It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lifting the Veil - An Invitation

page: 37
107
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
That is an interesting response.. Are you only capable of one approach? Can we change a habit and still be "us?"

Many approaches and we can change and still be us but from yesterday to today I'm still the same.


Do you see what happened here?

We essentially said the same thing. The words were changed a bit, but not their concept, in an attempt to disagree.

No, there is a significant difference. I'm going after the ball not the player.


Again, you say the same thing as I, yet with the postulation that I am incorrect. Is this done intentionally and consciously, or habitually as a standard reaction?

Of course I did. I made that clear in the response below that one.


I'm not talking about convincing you either. I'm actually engaging you as an archetype, as I feel that is beneficial to the thread, overall topic, and those that might read it. So far, its going swimmingly

You are using the same approach you are criticizing and calling it a success. Interesting


Now, as for verifiable results.. First, we must ask "how are those results, or any results for that matter, verified by burden of proof statements?"

They are not as that is not their purpose.


Then, what exactly are we looking to verify, and how is that affected by subjectivity? Unless we are claiming that subjectivity directly equates to falsehood without deviation, this changes the nature of the verification.

We are looking to verify the truth. Tough job.


Are we proposing that logic, a derivative of the human brain, is capable of accurately parsing every facet of the universe and existence?

No.


But, it is the type of thing we are talking about in this thread.

And I'm pointing out how that is subjective and doesn't change reality, at least it hasn't yet.


edit on 22-10-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

i am about to take up meditating, any advice for things i should be concentrating on, to gain insight into the things you elude to?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnsSon
a reply to: eisegesis

i am about to take up meditating, any advice for things i should be concentrating on, to gain insight into the things you elude to?


It is a process. Like an unfoldment of your inner lotus. The most important thing is focusing on the breath. In through the nose, out through the nose. When your mind begins to wander bring it back to the breath. Focus. When thoughts arise simply thank them and let them pass, always going back to focusing on the breath. You can count for to 4 on inhale hold for 4 exhale for 4 hold, repeat. You can repeat a simple mantra, these things only occupy the mind just enough so you can be still. However I still see them as crutches. Being still and focusing on the breath is at first very hard to do. But it’s simple, and you will succeed. Do it a little every day and increase as time progresses. Out in your daily life focus on your breath. Always be aware of the breath. The breath IS our freedom. Just a simple explanation anyone me can make it complex, but it should be simple starting off.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnsSon

My bad, I did not realize you were asking the OP. Forgive.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnsSon

It will be extremely difficult at first, your mind will race like crazy, dont get discouraged, i had to repeat in my head, bresth in......breath out....until i could get my mind calm enough so that i could focus on my breathing, and not have to repeat it in my head...you just have to keep at it. It wil take some time, but your mind will quit racing, and it will become very relaxing and pleasant once you get there.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Many approaches and we can change and still be us but from yesterday to today I'm still the same.


Indeed, I would agree, so why do we imply that the same habitual reaction, from the same individual, is a matter of course?



No, there is a significant difference. I'm going after the ball not the player.


Is there? Or are we intentionally, subjectively even, playing with the words in order to create a foundation for disagreement?

If I perceive us to be saying the same thing, and you perceive the words to be as different as "dogs" and "planets," who is correct? Could there be value and validity in both, and if so, how do we align that going forward rather than habitually clashing?



Of course I did. I made that clear in the response below that one.


Now we are getting somewhere! Of course you did that, right?

Are you pointing out errors that you know to be objectively false? Or is it based on what you assume is being said?

How would we align the "planets" and the "dogs" if the planets operate on the foundation they know what it is to be a dog?



You are using the same approach you are criticizing and calling it a success. Interesting


If so, then would you say that is the most effective, productive approach?

If it is actually the case that you are incorrect (bear with me here), could it be a situation of a planet telling a dog about all things canine? Or the brain telling the lungs about all things breathing?

If there are flaws in such things, and I propose there are, how do we reconcile the differences? Is it effective to ask questions, seek clarification, listen and learn about breathing from lungs and thinking from thoughts -or- continue to lecture our thoughts with our breath?

