The Astral Pulse
News: Acceptable Use Policy for the forums. Please read and ensure that you respect these policies. Thank you.

Please note that due to the amount of spam posts we have been receiving over the past few months, we have switched Registration to require you to be approved by a moderator.  We will go through the approval list as often as we can, but if it's been 24 hours and you haven't been Approved yet or you've received a rejection email, please email myself or one of the moderators immediately so we may correct the application.

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. May 29, 2017, 12:16:56

Login with username, password and session length

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 85
101  Spiritual Evolution / Welcome to Spiritual Evolution! / Re: Is earth the ultimate challenge for spirit beings? on: October 08, 2015, 15:51:00
What stage do you guys think we are at in our spiritual journey? do you think earth and the physical is somewhere near the start of the journey? or maybe we where at a much higher density and decided to come to earth?

Too rigid, too Aristotelian.

I don't think it is all so structured like that, where it is like a video game, and this is level 4, or 22, or what have you. We are all here... and we may be here for different reasons too. I suspect most of us are here to have experiences for the sake of experiences themselves. Reading more into it, such as that we are on a journey to become better, or more advanced, etc, I think is human thinking trying to apply the hierarchies we see in human society and experience onto reality.

I think we simply don't have the perspective from our current vantage to say what precisely this reality is for.
I think earth has to be one of the most challenging places to live, maybe its seen as a large leap forward for your development if you choose to come here?

Compared to what? Life on Andromeda Six? Existence as a gas cloud being living in a nebula? Or that time you were a geometric shape being in the flashy light plane?

Again, a perspective issue. Most of us don't have access to enough data about our other existences to put our earth experience somewhere on a peg against other existences. I am sure it is much more intense than some, and much tamer than others.

There is something in science called the "mediocrity principle", and it states that if you find one of something, there are probably more of them somewhere, and the one you found is not likely to be a particularly outstanding or unique example. It is generally applied to the earth and solar system, to inductively reason that there are probably many such systems, and I don't see why we shouldn't apply it to our current existence either, which there are probably countless, many of which are likely to be significantly more extreme.

102  Energy Body and The Chakras / Welcome to Energy Body and The Chakras / Re: Is it Kundalini? on: October 03, 2015, 00:40:02
If nothing else, I would urge you to be careful with the term. So much has been written about it, and people with diverse life experiences have attributed everything under the sun to it.

There is basically no common narrative to the whole concept. If you read up on the accounts of others, they will lead you to have expectations of what "Kundalini" is, and those expectation may trouble you needlessly.

I have had my own experiences a couple times which fit the popular notions on some points but not others. But it is worth mentioning that idea now has so many attributes attached to it that anyone could suppose, as I did, that they might have been involved with it.

I would say throw out expectations like that, and let your experiences be your own!

I wish you well with the migraine issue too, that stuff is not fun at all.
103  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: If thoughts affect reality, what is a thought? on: September 27, 2015, 23:01:02
[Axiom #3]
The projection of IDEA from STILLNESS is achieved solely by MIND.

Thanks for the effort Dreamingod...

But to be honest, I don't have the slightest notion what that might mean. It is phrased with quite a lot of authority, and calling it an axiom as Walter Russel does suggests it is a foundational truth that his reasoning is built on. As a foundational truth, he should do better to elucidate what he is talking about I am afraid.

I mean it seems to be a statement about the primacy of consciousness, but it makes no mention about mechanics. It sort of reminds me of the way people get a bit short-tempered with Deepak Chopra because he will use a sequence of phrases that means something to him but is utterly indecipherable to any audience he could expect to have, regardless of their qualifications. That is one of the challenges of philosophy... communicating your ideas in a way that they are lucid to others.

Walter's ideas here are about the way in which consciousness projects the illusion of a physical world.

To me they are expressing THAT thought is building this reality. But they aren't addressing WHAT a thought is. That is Beavis' premise here... that no one has offered an explanation for what the nature of thoughts is. I don't expect the question to be answered here, because it is seemingly beyond any of humanity's best and brightest to offer explanation for at this time.
104  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: If thoughts affect reality, what is a thought? on: September 27, 2015, 07:46:25
Hello Stillwater,
                       I was drinking when I wrote that so you may have to give me a moment to honour you with a plausible reply. Wink

Ha, no worries! I had a feeling you might have been playing there- I gave a serious answer nonetheless because it is one of the central mysteries of existence to me, and is a fundamental question about the structure of reality  wink
105  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: If thoughts affect reality, what is a thought? on: September 26, 2015, 10:46:38
Thought is the cause

Ok, but what is the cause of the cause? What causes the thought? When I have them, they don't feel like choices, but more like spontaneous happenings in most cases.

