Beware of some "Alien Messages", Hell's Gates, and other "phenomena" in ATS.

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EldersCouncil
 


Thank you for your interest, and as you can see, we already have agreed on the awareness issue to some extent.


may I ask if you are searching for someone or something?


Yes to both... May I ask WHY do you ask? Maybe you know where they are?...




How is the perception modified thru the simple act of observation?


I am afraid I don't quite get the point, so please re-explain that one, for it sounds like you want to get somewhere interesting.




How do you distinguish between what is changeable and what is probable?


Two separate issues. Ones are usually red and the others orange.

Probable is just a matter of point of view, because EVERYTHING, in one way or another, will be more than a probability; it will be actualized.

Changeable is just transmutable, malleable, flexible, etc. Point of view can affect, but it is not dependent on it whatsoever.

Maybe we can clear the points a bit, and get deeper into it.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by citizenc]




posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
-----------------------------------------------------------------

May I ask if you are searching for someone or something?
------

"Yes to both... May I ask WHY do you ask? Maybe you know where they are?...__javascript:icon('')"
------

I was just asking, call it a vibe, or perhaps the way you present certain information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

How is the perception modified thru the simple act of observation?
------

"I am afraid I don't quite get the point, so please re-explain that one, for it sounds like you want to get somewhere interesting."
------

The question goes to the neutrality of an observer, and the effect on perception if the observer deviates from this neutral position.

Can an observer remain neutral to the flow of information or does the flow of information eventually modify the observer’s perception?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you distinguish between what is changeable and what is probable?
------

"Two separate issues. Ones are usually red and the others orange.


Probable is just a matter of point of view, because EVERYTHING, in one way or another, will be more than a probability; it will be actualized.

Changeable is just transmutable, malleable, flexible, etc. Point of view can affect, but it is not dependent on it whatsoever. "
------

A fair enough answer now lets try it this way:

If you aware of a stream of consciousness or train of thought connecting points a to b to c, (like cascading dominoes for a visual effect) and became aware of an inbound intersecting stream is it changeable or probable that you will loose your connection to your current train of thought?

i.e. --- can it be hijacked, and/or is your position defensible?



[edit on 17-11-2008 by EldersCouncil]

[edit on 17-11-2008 by EldersCouncil]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by citizenc
 


Citizenc, if you think that perhaps I am being difficult in some ways, possibly true. I want to hear what you say, for you to explain your claims. Though I give no garauntees that I will agree. I will drag your truth out of you if I have to (just joking). You have given yourself a difficult and perhaps in some ways thankless task. You are doing ok, that’s true. I have seen both sides of this fence. Some will want to tear you to pieces, some will think you nice. None of that should matter. Those that are prepared to or want to believe you will hang around, and those that do not will leave. Many will just be indifferent. Unlikely either of these will really explore, though they all deserve consideration. There may be a rarer type who will question everything you say, never believe or just accept, possibly even disagree at times, and want to get to the heart of it. Perhaps in a way direct to you, or at least within themselves. This could be encouraging, they might really wish to find out. All of this is fair enough, because you have willingly put your truth and it’s methods up to scrutiny as you are no doubt ware. If this thread ever become more about you personally, though I am not saying it is, I for one will leave. Some might find this preferable….