Is it possible to ask what someone else means without making the assumption that we already know?



They are not as that is not their purpose.


Agreed, so why are we using them in that capacity?



We are looking to verify the truth. Tough job.


Tough job, to say the least! Is it possible that subjectivity and subjective perception is part of the Truth? If so (those are probably getting annoying, eh?), how would we objectively verify not only their presence and their impact, but build a cohesive, comprehensive picture any one of us could contain?

If that isn't possible, innately, should we continue to base our approach on it?


Are we proposing that logic, a derivative of the human brain, is capable of accurately parsing every facet of the universe and existence?
No.


We would agree on that my planet friend, but then why do "you have to at least have a logical argument?"


And I'm pointing out how that is subjective and doesn't change reality, at least it hasn't yet.


If subjectivity and subjective perception are part of "reality," isn't that a bit like saying "well, that hasn't been proven to change anything because that's a dog, and only planets change reality." Or, "well, that hasn't been proven to change anything, because those are thoughts, and only breath changes reality."

If it can't be shown that dogs affect reality in the same context as planets, or thoughts in the exact same context as breath, do we dismiss their presence as something else entirely?

Or is there, perhaps, another approach that contains them all and is not beholden exclusively to any single dog, planet, breath, or thought?



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

edit on 22-10-2017 by Serdgiam because: Oh ATS, you feisty thing you



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
Indeed, I would agree, so why do we imply that the same habitual reaction, from the same individual, is a matter of course?

Not sure what you mean. All I can do is me.


Is there? Or are we intentionally, subjectively even, playing with the words in order to create a foundation for disagreement?

There is an objective difference.


If I perceive us to be saying the same thing, and you perceive the words to be as different as "dogs" and "planets," who is correct? Could there be value and validity in both, and if so, how do we align that going forward rather than habitually clashing?

Whatever the actual meaning of the words is, is correct. We have to agree to the objective meaning of the words in order to not clash.


Now we are getting somewhere! Of course you did that, right?

Are you pointing out errors that you know to be objectively false? Or is it based on what you assume is being said?

How would we align the "planets" and the "dogs" if the planets operate on the foundation they know what it is to be a dog?

I replied to that line in your post and then noticed you said the same thing in the following line, so yeah, objectively it was obvious since it was right there in plain text.


If so, then would you say that is the most effective, productive approach?

If it is actually the case that you are incorrect (bear with me here), could it be a situation of a planet telling a dog about all things canine? Or the brain telling the lungs about all things breathing?

If there are flaws in such things, and I propose there are, how do we reconcile the differences? Is it effective to ask questions, seek clarification, listen and learn about breathing from lungs and thinking from thoughts -or- continue to lecture our thoughts with our breath?

Is it possible to ask what someone else means without making the assumption that we already know?

Actually, my response may have been off and I have no idea what you are asking since I don't actually lecture. I am here with an open mind but not so open that my brain falls out. Sorry if it bother's people to be questioned but that is part of a discussion.


Agreed, so why are we using them in that capacity?

I'm not. If you can't tell the difference then adjust yourself.


Tough job, to say the least! Is it possible that subjectivity and subjective perception is part of the Truth? If so (those are probably getting annoying, eh?), how would we objectively verify not only their presence and their impact, but build a cohesive, comprehensive picture any one of us could contain?

If it is subjective then stop telling people you can offer them "the truth" since, by default, there wouldn't be "one".


We would agree on that my planet friend, but then why do "you have to at least have a logical argument?"

That is what discussion is about. Don't have hard proof then offer a good argument. Don't have that then what are we discussing?


If subjectivity and subjective perception are part of "reality," isn't that a bit like saying "well, that hasn't been proven to change anything because that's a dog, and only planets change reality." Or, "well, that hasn't been proven to change anything, because those are thoughts, and only breath changes reality."

No, it is like saying, people prayed for people not to die because of that storm and they did. Those are not comparisons it is a simple linear event upon which action X had no bearing on the outcome.
edit on 22-10-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: eisegesis

Apparently it was because of liveandlearn's post making the connection with the mind control project. We talked about that for a few pages with nobody correcting. What are you gonna do, right?


