posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:11 PM
I posted this on the "Opposite to Indigo" thread. More or less, many indigos and crystals already know the gist of this spectrum and I don't know
if this will help anyone, but here it is:
instinct-------reason based instinct-------logic based reason
I'll explain this just in case. All who live that are not plants are animals, this includes homosapiens. However, homosapiens are mentally superior
to all other (known) animals on this planet. This coincides, I suppose, with the whole "Are indigos the next stage of human evolution?". Because of
our (that is to say indigo's and crystall's) superior way of thinking over that of the average person, we are further away from actual instinct that
When viewing this spectrum, think of it as a point system. In my opinion, even the average person is in the area between reason based instinct and
logic based reason; they just are not as far along as we are. This is why, I believe, that there are so many indigos and crystalls saying that average
people are more animalistic or (as I've heard before but don't quite agree with) sheeple.
Average people have reason, but little logic. They base their reason mostly on instinct for lack of a better dominance to take over reason. The only
thing that seems to change over time is seemingly the amount of knowledge in a society. As more knowledge is created by taking two pieces of relative
information and creates a new piece of information - a(square) + b(square) = c(square). Eventually, people generally do accept the facts; it is just
not always right away. People, in general, are ignorant. I will now give two examples of how people, in general, are hardly any different than they
Galileo saw with his spy glass that the moon was not a perfect smooth sphere. Now, anyone who could stop and look through any spyglass would have seen
that he was correct. However, the catholic church remained ignorant. They might as well have been little children, sticking their fingers in their
ears saying, "la, la, la, no, no, no I'm right your wrong." A modern-day example of this is the mass majority of the people I deal with when I try
explain that males and females are not equal in this society.
People, in general, say that a male should not hit a female because they are stronger than them. I will now dismiss this as "not logical behavior".
Black males are generally stronger than white males. If we were to go by what average people say about males to females that means a white male can
begin to beat up a black male and the black male can do nothing about it. The same goes to a white male who is being attacked by a yellow man. It
makes no logical sence. Nor do they even agree to that level of specifics regarding a person's ascribed status. They just go by gender, so even if
they were right, (which they are not) they would still be logically wrong on a more closer look. I believe that corporal punishment is just. If a
person lies or commits slander then pop them in the jaw, for example. If I do this to a fellow male and explained why I did it; people might accept it
to some extent. However, if I was to do the same thing to a female; I would have little support. The evidence is so obvious, but people will not
acknowledge the truth.
My second example is the behavior of people after they get out of a relationship or some other thing. The females, in particular, have a tendency to
try to make the males jealous. They will, for example, ignore you (this is, itself, a type of acknowledgement). If one was to acknowledge their
existence, they would think you are still interested. If one was to ignore their existence to a point and they think you are then you are still
interested, and just trying to "act" casual as a way not to show it. Either way you are guilty. In witch trials, if you were guilty you would float,
and then they would kill you. If you were innocent you would drown.