If I choose to have them, then isn't the choice itself a thought, and who or what chose that thought?

There seems to be a "me the experiencer"... a consciousness that has has perceptions / qualia; there is something it is like to "be" me. I seem to experience thoughts that are a summary of actions I am about to take, but how I decide (if I even am deciding) is a mystery to me.
106  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Out of Body Experiences! / Re: Professional MMA Fighters use OBE in the ring on: September 25, 2015, 02:20:22
Listening to the Joe Rogan clip, I am not completely sure what the fighter is describing. I think the language "out of body experience" has sort of been co-opted by common vernacular speech to mean a lot of different things.

There are neural disorders that will cause a person not to recognize their own body as being them, and will actually identify it as something foreign. A person with this disorder will think of their own hands as though they belong to another person.

That sounds very much like what this fighter is experiencing... I wonder if the intensity of the moment for this person shuts off that same neural center?

That is my guess at least!
107  Spiritual Evolution / Welcome to Spiritual Evolution! / Re: Is earth the ultimate challenge for spirit beings? on: September 21, 2015, 00:07:29
Think about how in history humans have had the tendency to declare their domain the center of the universe. The Chinese called their land the "Middle Kingdom". Humans from the Egyptians up through the Renaissance called the earth the center of the universe... only to find that not only did the earth in fact revolve around the sun instead, the solar system itself doesn't seem intrinsically special among star systems.

This doesn't seem that different. This physical universe alone is a dazzlingly massive place. Doesn't it seem a bit grandiose to suggest that the human perspective is the most important thing in it? Especially as a human, lol...

I have no conclusive evidence to say what purpose our existence here even serves in the greater scheme. I have my own ideas, but nothing to support them other than speculation. For what it is worth, Lumaza's conception of things here is what I most gravitate toward in that regard.
108  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 19, 2015, 19:59:31
It might be a UFO disguised as a rock.

Because there are more rocks in the world than UFO's disguised as rocks, I would err on the side of saying anything that looks like a rock and is among rocks is most likely a rock.

It may be a rock or meteorite that impacted at a shallow angle, and left a grazing path as it dug into the surface. Or maybe it was a rock that rolled down a hill.

109  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 19, 2015, 02:38:20
What do you think of this one?

That was on the moon in the 60s


When I see images like the moon spider, the first thing I think is:

Ok, the obvious reading of the image and ones like it is a positive form- meaning the light-colored space in the image is all one object. Our visual processing in our brain makes this leap for us naturally.

So knowing that we have this subconscious bias, is there a chance it could actually be a negative form? Meaning the light colored space isn't a thing, but it is the absence of things (like a hole)? The light-colored region would be a part of the lunar surface that is either a different material, or is angled at such a direction as to be more reflective to light, and is being overlapped by darker crags and rocks.

Maybe the image is showing a dark object with light highlights around it... that is a harder argument to make, because the highlights seem pretty unlikely, but it is possible.

And finally... maybe it IS a robotic spider! Hard to really say which of the above it is. Most of the doubt arises from the resolution of the image.

110  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 19, 2015, 02:18:29
What bothers me is the fact that they're not checking out things that need to be checked out.  Now that last video I posted really sucked but this a good one. Mike Bara is both a good speaker and a good writer. He gets to the point, makes his case and supports it. Whether or not you agree with him he's a good watch and a decent read. My only complaint is he gets a little gossipy in the book about people he thinks are hiding things. He has no idea why they are doing it and shows little empathy. If there is a high clearance attached to the material it's under a death threat or threat of charges of high treason which still carries the death penelty.

I think this is the updated video if not it's in there somewhere

Watched Bara's video, and he does highlight some interesting anomalies on Mars and Phobos. I find the tetrahedral mountains in particular to be quite interesting. But honestly other times it feels like he is really grasping at straws, and it bothers me how convinced he is of his conclusion.

Here is an example:

What is this? Alien artifacts? Tool for manipulating space time?

It is crystalized Bismuth, a naturally occurring element.

Our universe is a splendid place, and it will surprise you again and again. It is full of baffling patterns that seem like they shouldn't have happened... but they do, and repeatedly. Proclaiming like Bara does here that something must have been the work of intelligent hands because it has geometry does not account for things like the above.

But I agree, they are still pretty cool, and more than worth investigation. Who really knows what they are... I think there will be a big movement toward the end of the century when rocketry has been a bit more privatized (as is the current trend) toward investigating some of these anomalies which NASA and ESA seem largely disinterested in.