Pardon? What is there to correct? This is about free association of clues given. I happened to pick up on Monarch as ONE possible clue. No one's thoughts on this thread needs correcting.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
double



edit on 22-10-2017 by liveandlearn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

Take it up with the person doing the correcting.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Perhaps you need to take another look at who this post was addressing.



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

You replied to my reply to eisegesis.

The OP was making the correction.

I said that I got the two mixed up because we had been talking project monarch earlier without them making any correction. What's the big deal?

ETA: Not sure what the first post of page 36 has to do with anything.



edit on 22-10-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I give up. Take it as you like. Done



posted on Oct, 22 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

You posted a link to a post that had nothing to do with you, the OP or the issue of the correction.

Why can't you just accept that you jumped the gun and blamed me for something that eisegesis did? He corrected me so if you think "No one's thoughts on this thread needs correcting." then you should have addressed them not me, the person being corrected.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnsSon

It's not meditation alone one must have and want to learn the deeper meaning of the cosmos, why stars are born how do planets rotate in conjunction of their stars.

What stars are made of and their relationship with their planets and moons.

You have to fully disconnect yourself from the Earth's environment and biological life.

Feel the cosmic radiation not physically but esoterically

Start learning about the basic laws of quantum physics. See the beauty of the cosmic relationship between biology and plasma energy.

And believe in God or the universe as the divine creator of everything that exists

Something from my own experience could be one of the key elements. I don't know how it works for other people but this worked for me.
edit on 0b42America/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 02:04:42 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 02:04:42 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnsSon
i am about to take up meditating, any advice for things i should be concentrating on, to gain insight into the things you elude to?

The trick is to not think of anything.

I get the feeling that if you go chasing answers you will end up telling yourself what you want to hear.

Have you ever seen the hidden image in a magic-eye poster? In my experience you have to stop looking for the hidden image in order to see it. I think what happens during meditation is probably an impossible thing to convey in text but this is probably the closest example I can think of to describe what I have experienced.

You want to turn of the internal dialogue. You speaking to yourself in your head. Once you start to relax you might find out how difficult that can be. You will want to tell yourself anything to keep it going. Even if it is just you telling yourself to relax, or keeping tabs on how you are breathing. Then again you may be a natural and you might not have any trouble easing into it.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Maybe you should read Susan schneider's alien minds. Maybe your more suitable for implants than rather find the cosmic energy?

If one chooses to become part of a controlled posthuman civilization then I will be watching this event horrifically from the other side as a isbe using a silicon suit to dispose of whenever I want rather then walking around in a biological suit altered by mankind in such a way that the spirit is fully controlled by humans themselves.

When that happens they sure going to shut down earth for good.

Our bodies are already under maintenance from the great divine builders of the universe. Those who didn't comply how things on Mars worked out and it seems that some destructive leftovers are again trying to build a society that mimics the Martians and their post-human societies.


do you remember the Bosnian pyramids +28000 BC look who's still in charge here?

edit on 0b36America/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 03:31:36 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 03:31:36 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Not sure what you mean. Implants are only mentioned 6 times in that book. Yes, I just looked it up and searched for the word in the PDF. I am not seeing how you came up with that connection with what I posted.

Have you read Thomas Campbell's My Big Toe? He seemed to have been a natural. Doesn't seem like he set out looking for cosmic energy.

Maybe you are talking about pondering and not really transcendental meditation?

ETA: Your edit says a lot. Carbon suit vs silicon suite, does it really make a difference? I don't know. You seem to think it does. So what if they shut down earth for good? What is your choice a third Mars? Is that going to be beyond the control of the "great divine builders of the universe"?
edit on 23-10-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

That's right because He's a scientist, not a combination of spiritualist and scientist into one. That's why the idea the theory of everything starts to take on life, searching if practical science can be adapted to spiritual things. As Ph.D. Parnia is trying to break and I can say he's on the right track. To unfold something very big in science than the theory of everything can be renamed..
edit on 0b34America/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 03:50:34 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 03:50:34 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join