The Morphogenic field and the orientation of souls

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I admit that your view here is different than mine, though some ideas may be similar.
That is not relevant though- here I seek to understand yours.

I have a question-
How do you come to the conclusion that the "grey"s are of the "service to self" direction?

My experience with them was that they do not have much of a strong self concept at all- that they have a sort of "hive" mentallity, in which individualism is almost non-existent. Pluralism is all they recognize and respect; no self, no "I".

Perhaps you can clarify how you define the "service to self" mentality, because the way I understand it, they don't fit!
edit on 3-11-2013 by coquine because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by coquine
 


I believe that is because of this very fact you mentioned :-


do not have much of a strong self concept at all- that they have a sort of "hive" mentallity, in which individualism is almost non-existent. Pluralism is all they recognize and respect; no self, no "I".


That they were an easy target for the 4D service to self beings and have been manipulated and hybridized into their current form by these beings to act as their avatars in this 3d reality. Perhaps it facilitates control. Perhaps that is what they wish to turn us into.

Perhaps the Dead sea scrolls my describe the service to self mentality better than I do. Also note that 3D and 4D do still contain this orientation.

:- he operations of the spirit of falsehood result in greed, neglect of righteous deeds, wickedness, lying, pride, and haughtiness, cruel deceit and fraud, massive hypocrisy, a want of self-control and abundant foolishness, a zeal for manifestation, a reviling tongue, blind eyes, deaf ears, stiff neck, and hard heart—to the end of walking in all the ways of darkness and evil cunning.



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
People always think two opposites must fight each other for dominance. It is my belief that opposites will always be equally necessary for cooperatively defining the balance that is crucial in any team effort. In other words, instead of bulls locking horns, a whirlpool that will inevitably take to you to the serene center of two centripedal forces.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Nice thought , finding the center like the dot in the yin/yang symbol.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


Supremacy is an archaic concept.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


Entirely correct. Water is hydrogen and hydrogen is in a cycle through the universe. It connects all living beings like a communication system. In this case, quantum entanglement allows instant communication between vast distances. When we are changed, so is the seed we are entangled with. Matthew 18 covers entanglement.

8 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

This is the process of rising to new life in the water. It's a process we call baptism, but is in fact involution and evolution. The wave function we collapse is the choice we make to change the states of matter, yet we do not provide the environment. We do not make our eye see, our ears hear or the Sun shine. We think and move only. This is our part in the grand scheme of things.

Matthew 18 continued.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

When more than one consciousness is together, entanglement occurs at the localized level, although we now know from observation that consciousness is non-local. Matthew 18 again covers this.

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

We are the child of God below. Connected to our higher self above, we are the Angel facing the Father. The Matrix movie is a good metaphor for this type of entanglement between the real and the created illusion.

We have a purpose in all of this. It is to lift other up by our thoughts and movements. Words, thoughts and deeds are the key to faith. Faith is collapsing wave function, or the ability to make the indeterminate determined. We rise when we allow others to rise. They need assistance and so do we.

15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

edit on 3-11-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 




Well I wasn't talked into it , but was able to reach it . Maybe that is your journey not mine to find out.


...By following the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake.


I suppose the same place as all other's that mention the concept , as we are not in it now, then , I would have to say that its undefinable at present .
If you manage to work out the GPS , then please do share.


So far it points to nowhere.


A field made of energy somewhat like a magnetic field but not the same.


So it's like a magnetic field but not the same...am I supposed to imagine a magnetic field, or not imagine a magnetic field, and call that imagination a morphogenetic field?



All properties pertaining to the personality and intellect from the beginning of creation minus the physical body.


The only properties available to use in those instances is the human body. Minus that and there are no properties.


That's your perspective and the sum total of your knowing .

Not mine.


Tossing a little ad hominem jab in there doesn't change the fact that you are literally speaking about nothing, and selling it as truth.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Pinkorchid
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Nice thought , finding the center like the dot in the yin/yang symbol.


The hole in the centre of a wheel does not move - it is in the wheel but not of the wheel.
The hole in the centre is at rest and the outer edge of the wheel is in motion.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Aphorism
So it's like a magnetic field but not the same...am I supposed to imagine a magnetic field, or not imagine a magnetic field, and call that imagination a morphogenetic field?

If you spill iron fillings on a piece of card and then bring a magnet up under the card the iron fillings will move - do you think that the iron filling are moving by choice?

Have you ever heard of 'Cymatics'?



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


This is the representation that I was trying to describe :-




edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



Yes , you are correct about Rupert Sheldrake but I don't just follow idea's , I blend them with my inner knowing and theorise concepts , sometimes in completely different tangents. His information forms only part of my learning.

This is a concept a theory , I'm sorry you find it so threatening, having an idea different to yours.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


So according to that theory, once the division happen, you'll have pure negative and pure positive? No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Dark and light do not divide, for they are each other's definitions. Dark means nothing without the light, and vice versa.



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I'm still exploring this , so will take what you say on board but will still continue to theorise probabilities.
I am brain storming in area's that are not known, so it may or may not be present within current recorded knowledge.

Now there is something in creation that does not produce light.


Black holes are the cold remnants of former stars, so dense that no matter—not even light—is able to escape their powerful gravitational pull.



Many black holes exist in binary star systems.
url=http://]

Is it not possible that what I am describing emulates these binary systems , as in the self similarity of a fractal?

wiki.answers.com...&altQ=Who_was_the_first_fractal_made_by#slide4

science.nationalgeographic.com...[/url]
edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)


Perhaps I am incorrect , when looking at some cell division videos and the process of Mitosis parts of both cells align and are subsequently divided.

I will continue to research.
edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: typo



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 





So it's like a magnetic field but not the same...am I supposed to imagine a magnetic field, or not imagine a magnetic field, and call that imagination a morphogenetic field?


Perhaps this my show a precedent for abstract thought.


Argument From Abstraction: The Teleological Case for Supra-sensible Entities

Our intellect cannot know the singular in material things directly and primarily. The reason for this is that the principle of singularity in material things is individual matter; whereas our intellect understands by abstracting the intelligible species from such matter. Now what is abstracted from individual matter is universal. Hence our intellect knows directly only universals. But indirectly, however, and as it were by a kind of reflexion, it can know the singular, because. . .even after abstracting the intelligible species, the intellect, in order to understand actually, needs to turn to the phantasms in which it understands the species… Therefore it understands the universal directly through the intelligible species, and indirectly the singular represented by the phantasm. And thus it forms the proposition, "Socrates is a man." (Pt. I, Qu. 86, Art. I)


www.conspiracyarchive.com...
edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: link

And :-


In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz uses abstraction to establish the centrality of a supra-sensible God to the temporal spatial universe.



The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. "Eternity" is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is "the impact of another body," there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves. (No pagination)
edit on 3-11-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join