The second part of your quote here is interesting for a different reason. I have thought of this question a bit, off and on. Let's suppose that some group of government employees is aware of extraterrestrial life in some form. What are some logical reasons that would give them pause from sharing this information?

I can think of a few, and some of them may be legitimate.

For instance, say that the beings were known to be actively hostile in some way? Well, the government can offer no promise of protection from them. So they would be introducing a problem and a fear to the world to which they have no answer. I think most people would rather remain ignorant of a threat to which they had no protection, and in that sense those withholding information would be doing them a favor.

Suppose even less than that is known about them? Let us say that perhaps a government group is aware that their craft are visiting, and that they have inexplicably high operating methods. None of the occupants have ever been seen, and nothing is known about them at all, besides the fact that they exist. I think that too would be troubling to the population to be aware of. Other intelligent beings which hold humans in such low regard that they are not worth even talking to or declaring themselves. That bespeaks a frighteningly cold air to them, and there is no telling what they would be capable of, or what potential harm they might inflict. In all honesty this situation is much like the above. If you take it a few logical steps, you have given the public something to be deathly afraid of, and offer no solutions.

Suppose by some offchance these beings, which haven't declared themselves to the public in any direct way, were in fact in communication with governments, and they were overwhelmingly positive in their actions? Well from a government standpoint, I can see why you wouldn't want to go and tell people about them... it would make earth governments seen provincial and small by comparison. What is a government by definition? It is the group that holds the monopoly and sole right to the use of force in a defined geographic space. Government is defined by power. To admit you have power over quite little in comparison to what is available is quite embarrassing. The concept that the population has entire worlds they can visit, and places they can go to be outside of the jurisdiction of world governments entirely will cause people to immediately question the legitimacy of governments to rule over them.

So whatever the case is, should there be information on this subject that is indeed being withheld, I can think of convincing reasons why.
111  Astral Chat / Welcome to News and Media! / Re: Pluto Mystery on: September 19, 2015, 01:33:38

Some new photos released today from the July flyby.

These never get old to me. 
112  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 16, 2015, 19:26:14
There was also a crustation like thing photographed by Curiousity. I wouldn't want to meet it in a dark ally.

That is one of the more interesting shots I have seen.

Normally when I see these things people point out, they are very obviously pareidolia- people looking to see whatever they want to see by looking for patterns in lots of random noise like images of rocks.

I will have to admit that really does look like some kind of arthropod. But the next step that forces to me... if that is what it is, what does it eat? Where are the martian versions of algaes or planktons or bugs or worms it is eating? Even in a desert landscape on earth, rarely do you run into one isolated animal, without other organisms somewhere in sight. It is strange to me there would be all these candidates for animal life people are seeing in the images, but not a single plant-like organism of any kind anywhere in sight...

Which is not to say there won't be interesting artifacts on Mars... I think we stand at least a decent chance of running into something novel, provided we searched a wide enough area. My best guess for what the first thing would be, if we ever found anything, would be something like a "von Neumman probe"- if other intelligences are exploring this galaxy, a self-replicating probe is the sort of thing that will likely be scattered everywhere; we are less than 100 years from being able to build such things ourselves most likely, and we aren't shy about broadcasting our technological developments, so given that we aren't likely to be unique, I assume the galaxy is littered with the damn things. The only question is... would they be car-sized, baseball-sized, marble-sized, or bacterium-sized? We might not really be looking for the right things, and for all we know, the earth itself is swarming with millions of inconspicuous bacterium-sized von Neumman probes too.
113  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 15, 2015, 03:27:23
I bout @%! myself when I got the feedback too. I thought I was offtarget.  Now I'm not so sure.

Doing targets blindly removes the bias of the remote viewer, for the most part. But it doesn't account for the bias of the target supplier, unless there are controls provided for the viewing experiment.

For instance, if the only target for that session was the moon, regardless if you as the remote viewer were in on that or not (which of course you weren't), there is no baseline for the types of random "noise" your remote viewing is producing. If I was organizing that session, I would have provided a number of highly mundane targets to serve as controls. If in that case only the moon target produced an interesting result, it would add more interest to that result.

Is this how your session actually went, Blue? Did they provide you with a bunch of false-target mundanes to get a baseline control from you, or was it only a few targets?
114  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 13, 2015, 12:56:30
I love Hoagland's spirit... but man, he sees what he wants to see in any shot of a celestial body.
115  Metaphysics / Welcome to Metaphysics! / Re: Has anyone seen 'The Shard' on the moon? on: September 10, 2015, 01:05:39
You have to do it blind. It doesn't matter if you are oobe or CRV. I have the targets in unmarked envelopes and some targets out of target pools in there mixed in to create doubt. Your expectations will generate the scenes you see.

