for mediators between us and "god". But this can also be reflected in the mediation between us and "truth".

The deconstruction of our beliefs, false selves and shards of collective meme is work to do deep in the heart of what ever "group" WE ACCEPT.

I do not think this process of being in the "collective simulation" is BAD, just part of becoming individuated. We have to overturn these conditions by claiming new perspective.

/8RTZwoEQ3ds

Joanna
3rd May 2016, 09:51
Creativity Part Deux (DO)

When I wrote the preceding post about creativity I knew there was a whole bunch that wasn't included, but I didn't want to dive right into the deep end right from the start so I waited and wrote this up as a follow up…

Now,
to drop the other shoe.

Creativity is at the heart, indeed IS the very heart of these changes we are experiencing. It is the central theme that encompasses what we will become, that being truly empowered creative beings.
And this reflects both the power and responsibility that creativity brings to the fore.
As in what we create we must also take responsibility for and learn from.

So what do we choose to do with our newly acquired ancient creative abilities?
To what and where do we choose to aim our creative potential?
And how do we effectively focus ourselves to make manifest what our creative potential is fully capable of?

My answer anyways is, by what we focus our awareness and make a conscious choice upon, using our understanding and accrued wisdom we have at hand.
And do so as our guide and as the base of our awareness of what is not only possible, but desireable.

IOW what we focus upon, and involve ourselves with, manifests as a result of our creativity…

Let that sink in for a minute…
Now.

This points directly at the key to the lock, our own personal lock of and to ourselves, which is also the lock that binds us to our self maintained perception of what is, all of which is based upon our past.

Now,
we can refocus upon what we desire, what we know of as a ‘Better’ way, if we should so choose…
In essence using the wisdom gained from the past and directing it forward into our own future.

And what we choose to create ripples outward from us to all those we influence, in one way or another.
And we do influence many more folks than we are aware of.

A striking case in point is, think of all those internet trolls and those of their ilk that ‘pollute’ the web.
What do they spend their time doing?
What are they focussed upon?
How is their creativity being used?
And for what purpose?
Because that is what they are creating for themselves, as well as for those who choose to engage in such activities.

Our ability to consciously manifest our creativity is more than just what we think about, thankfully.
It also must involve a conscious choice coupled with a desire and intent.
This is the heart of the key itself.

When we combine/couple our mental acuity with our heart felt power of our emotional selves, then we fully ‘engage’ and enable our full potential creative ability.,
here and
Now.

This speaks directly to the degree of “Know Thyself” which leads to some very important and primary fundamental changes to our self perception of what, and who, and where we TRULY are.

And a few very interesting concepts that are directly associated with our creative potential include, Sovereignty, Freedom, and being fully responsible, for, and of, and to, ourselves and all to others, for what we create.
This is where not being afraid to make ‘mistakes’ can be a HUGE step up in the rate and degree of complexity of the life lessons which are presented as a result of making the choices we do.

IOW be careful of the choices that are made, as they just might (& now really will and much more quickly) come to pass.
And all of this is based upon our own choices.

So as the saying goes, “Choose Wisely”.

And there are other aspects of this key as well, such as how to best couple our minds analytic and intellectual prowess and our hearts inner guidance and knowing.
This is the conjoining and coupling of our full capability of being creative.

So if I were to choose just one summation of how to optimize our creative potential it would be idealized in the saying,
“Do what you Love and Love what you Do”.

For most this might (still) seem like wishful thinking, or perhaps is unrealistic, or is pure fantasy.
But the consequences of that type of imprinting and all manner of other self limitations, for some, may take some time to see thru.
But others may see the beautiful simplicity and utter elegance of how we are ‘wired’ to enable ourselves, in just this manner.


JJ

Thank you. :)

A couple of reflections on your words:
"When we combine/couple our mental acuity with our heart felt power of our emotional selves, then we fully ‘engage’ and enable our full potential creative ability."

I would add one more aspect to enabling 'our full potential creative ability' to the combining of our mental acuity (creating from the mental field) and emotional selves (creating from the emotional field), which is soul, or spirit, whichever people prefer. (My personal view is that soul is spirit in a state of individuation from the field of Spirit/Source). Creating with spirit is beyond the mind or emotions, yet moves, or focuses, through them both, merging them, honing them, into very precise creational engagement with life, with the life force, and crystallizes the convergence points of energy we experience as elements within our 'reality' as creational moments-of-love. When the mind and emotions diverge away from spirit, from one's innate connection to it as 'soul stuff', then the creatings tend toward control, greed and domination, or the flipside of victimhood, helplessness, or even insanity. 'Knowing thyself' to the extent of knowing one's soul/spirit individuation originates creativity within and from a subtler 'realm' that flows into action through mind and emotions.