As no one has amusingly poked holes in me yet, I will explain to you something before I quieten down and try to listen more. So we can put semantics to rest. What I have found… My mind has no more true understanding of what I know than my computer does of what I am typing on it’s screen. No matter how much information, images etc. I store or bring up there or how many calculations it makes for me. Though it is like a computer with many bugs, it tends to distort, exaggerate, add some things, leave others out, always wants to think it knows. It often complicates and gives a false or exaggerated sense of “self”. Easily coloured with negative emotion and all sorts of nonsense that affect its thoughts. It can be very unreliable this way. Useful to count our change on the bus, to study for our history exam, to work on the car, talk to people etc. It never wants to do just that though, it wants to rattle on endlessly and be in control. Or to become a zombie in front of the tv to fill in the blanks. The personality is just something through which we can express ourselves. Often false and used to hide what is ugly within as much as anything. The greatest conmen can have beautiful personalities. The thoughts, images, beliefs, information, memory, concepts, theories etc. in the mind are just that, and no more. It is what uses the mind, or more correctly what should use the mind much more, that can know and understand. A shame we think we use our mind consciously, when generally we don’t. If we did we would count our change or whatever and then the mind would stop, become silent until we need to use it again. Then the lights would have a chance to come on. This is something quite mystical or spiritual in essence, though it might not sound romantic enough to many. I perhaps see parallels with this thing and what you call the soul, though not quite sure yet. I know that on its own, without the mind interfering, in it’s natural state, it is beauty and understanding particularly beyond any intellect to comprehend. Directly, experimentally, experientially I have found this. This is where we can know why and how we are all connected, related, and what might really be timeless. Any theory or concept of this, no matter how nice or agreeable it might sound, will only ever be a concept or theory in our mind and never the truth of this in our “hearts”. It could fool us into thinking we know, and then we stop searching. I realize the bitter possibility that my work could be wrong. Perhaps we both are. It would be arrogant not to at least consider that. I might also find you to be in error. This might have happened already in some ways, though you haven’t really given much yet. I know, it will take more time… At the moment I am more interested in your “how to find out”, rather than what I should find. I will await as we move on…


[edit on 17-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EldersCouncil

Awareness yes, however it is not a matter of quiet but of listening to everything else around you. Think of it like a symphony, once you are done enjoying, absorbing, or identifying a sound move on to the next one. You may notice sometimes the busiest environments have the quietest background or ambient noise.

If the mind is busy listening it cannot talk...


Thank you for the effort and response. I wasn't really talking of quiet as in blocking everything out. More to just observe. Just doing as you say. But why only listening ? why not the other senses ? Can they be active without the mind? For how long till the mind takes over or begins using logic to take us away from this? What is it that wants to enjoy and identify?

True enough, the mind is not good at doing more than one thing at a time. Listening or talking, but perhaps not both at once. What about if we do neither with it? Is there an awareness without the mind, that isnt shaped by it, no commentary, no anything ?



[edit on 17-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


"Thank you for the effort and response. I wasn't really talking of quiet as in blocking everything out. More to just observe. Just doing as you say.

"But why only listening? "

Not necessarily; any of the senses will work but if it was to quiet the mind then listening usually works best for me anyway. It can be different for other people for example I also use the visual field at times.

"Why not the other senses? "

Actually I would say the objective would be to sense as much as possible, we are most likely in agreement here. If not I would be interested to see where you disagree.

"Can they be active without the mind?"

Are we talking about translation processing or just the receptive reaction?

"For how long till the mind takes over or begins using logic to take us away from this?"

I would expect this would depend on the person exercising this control and their effort exerted to remain in state. But to be fair it can be anywhere from few seconds to a few hours.

"What is it that wants to enjoy and identify?"

For me it would be the part that is still aware.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Just saw you addition to the post.

"True enough, the mind is not good at doing more than one thing at a time. Listening or talking, but perhaps not both at once.

What about if we do neither with it? "

Hmmm.... how would you achieve this? Perhaps it would just be an awareness of transition.

"Is there an awareness without the mind, that isn’t shaped by it, no commentary, no anything? "

Without getting into some very personal experiences it would be difficult at best to answer this question. To say that there is awareness without mind is more of a personal perception. I will concede it is more then likely that the mind is still involved at some level.

-------------

Would it not be more of how you defined your boundaries of reality?

[edit on 17-11-2008 by EldersCouncil]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EldersCouncil
 


I guess what I was alluding to is something very simple. The inkling of a possibility in some way that we are not the mind, there may be more, psychologically. That we can be aware of the mind itself, not identified with it or swayed by it like we usually are. Just aware and observing. It's sometimes also possible to get this in some small way in the occasional gaps between thought. The mind can never really understand this and it isn't always easy to get. This simple thing can open a lot of possibilities.




To myself this possibility of 100% no mind is a truth, because it is part of my experience. Completely objective and illuminating, for a time at least. To me this is our essential nature, the essence of what we are. Where to use the mind is an option we have complete control over, though completely alien and would be something unecessary and inferior anyway. It might just ruin the experience. It can even be present to some extent in normal daily grind, I guess it always is, however small or drowned out by the mind. To feel it in some small way is nothing earth shattering in itself, but it feels different, a different way that can open a lot of possibilities.

Though it doesn't mean any other perspective isn't valid. Often semantics can be involved because I have heard it called the "illuminated mind" by a certain group who I tend to see as quite valid. Though it is also an interpretation into English. At any rate I have had some experience to show me the mind is something quite different to this. This seems something more fundamental, that animates our psyche, but is not the mind or emotion itself. Yes, I guess we all see what we feel is reality differently.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





I guess what I was alluding to is something very simple. The inkling of a possibility in some way that we are not the mind, there may be more, psychologically. That we can be aware of the mind itself, not identified with it or swayed by it like we usually are. Just aware and observing.


And here we begin to agree, I I may continue where you and EldersCouncil left off.

This is exactly what I have been saying, about the Mind not as the Thinker, but as a sensing attribute of the thinker.

All psychological differences. I would like you to comment on your views on that specifically, to hear how you see it.

It seems to me that, in some ways, we might still be discussing more about the LANGUAGE that we want to use, for I am sure that the experiences themselves can be easily recognized by those who have ever embarked in perceiving more than what the senses tell.

This is why I decided to illustrate with some of my CONCRETE experiences, so that the actual description of some personal perspectives can, as my aim has always been, help us all reach some constructive and helpful conclusions.

I take the opportunity to apologize for the delay, for I wanted to start yesterday, but this discussion has to a degree enthralled me, and then I met with some unforeseen difficulties while deciding HOW to write about this.

Also, I "wasted" a lot of time trying to use some 3D design programs, hoping to produce some images to illustrate a couple of points. This didn't go very well, for this is not my area of expertise. Also, while looking at the images, I noticed that some of them MIGHT be erroneously interpreted, even ever so slightly, but enough to be a possible problem, so I have finally decided to stick to words and let the "images" be personal. This until I can produce images that "feel" right.

Some of the experiences I have decided to share are explicative by their very nature, but trying to filter the useful from the personal and more sensitive, is proving also to be a trying task.

I hope that we can keep this tone of amicable, intellectual, constructive confrotation, when I begin the new thread, hoping also that others like you may follow and share YOUR experiences as well.

Maybe this is the purpose of this whole thing. I guess we will see.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Cogito, Ergo Sum I wish to say thank you for your kind and gentle nature,
your approach in response is that of a scholar and a gentleman.

I agree with your assessment, and it is as you say.

Good or bad, though we may want to protect, perhaps in the end it is still best to simply allow the observer to experience it for themselves.

from one warrior to another with respect, if ever I may repay your kindness I am but a call away.

By the good lord's will first, namaste

EC
--------------

citezenc

"This is why I decided to illustrate with some of my CONCRETE experiences, so that the actual description of some personal perspectives can, as my aim has always been, help us all reach some constructive and helpful conclusions. "

You will need to remember that there is still an interpretation factor dependent on the experience of those receiving the information. At best what is concrete remains subjective to this morphing of perception.

I will not deter you but it is something to take into consideration as you start out, just a small bit of knowledge to keep in mind



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by EldersCouncil
 




You will need to remember that there is still an interpretation factor dependent on the experience of those receiving the information. At best what is concrete remains subjective to this morphing of perception.

I will not deter you but it is something to take into consideration as you start out, just a small bit of knowledge to keep in mind


Excellent suggestion, and one of the reasons why taking off is proving a trying task.

I am very rigorous in how I approach anything, and now having to describe accurately and for constructive purposes things that I have very seldom shared, means that I have to filter to some degree the examples. Or maybe not, that is the question.

In fact, I have not started writing yet, because I am still "going over" the experiences, especially the first, so that I am sure that I describe how it happened and my impressions, and little else.

I am heartened by the fact that there are people in ATS, whom I have come to trust and respect, that will help point out possible flaws and holes in the portrayal of such experiences, to the purpose of getting somewhere.

Thank you, and hope to discuss the issues soon enough.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
 



If the message can be interpreted with purity in action and purity applied in the intent of that action, it matters not even a little to me who gets credit for it.

Here is a real example. Driving past a man with a sign that read: Please help me. I gave him $5. Talking to a friend later, he said that the man likely made 100's of dollars a day doing this. To this my response was, "He asked for help. Because I gave him money doesn't mean that was the help I gave him."


And it seems to me that we agree yet again, and in a strange way it seems that we reach different conclusions.

I mention the above quote just to quickly point out something very pertinent to this thread:

As I said before, there hardly is such a thing as a "sterile" message, in the sense that it comes pure and at complete disposal of the receiver.

I think that you mention that it matters not who gets credit if the message is "interpreted" with purity in action and intent, and yet we should know by now that this is not possible, simply because there are also no "sterile" receivers!

We are all, to some degree, conditioned by 3D, by society, by view and ideology bombardment, etc., designed to SWAY and color our perspectives. (This is why I insist so much on work, work, work...).

A lot of times, it is only the INTENT that keeps some messages alive, for this can escape and touch more deeply than what any conditioning can muddle and distort.

Ironically, while speaking about dangerous messages, as well as you also do, I mention that the receivers SHOULD or could be able to discern, discriminate, and be trusted in filtering accurately and constructively ANY message, but this is still not entirely possible, at least not yet, and therefore intent and the entanglement Conveyor-Message will continue to be important.

The levels of alarm, sensationalism, etc. that we find in may venues, as mentioned before, goes to the heart of this, because putting intent by the "messengers" aside, the fact that people in general respond to that sort of "non-content" but only FORM (pretty food with no nutritional value, for example...) is what makes the whole Message-Messenger issue still important and pertinent.

I like your example because we have the same modus in that particular situation.
Yet here, isn't the INTENT the real message here?

Tell me what you think.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizenc
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
 




Here is a real example. Driving past a man with a sign that read: Please help me. I gave him $5. Talking to a friend later, he said that the man likely made 100's of dollars a day doing this. To this my response was, "He asked for help. Because I gave him money doesn't mean that was the help I gave him."


I like your example because we have the same modus in that particular situation.
Yet here, isn't the INTENT the real message here?


Good, then I'll happily continue to use it as I see that it has pertinence to your question. Which, I hope you don't mind, I'd like to start off by answering with another question...

Certainly intent does matter, but whose should we value?

In this situation, I took my own intent into consideration, and that is all. I didn't consider what the intent of the man was other than by what I was presented with. If I were to attempt to establish his intent by any other means, I would be required to make a judgment based on information that I don't have.

Let's take it a step further. My friend frankly thought I was foolish for giving him money, because, he believed the man likely had made quite a lot of money already, or would in the future. Therefore my contribution was playing into a "scam". For me, the truth is I didn't suppose his situation when I gave him the money, other than that he was asking for help. I did as felt was right.

Now, let's suppose for the sake of argument that he in fact already had money. Should I feel foolish? I don't because I gave him what he asked for. The money was merely the carrier for my intent. That is to say, I could just as easily have given him a warm handshake and my best wishes. I chose to give him money. And I value what I gave him more than the value of the money, so I can't feel foolish. Had I given to him based on a judgment of his situation, then I would have left myself open to doubt and potentially feeling foolish because I can not know whether this is true either. But that would be my responsibility, wouldn't it?



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Now, let's suppose for the sake of argument that he in fact already had money. Should I feel foolish? I don't because I gave him what he asked for. The money was merely the carrier for my intent.


Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to share one of my all-time favorite quotes which seems particularly apt:



An act of love that fails is just as much a part of the divine life as an act of love that succeeds, for love is measured by fullness, not by reception.

Harold Loukes

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming


[edit on 11/18/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizenc
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
________________________________________

And here we begin to agree, I I may continue where you and EldersCouncil left off.

This is exactly what I have been saying, about the Mind not as the Thinker, but as a sensing attribute of the thinker.

All psychological differences. I would like you to comment on your views on that specifically, to hear how you see it. “

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will try to be brief. It seems if we really look modern psychology, as genuine and enlightening as it can be, is in some ways incomplete. There are different ways to approach things, there is “more than one way to skin a cat”. If we want to know what an emotion is for instance, we could study the effects of it within ourselves and others, the results of certain feelings, how it affects our actions, how it also relates to our thoughts etc. To be honest though, this is for the most part studying the physical effects of something which at its origins might not be physical. As far as I know we have not yet been able to physically isolate, measure or quantify these things to any degree. Where do they actually exist, what are they, why?

This is where conventional scientific methods seem to falter. There are many different aspects, facets or dimensions to each of us. They give us the sense of our “self” as we know it. Apart from the physical which our physical body is made we have dimensions that correspond to our other finer or more psychological parts. Dimensions, realms, worlds, whatever. These things which are not physical, which also go to make up what we are, do have an objective and substantial existence in there own way as part of nature and can be studied.

Also we have the thing that animates us, called by many names. The thing that allows us to be aware. To be conscious. Without which we would simply be a form of organic machine, or robot. It is part of our psyche, though sadly in a limited way. It is pure light itself, though really all descriptions of it will fail. Something that in itself is beyond any sense of time or self. We are all part of this same light, joined, connected at this level. An experience of this can make it very obvious. I once heard an analogy which is not mine, though very appropriate. Whatever comes within this inner light is that which we are aware of, that which doesn’t is what we are unaware of. Beautiful and simple. We are limited largely because we identify so heavily with our mind and lower emotions, which can be so relentless that we can think this is what we are. Our own mind is largely beyond what we are normally aware of, why random thoughts seem to come from nowhere. This is why I say my mind cannot really “know”. It can do many things, but it is something else that can truly “know”. It is necessary and useful but we should never see it as more than it is. We should learn how to use it. There is intelligent existence beyond the mind/intellect, this I know, without it being animated it is nothing. A phantom. To me this is very distinct. This conscious and aware part is the part that can use the mind and “know”. It can illuminate.

This is not something that hasn’t been taught by many throughout history to the present day in one way or another. It is the methods that are usually missing in some way, which usually end up with people being left either to believe or not. There are not many that go right into this subject in a practical way, which is why I am interested to hear more. This to me is a form of pure science, and/or psychology. There is more beyond this, I know, though I don’t know enough. This not just how I see it, but precisely what I have discovered over a very long time, as brief as I could be. There is much I have left out. Other people might find, or have found something entirely different and I won’t argue with them. It can be best taken as something for thought, to ponder or even discuss, with a grain of salt. Or not at all, if we wish.


[edit on 19-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EldersCouncil

Good or bad, though we may want to protect, perhaps in the end it is still best to simply allow the observer to experience it for themselves.

from one warrior to another with respect, if ever I may repay your kindness I am but a call away.

By the good lord's will first, namaste

EC
--------------



Thank you for this. I do mean it. To know when and how to be silent is an art form. One day I may conquer this pride which likes to presume it knows for people. Such a handicapp for true comunication. If possible, I will find a way.........

A fact is that I am not even truly aware of the extent of my ignorance yet. In so many ways this will be the most honest thing I can write.

I certainly take your offer as geniune. Thanks again.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Thank you all who have participated in one side or the other on this thread, which we can keep if we decide to continue some discussions.

As promised, however, I will now publish the thread on my experiences, so I hope to see you good friends (and not) there as well.





new topics
 
32
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join