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.

 

who denies you the truth?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
if truth knows truth will still be truth no matter what ...... why would truth need to know "self preservation"?

self preservation = self before you serve anything or anyone.

is it therefore the computers between our ears that distort our own truth, because truth was introduced to "self preserve"?

can you comprehend that truth in the subconscious can not serve you truth consciously if consciously you still know fear and hate, which are byproducts of the cellular encoding of "self before i serve".

why is it when i hold truth in my left hand and i hold truth in my right hand, when i put them together they are not true?

can truth be seperated from truth?
can fact be seperated from fact?

maybe the left hand and the right hand are true, and us as the observers are flawed with programming of "self preserve" which causes ourselves to deny us even our own truth.

perhaps it is not ask not what your country can do for you.
perhaps it is not ask what you can do for your country.

expand it to the Nth degree.

ask not what consciousness and experience itself can do for you.
ask what you can do for experience and consciousness.

serve all consciousness and all that is experienced, and all consciousness and all that is experienced will be permitted to serve you.

you must know you are worthy of your own truth, if not it will ellude you by causing you to ellude your self.

OR :bash:
:bnghd:


[edit on 6/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]




posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

: Originally posted by smadewell

: Originally posted by Esoteric Teacherself preservation = self before you serve anything or anyone.


I don't know about that.... That sort of makes Self Preservation sound so ... well ... selfish. .............

And, of course, there's the less self-centered examples of Fire Fighters and the Police and/or the odd Passer-By who places life and/or limb in peril to rescue others. Why would they do such a thing? Because their Super-Ego tells them that placing their life and/or limb in peril for another is the "right thing" to do? Hmmm.... If that be the case, then ... Self Preservation may not be as strong a drive as we so frequently give it credit for being. Just a thought.... I'll resume my seat in the Peanut Gallery at this time. Sorry for the unscheduled interuption in the programming. "Programming?" NO! I didn't mean it like that, Esoteric Teacher.


i find your logic flawless. fire fighters. interesting example of people who decide to run into the most terminally severe of situations and environments to save strangers they have not even met. they decide this before even learning how to be a fire fighter.

super ego.

you do us all a great service by stepping out of the peanut gallery and sharing your logic. your translation of self preserve is a good one. some just feel that self preserve in the extreme circumstances means combating fear and hate with fear and hate which can only be bi-products of self-preserve. unfortunatley when facing fear and hate with fear and hate ..... some just create more fear and hate.

truth luvs truth.

self pre serve.

pre does mean before to most. however some in the peanut gallery think otherwise, those wise others. many are glad they are here.

self before serve verses serve before your self.

the peanut gallery is most appreciated!

new food for thought:
if consciousness is defined as something that can integrate information from an environment and react to it by affecting its environment, are cells not conscious?

is it possible "self before you serve" is the way our individual consciousnesses that make us whole, ie "cells" (jail cells), hold them back from fully integrating themselves together?

do i own my cells and totally command them?
do my cells own me and totally command me?

is there middle ground for both, without being called a scitzo, or is one skit that is the norm of mediacracy enough? i think the media is cracy.

will my last thought be "i am", or will it be "we are"?

and if it is "we are" will we not be reduced to the strongest survives and in death be that last neuro cell to fire off, but instead be all cells in unison saying "we are".

if we are is the truth, can we are fail to be the truth?

if that were true, i imagine pharmisuicidals would go out of business.


[edit on 6/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]

[edit on 6/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]



new topics
 
0

log in

join