"So if I were to choose just one summation of how to optimize our creative potential it would be idealized in the saying,
“Do what you Love and Love what you Do”."

Yes, or even, 'Be what you Love, and Love what you Be...and allow the Doing to flow from there...'

lcam88
3rd May 2016, 13:42
Excellent posts people!


...Creating with spirit is beyond the mind or emotions, yet moves, or focuses, through them both, merging them, honing them, into very precise creational engagement with life, with the life force, and crystallizes the convergence points of energy we experience as elements within our 'reality' as creational moments-of-love.

Not beyond the mind, it just requires the _complete_ mind. Spirit is of "mind"... it is "whole" (perhaps).


When the mind and emotions diverge away from spirit, from one's innate connection to it as 'soul stuff', then the creatings tend toward control, greed and domination, or the flipside of victimhood, helplessness, or even insanity. 'Knowing thyself' to the extent of knowing one's soul/spirit individuation originates creativity within and from a subtler 'realm' that flows into action through mind and emotions.

You have a way with words, Joanna. Beautifully stated as a "complete" perspective. Living the completeness is what we all seem to be striving for...

... and then one issue is we need to "remember" where our "ego" fits in all of it. EDIT - That is what perspective means to me anyway.


IOW love yourself AS, and for WHO you truly ARE.

Which is the totality of all of our 'parts' which are all of, and make up, ONE.

Chester
3rd May 2016, 17:16
I know folks running on spirit and personality yet appear void of soul.

Elen
3rd May 2016, 18:20
I know folks running on spirit and personality yet appear void of soul.

Chester
4th May 2016, 06:48
It's really sad too now... I was reading some materials saying it's all about a war for the soul and pointing out that over 50% have lost (or never had) a soul connection...

I don't know what's true or even possible. It's hard enough just to find another that agrees to what soul is, spirit is, the mind is...

But to think it possible for anyone to be souless... I sure don't want that to be true. Yet I am meeting too many folks who insist this is true. And my own observations give reasons to suspect it may be true.

I too often run into folks that fit the sociopath spectrum and I sure know for a fact, in the constant process of taking my own inventory... there is my own concern as to how much I operate with soul in charge as opposed to not.

johnjen325
4th May 2016, 09:21
It's really sad too now... I was reading some materials saying it's all about a war for the soul and pointing out that over 50% have lost (or never had) a soul connection...

I don't know what's true or even possible. It's hard enough just to find another that agrees to what soul is, spirit is, the mind is...

But to think it possible for anyone to be souless... I sure don't want that to be true. Yet I am meeting too many folks who insist this is true. And my own observations give reasons to suspect it may be true.

I too often run into folks that fit the sociopath spectrum and I sure know for a fact, in the constant process of taking my own inventory... there is my own concern as to how much I operate with soul in charge as opposed to not.

In my research I too have run across this topic of soulless beings who live down in this gravity well with 'us'.
And it is hard to know what is conjecture, what is 'real' and what is deliberate disinfo.

But, my take away is, the only aspect of this topic that matters is summed up in this saying,
Temet Nosce!
(Latin axiom from the Temple Delphi: Know Thyself)

IOW look within, for answers for yourself from your inner connection to your 'whole' self, your I AM.
This inner directed path of investigation will yield more than just answers to your questions as is pointed out by my #3 sigline.

Also since this world has a wide 'variety' of different types of beings, as such diversity is to be expected.

And especially during these times where the single most important source of change, with the most impact, will come from within.
This where our greatest personal growth and understanding will originate, and have the most significance.

And reading between the lines (which can be problematic) I'd say that just being aware of your behavioral responses that you deem less than desirable, is a MAJOR step forward.
The next step is to recognize when and as these reactive behaviors are triggered and intercept and break the behavioral pattern that results,
AS THEY HAPPEN!

I like to think of these as 'opportunities' to address the insistence that these reactive patterns MUST BE followed thru with.
IOW when an 'improper' emotional/behavioral reaction does get switched on, in that moment you have the best opportunity to 're-direct' your seeming autonomic reaction into a 'Better' form of expression.

And additionally, these repetitive patterns that do get triggered, can be perceived as the way and means for you to be able to address these issues and 'heal' them.
They are after all 'Life Lessons' specifically tailored just for you and they usually contain the highest amount of meaning and benefit for you and your ability to "Know Yourself" all the more.

Lastly all of us, in one way or another, have been imprinted with dysfunctional personal traits.
This can be viewed as our greatest challenge and when faced and transmuted, can become our greatest success.

Also there is this thought that we ARE here to learn the most difficult lesson of all, that being to be able to control and direct with conscious intention our reactive behaviors and how to best couple our emotional (heart) capacity with our analytic capabilities (mind),
as Creators.

This ability of ours to couple our heart and mind with creative intent is (it would seem) somewhat unique and highly significant in the 'Bigger Picture' of things.
And attaining new and 'powerful' creative abilities is usually fraught with 'challenges' aplenty.

All in all that your are aware of and have identified these traits is the first step.
Next is to 'decide'/intend to come to terms with and fully understand them, so to be able to 're-program' these imprinted patterns.

It is my hope that in some way this missive may help.

JJ

johnjen325
4th May 2016, 09:43
Thank you. :)

A couple of reflections on your words:
"When we combine/couple our mental acuity with our heart felt power of our emotional selves, then we fully ‘engage’ and enable our full potential creative ability."

I would add one more aspect to enabling 'our full potential creative ability' to the combining of our mental acuity (creating from the mental field) and emotional selves (creating from the emotional field), which is soul, or spirit, whichever people prefer. (My personal view is that soul is spirit in a state of individuation from the field of Spirit/Source). Creating with spirit is beyond the mind or emotions, yet moves, or focuses, through them both, merging them, honing them, into very precise creational engagement with life, with the life force, and crystallizes the convergence points of energy we experience as elements within our 'reality' as creational moments-of-love. When the mind and emotions diverge away from spirit, from one's innate connection to it as 'soul stuff', then the creatings tend toward control, greed and domination, or the flipside of victimhood, helplessness, or even insanity. 'Knowing thyself' to the extent of knowing one's soul/spirit individuation originates creativity within and from a subtler 'realm' that flows into action through mind and emotions.

"So if I were to choose just one summation of how to optimize our creative potential it would be idealized in the saying,
“Do what you Love and Love what you Do”."

Yes, or even, 'Be what you Love, and Love what you Be...and allow the Doing to flow from there...'

The one aspect that I see as REALLY important in achieving a truly balanced ability to create is the need for a balanced 'environment' in which to create within.

By that I mean we as creator beings need full and unhindered access to our full potential.
The Galactic Codex does a good job of detailing the attributes for a balanced 'environment'.

We are heading in this direction (and it would seem at an accelerated pace), but until (what I call) the dampening field is 'turned off", which is part of The Event, when compression break thru occurs, we are hindered and in ways we probably won't fully recognize until after these 'environmental' influences are negated.

Just the fact that the feminine is not equal to the masculine tells me we are fundamentally out of balance.

The degree and extent of us being screwed with and manipulated, for generations, has blinded us and quite effectively at that, to what a truly balanced life can be.

I for one look forward to the return of our full connectivity with our 'whole self' along with the resulting balance being restored.

JJ

Chester
4th May 2016, 14:03
But, my take away is, the only aspect of this topic that matters is summed up in this saying,
Temet Nosce!
(Latin axiom from the Temple Delphi: Know Thyself)


Last night I was reading a post on a blog titled soulmindspirit

That post is titled War for the Souls (https://soulmindspirit.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/war-for-the-souls/)

I sent the link to a friend via e-mail who has that same view... that it is all ultimately about a war for the soul.

In my friend's response was this line (paraphrased) - "that website is correct... ALL that is now occurring is a battle for all souls."

That same friend had asked me just a week ago to obtain and read a book entitled - Rulers of the Earth: Secrets of the Sons of God

The book arrived last Saturday.

Note that the same friend who told me it is ALL about a battle for the soul also told me in an e-mail in bold writing that the key is to... know thyself.

Anyways, I cracked it open two nights ago and the very first section is called -

Part One - Know Thyself


Anyways, all these synchronicities are interesting. Yet I am now beginning to conclude, as dreamtimer suggested, perhaps these synchronicities are not (at least in part) shaped by a benevolent hand.

lcam88
4th May 2016, 14:19
What is a soul?

Chester
4th May 2016, 14:49
What is a soul?

I can only state what is my current operational assumption. I am fond of the metaphor of the carriage found in "Eastern Gnosis."

found here (https://soulmindspirit.wordpress.com/2015/11/)


I wrote elsewhere about the gnostic Parable of the Coach, which depicts a human being pretty accurately, where the coachman is the personality (the mind), the carriage represents the physical body, horses – the spirit and the passenger – the soul. We may say that most of us identify ourselves with the coachman and the carriage, not having a slight idea about other parts of the being, especially the soul and their properties.

Again, this just points to "something" and how I see that 'something" is not so easily described.

If I consider my roots to be "an individuated spirit" sparked off from "source" then the soul might be seen as the repository of all my experiences while connected directly to the knowingness that "it" is actually all and only source experiencing itself as one of an infinite number of individuated experiencers.

lcam88
4th May 2016, 15:14
yes. I finished reading the article you posted: War for the souls

About what a soul is I found this:


From the above definitions, we may see that the Soul as a component of a human being, has some interesting properties. It has the energy and at the same time, she is eternal, as she exists across the time. It seems that this was the reason for her absence (or the wrong interpretation) in “our” spirit-uality?! As the archontic/alien entities (who comprise so called “control system”) do not have this component (as well as, many humans do not have it), this is what they are after. They are after its energy, and they are after its eternity.

There are some other properties souls have, and it is a feeling of humanness and conscience (as a FEELING, and not an intellectual term; it often does not have much to do with so called “humanitarian aids”, which are usually employed to mask psychopathological activities in this reality, as a damage control or means for gaining or retaining a control).
So, one may say that the feeling of humanness would be a platform from which souled or complete human beings would mostly act, and as more awareness they manage to gain, their interaction with the reality will be more optimal.

It seems to complement your answer quite nicely Sam.

Dreamtimer
4th May 2016, 17:24
Remember the Flobots? "There is a war going on for your mind." I know you're talking soul here, but I think it's the same war.:wiz::yoda:

ZShawn
4th May 2016, 20:32
I know folks running on spirit and personality yet appear void of soul.

ungerminated seeds ... hearts of stone, not hearts made flesh.
Hearts made flesh begin to feel, to sense (sensate), to know.
Many seeds have been scattered/sown,
on all types of ground with varying degrees of "water", so who can judge....
Those who have germinated are to show the way to those who have not yet done so....that is all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMmTkKz60W8

SIM-PLE

Joanna
5th May 2016, 13:27
Excellent posts people!

Not beyond the mind, it just requires the _complete_ mind. Spirit is of "mind"... it is "whole" (perhaps).

You have a way with words, Joanna. Beautifully stated as a "complete" perspective. Living the completeness is what we all seem to be striving for...

... and then one issue is we need to "remember" where our "ego" fits in all of it. EDIT - That is what perspective means to me anyway.

Well, whether Spirit is seen as 'beyond' mind depends on your point of view. To me, Spirit precedes soul, mind, emotions, body...and soul, mind, emotions and body proceed from Spirit. The reason I see it this way is because whenever I've experienced going into the heart of Source/Spirit - into, let's say, its concentrated 'ISness' - body, emotions, mind dissolve, until I am in only the light of my soul, which remerges back into Source, yet still IS, but unboundaried, unbound. Of course, this is just my experience...yet I trust it more than all the theories in the world. :)
This 'unboundaried' is also related to the issue of where ego fits in, as from this perspective, ego is the little fenced off bit of paddock in the infinite Source/Spirit field that we identify with as 'me' and 'you'. Ego is the fencer, creating the feeling and the view and the ideation of 'my personal experience'. If the ego is defensive, it may turn the fence into the walls of a fortress, or the walls of a prison, or an asylum. Or it may become enchanted with its own fence design, and lavish all its attention on ornamenting the fence, admiring the paintwork and gilding, and losing focus on what is inside the fence. Conversely, an ego at ease with, and appreciating the 'soul stuff' (to which it is innately connected) inside the fence will tend to make its boundary of something supple, transparent and flexible, so it has a clear view through its own boundary and can reshape it at will, and according to changing circumstances/energies.

Joanna
5th May 2016, 13:36
I know folks running on spirit and personality yet appear void of soul.

Or, souls of the void run on personality and the spirit/energy of others.
Someone or something appearing void of soul doesn't mean they are. It could simply be that the light of their soul has dimmed, and cannot be seen though the wrappings of 'deadening' energies such as hate, envy, bitterness and so forth....

lcam88
5th May 2016, 14:45
Of course, this is just my experience...yet I trust it more than all the theories in the world. :)

Well said.


This 'unboundaried' is also related to the issue of where ego fits in, as from this perspective, ego is the little fenced off bit of paddock in the infinite Source/Spirit field that we identify with as 'me' and 'you'.

I was thinking of that golden triangle... How the spiral created by a new subdivision, or the addition of another creates a form that is "unbounded". That is what I meant by 'it is "whole" (perhaps)'. We are on the same page I think.

And even then just as spirit may be described in such a way, so can mind. Once you strip away the notion of the egocentric consciousness and examine "mind" it is impossible for me to identify how it is different from spirit. Why is water a liquid? Why does a solid hold its form? Is it because of the spirit of material or the mind "thinking the thoughts" of material?

To presume that animated life forms are privileged with consciousness in a way that everything else is denied is the only way it is possible to suppose that spirit and mind are different.

Frankly I just can't find any evidence that such a presumption is true.

Joanna
5th May 2016, 15:14
I was thinking of that golden triangle... How the spiral created by a new subdivision, or the addition of another creates a form that is "unbounded". That is what I meant by 'it is "whole" (perhaps)'. We are on the same page I think.

And even then just as spirit may be described in such a way, so can mind. Once you strip away the notion of the egocentric consciousness and examine "mind" it is impossible for me to identify how it is different from spirit. Why is water a liquid? Why does a solid hold its form? Is it because of the spirit of material or the mind "thinking the thoughts" of material?

To presume that animated life forms are privileged with consciousness in a way that everything else is denied is the only way it is possible to suppose that spirit and mind are different.


I take your meaning re the golden triangle, and unbounded form, and it is connected to your second point. Here is where words become clumsy, as we are speaking in separate terms of qualities and energies which are not intrinsically separate from one another, and indeed when they are truly aligned and merged, the type of creating flowing forth feels, looks and behaves in and through the natural harmonies of the unbounded, infinitely expanding state (exemplified in the golden triangle, for instance)...whereas when the mind, soul, emotions and/or body (appear to be) split from Source/Spirit, and therefore split (to whatever degree) from each other, the creating feels discordant, and goes into the dissonance of control, victimhood, dominance etc.
So I would see water is liquid and a solid holds its form by the way Spirit (directly, indirectly or through individuated souls) wields its aspect we call 'mind'. Do you feel what I mean? They are not separate. And therefore consciousness is an attribute expressed through all that exists...

lcam88
5th May 2016, 15:25
Good!

Words indeed are quite clumsy.

Natural harmonies do include decay, dissonance and discord. Thinking of the perfect apple that falls from the tree, goes rotten and becomes soil.

So the issue is then of perspective, and only perspective. The way we choose to slice the pie which, inevitably, must be sliced. One part could be the ego, the other the heart, it really depends on how we look at it.

Thanks for playing.

I think the following is worth quoting again.


Of course, this is just my experience...yet I trust it more than all the theories in the world.

ZShawn
6th May 2016, 00:24
reading this thread brought an essay to mind that i wrote ....spent some time digging around for it and find the relevant piece



Quote: Matthew 6 King James

22 The light (1) of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light(2). 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light(3) that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

The word evil in Greek is "poneros" which means "hurtful"
and is derived from the word "ponos" which means "anguish or pain or toil"
which has its roots in the word "penes" / "peno" (to toil for daily subsistence)
....starving/needful/poor/distressed.

The word darkness in Greek is "skotos" which means obscurity/shadiness,
and it is derived from the word "skia" which means shade or shadow (ie: the darkness of error).

The word light is actually 3 different greek words:

1) "photeinos" = lustrous / transparent / well illuminated

2) "luchnos"- a portable lamp/illuminator (like a candle)

This comes from the root word "leukos" = light or white

3) "phos" = to shine or make manifest, espec. by rays (luminousness)

fire / light

This word comes from the root "phemi" = "to show or make known one's thoughts (speak, say).



So building upon all this:
the luster of the self is in your perception.
When your perception is complete you will be an illuminator.

If you are deprived/starved of perception you will be trapped in error/shadow.

If your thoughts based on your perceptions are in obscurity, then how great is the degree of that obscurity?

pointessa
8th May 2016, 14:10
Last night I was reading a post on a blog titled soulmindspirit

That post is titled War for the Souls (https://soulmindspirit.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/war-for-the-souls/)

I sent the link to a friend via e-mail who has that same view... that it is all ultimately about a war for the soul.

In my friend's response was this line (paraphrased) - "that website is correct... ALL that is now occurring is a battle for all souls."

That same friend had asked me just a week ago to obtain and read a book entitled - Rulers of the Earth: Secrets of the Sons of God

The book arrived last Saturday.

Note that the same friend who told me it is ALL about a battle for the soul also told me in an e-mail in bold writing that the key is to... know thyself.

Anyways, I cracked it open two nights ago and the very first section is called -

Part One - Know Thyself


Anyways, all these synchronicities are interesting. Yet I am now beginning to conclude, as dreamtimer suggested, perhaps these synchronicities are not (at least in part) shaped by a benevolent hand.



I have found in the past that some of the events that I thought were quite profound synchronicities, were really more mundane events that I tied together in my mind to give them more significance than was perhaps due. I wanted some sort of greater cosmic significance than perhaps the events deserved. I think I do this when I am desperate for meaning in my life and it is in no way conscious self deception. I am in not suggesting that you are doing this. Just for consideration, what if your friend stated "know thyself" simply because he was thinking about the book he recommended to you and remembered the title of the first chapter?

Anyway, Sam, I think the world of you. You seem to be such an honest, humble seeker of truth and I totally respect you for it.

Joanna
9th May 2016, 10:18
Synchronicities, to me, are simply the converging, or aligning, of energies (as events, words, happenings, people, beings etc) according to our focus. If we are conscious creators, aware of the multiple 'layers' of our creative output - the way in which we're creating in every moment, every breath - then the appearance of matching energies in our reality and perception is normal, the natural flow of life.
When people are unaware of how they create, then they don't see how their focus pulls energies into their experience, and the convergence of like energies will seem miraculous (if it's pleasant/enjoyable/uplifting) or evil (if it's unpleasant/frightening/painful), and the more their focus gets connected or attached to the energies flowing into their experience, the more is drawn in, which will then reinforce their belief that they are lucky or unlucky, blessed or cursed, guided or abandoned by higher powers and so forth.
When you focus into life from a state of joy, love and I would say, providence, without conditions or expectations that can narrow the passage of the flow, and those like energies are converging into your personal field, your 'I' experience, freely - then you are in that moment allowing the inner guidance of that which is joyful, loving, and providential to stream to and through you, no matter what 'environment' you're currently experiencing in....

lcam88
9th May 2016, 12:28
Synchronicities, to me, are an interesting point where we see start to see unity in our reality.

Something I got from Jon Rappaport put that into perspective that finally mades sense:


"It had a deep emotional effect on them. It was as if many different realities had come together to form this single mass, like separate pieces clicking into place."

...induced a profound passivity in his patients, as if they'd come upon a force greater than anything they could overcome...

False unities are the meat and potatoes of very high-level propaganda. They are launched in politics, economics, organized religion, science, psychology, the military, mind control, in all the academic disciplines.

As an analogy, consider a painting in which the three-dimensional perspective has been radically shortened to eliminate the background. But the background is really where all the action is. The foreground is the false Oneness.


It is important to point out that the context Mr Rappaport specifically referes to is something he found AIDS patients seem to encounter as a symbol, word or geometric shape while under hypnosis. A "brick sky" type monolith that broadcasts a message 'This is Reality'.


People gravitate to single causes, single explanations, single symbols in every area of life, and they don't penetrate further.

My contention is to suppose that those synchronicities we do find in our midst is either because a type of imprinted program trying to pacify our venture into "the action", or perhaps the breakdown of that program where we start to notice more signs of the action. My inclination is the latter and I'm supposing that we all have this malignant "program", perhaps something genetic, altering our awareness and focus so as to remain unaware of the action.

Noticing interesting coincidences is noteworthy then, not because of something noticed, but because of something yet unnoticed happening.