I second this. This has been relayed by remote viewers for years. You get far more interesting and potentially accurate results viewing a place you didn't choose and have no pre-conceived notions about.
116  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Astral Consciousness! / Re: How many of you can say this is REAL? on: August 20, 2015, 04:30:01
But 'scientists' like Dawkins, Tyson (although they have their deserved credits in their field) etc. mislead people when they pretend to be qualified to talk metaphysics. They don't. They have no clue. They are just 'gurus' of the other kind, feeding into their sheep with the dull materialist belief system.

Sometimes they behave as true scientists, and aren't afraid to do the Socratic thing and admit there are great mysteries out there they haven't answered. For instance, in this panel, Richard Dawkins and Bill Nye both openly admit that the nature of consciousness is baffling. Tyson suggests that consciousness is some sort of persistent illusion, and Bill Nye immediately points out how ridiculous that suggestion is lol.
117  Astral Projection & Out of Body Experiences / Welcome to Astral Consciousness! / Re: How many of you can say this is REAL? on: August 19, 2015, 02:57:24
You may have heard the phrase, "A collection of anecdotes does not a statistic make".

A large group of people can be very wrong, deceived, lying, etc, and so having more reports shouldn't be more convincing to a person who appreciates the empiricism of a speaker like Tyson.

I do appreciate the spirit of this topic though, so wouldn't mind sharing my own meager offerings a bit latter when I have more time.
118  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: What is the heart of your ethics? on: July 28, 2015, 05:18:58
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Love under will.

That was Alistair Crowley's phrasing of an old Pagan dictum.

I sort of like how the later Wiccans chose to phrase it...

"And it harm none, do what you will."
119  Astral Chat / Welcome to News and Media! / Re: Pluto Mystery on: July 26, 2015, 11:07:21
Yeah... my home country's finest hour... getting humans off the earth and setting foot on another celestial body, with a digital watch computer for guidance.

I hope they don't do something so stupid that anything but that is what we are remembered by when this era of history has faded.
120  Magic / Welcome to Magic! / Re: Magick Room on: July 24, 2015, 16:19:09
Agreed. But your feelings about the objects themselves will affect your mental state, so it is good to be surrounded by things you have positive feelings about. My musical instruments have names and they definitely enhance the room, hehe.
121  Astral Chat / Welcome to News and Media! / Re: Pluto Mystery on: July 24, 2015, 11:20:45

Absolutely brilliant images, no? I want to see images of at least one planet outside of our solar system to that resolution this century. It is doable.

There were some great anomalies sighted on that flyby. Richard Hoagland reads a lot of bizzare conspiracies into the whole thing, but while I love his attitudes, he does take things too far for me most times.

One interesting feature was all of the hexagon-shaped structures. Hexagons do appear in nature, even very large ones, and sometimes certain kinds of impacts do form hexagonal craters. One very noteable hexagon in our solar system that is incredibly large, and somehow almost unknown, is the north pole of Saturn. Almost boggles the mind that a structure that large could be anything but circular... but there it is somehow!

122  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: What is the heart of your ethics? on: July 24, 2015, 03:35:48
I think you don't need a lot of different rules if you have central concepts which inform the others. The core of the Buddhist and Upanishadic systems has always made sense to me, and is incredibly simple- don't cause harm if you can avoid it. It is also a good rule of thumb to treat others the best way you can allow in any given situation.

Pretty basic, and nothing groundbreaking, but then I don't think you will see much innovation in this topic, and I think that is a good thing- if it was very difficult to see what was ethical, we would be in a much worse situation than we are now.

Another good standard is Immanuel Kant's Universal ethical principle: for any given action, would it be better for everyone to take this action, or for no one to take this action? If no one should take this action, then the action is best avoided in the majority of cases. If everyone should take the action, then it is probably a case where someone is ethically negligent not to do it.

Then a level more complex than that, is the modern system of "normative ethics". That system posits, like Kant, that there are some ethical constraints that should generally not be broken unless it can't be avoided without doing greater harm, and there may even be constraints which should never be broken at all. An example of one of the first kind, a conditional constraint, might be something like stealing. Probably wrong to do in most cases, but acceptable if greater harm is avoided as a result. Examples of absolute constraints are much harder to come by, because a person can think of creatively absurd situations under which any rule ought to be broken, but a candidate might be something like a person ought not to murder their children.

Normative ethics is about weighing these constraints against one another, to see which should trump the others in various situations, and is sort of a tricky game. An example of a mental game that illustrates this type of thinking is the "trolley problem", which is a set of situations that pits the constraints in a contest, such as, "If a trolley carrying 12 orphans was about to crash into a stalled bus full of 8 Nuns on the tracks, but you could hit a switch, and the trolley full of orphans were to instead hit a car full of 6 neurosurgeons, what action would you take, and why?

Sounds silly, but it is the sort of thing you need to do to write the principles that guides mechanical systems such as medical ethics boards, because those systems need hard and complex rules, and they are difficult to devise, because they are in some sense arbitrary.
123  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Astral Projection: The dangers. on: July 15, 2015, 09:42:55
There are dangers, but not the ones you might be thinking of. They are mainly psychological. For those who are not in a mentally healthy frame of mind, these practices don't seem to do them any favors; such folks will often seek out these practices, thinking of them as treatments for whatever situations they have in their life. This is probably a very bad direction for them.

So if you want to know if the practice is potentially harmful for you, I suppose you must ask yourself if you are coming to it in a healthy frame of mind, for the "right" reasons.

The gentleman in the video is working for what he perceives to be the benefit of all, and I applaud him for that intent. That said, I think he is working under the burden of several forms of doctrine and dogma. Negative entities may possibly exist, however every indication I have seen is that every instance anyone ever reports is actually connected to their own psyche. Now if you are in a slightly troubled state of mind to begin with, having the experience of one of these encounters is not going to be beneficial to you. If you are well off, you will likely have the perspective to say that these beings are representative of various fears you may be illustrating to yourself.

You need to set aside fears of such encounters, because they will hold you back.
124  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Question on: July 12, 2015, 02:14:46
For any supplier to put ethics above profit, it is a positive thing.

Maybe what I was saying with my response is that I think that while it is worthwhile to focus on the choices of consumers, it is likely not the best immediate solution for the larger problem.

For instance, apply it to the situation of the drought in california; extreme restrictions are being placed on residential water usage. Is this helpful? To an extent, yes. But then... residential use accounts for less than 15% of total use. People there feel as though a huge amount of attention is being paid to the problem as a result of residential restrictions, but the lion's share is used by the commercial farms. The real way to conserve water is not to focus on the homeowners, but rather to meticulously study what is happening all along the farming processes, and what systems and crops account for significantly higher usages.

Now why do I bring up something as left-field as Kant's Universal ethical principle? Because a similar issue exists in product consumption. Because most consumers in the world do not have choice over which products to buy for economic reasons, the majority of the chance to make a difference in consumption resides with suppliers currently. Thus your product can only be beneficial if the majority of consumers in the market you are serving have the realistic choice to opt for it, even over cheaper alternatives.

125  Astral Chat / Welcome to Astral Chat! / Re: Question on: July 11, 2015, 06:20:17
As mentioned by others, for 4/5 humans on this planet, the only decision to be made is completely economic. They simply do not have the resources to care about what happens on the supply chain, since if they don't opt for the cheapest options at all times, they will bring suffering on their families.

In this situation, the consumer is not a moral agent (meaning they don't have a realistic choice between two alternatives- they could choose to starve, but I don't consider that a realistic alternative to choose for other humans).

The moral agent in this situation is the supplier. They can opt for what is ethical, or they can opt for what is cheapest. It is worth noting then that the only moral agents with any choice in a situation of scarcity are the suppliers.

Kant came up with an ethical theory based on universal applications, and it is pretty simple: For every "x", would I desire that every human does "x"?  For instance, if I want to know if theft is ethical, I have to ask myself if it is preferrable for all humans to steal, or if it is preferrable for no humans to steal.

The universal is what is relavent here. Since I cannot ask the majority of humans to starve, I must solve the ethical questions of supply some other way, and to me that means they must be solved by the supplier, rather than consumer. So the real question, is how do I compel the supplier to behave ethically, knowing that it is cheaper for them to cut corners, and I just determined it is most ethical to expect the majority of humans to opt for the cheapest products?

Either I must convert the have-nots into ethical agents by ensuring they have enough resources to be able to address questions other than need, or there must be a system in place which encourages the supplier to act ethically regardless of cost to them. The second is a much taller order, so I think it is a pretty good argument to press for universal standards of living instead/
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 85
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums

The Astral Pulse Copyright 2002 - 2014
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM