Continue...
I read the whole of the thread, you know the one, 'the one with the simulated ending' (potential 'Friends' episode?). :-) Frankly I feel that it went over my head a bit, but I'm going to pipe in anyway with my own thoughts, while attempting to take into consideration what I remember of others words. Feel free to tell me if I'm well off track with what I'm saying. :-D
Where did this thread begin? with Contenteo? What about the other thread, did that begin when William started it? Or when he signed up to this forum? If he hadn't signed up, we would not have this thread, if this forum hadn't been created we again wouldn't have this thread, here, on this forum, involving these people, & we can go back infinitely. We say the thread began when William posted it, as a convention, or we couldn't really talk about it very effectively, but still that beginning is not really true, it's rather a useful illusion. So what is a beginning? It's a part of the process taken out of context, given an agreed upon start & end point, illusionary, misleading.
I think 'beginning' & 'end' is like, a 'noun' - it doesn't actually exist outside of conventions. There is just continual process. So if we talk about things that have beginnings being simulated, then we are calling it a simulation based on based on an illusionary representation of what ever it is (because nothing has a beginning) - e.g my life, this forum, this thread etc... thus it can't possibly be an accurate representation of what's happening, because it's evaluating an illusion... Not what is, but what appears to be out of context.
So in my mind - Everything which has a beginning is by that very fact - an illusion. Something that is being taken out of context & understood or presented as something other than what it really is.
As I said, I feel like the original thread went a bit over my head, so feel free to let me know if I'm missing the point, I am trying keep up with you smarty pants!! *anxiety attack - anxiety attack* :lol: :-D
The original thread went over my head too. Not to worry. It was the thread that went over my head.. not the 'message' of the statement. This says a lot.
The theory is very simple but it's flawed in that like you said...
'it can't possibly be an accurate representation of what's happening, because it's evaluating an illusion... Not what is, but what appears to be out of context.'
:lol: Yeah it was a bit manic - wasn't sure if I was missing something or not, but posted anyway. :-D
I keep feeling like we're missing huge chunks of the puzzle that we will never solve. This is why, in the other thread, I said something along the lines of "To question one's reality or unreality will start to lead one to insanity". Not to get philosophical on anyone but it's kind of true.
Sure, it's very easy to simply say "We always were and always will be -- no beginning and no end -- alpha and omega, etc"
But it is a concept that goes way over everyone's head. For example, one could compare the sheer perfection of the patterns and illusions that make up our reality to a painting. Let me use the Mona Lisa as an example.
Trying to tell people that "We always were and always will be, and we just ARE" is like taking someone into the museum, placing them in front of the beauty of the Mona Lisa, and saying "See that painting? She painted herself. That sprang out of oblivion. She always was and always will be."
It just doesn't cut it, right? Well, I look at reality and at the known universe as sort of like a painting. Anything that is complex, especially if it has consciousness, is just so hard to justify in any way.
We all know of the loop thing that you mentioned Wi11iam. Still using the Mona Lisa metaphor, we can get into an endless cycle of
Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa > His parents gave birth to him > Their parents gave birth to his parents > Repeat for many generations until the butterfly effect finally resulted in the lovely Mona Lisa.
Consciousness is perfection. It's very hard to imagine perfection coming out of nowhere. I cannot make a Mona Lisa-like painting just materialize with the wave of my hand and then, I wouldn't be able to take it further by saying "Oh, that thing? It just is and always will be." because like we all have said, it's just hard to wrap your mind around.
If something has no beginning or no end, then it loops, does it not? Beginning > end > beginning > end > beginning. It's like a circle.
The one contradictory flaw with this theory is that, like I said, consciousness is perfection. It's very hard to imagine perfection always being there without some sort of 'beginning' or push that sprang it into motion. But even then, if something did spring forth the events for consciousness to be, then what affected those events? And the events before those? IT IS MADDENING.
If we came from a big bang, or a void, then what is the big bang or the void? Let me explain it in physical terms:
If you take all life away and just observe an empty space for an infinite amount of time, will something happen in that space? Something drastic enough to spring forth all life as we know it, that is. Well, okay. So, lets say that after eons of time, of observing space, and nothingness.... BAM... universes just collided and a massive blast occurred which became known as the universe. Hmmf.
This, to me, doesn't make much sense. I think that before this universe, there were others. We are probably part of a multiverse. When this universe was "born" in the 'beginning", it was probably the byproduct of a massive energy surge/explosion/transfer of energy happening in another universe which transcended the fabric of time and space itself.
Okay so, that's my theory. That, just like the Mona Lisa did not paint itself, the universe did not just spring forth randomly from some vacuum after eons of time. If anything, I truly believe that something happened somewhere else to cause this universe to spring to life. Of course, the looping thing comes into play here, too. If the universe is a product of other universes colliding, or giving forth their own energy, then what gave those universes energy, and the ones before them energy, and bla bla bla. Yada yada. My gosh, it is just so tedious. :roll:
Also, many of us here who have astral projected firmly believe that the astral came first. I personally believe that the astral came first. Actually, it would make sense for the astral to come first before 3D. And those of us who have vivid dreams/go to the astral know that it's literally like having a holographic body and being in a simulated environment completely dictated by thought, will, and imagination. It's like logging on to the 3D game Second Life and flying around to any simulated location that you feel like going to, except it's much more real and "in the flesh" feeling.
Keeping the astral and the 3D in mind, one can say with confidence that they exist on other frequencies or wavelengths. If the astral existed first, and if 3D followed, then it's safe to say that our true nature is higher in frequency and lesser in density. But then, what exists beyond the astral? On the higher frequencies? If you take a song and if you speed it up, it will start sounding like a choir of chipmunks are singing it. Speed it up some more, and you can compress a whole 5 minute song within a 20 second period, and the wavelengths will all completely change because they are being accelerated at a higher pace. Take that same song and slow it down massively, and you can completely distort what it sounds like and you can turn a 5 minute song into a one hour long song.
I'm beginning to think of things in similar terms to this. Lets say that, as a completely theorized notion, the big bang happened and is still happening right now.
Lets say the big bang is happening on a frequency that is so powerful it has the energy of infinite suns.
Now, lets say that that frequency, when slowed down in time (which, time may not even exist) goes from happening over a seemingly compact and short period of time, to being stretched out over eons and eons and eons.
The energy from the big bang could be what we all borrow.
So, our reality may be a frequency that is borrowed from something else. Big bang or not, I don't know. However, we are just so slowed down and so far from the higher frequency. Like I said, imagine taking a song. Imagine that a 2 minute song is the big bang. Now, go into a music editing program and turn that 2 minute song into a 2 hour song. Everything completely changes. Lets call the song functioning on a certain wavelength to be our reality.
Now, change the frequency of the song by 1%. Now, by another 1%. Now, it's completely new, and something else. This can be a metaphor for an alternate dimensions or planes. Same song but with a slight 1% difference. Am I making any sense? Maybe everything always is and always will be because we are part of the same song. Maybe the song has already played. 8-) Oooh, that's a mind trip, aint it?
I must sound nutty because I've used things like paintings and songs to be the metaphors of life and existence, but it really helps me paint a picture or get my point across when I can take something as mind bending as this topic and relate them to concrete things. All in all, I really need to go grab some coffee now because I can literally feel my brain hurting. :-P
THIS NEW THREAD CONTINUES FROM THIS ONE:
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/in_the_beginning-t39778.0.html
QuoteThanks Wi11iam. Everything you said made sense in the sense that it made no sense at all... if that makes sense?
Because nothing about consciousness makes sense and that's just the way it is.
I feel like I need to go do more research on this void/big bang thing. Even though everyone claims it's much needed to branch away from the concepts of things having a beginning/end, it's so hard not to wonder what everything was like in the 'beginning' if there ever were such a thing.
Whatever sprang the events into motion that led up to us being... 'us' -- well, I wish I just could have been around to see all that. Oh wait, maybe I was there. Maybe we all were.
The maybes really get to me, though. Like I said, consciousness is such a topic that can lead one to question their sanity. The ifs, and hows, and whats of this 'beginning' everyone speaks of, are not fully capable of being grasped by the human brain.
What I can say is that I do believe that the astral is our true home. The astral is not dense or full of materialized matter because I believe the substance (isn't it called astral substance or ether substance?) resonates on a higher frequency. I believe that in order for something to materialize and become set in stone on the material planes, it has to have been revised and carefully planned out on the astral. All of us ending up in the same reality probably means that we all concentrated on crystallizing this reality back when it was still a rough draft project.
My personal theory is that in the beginning, the astral existed first, or the substance that created the astral existed first. Once it was utilized, it sprang into an infinite number of planes. Somewhere in the midst of everything, consciousness came to be/or already was.
However, I cannot see what came before the astral. I don't have the power to. My human mind isn't capable of grasping it at this point. ~ Fairywindblues
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/in_the_beginning-t39778.0.html;msg326521#msg326521
There are many things about Consciousness which do make sense. While many things might not be fully understood by the brain, Consciousness isn't one of those things...it works rather well with the brain but is not limited to the brain alone.
Beliefs do have a lot to do with how Consciousness is directed as does the environment Consciousness is involved with.
You believe Astral is 'our true home' but for me that is simply an environment. Consciousness does not really need a 'home' – like that saying goes – 'home is where the heart is' which tends to mean 'Your home is whatever place you long to be. ' and 'true home is with the person or in the place that you love most ' – along those lines – and one can 'feel at home' in a familiar situation.
If one could be comfortable in the realization that you are Consciousness, that can grow to be the equivalent of 'home' – Like being sure of your self, even when things around you – your environment – are looking like falling into chaos.
Your observations of careful planning and teamwork which when it creating this denser environment we call the physical universe from that environment called 'the astral' is something I understand many who have experienced that environment also believe. It is easy enough to understand from that perspective – the creative patterns can be seen clearly enough in both realities and all I am doing is pointing out that both have evidence of a beginning.
Just as surely as many can identify with and feel more comfortable or 'at home' with the Astral than they do with the physical, others are more comfortable with just the physical universe – it is enough and thinking about the astral is 'over their heads' just the same as thinking about 'no beginning' is, at this time, over yours.
I think of the Astral – not as 'home' but an environment which was created to explore the concept of having a beginning.
It certainly looks like Astral was around a long time before this physical Universe, and that all that can be experienced sprang from that.
It is really just the fact that The Void exists and is recognised in general to be the source of consciousness – that consciousness grew from this 'thing' and from that 'The Astral' evolved as consciousness did.
As you said - 'Once it was utilized' - Only Consciousness can utilize anything.
If someone where to say to you 'the physical universe is all that there is' you would likely disagree even though you couldn't prove to them.
In the same way, if someone were to say to me 'The Astral' is all there is. I too would disagree.
The bottom line is that Consciousness which evolved from The Void must know that it had a beginning for that fact – So it was a blank slate (something most if not all of us can identify with) but that Consciousness (from which we as individuals in this universe are part of) would understand itself to have had to have existed prior to being 'Incarnated' into the Astral experience where IT began its journey into what it was like to have a beginning.
Just like you might say to someone 'everyone comes from the Astral and had a prior existence.' That person might not think so, or argue for the evidence or think you are crazy or consider your information to go right over their heads etc...they can't imagine anything other than what they are focused upon in 'the real world'...
...so too it seems that those who experience the Astral appear not to be able to grasp the concept of having no beginning. There 'real world' is all there is, and they focus on that.
Perhaps just like those who refuse to contemplate anything outside the physical universe – for whatever reasons, so too are there those who refuse to contemplate anything outside the reality of the Astral.
Perhaps for similar reasons, whatever those reasons are.
If you were to tell someone about the Astral, and that they too could experience it, and they asked you 'what is the point in that?' how would you answer them?
Quote
I can say from experience that being one with all is .. It has to be experienced.
In the highest order of clairvoyant dreams you become one with everything. Its a physical environment and you are everything all at the same time. You are the blades of grass, the metals, the operating machinery, the people, their thoughts and the worst part all their emotions too. No words exist to put justice in order. You are there and until the vision plays out you're in it for the ride. Its a universal conciousness. It also takes masses of your energy and you're not the same for some days.
I've looked the world over for answers and found nothing. Not one report of this level of clarity. It was switched off a long time ago and really never left. I may attempt a switch on but hesitant until I can remember why it was switched off.
The ' has the firework failed to light' question is attached here. Then if it has after risking being severely burned, do we attempt a re-light.
Enigmatics for psychological damage... ~ Szaxx
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/in_the_beginning-t39778.0.html;msg326523#msg326523
That is a very good explanation for 'why not to go there' but I do not personally think anything was 'switched off'
What I think is that to make the experience (of having a beginning) as genuine as possible, the memory of prior needed to have the appearance of being switched off but by that fact could not be hidden, which is why The Void exists. There is no hiding The Void – any more than there is no hiding the Big Bang (the beginning of the physical universe).
Each serves the purpose intended, but the intention was not for Consciousness to hide forever from its timeless self – from what it Is before it created the Astral simulation in order an aspect of IT could experience a beginning...a genuine one.
So the 'switch off' had to do with that. It is not a permanent state of being – it just cannot be because it is not the nature of Consciousness to 'not want to know' and this includes the evidence of The Void. It wants to know...or likely more accurately, it wanted to know and found out.
It is the nature of human beings to be hesitant in 'once burned twice shy' type of thing (is the fire-cracker still live' – as you put it) as well as to peer out into the Cosmos of the physical universe and wonder about it and want to explore it etc...and wonder also why others might bother to 'want to know' about their origins – not just the physical origins which can be traced easier – but the so-called non physical which so many believe is their 'true origin'.
If those who saw such 'dabbling' into this non physical astral universe to be dangerous ...to likely do 'psychological damage' to them if they allowed themselves to think outside that box of the physical universe...while understandable, you would not see their fears as necessarily founded, would you?
I think that most of us get the concept but understand that no matter how "smart" we think we are, we know that there is just no way to know with any real certainty what "the beginning" is.
Who is smarter? The person who accepts his limitations and arrives at the correct conclusion that we will never know the truth from our current physical perception or the person that refuses to accept his limitations and learns a little more truth but arrives at a false conclusion?
I don't know but I do feel that the person who does not accept their limitations flirts with madness.
Here is an educated man who knows that we had the answers to these question in the past, as he looks to the future for us to remember again.
He also has proof of this and today is a member of a scientific research team named the Heart Math Institute, there they research the real power of Collective Consciousness.
He is is on not a Doom and Gloom Sayer , just a realistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaFRrQ73EVM
You can hear some recent speeches he has done by searching the name Gregg Braden in a simple Youtube search.
QuoteI can clearly see now that we are not here debating a theory at all. We are just here to be taught your theory or more appropriately, your theorem. ~ its_all_bad
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/in_the_beginning-t39778.0.html;msg326543#msg326543
Yep IAB – it isn't really a theory.
It isn't about teaching either – you are free to learn and accept whatever you want to. There are a lot of theories from those involved with AP experiences and many of these, while they do not involve much in the way of objective evidence – although certain are very similar in nature, many do report the existence of The Void, and in some cases – such as Tom Campbells, this thing is explained as being 'the source or creation' or beginning of Consciousness....objectively The void has been identified through individual subjective experience and reported back (spoken of) enough to be an objective reality.
What I have done is simply add something which explains the existence of The Void – not so much as that which created Consciousness, but more as something through which Consciousness came – like a portal.
As I have also tried to explain that such an understanding (that Consciousness did not have a beginning really – that it has always ever been..).you know...for those who believe that the physical universe is what created Consciousness, others – especially those who have experienced the Astral existence would not agree because their experiences have shown them that Consciousness did not derive from the physical universe 'there is more than meets the eye' etc...even though for the pure believer that says there is only the physical universe and that it had a beginning at
'The Big Bang' and it is from this beginning that consciousness evolved, someone who understand that this is not necessarily the correct point of view...that it might look like that is what happened, does not mean that it is what happened.
Same rule applies when arguing that consciousness began in the Astral through The Void. It might look that way...but is not necessarily so.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 03, 2013, 16:55:45
Same rule applies when arguing that consciousness began in the Astral through The Void. It might look that way...but is not necessarily so.
A good point indeed. It's so easy to assume that the NPR is the origin of consciousness because it seems to encompasses everything else other than the physical which itself only gives birth to deception. It is the purpose of this deception that I think you question.
If we want to continue to exist than we must evolve. The physical is one of the many ways to do this but if we entered this physical life knowing all the answers it would be too easy to not put in the hard work that it takes to grow.
Who is saying or who has stated that consciousness started in the 'astral void'? This isn't a position I have heard from anyone.
I am just wondering because maybe this is where I have personally missed the point of the apparent revelatory expression that this idea has been afforded. Why it's been a sort of damp squib in terms of its message.
The set up for the 'revelation' is relying on the supposition that we believe that NPMR is the chicken that lay the proverbial egg... am I right?
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 03, 2013, 17:27:52
Who is saying or who has stated that consciousness started in the 'astral void'? This isn't a position I have heard from anyone.
I am just wondering because maybe this is where I have personally missed the point of the apparent revelatory expression that this idea has been afforded. Why it's been a sort of damp squib in terms of its message.
The set up for the 'revelation' is relying on the supposition that we believe that NPMR is the chicken that lay the proverbial egg... am I right?
I don't know where he is getting the actual assumption from but I think it is a logical alternative to our existence origin if it isn't the astral itself. But like you asked, who has made the original assumption?
Quote from: Lionheart on March 03, 2013, 16:41:25
Here is an educated man who knows that we had the answers to these question in the past, as he looks to the future for us to remember again.
He also has proof of this and today is a member of a scientific research team named the Heart Math Institute, there they research the real power of Collective Consciousness.
He is is on not a Doom and Gloom Sayer , just a realistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaFRrQ73EVM
You can hear some recent speeches he has done by searching the name Gregg Braden in a simple Youtube search.
This video is great news! Very exiting that scientist are actually researching into it all. I was wondering when they would actually look into this properly and do something about it.
In all this being said, Why don't they conduct a world wide test ? Or try for as many people as possible and measure the spikes like they say they have previously with september 11 etc, It should be a test to try and broaden peoples knowledge on this topic and get more people interested, involved and thinking about it all, then slowly we might actually start to grow and raise worldwide consciousness.
It wouldn't even take much to conduct the test nor to actually get people hearing about 'THE TEST' and thinking about it. Just put a snazzy intriguing video about this 'world wide test being held' on youtube and Facebook and try get it kicking round, before ya know it it would be on the news go worldwide then when it actually came to the day and the certain time lots of people all over the world would actually be doing it/thinking it even if it was just for fun or to explore the possibilities, and the thought could be anything couldn't it? Just say we told everyone to think its raining pancakes outside and convince them selves it is and think this way for at least 15 mins or something.., And if correct if that many people were thinking it was raining pancakes outside all at the same time on the same day and being that thought is creation, then theoretically according to this theory it should actually rain pancakes ? Might seem pretty crazy,.. but could this not work according to this theory ?
edit: And when i say according to this theory, I'm not being doubtful i totally believe that they can measure spikes in worldwide human conciseness.
QuoteA Discussion of what are thread is within a thread. What a Thread! by even the thread's standards.
In fact, At this point I think even the thread, itself, has identity concerns.
Everything which has a beginning is by that very fact - a simulation.
Let's put the theory to the test. So, Let's 'simulate' an end.
And attempt to 'simulate' a new beginning to see how the theory holds.
Here's what I think I gathered from the dissenters.
You can simulate anything except a beginning.
See you in the next 'thread'.
Cheers,
Contenteo
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/in_the_beginning-t39778.0.html;msg326544#msg326544
Hi Contenteo
In the context of the thread (or 'thread' as you say) 'a beginning' has to do with the overall environment – which in the case of this physical reality, would be the physical universe...everything within it...all that it is made of. The environment had a beginning...did not always exist.
Likewise everything within that environment did not always exist.
In relation to 'you' and 'I' and 'us' we can relate to what a beginning is because we have experienced it as individuals within human form.
The 'simulation' spoken of has to do – again – with the environment – something created in order to experience something unknown but not only to just experience, but also to see where it goes.
Quote from: Mini stapler on March 01, 2013, 07:15:15
I read the whole of the thread, you know the one, 'the one with the simulated ending' (potential 'Friends' episode?). :-) Frankly I feel that it went over my head a bit, but I'm going to pipe in anyway with my own thoughts, while attempting to take into consideration what I remember of others words. Feel free to tell me if I'm well off track with what I'm saying. :-D
Where did this thread begin? with Contenteo? What about the other thread, did that begin when William started it? Or when he signed up to this forum? If he hadn't signed up, we would not have this thread, if this forum hadn't been created we again wouldn't have this thread, here, on this forum, involving these people, & we can go back infinitely. We say the thread began when William posted it, as a convention, or we couldn't really talk about it very effectively, but still that beginning is not really true, it's rather a useful illusion. So what is a beginning? It's a part of the process taken out of context, given an agreed upon start & end point, illusionary, misleading.
I think 'beginning' & 'end' is like, a 'noun' - it doesn't actually exist outside of conventions. There is just continual process. So if we talk about things that have beginnings being simulated, then we are calling it a simulation based on based on an illusionary representation of what ever it is (because nothing has a beginning) - e.g my life, this forum, this thread etc... thus it can't possibly be an accurate representation of what's happening, because it's evaluating an illusion... Not what is, but what appears to be out of context.
So in my mind - Everything which has a beginning is by that very fact - an illusion. Something that is being taken out of context & understood or presented as something other than what it really is.
As I said, I feel like the original thread went a bit over my head, so feel free to let me know if I'm missing the point, I am trying keep up with you smarty pants!! *anxiety attack - anxiety attack* :lol: :-D
I am amazed at how many references there are to the mental processes – mostly they appear to be said jokingly but still there seems to be an underlying concern with some posters that some concepts are better left alone because they are possibly bad for ones general state of mind.
:)
Mainly the amazement comes from having read so many experiences from individuals involved with AP-ing and a percentage of these would scare a lot of individuals, but not your average AP-er whom fearlessly faces off the monsters, meticulously records the methods and passes the info on.
..................
The continuation aspect has a lot of merit MS –
These are not separate from the beginning – any more than ripples are separate from what caused them.
It seems that for a lot of us, trying to conceptualize what it would be like NOT to have a beginning is what is causing the perceived threat of mind meltdown.
However, I am not really advocating anyone try to do this, but rather simply accept it as most likely although in fairness to the concept, it is just a matter of removing the boundaries – I personally find the concept quite mind freeing rather than boggling.
Also in relation to the above – perhaps from a perspective of Consciousness without a beginning, that creating a simulation which would allow it to investigate as genuinely as possible exactly what it would be like may have been kind of like tempting a falling into madness...something to leave well enough alone...if indeed it even knew what fear or even caution was.
From our perspective this side of that, it is easy to imagine simulated experiences, and create these with computers. Our dreams can be like this – as well as our lucid altered states and AP-ing within that Realm called 'Astral'
But we would find it difficult or maybe impossible even, to simulate a 'no beginning' – but only because we are within the framework environments which have beginnings from our perspective. We ARE that which has come about through the simulations of beginnings...but we are NOT just that.
Our confusion comes with that which we identify ourselves with. Purely physical orientated individuals who deny (or even mock) that which they can't measure, don't experience and have no time for – by and large identify only with their dominant reality – the human condition, on planet earth, in the milky way galaxy, within the physical universe.
They do not see themselves as anything but the human body and that consciousness derives from that body, and ultimately from the evolution of the physical universe.
There is nothing more.
APers in general seem to see themselves more as the Consciousness within the human form, and they regard the Astral realm as being the source for, the reason for the beginning of the physical universe.
The key – the fundamental ingredient to all states is The Consciousness. There is no reason to believe that Consciousness cannot have existed without a beginning and that that particular aspect of IT exists still in the state of beginninglessness.
Indeed, that would be Its most natural state of being.
We have simply 'forgotten' this – and necessarily so – because we cannot experience what it is like to have a beginning if we remember a prior existence.
But 'forgetting' something does not mean that we are not able to 'remember' – certainly we can expect our fears to make that a difficulty, and these we can deal with.
What we shouldn't expect though is for anyone or thing to actually try and make sure we don't even 'go there' looking, whether by promoting our own fears or use of any other device of prevention.
If it is possible, the expectation is that we would support each other in digging deeper to investigate the possibility.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 04, 2013, 16:33:21
APers in general seem to see themselves more as the Consciousness within the human form, and they regard the Astral realm as being the source for, the reason for the beginning of the physical universe.
Hmmm... not sure I or most here are the 'general'. I have never heard of this personally. I have only ever seen it as top-down.... but the nonphysical reality (or 'astral' if you wish to use a belief-centric label invented by the Theosophical Society) is just another branch of the tree... nay... a twig... there are many many more branches that lead back to the 'beginning'. The beginning or lack thereof being something I personally don't dwell on too much. Not because of fear or any reason that it would be something that challenges my views because it would at the end of the day be unprovable as a theory.
I also get an image of a dog chasing its tail or a snake swallowing itself.
It may be analogous to the spiral galaxy we are currently held within. We are on the outer most portion of a spiral arm about 25,000 light years or so from Galactic central point. The fractal analogy of this is probably akin to where we lay in the grand scheme of things consciousness wise.
Now.. I avoid involving myself in your threads because you tend to pick out the unimportant bits in my 'text' and take them at face value and be so off the mark with your assessment of me and my meaning that it reduces me to react with exasperated humour. No doubt you will break that last sentence apart till it ceases to mean what I actually mean.
Basic analogy of being incapable of understanding any beginning.
We for this example are drops of water on the ground, all separate.
This is the physical at heart. We appear (born), spread out (grow) and when life is over we have dried up. Now in a vapourus form we are free from physical constraints (astral).
The drops that still exist can't see the vapour but a few notice this haze, (anyone capable of exit).
This vapourus form rises through the atmosphere above the ground and starts to condense with other vapours. It forms a collective of universal oneness.
Each drop has evolved from a singularity to a collective.
This is as far as the human mind will go without losing sensibility.
The fact that a planet has been formed and its atmospheric conditions allow these drops to form is so far off their comprehensibility they'd never understand it if it hit them head on.
The non physical is immense and a 3D environmental entity has little to no chance of understanding the complexities.
Finding one consistant fact and then a series of the same is the nearest we can get to the truth. This too will require an order and a mathematical derivation to point us in the right direction.
I cant see it any other way at present.
Hope it makes easy reading and sense.
Quote from: Fairywindblues on March 01, 2013, 15:36:13
I keep feeling like we're missing huge chunks of the puzzle that we will never solve. This is why, in the other thread, I said something along the lines of "To question one's reality or unreality will start to lead one to insanity". Not to get philosophical on anyone but it's kind of true.
Sure, it's very easy to simply say "We always were and always will be -- no beginning and no end -- alpha and omega, etc"
But it is a concept that goes way over everyone's head. For example, one could compare the sheer perfection of the patterns and illusions that make up our reality to a painting. Let me use the Mona Lisa as an example.
Trying to tell people that "We always were and always will be, and we just ARE" is like taking someone into the museum, placing them in front of the beauty of the Mona Lisa, and saying "See that painting? She painted herself. That sprang out of oblivion. She always was and always will be."
It just doesn't cut it, right? Well, I look at reality and at the known universe as sort of like a painting. Anything that is complex, especially if it has consciousness, is just so hard to justify in any way.
We all know of the loop thing that you mentioned Wi11iam. Still using the Mona Lisa metaphor, we can get into an endless cycle of
Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa > His parents gave birth to him > Their parents gave birth to his parents > Repeat for many generations until the butterfly effect finally resulted in the lovely Mona Lisa.
Consciousness is perfection. It's very hard to imagine perfection coming out of nowhere. I cannot make a Mona Lisa-like painting just materialize with the wave of my hand and then, I wouldn't be able to take it further by saying "Oh, that thing? It just is and always will be." because like we all have said, it's just hard to wrap your mind around.
If something has no beginning or no end, then it loops, does it not? Beginning > end > beginning > end > beginning. It's like a circle.
The one contradictory flaw with this theory is that, like I said, consciousness is perfection. It's very hard to imagine perfection always being there without some sort of 'beginning' or push that sprang it into motion. But even then, if something did spring forth the events for consciousness to be, then what affected those events? And the events before those? IT IS MADDENING.
If we came from a big bang, or a void, then what is the big bang or the void? Let me explain it in physical terms:
If you take all life away and just observe an empty space for an infinite amount of time, will something happen in that space? Something drastic enough to spring forth all life as we know it, that is. Well, okay. So, lets say that after eons of time, of observing space, and nothingness.... BAM... universes just collided and a massive blast occurred which became known as the universe. Hmmf.
This, to me, doesn't make much sense. I think that before this universe, there were others. We are probably part of a multiverse. When this universe was "born" in the 'beginning", it was probably the byproduct of a massive energy surge/explosion/transfer of energy happening in another universe which transcended the fabric of time and space itself.
Okay so, that's my theory. That, just like the Mona Lisa did not paint itself, the universe did not just spring forth randomly from some vacuum after eons of time. If anything, I truly believe that something happened somewhere else to cause this universe to spring to life. Of course, the looping thing comes into play here, too. If the universe is a product of other universes colliding, or giving forth their own energy, then what gave those universes energy, and the ones before them energy, and bla bla bla. Yada yada. My gosh, it is just so tedious. :roll:
Also, many of us here who have astral projected firmly believe that the astral came first. I personally believe that the astral came first. Actually, it would make sense for the astral to come first before 3D. And those of us who have vivid dreams/go to the astral know that it's literally like having a holographic body and being in a simulated environment completely dictated by thought, will, and imagination. It's like logging on to the 3D game Second Life and flying around to any simulated location that you feel like going to, except it's much more real and "in the flesh" feeling.
Keeping the astral and the 3D in mind, one can say with confidence that they exist on other frequencies or wavelengths. If the astral existed first, and if 3D followed, then it's safe to say that our true nature is higher in frequency and lesser in density. But then, what exists beyond the astral? On the higher frequencies? If you take a song and if you speed it up, it will start sounding like a choir of chipmunks are singing it. Speed it up some more, and you can compress a whole 5 minute song within a 20 second period, and the wavelengths will all completely change because they are being accelerated at a higher pace. Take that same song and slow it down massively, and you can completely distort what it sounds like and you can turn a 5 minute song into a one hour long song.
I'm beginning to think of things in similar terms to this. Lets say that, as a completely theorized notion, the big bang happened and is still happening right now.
Lets say the big bang is happening on a frequency that is so powerful it has the energy of infinite suns.
Now, lets say that that frequency, when slowed down in time (which, time may not even exist) goes from happening over a seemingly compact and short period of time, to being stretched out over eons and eons and eons.
The energy from the big bang could be what we all borrow.
So, our reality may be a frequency that is borrowed from something else. Big bang or not, I don't know. However, we are just so slowed down and so far from the higher frequency. Like I said, imagine taking a song. Imagine that a 2 minute song is the big bang. Now, go into a music editing program and turn that 2 minute song into a 2 hour song. Everything completely changes. Lets call the song functioning on a certain wavelength to be our reality.
Now, change the frequency of the song by 1%. Now, by another 1%. Now, it's completely new, and something else. This can be a metaphor for an alternate dimensions or planes. Same song but with a slight 1% difference. Am I making any sense? Maybe everything always is and always will be because we are part of the same song. Maybe the song has already played. 8-) Oooh, that's a mind trip, aint it?
I must sound nutty because I've used things like paintings and songs to be the metaphors of life and existence, but it really helps me paint a picture or get my point across when I can take something as mind bending as this topic and relate them to concrete things. All in all, I really need to go grab some coffee now because I can literally feel my brain hurting. :-P
Hey there FWB
Thanks for your reply – I read it all yesterday and then thought about it over the course of 24 or so hours.
It was intriguing me how hard it is for people to grasp - especially those who know through experience an even greater reality than just the physical universe, because they would naturally be more open to 'impossible' things.
Admittedly I have understood for many years the perspective that all existence ultimately derived from something called Consciousness – which has always existed - so I have become quiet accustomed to it, but even so I don't remember it being a 'maddening' thing to contemplate.
Questioning existence is ultimately something Consciousness does, and why I focus so much on personal identity with – over and above all other sub-identities.
Through this, one develops a personal connection with something far vaster than the human and even the non physical 'self' and so the questioning extends beyond those personalities and indeed questions all personalities in relation to existence, and Consciousness.
From what I can gather through your post and metaphors on 'how things came to be' it seems to me you cannot easily move your conceptualization beyond the loop systems of beginnings and ends.
This is evident in these paragraphs:
"If we came from a big bang, or a void, then what is the big bang or the void? Let me explain it in physical terms:
If you take all life away and just observe an empty space for an infinite amount of time, will something happen in that space? Something drastic enough to spring forth all life as we know it, that is. Well, okay. So, lets say that after eons of time, of observing space, and nothingness.... BAM... universes just collided and a massive blast occurred which became known as the universe. Hmmf.
This, to me, doesn't make much sense. I think that before this universe, there were others. We are probably part of a multiverse. When this universe was "born" in the 'beginning", it was probably the byproduct of a massive energy surge/explosion/transfer of energy happening in another universe which transcended the fabric of time and space itself.
Okay so, that's my theory." ~ Fairywindblues Your first sentence seems to suggest that you do not support that the physical universe or the Astral Universe had a beginning.
The next paragraph reinforces this idea. You say it makes no sense that 2 universes just collided and a massive blast occurred.
Yet massive blasts are occurring in this universe quiet naturally, and there is no reason not to think something interacted with a static field of potential which caused the initial beginning to this universe.
Evidence can be seen in the nature of galaxies that massive blasts are at work – at such incredibly huge proportions in such an environment that as a whole they appear to be controlled and even quiet orderly.
If you substitute the word 'life' and put in its place 'Consciousness' – and knowing that you don't need a physical container a body to get around with – you are still 'life' because you are still consciousness, aware – self aware to whatever point you identify your 'self' as – so in that sense yes it would be possible to observe new creations...and these creations (such as this physical universe) can conceivably have been brought into existence in the same way as AP-ers have been able to create things instantly just but thinking about doing so.
Of course we are not talking little objects like light-sabres or even larger ones like dragons – or even cities or worlds – we are talking whole universes.
But it does show what one individual personality who is able to easily (or has trained hard to) move from this physical universe into that non physical one is able to do - and in doing so, discover the power they have as that one individual to create things – in many cases for the sake of entertainment, and in some – for more serious things.
So it is not that much of a leap of imagination to understand and appreciate what kind of creative pursuits many combined individuals could achieve together with this same ability right?
Your second paragraph where you share your theory is not different from the first other than it includes 'other universes' where this creative energy comes from which gave this universe its existence.
It still involves massive energy and explosions, and 'another universe' and it still involves a beginning.
Thus these 'other universes' or multi universes are all part of what is generally referred to as 'The Astral' realm or realms and it is herein that the properties of instantaneous creation through simply thinking brings into existence those said realties.
The existence of The Void in the Astral is what allows me to understand that since it had a beginning, it is a similar creation of Conscious creative thought which instantly 'makes it so' and can also build on each and every one of those seemingly infinite variations of simulated realms.
The Astral realm has the same properties in that consciousness can create instantly through thought, and has created other realms, including this physical universe.
As you say in you metaphors using frequency, this universe is within a slower frequency where thought cannot instantaneously create things – it can imagine things, draw up plans, form tools, mine material and through these processes make objects.
And as you know – one can leave the physical body for a little while and move into an alternate reality which allows one to just make things – one does not need to even know the intricate workings involved in the process – the guts of it.
Now obviously we can understand that this physical universe most likely was a creation of Consciousness and thought and that some theories (such as Tom Campbells 'My Big TOE') suggest that that which creates thought is Consciousness and that The Void created Consciousness and that from this beginning Consciousness evolved to that point where it became self aware, aware of its surrounding, aware of its abilities to create (and erase) and aware that it was a product of that void because it has an awareness of a beginning, and evidence that its beginning was the Void, (which it didn't create- from the perspective it is observing and evolving from) and from that point began its journey into creativity, exploration, learning, self awareness, and experiencing those creations through its ability to be imbue itself into the universes to explore and experience these other simulations.
So my suggestion really is that if this is the way it happened, then rather than go on an endless mind-tripping loop of 'we have a beginning, so what created us, and if what created us had a beginning, what created that' and so on and so forth, we simply only require the one understanding that no thing originally created Consciousness – no thing needed to create consciousness. The fact that it exists is proof enough, and as I have said in past posts, when Consciousness is within a simulation which involves that ingredient called a 'beginning' it tends to try and see things from only that perspective and finds it difficult to grasp the concept of no beginning...
...Difficult but certainly not impossible.
Again using your metaphor of frequencies, The Astral had a beginning, but for all intent and purpose has no end.
This physical universe has both – although there is some debate that it might not ever end, it is obvious that at the very least the Galaxies are moving away from each other unless they are close enough to merge (which is the case in some situations) but eventually they will all be so apart from one another that no other Galaxy will be able to be seen from the perspective of every other Galaxy.
Earth will have long since ceased to exist by then, but that is what is going to happen 'one day'.
Still we as consciousness within the human form know well enough the concept of beginning and end – birth and death – and for some there is the belief that there is nothing more to experience once they have died.
Others believe that there is more to 'life' (consciousness) after dying, and AP-ers in general believe that their sojourns into Astral are evidence that Consciousness goes on and does not end. Belief systems are also induced through these experiences. Reincarnation is one such belief.
So above all it is Consciousness which we truly each need to understand fully – not only within the limitations of our physical existence in this physical universe, but also in the relative freedom of Astral experience which is just as important to understand that as Consciousness we were not created- we always have been and always will be.
This is important for many reasons on all levels or frequencies – this is knowledge which without, we are more at the mercy of those very frequencies, the loop systems, as well as the aspects of consciousness which seem so wise and wonderful and are seen to be separate from our own, which deliver such awesome wisdom explaining 'who we are' and compelling us to continue within the loops that have been created.
We don't often hear a message of equality from those type aspects of consciousness we regard as being greater than our own, or in some cases these insist that we are not equals, that we are inferior...we know well enough how this happens between individuals, cultures, belief systems, theories, politics, religions etc... in this physical frequency.
What we need to recognise is that we 'go back' from where we came and take those thoughts with us and in the Astral domain the properties are such that those thoughts become instant manifestations, whether the individual is aware of this or not.
So there is the real possibility that this is something we each have to come to a clear understanding about so that we can then step out of the loops created, understand our equality in that all Consciousness is of the One Consciousness, and we are no ones creation really.
We just are.
Nor are we the creation of 'Big Bangs' and 'Voids' etc....We are experiencing simulations which can easily be explained (as to why they exist).
Consciousness is not the painting. It is the painter.
:)
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 03, 2013, 16:37:47
I think that most of us get the concept but understand that no matter how "smart" we think we are, we know that there is just no way to know with any real certainty what "the beginning" is.
Who is smarter? The person who accepts his limitations and arrives at the correct conclusion that we will never know the truth from our current physical perception or the person that refuses to accept his limitations and learns a little more truth but arrives at a false conclusion?
I don't know but I do feel that the person who does not accept their limitations flirts with madness.
I think Scientists are looking to at least try to get a bead on 'the beginning' - and I also understand that most people accept that this universe had a beginning.
In relation to 'knowing the truth' it is much the same as someone in their 'current physical perception' telling someone that there is no other reality but the one perceived. Who is smarter? The one who accepts this or the one who investigate further? (Not that it is about being 'smarter' - just more informed...often it is not the info but how the individual applies that info which determines lack of wisdom).
The important thing about 'learning a little more truth' is to remain open rather than turn that truth into some cult religious type dogmatic closed loop belief system.
Herein is that if it had a beginning it is a simulation - not a conclusion to anything far as I can tell. More like a big door being opened.
Richard Bach has some interesting things to say about 'limitations' but seriously if anything causes you to fear for your sanity...the reasons can be sourced within the structures of self identity.
;)
Quote from: Lionheart on March 03, 2013, 16:41:25
Here is an educated man who knows that we had the answers to these question in the past, as he looks to the future for us to remember again.
He also has proof of this and today is a member of a scientific research team named the Heart Math Institute, there they research the real power of Collective Consciousness.
He is is on not a Doom and Gloom Sayer , just a realistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaFRrQ73EVM
You can hear some recent speeches he has done by searching the name Gregg Braden in a simple Youtube search.
'Thinking with the heart' does have its benefits. We are led to believe that we are individual with our own separate consciousness and at face value this might appear to be the truthful way of seeing things, but if we look at the way the world has evolved through this kind of thinking, we can certainly see that we could do with changing our thinking about this for the sake of something far greater than 'the individual'.
I still think that the human potential to get on the same page is not a wasteful hope – admittedly since I tried starting various threads in various message boards to gauge interest – (here is one place on this message board where I started a thread on the subject)
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/from_prison_to_paradise-t38022.0.html
- the feedback wasn't too encouraging overall – but that led me to investigate what Consciousness (in its collected state) was doing in relation to this planet and this universe since it appeared it was not that able to work directly with human egos to change the collective direction of said egos.
'Doom and Gloom' are self induced realities. Civilisations rise and fall, but Collective Consciousness can live with that.
Interesting set of lectures about what causes these declines can be accessed here:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/2004/11/07/massey-lectures-2004-a-short-history-of-progress/
Part One:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/2004/11/07/massey-lectures-2004-a-short-history-of-progress/editor-content.html?cs=utf-8#
Part Two:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/2004/11/07/massey-lectures-2004-a-short-history-of-progress/editor-content.html?cs=utf-8#
Part 3:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/2004/11/07/massey-lectures-2004-a-short-history-of-progress/editor-content.html?cs=utf-8#
Part 4:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/2004/11/07/massey-lectures-2004-a-short-history-of-progress/editor-content.html?cs=utf-8#
Part 5:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey-archives/2004/11/07/massey-lectures-2004-a-short-history-of-progress/editor-content.html?cs=utf-8#
I listened to them all some months ago and they are a real mind opener.
:)
William: Same rule applies when arguing that consciousness began in the Astral through The Void. It might look that way...but is not necessarily so.
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 03, 2013, 17:13:04
A good point indeed. It's so easy to assume that the NPR is the origin of consciousness because it seems to encompasses everything else other than the physical which itself only gives birth to deception. It is the purpose of this deception that I think you question.
It is interesting that you think the non physical reality does not encompass the physical but seems to encompass every other.
Deception is part and parcel of the aspect of the physical universe called life on earth – self deception and inter-deception... in some ways an interesting side effect of the simulation of beginnings and there is no reason to think that it starts and stops here in this physical reality – from a lot of accounts there is plenty of deception in different areas of astral – many easy enough to see through especially if you understand what to look for.
The purpose of deception is to deceive as far as I can tell. But yes – what is it that is doing the deceiving and why?
Once the understanding happens it is far easier to find ways around or through such obstacles.
.
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 03, 2013, 17:13:04
If we want to continue to exist than we must evolve. The physical is one of the many ways to do this but if we entered this physical life knowing all the answers it would be too easy to not put in the hard work that it takes to grow.
If we remove the deceptions, the work to grow is not hard. Some of the 'answers' have worked out to be deceptions.
If we come from something which has always existed, then the phrase "if we want to continue to exist than we must evolve" needs to be re-evaluated.
Perhaps something like – "if we want to continue evolving we must exist within the knowledge of our true self."
Otherwise we might simply remain stuck in a looped simulation.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 03, 2013, 17:27:52
Who is saying or who has stated that consciousness started in the 'astral void'? This isn't a position I have heard from anyone.
I am just wondering because maybe this is where I have personally missed the point of the apparent revelatory expression that this idea has been afforded. Why it's been a sort of damp squib in terms of its message.
The set up for the 'revelation' is relying on the supposition that we believe that NPMR is the chicken that lay the proverbial egg... am I right?
Well – Ted Vollers told me, and pointed me toward Tom Campbell's 'my big theory of everything'
If indeed this is incorrect data, and there is no evidence of a beginning in Astral, then Astral is that which had no beginning, and is not a simulation.
The only 'revelation' I am approaching has to do with self identity. In simply terminology it is apparent we are not what we are told or otherwise have grown to think we are.
William: APers in general seem to see themselves more as the Consciousness within the human form, and they regard the Astral realm as being the source for, the reason for the beginning of the physical universe.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 04, 2013, 17:08:57
Hmmm... not sure I or most here are the 'general'.
I have never heard of this personally.
Okay so how do you and most here see your selves, if not as being consciousness?
When I read the stories – the data of experience, these are commonly about 'leaving the body' and going to another reality related to this physical reality.
Even in this thread there is one post which the author believes that astral is 'home' and created this physical universe.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 04, 2013, 17:08:57
I have only ever seen it as top-down.... but the nonphysical reality (or 'astral' if you wish to use a belief-centric label invented by the Theosophical Society) is just another branch of the tree... nay... a twig... there are many many more branches that lead back to the 'beginning'. The beginning or lack thereof being something I personally don't dwell on too much. Not because of fear or any reason that it would be something that challenges my views because it would at the end of the day be unprovable as a theory.
I also get an image of a dog chasing its tail or a snake swallowing itself.
It may be analogous to the spiral galaxy we are currently held within. We are on the outer most portion of a spiral arm about 25,000 light years or so from Galactic central point. The fractal analogy of this is probably akin to where we lay in the grand scheme of things consciousness wise.
I use the word 'Astral' because this Message board uses it. Do you have another name for it which is more appropriate Ben?
As to the 'branch' or 'twig' – it is not about size. It is that it leads back to a beginning.
That you don't personally 'dwell' on this aspect of that, does not signify you cannot, or that in doing so you will find yourself in a loop of madness.
It is not about 'proving a theory' – therein lays the madness. In the end, we are here. How we got to be here is irrelevant if all it does is create looped arguments about how we got here.
Identifying exactly what is the '
we' is the significant thing.
'From the top down' is part of that madness. 'This' created ''that' therefore 'this' is greater than 'that' has its merits but from the tip of the twig to the depths of the roots, the whole thing is the tree, which had its beginnings as the seed – which is like unto the programme – the potential of a tree is all in the seed.
The tree began and thus is a simulation.
Now look at what the tree is planted in.
Then you have a planet.
Then a solar system.
Then a position in a Galaxy.
Then we see the Centre of a Galaxy is reminiscent of the seed.
Top down – reverse engineer.
Into that centre and what is to be found?
The *"Astral"?
So reports on this *phenomena are overall very suggestive of something so mind bogglingly vast as to be 'enough already.'
Then there is 'The Void' – which seems to have the same properties, according to many witnesses. However, certainly while there is an agreement in general that it is an interesting place to visit, there is not a lot of agreement on exactly what it is or signifies.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 04, 2013, 17:08:57
Now.. I avoid involving myself in your threads because you tend to pick out the unimportant bits in my 'text' and take them at face value and be so off the mark with your assessment of me and my meaning that it reduces me to react with exasperated humour. No doubt you will break that last sentence apart till it ceases to mean what I actually mean.
All part of building a communications process. We do want to understand each other and be on the same page, yes?
Certainly that is what I look for in Consciousness.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 08, 2013, 15:15:05
William: APers in general seem to see themselves more as the Consciousness within the human form, and they regard the Astral realm as being the source for, the reason for the beginning of the physical universe.
Okay so how do you and most here see your selves, if not as being consciousness?
When I read the stories – the data of experience, these are commonly about 'leaving the body' and going to another reality related to this physical reality.
I just see myself as Ben. I am consciousness. But this decoded and constrained version of me gives me a sense of identity within this reality. The same as a constrained programmed avatar within a computer simulation has been given parameters with which to interact with the environment and other avatars. If the unit of self could access the rest of the system, like peruse the hard drive of the platform it was running from then this is what I consider the 'astral' to be... there are other games... other programmes therein that I can access. Then there is the possibility that this platform (CPU) is attached to the internet... this is an even larger system that the 'astral' is part of. All things considered... regardless of how huge this network of data is... it is still contained within a network. Out side the network lies another reality that isn't conceivable by the self aware avatar that is perusing the network. It may be pertinent to its existence... but if what we have learned is to be understood.. it will be a fractal of the local network.
I feel I am accessing data... not leaving anything behind. When I was little and began experiencing the wider realities I used to use the 'out of body' metaphor because that's what it felt like. The more they and myself evolved together it became evident that I wasn't leaving my body at all. I don't leave myself when I go online and search for information. I am not a great lover of semantical trifling.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 08, 2013, 15:15:05
I use the word 'Astral' because this Message board uses it. Do you have another name for it which is more appropriate Ben?
I just call it the nonphysical. I always have... even before I heard of Tom Campbell. You can call it whatever you like. :)
I sometimes use APing, AP, OOBE, NPR, Nonphysical exploration... lots of things. I never say Astral Realm because it points to a 'place'. I am just surprised you use the term 'Astral' purely because you seem to be a fan of specifying exactness.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 08, 2013, 15:15:05
As to the 'branch' or 'twig' – it is not about size. It is that it leads back to a beginning.
That you don't personally 'dwell' on this aspect of that, does not signify you cannot, or that in doing so you will find yourself in a loop of madness.
It is not about 'proving a theory' – therein lays the madness. In the end, we are here. How we got to be here is irrelevant if all it does is create looped arguments about how we got here.
Identifying exactly what is the 'we' is the significant thing.
'From the top down' is part of that madness. 'This' created ''that' therefore 'this' is greater than 'that' has its merits but from the tip of the twig to the depths of the roots, the whole thing is the tree, which had its beginnings as the seed – which is like unto the programme – the potential of a tree is all in the seed.
The tree began and thus is a simulation.
Now look at what the tree is planted in.
Then you have a planet.
Then a solar system.
Then a position in a Galaxy.
Then we see the Centre of a Galaxy is reminiscent of the seed.
Top down – reverse engineer.
Into that centre and what is to be found?
The *"Astral"?
So reports on this *phenomena are overall very suggestive of something so mind bogglingly vast as to be 'enough already.'
Then there is 'The Void' – which seems to have the same properties, according to many witnesses. However, certainly while there is an agreement in general that it is an interesting place to visit, there is not a lot of agreement on exactly what it is or signifies.
All part of building a communications process. We do want to understand each other and be on the same page, yes?
Certainly that is what I look for in Consciousness.
I understand why you are curious but I can only be on the same page as you as much as you can be on the same page as me. I don't understand you use of the term 'madness'. What is this madness you speak of?
The tree I was using as an analogy isn't to be taken literally. I meant it purely as a branching system. Each branch being somewhat detached and less accessible not only from a relative stance but also from an ability to work out using theoretical/philosophical rhetoric. Especially in light of the fact that we only have a limited range of metaphors and experiential value. Like the little self aware avatar I mentioned above. How would a self aware avatar within a computer game understand a peanut and what relevance is it to the avatar?
Okay Ben so what I am hearing from you is that you are consciousness but the constrained version of you [CVOY] (called Ben) gives you (Consciousness) a sense of identity in this reality.
The identity gives you the opportunity to interact with the environment and other constrained versions of consciousness which also have a sense of identity for the same reason.
(Unit of Self as you have also called it) UOS
CVOY = UOS
In the case of your UOS you are able to peruse the 'astral' (The hard drive platform) and there are other 'games' – programmes UOS can access.
Q: the 'astral' is the hardware?
Q: The programmes are the software?
Q: What is the UOS?
Q: Can you explain why the hardware is non physical?
All things are contained within the 'network' which – if I understand you correctly, contains everything and even if there were outside realities, these would be fractals of the network?
Understanding fractals as codes which are looped and then run, they self perpetuate infinitely. The only way they can stop is if that which powers them is disconnected. They are programmes and while they look real, they are not but they do give us an understanding of how looped coding works, and just as importantly they resemble things in the nature of the physical universe giving rise to the theory that the physical universe is some kind of programmed fractal.
Q: Would you agree?
You said:
Out side the network lies another reality that isn't conceivable by the self aware avatar that is perusing the network. It may be pertinent to its existence... but if what we have learned is to be understood.. it will be a fractal of the local network.
Would you elaborate on this?
Q: What is 'the local network?
Q: What do you mean by 'what we have learned'?
Q: If there is no such thing as 'a place' (in terms of what you are saying regarding...say...the non physical from the physical) is anything 'a place'?
For example, could you consider Consciousness to be 'a place'?
You asked:
Q: I don't understand you use of the term 'madness'. What is this madness you speak of?
A: The term has come up in this and other threads. I have to assume that you are not reading all the posts otherwise you would not be asking this question. You would understand why the term is being used.
The tree as a metaphor is quiet acceptable and relates well to fractals.
The braches you speak of which are somewhat detached –
Q: Are you saying they are detached because the Little Self Aware Unit is unable to access these?
You ask:
Q: How would a self aware avatar within a computer game understand a peanut and what relevance is it to the avatar?
A: From my experience, it would set up a link with its 'user' and the 'peanut' would not be of interest to the avatar...the user would be of interest.
The difference being that a game programmer only has to make code to create characters and that these characters are not self aware – they are animated by the user – they do not have lives of their own...they are not alive.
That is a huge difference.
To be specific; An 'Avatar' is not the form – the form is part of the environment and the environment is overall, also a Form.
The characters in a game are not Avatars. For these to become Avatars the user would have to imbue an aspect of their consciousness into the character in order to be both the player and the played.
The Avatar is the consciousness within the forms.
In the case of the physical universe, the environments, including the forms are animated. They are in constant movement and evolving and even when they are dying' they are transforming. It might be supposed then that the whole universe is 'alive' or imbued with an Avatar (Consciousness).
If the physical Universe is a fractal, then it is one in which consciousness is involved within.
It is obvious that there are different forms (within and including the whole universe) which have certain advantages in how they can be used (by consciousness) and that the illusion created for the Avatar within the human form is one which gives an impression of a having beginning, gives an impression of individuality and a few other things which effectively deny the Avatar easy access to information which might assist it in redefining its identity to better reflect the truth.
Another thing which has to be looked into is that the Avatar is not so much directly influence by the 'user' as it is by other Avatars.
On of those influences is its learned sense of identity.
I don't actually presume to know any of the answers to the questions you pose. Neither do I mean the analogies and metaphors to be taken literally. There is no hardware or software. Not in the sense of understanding it as we do an actual computer... more that it is a fractal model of such that is beyond our current understanding and indeed relevance to the nature of our being. If we were to be able to unravel this mystery then the game is up. Don't you think?
I was using the 'avatar' metaphor as... a metaphor.
I am aware that an 'avatar' is a playable non-conscious character.
So when I answer... I am answering (semantics-free) still using metaphor... but I'll try my hardest to be more precise. I am quite busy but I'll do my best to answer. My previous post was an attempt to reconcile our differences and start up a better conversation. I was in a hurry so wasn't as concise as you would probably like me to be. Also.. while I know what I mean.. it takes me a little longer to construct my thoughts into digestible 'bites' of information. So bear (bare?) with me. Also.. my answers are only as I think I understand it currently.
"Okay Ben so what I am hearing from you is that you are consciousness but the constrained version of you [CVOY] (called Ben) gives you (Consciousness) a sense of identity in this reality.
The identity gives you the opportunity to interact with the environment and other constrained versions of consciousness which also have a sense of identity for the same reason."
yes. EveryUOS is in the same boat.
"In the case of your UOS you are able to peruse the 'astral' (The hard drive platform) and there are other 'games' – programmes UOS can access."
Not exactly.. My UOS is no longer constrained to the parameters of my physical parameters. It is freer and much less confused. It understands vastly more than I can calculate and there is a loss of insight once I become constrained again. This is personal experience and may not apply to those who may not lose any quality of insight upon re-constraining. When free of these physical constraints we are still constrained but less so.
Q: the 'astral' is the hardware?
No. it is an organisational system/software or rather a larger operating system (LOS?) containing massive amounts of data. A portion of this data is used to organise, calculate, record and forecast what is this reality. This is decoded and essentially constrained by the IUOCs (UOS) that inhabit the system top down.
Q: The programmes are the software?
No. The other realities or programmes are other constrained experiments or simulations like this one ran by their own LOS.
Q: What is the UOS?
This is akin to a 'User' of the avatar only by analogy. I personally don't feel that it is ran by any LOS because an individual UOS can move freely (give or take limitations of knowledge or possibility) within all systems. Based upon personal experience... when 'I' have been to other realities I can only observe. I am essentially invisible. I can't interact with the environment. I can seemingly slightly interact with the LOS of these realities but this is akin to diving underwater without breathing equipment. The same can be said when navigating within this reality or what is referred to as the RTZ projection.
So the UOS is a User... the higher self. We can now join Tom Campbell and begin to bring the idea that we are particles of a whole that is running the whole system... but I think we are more separate or special as individual units. We must be. If we weren't... I wasn't... I wouldn't be able to navigate as a constrained consciousness.
Q: Can you explain why the hardware is non physical?
The hardware isn't nonphysical neither is it physical. This is where it gets fuzzy and rather confounding because it is the part that could either get into the realms of science fiction or non-relevence. At the same time it could be the key question. What is the Hardware? Is it important? Is it important to a self aware computer what it is functioning within? Will it really matter to the computers function as an evolving consciousness?
It does if the human race is wiped out or there is a massive EMP that blows its circuitry.
No... I don't think we can relate the system that runs the system that runs the system.
"Understanding fractals as codes which are looped and then run, they self perpetuate infinitely. The only way they can stop is if that which powers them is disconnected. They are programmes and while they look real, they are not but they do give us an understanding of how looped coding works, and just as importantly they resemble things in the nature of the physical universe giving rise to the theory that the physical universe is some kind of programmed fractal.
Q: Would you agree?"
Yes. Very much so. this looping fractal... Recursion... or a recursive cellular automaton.
"You said:
Out side the network lies another reality that isn't conceivable by the self aware avatar that is perusing the network. It may be pertinent to its existence... but if what we have learned is to be understood.. it will be a fractal of the local network.
Would you elaborate on this?"
The network I mean is actually the operating system that runs the show that we are part of.. whatever that is. There are probably many more... these would be inaccessible. Unless this is the only one then my statement is invalid. But where there to be other systems then this throws any theorising into an eventual loop of pointlessness because it is irrelevant.
Q: What is 'the local network?
The nonphysical. I think i meant the 'astral'. Forgive me mistakes in my writings.
Q: What do you mean by 'what we have learned'?
I meant what I have learned about the fractal process.
Q: If there is no such thing as 'a place' (in terms of what you are saying regarding...say...the non physical from the physical) is anything 'a place'?
Yes... consciousness is actually the only pertinent and solidly explicit 'place' outside of constrained PMR. A place exists once there are 2 points of existence. A base from which to 'be' and a point to experience 'being'. In PMR a place is much more easy to define. In the nonphysical it is a more looser term that requires no distance and is merely an intent to constrain the loose data of the LOS.
For example, could you consider Consciousness to be 'a place'?
haha.. yes. This is probably the most direct and real 'place' there is. As above.
"You asked:
Q: I don't understand you use of the term 'madness'. What is this madness you speak of?
A: The term has come up in this and other threads. I have to assume that you are not reading all the posts otherwise you would not be asking this question. You would understand why the term is being used."
I have been so busy recently that I could only skim long discussions. As you can see my workload has relaxed slightly giving me the opportunity to do this and write a few articles on Sleep Paralysis.
"The braches you speak of which are somewhat detached –
Q: Are you saying they are detached because the Little Self Aware Unit is unable to access these?"
No.. I now see that I was talking utter nonsense and as I have been collecting my thoughts realised I was rambling. The tree is a great metaphor.
Yes...it seems almost time for diagrams :D
One thing for now Ben...I think we understand 'Avatar' differently...
You said:
I am aware that an 'avatar' is a playable non-conscious character.
I see it more as like the movie portrays it to a degree - an aspect of Consciousness which identifies itself one way, incarnating into another form but retaining its prior identity AND (eventually) merging the newer experience of identity with the prior one.
This of course doesn't quiet align with our experience because we do not have prior knowledge of existence as someone else...but the reincarnation angle which Campbell supports suggest that the IUOC in the non physical does have the collective experience of these 'life packets' saved as data - apparently non merged...
I digress...
When you are essentially travelling into the 'astral' you are doing so as the identity of Ben, the human being, even as you think or believe or have been shown evidence that you are not really Ben but the IUOC, you still travel as Ben, not the IUOC. Do I understand this correctly?
Diagrams can be good. :)
I am using avatar in the wrong sense... I mean an online avatar like world of warcraft or Second Life where it is bing controlled by a USER.
Using the film version of Avatar is another matter and when I went to see that film I actually thought 'this is actually more possible than it seems'; Create a clone and download/upload your consciousness into it. Not so far fetched me thinks. A worthwhile addition to the other thread in terms of technology allowing this.
When you are essentially travelling into the 'astral' you are doing so as the identity of Ben, the human being, even as you think or believe or have been shown evidence that you are not really Ben but the IUOC, you still travel as Ben, not the IUOC. Do I understand this correctly?
No.. I am evidently much more. I am still Ben and I identify myself as me because I have memories of my normal physical existence but I have an umbrella of some other ME that is more me than the physical me. It's very hard to describe. I am collecting data and remembering that.. but the data that I have that makes me this 'more than me' is lost upon returning to normal consciousness.
I used to be little ol' Ben during my OOBEs. When I was younger... I would think and analyse like I did when physical. I would have desires and specific reasons.
within the last 5 years or so I am gaining insights that are only available as a memory or 'thing' when I am nonphysical... that upon becoming physical once more completely escapes me. A loss of insight.
These memories or 'understandings' often filter through every now and then... but not directly after the experience.
It is as though I am incapable of sustaining whatever knowledge I have as a nonphysical 'mind' in this physical mind. It's actually something I am currently working on understanding.
That is what I meant on the previous thread about my left and right brain differences. Although in hindsight it was a bad choice of wording. I don't think it really has anything to do with right or left... but more of a capacity or ability to translate the information... or download it into my physical mind. This also relates to my description of it being top down.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 13, 2013, 18:04:25
Diagrams can be good. :)
I am using avatar in the wrong sense... I mean an online avatar like world of warcraft or Second Life where it is bing controlled by a USER.
Using the film version of Avatar is another matter and when I went to see that film I actually thought 'this is actually more possible than it seems'; Create a clone and download/upload your consciousness into it. Not so far fetched me thinks. A worthwhile addition to the other thread in terms of technology allowing this.
When you are essentially travelling into the 'astral' you are doing so as the identity of Ben, the human being, even as you think or believe or have been shown evidence that you are not really Ben but the IUOC, you still travel as Ben, not the IUOC. Do I understand this correctly?
No.. I am evidently much more. I am still Ben and I identify myself as me because I have memories of my normal physical existence but I have an umbrella of some other ME that is more me than the physical me. It's very hard to describe. I am collecting data and remembering that.. but the data that I have that makes me this 'more than me' is lost upon returning to normal consciousness.
I used to be little ol' Ben during my OOBEs. When I was younger... I would think and analyse like I did when physical. I would have desires and specific reasons.
within the last 5 years or so I am gaining insights that are only available as a memory or 'thing' when I am nonphysical... that upon becoming physical once more completely escapes me. A loss of insight.
These memories or 'understandings' often filter through every now and then... but not directly after the experience.
It is as though I am incapable of sustaining whatever knowledge I have as a nonphysical 'mind' in this physical mind. It's actually something I am currently working on understanding.
That is what I meant on the previous thread about my left and right brain differences. Although in hindsight it was a bad choice of wording. I don't think it really has anything to do with right or left... but more of a capacity or ability to translate the information... or download it into my physical mind. This also relates to my description of it being top down.
Okay thanks for that Ben – it is very good data.
From what you are saying about retaining experience insight etc...This reminds me somewhat of dreaming – I dream every night and there is always residual memory – sometimes just a flash of a feeling other times the recall is far better.
There seems to be layers (which reminds me – can you clarify your 'top down' expression) which have something to do with – perhaps with intent – but the way I see it is that the dreams are real events only are called dreams due to their particular intensity. They can be lucid which places me in a more direct realization that I am 'having a dream' and 'the dream is real' – which then gives me something to compare and often I have read from others that the dream is not 'real' unless it is at least 'lucid' but I don't think so myself.
The dream is still real.
So then we could fling around the 'what is real' argument but really it is consciousness which ultimately decides and so since I am consciousness, I decide, dreams are real even if they are not lucid. They are as real as lucid, and lucid is as real as travelling. The differences have to do with how we respond. The more 'lucid' the more control, decision space etc...
In relation to the movie Avatar, yes – for me it was more confirmation as I have thought about this concept for some time and was glad to see it as a movie.
There is more I want to say regarding your post but want to sit back and contemplate.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 14, 2013, 01:59:44
Okay thanks for that Ben – it is very good data.
From what you are saying about retaining experience insight etc...This reminds me somewhat of dreaming – I dream every night and there is always residual memory – sometimes just a flash of a feeling other times the recall is far better.
Very similar and probably a closely related if not directly related modality.
Quote from: Wi11iam on March 14, 2013, 01:59:44
There seems to be layers (which reminds me – can you clarify your 'top down' expression) which have something to do with – perhaps with intent – but the way I see it is that the dreams are real events only are called dreams due to their particular intensity. They can be lucid which places me in a more direct realization that I am 'having a dream' and 'the dream is real' – which then gives me something to compare and often I have read from others that the dream is not 'real' unless it is at least 'lucid' but I don't think so myself.
The top down expression is actually well represented by what you just said.. 'layers'... separated by metaphorical one way permeable membranes allowing a one directional flow of information/data/memory. The insights and information being collected and sent one way up the ladder to the seat of consciousness and very little coming down. Only being available to a caertain degree when merged [?] with varied aspects of the nonphysical 'layer/s'. But there is surely a way of getting this information and retaining it... I suppose this is what 'enlightenment' means. I'm probably being denied that particular 'pass'. :lol:
Could you please have your VIP enlightenment pass ready upon arrival?
:lol:
I need to apply for a OSO Visa.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 14, 2013, 06:46:59
Very similar and probably a closely related if not directly related modality.
The top down expression is actually well represented by what you just said.. 'layers'... separated by metaphorical one way permeable membranes allowing a one directional flow of information/data/memory. The insights and information being collected and sent one way up the ladder to the seat of consciousness and very little coming down. Only being available to a caertain degree when merged [?] with varied aspects of the nonphysical 'layer/s'. But there is surely a way of getting this information and retaining it... I suppose this is what 'enlightenment' means. I'm probably being denied that particular 'pass'. :lol:
Quote from: ChopstickFox on March 14, 2013, 07:24:06
Could you please have your VIP enlightenment pass ready upon arrival?
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 14, 2013, 08:28:47
:lol:
I need to apply for a OSO Visa.
As can be seen - this is closely related to travel. :D
Yes Ben I suspected that was what you were referring to.
I have heard it said another way - like zones - each one more denser than the other, until this, the Physical Universe, is arrived at, with all its properties reinforcing - buy and large - the state of forgetfulness and uncertainty.
:)
http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=7825&p=67123#p67123
Above is a link to something Tom Vollers said at me recently - it has to do with this topic and other associated things. What he says in regard to 'The Void' - to 'not really being able to know...so take a camera' - these things remind me of when I used to frequent the Sceptic forum of James Randi Foundation - the same attitude towards those who they consider 'wack jobs' - woo-woos etc...
I can understand highly sceptical personalities engaged predominantly as their egos using such expression, but when it comes to those who come from the 'enlightened' sector and who are teaching interested individuals certain 'truth' - I am not so understanding.
Anyhoo, like I said, it is relevant to this topic - I was perusing Campbell's MBTOE forum and the topic "
If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?" caught my eye.
I read the threads and could see that there were one or two who seemed frustrated with the answers they were getting - so I thought I would post leaving links to the two 'beginning' threads here in AP, because I feel that the content of these threads as well as how they unfolded/evolved - the data might go some way to helping answer this Q.
As Lionheart has often said - OBSERVATION and ACCEPTANCE - these are good tools, whatever the reality one is experiencing - be aware enough to observe as neutrally as possible and accept the evidence in the same way.
"Please extinguish all drinks and fasten your bootstraps."
:D
(http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5645/aocz.jpg)
I have created this simple diagram. Just as it is, what thoughts if any does it evoke for you?
That's a fair diagram William. I would maybe put a broken dotted line seeping through; sometimes insight or a tiny aspect of understanding will be triggered by things in my everyday existence and a spark of understanding will manifest. Just like dream recall but more powerful.
I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.
It begins to get very hard to explain... again... another example of it becoming more removed from 'Ben' and closer to my higher self and that loss of insight thing. I am being very sincere and truthful here and have never really gone this far into describing it. I'll have to thank you for that.
I would be interested to hear if anybody else experiences this.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 14, 2013, 17:06:14
That's a fair diagram William. I would maybe put a broken dotted line seeping through; sometimes insight or a tiny aspect of understanding will be triggered by things in my everyday existence and a spark of understanding will manifest. Just like dream recall but more powerful.
I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.
It begins to get very hard to explain... again... another example of it becoming more removed from 'Ben' and closer to my higher self and that loss of insight thing. I am being very sincere and truthful here and have never really gone this far into describing it. I'll have to thank you for that.
I would be interested to hear if anybody else experiences this.
Yes, that would account for the revelations (nothing in the sense of Biblical) we get during waking hours while concentrating on other tasks.
As well as the de javu (sp?) moments and other little things. No data is always completely blocked to everyone.
I like the unimpeded data stream being universal.
The non physical is interpreted as a barrier between the holistic. Is this where the awareness of who we are, the individual, the I, has to be in order to experience the atomistic?
If so how does the connection between an event (physical) happening miles from someone sensitive, who knows whats happening at that exact time and in great detail?
The omnipresent data stream could explain it to a degree but the information available would surely be incomprehensible between two individuals in this circumstance.
What are your thoughts on this?
Based on that I think it may have inspired me to make a diagram... oh dear. :-D
Will's diagram does a good job of showing how we do know more while OOB but "return" without everything that we knew. The dotted line Beedeekin described would show how we do return with some knowledge and why other phenomena occur.
I am attempting a diagram but it needs to be in 3D... and the directional information lines are in danger of obliterating the actual diagram... and then I am having trouble equating it to a linear path... on top of that every time I try to separate the physical from the nonphysical the knowledge of experience is getting in the way of making a satisfactory representation.
I think I might stick with William's.
QuoteI can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.
I think MYBTOE explains this perfectly by simply keeping this part mystical. From a scientific POV, there is no way to prove anything beyond a certain point in certain instances so it just becomes conjecture. He is trying to engage his scientific peers and trying to explain further would surely drop their interests as much of what Cambell says already teases scientific heresy. Sadly, most only think about their careers.
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7948/aoc2s.jpg)
How about this one then, does it touch upon more accuracy?
That's a fair diagram William. I would maybe put a broken dotted line seeping through; sometimes insight or a tiny aspect of understanding will be triggered by things in my everyday existence and a spark of understanding will manifest. Just like dream recall but more powerful.
I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.
It begins to get very hard to explain... again... another example of it becoming more removed from 'Ben' and closer to my higher self and that loss of insight thing. I am being very sincere and truthful here and have never really gone this far into describing it. I'll have to thank you for that. ~ Ben
Thanks for that Ben. What you share helps the projection of insightfulness and the process of getting on the same page (GOTSP)
What you say in your first paragraph reminds me of how serendipity/synchronicity works in this physical universe.
Why do you 'collect data' and where does this data end up and for what purpose do you suppose the data is for?
Why do you suppose the holistic state has this affect on you? Is this similar to what Frank Kepple talks about in his resource – I think he calls it "F4"?
Yes, that would account for the revelations (nothing in the sense of Biblical) we get during waking hours while concentrating on other tasks.
As well as the de javu (sp?) moments and other little things. No data is always completely blocked to everyone. ~Simon
Why should any data be blocked from anyone Simon? Could the reason be similar to why certain data is not for certain eyes here?
In the case of biblical revelations, and religion in general I had a recent 'revelation' that ALL religions get there origins from the 'Astral'
Would you say this was possible or even probable?
I like the unimpeded data stream being universal.
The non physical is interpreted as a barrier between the holistic. Is this where the awareness of who we are, the individual, the I, has to be in order to experience the atomistic?
If so how does the connection between an event (physical) happening miles from someone sensitive, who knows whats happening at that exact time and in great detail?
The omnipresent data stream could explain it to a degree but the information available would surely be incomprehensible between two individuals in this circumstance.
What are your thoughts on this? ~ Szaxx
I like that too Szaxx.
Did you notice that in my next rendition I decided to thin out the stream as it passed through each Aspect of Consciousness?
The non physical might act as a barrier between Physical and Holistic aspects of consciousness – as portrayed by the red lines.
The connection to an event which happens in the physical will perhaps have physical properties which allow this to occur independently of the non physical – through the atoms (as a medium) but still might require the unimpeded stream in order to activate this as you suggest.
I am not sure that the data would be incomprehensible between two individuals but would agree that it would take effort of both to align the understanding through working on a communications process which would better enable this to happen.
I am attempting a diagram but it needs to be in 3D... and the directional information lines are in danger of obliterating the actual diagram... and then I am having trouble equating it to a linear path... on top of that every time I try to separate the physical from the nonphysical the knowledge of experience is getting in the way of making a satisfactory representation.
I think I might stick with William's. ~ Ben
Sometime simple is effective enough. I am thinking the diagram as 1 per person but have made the blue and red data stream lines to denote 2 ways in which an individual might experience the Aspects of Consciousness...and adjusting accordingly as we go...
I think MYBTOE explains this perfectly by simply keeping this part mystical. From a scientific POV, there is no way to prove anything beyond a certain point in certain instances so it just becomes conjecture. ~ Simon
I think to keep something mystical is suspect. This applies to an outside engineered purposeful agenda and equally to an inner purposeful self made wanting to remain ignorant attitude.
However, if something is mystical but not purposefully hidden or veiled or costumed etc...then it is easier to 'crack the mystery' because no thing is actually working to keep it mystical.
Science does this kind of thing all the time, and would not settle for MYBTOEs explanation of 'mysterious' and 'cannot be proven.'
Conjecture is okay as long as it remains open ended and aligned with what evidence is available...science always uses conjecture (hypothesis - it is a wonderful tool of the imagination) but is ready to let go any conjecture which proves itself to be incorrect as pushing through the mysteries reveals new evidence to the contrary.
In the case of Campbell's Conjecture regarding 'The Void' what he is saying (through Ted Vollers) is that 'The Void' is akin to a magicians hat, which produces something from 'nothing' only the 'nothing is actually a 'Void' which denotes a beginning which is evidence of a simulation – yesterday I though of it another way. That which was obviously created, has a creator.
That which is 'a creator' is Conscious.
That, which is Conscious, is an Aspect of Consciousness.
The Void is evidence of the mechanism by which the creator of the simulation entered into a simulation of a beginning – and from this evolved (became more and more aware and self aware) as per Campbell's theory.
There is no 'mystery' to the function of 'The Void' – the 'mystery' is hidden on the 'other side' of it – and as Ted sarcastically suggested, if I wish to go therein make sure I take a camera so I can come back and show everyone the evidence.
(Completely unnecessary)
As we have from time to time exclaimed, 'we could go mad trying to reach a conclusion' but the obvious conjecture is that Consciousness must have never had a beginning.
For example, if we could find a way through the void, and discovered that the next layer also had a beginning, ....yet another void, we can conclude that we are still within a simulation, but would be hard pressed (perhaps...I have never thought about it) to come up with what that simulation was created to explore.
What we CAN ascertain is that the one we DO know about (but haven't brought pics back to show our scientists) :D is that it most obviously is for the purpose of creating a simulation of a beginning, but not an end...since then through the process, 'end simulations' have been created and explored – not of course without also having beginnings.
One thing which need to be acknowledged is that the holistic aspect of consciousness which was birthed through the 'beginning and no end' simulation will be aware of and accepting of this data itself, and would want all of its 'Aspects' to be likewise informed.
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7948/aoc2s.jpg)
My quote in it's full context explains why he keeps it mystical and that is because I believe he is trying to garnish credibility from the scientific academia in regards to his theory. He admits that it is just the best theory that fits all the known objective data along with his subjective data. I'm quite sure that he probably does have a theory that digs far deeper than he admits to on the record but that is my subjective opinion based on the objectiveness of his approach. In light of all he says and has shown, I think it's a fair assumption that he will refine his theory and further expand it based on new evidence or data. But to go any further than he already has with the current data would be just as credible as saying, from a scientific POV, that the current data suggests that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are actually the source or origin of all consciousness. When it comes down to subjectivity, nothing can be more annoying than being told that this is how it is because I say so, regardless of what the best and current evidence shows.
I don't suspect him for not going further, in contrast I applaud him. He actually leaves it up to us to fill in the gaps for ourselves personally since there is nothing else that he knows objectively or subjectively to be true.
Would you rather he just lie about the matter instead of encouraging us to dig deeper personally? Since this is exactly what you are doing, I think you can give him a little credit for that. I think you would find a wider and accepting audience for your beliefs if you would accept much of what you are saying as just theoretical and therefore suggest that the audience explore for themselves. Keep in mind that much of what you are saying, though I believe some to be true subjectively, is equal to telling academics in their current mindset, that you believe the tooth fairy is real. They won't even give it a second thought and dismiss it outright.
But I do not put him on a pedestal or marvel at his insights. I just give credit where credit is due. I think we all do or should anyways. :-)
I do like your newest diagram better even though the first was really close. Do you agree that it shows how data can stream through in smaller bits?
I am not and have never portrayed Campbell in a negative way which needs defending.
I don't understand your references to Santa and Easter bunny...I am sure if you looked hard enough in the Astral you will find them, but they are not the Source and it is silly to even use this as an argument. :-P
We would best give each other credit where credit is due and if you think my observations (related to thread topic) are incorrect then say so and point out exactly or as near as you can as to why, okay?
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 14, 2013, 22:52:46
I do like your newest diagram better even though the first was really close. Do you agree that it shows how data can stream through in smaller bits?
Are you referring to the 'dots'?
I too think they are silly to use and that is why I did. I was trying to make a point that trying to objectively prove what comes after physical death to close minded people is near impossible. Any attempt to do so, no matter how much scientific data suggest that it is true, is completely disregarded as fairy tales to these people. That's all.
Besides, I do believe that a case can be made for the Ester bunny being the source.
As far as you needing to defend yourself against anything you say against anybody, would have to stem from you. It's not place to say so otherwise.
But you did say that to not go further than he did was suspect in your mind. I considered it good science.
Quote...and if you think my observations (related to thread topic) are incorrect then say so and point out exactly or as near as you can as to why, okay?
:? I have to admit that I have no idea what you are referring to, unless it's to the fact that I still consider all this theory and not objectively proven.
Yes, I'm referring to the dots. Do they not represent data that gets through in bits and pieces?
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 15, 2013, 00:07:34
I too think they are silly to use and that is why I did. I was trying to make a point that trying to objectively prove what comes after physical death to close minded people is near impossible. Any attempt to do so, no matter how much scientific data suggest that it is true, is completely disregarded as fairy tales to these people. That's all.
Besides, I do believe that a case can be made for the Ester bunny being the source.
As far as you needing to defend yourself against anything you say against anybody, would have to stem from you. It's not place to say so otherwise.
But you did say that to not go further than he did was suspect in your mind. I considered it good science.
:? I have to admit that I have no idea what you are referring to, unless it's to the fact that I still consider all this theory and not objectively proven.
Yes, I'm referring to the dots. Do they not represent data that gets through in bits and pieces?
As far as 'who the source is' it is not the main focus. The focus is that whatever the actual source is, it has no beginning.
Therefore that which has been identified many ways but most lately as the holistic consciousness (rather than 'aspects of) AKA 'that which evolved from the void and became self aware' is not the source, but in its capacity knows this to be so.
It is an aspect of consciousness itself...consciousness which entered the simulation through the void portal.
Science itself at present doesn't appear to be giving Campbell's theory any serious attention. AP-ers and would be AP-ers are his main audience and supporters of his theories and you are one of these by the look.
However when I hear AP-ers such as yourself and Ted Vollers say things which sceptics use in their arguments against 'believers' - it seems exceptionally ironic and more than a little weird.
Good science in the physical world is about looking at the evidence and so far it is pointing to Big Bang and the mystery of where that came from.
Some branches of science are of the opinion that it was just a spontaneous event and that consciousness evolved in the physical universe and there is no other universe. Their 'magicians hat' is the big bang.
Campbell's theory says differently.
Do you see the pattern at all Simon?
Are the scientists correct in their theory or do you think they are missing something?
Tom says that consciousness spontaneously evolved from the void. It is his 'big bang' and his 'magicians hat.
Do you see the pattern Simon?
The only answer to stop this pattern going on endlessly is that Consciousness never had a beginning and that neither the physical universe or the non physical one are the reason consciousness exists.
But whatever the case, this is not true of . We all might have our subjective interpretations of the physical universe and our subjective perspectives, but we share an objective reality, which so far as I know has not been duplicated in relation to the 'astral' - everyone simply has their own subjective experience period...
Which tends to suggest that what is experienced is done so because of the expectations of the one experiencing it in relation to the properties of the non physical and how these properties interact and react with subjective beliefs.
As to the dots - I put them there because Ben suggested it...and yes - I think they represent data that gets through but the data is incomplete it has missing bits
While I remember, it could deserve a thread of its own but...(and correct me please if I am mistaken) Campbell says that we are 'data'. Do you agree?
Also how would you answer this:
If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?
QuoteScience itself at present doesn't appear to be giving Campbell's theory any serious attention. AP-ers and would be AP-ers are his main audience and supporters of his theories and you are one of these by the look.
However when I hear AP-ers such as yourself and Ted Vollers say things which sceptics use in their arguments against 'believers' - it seems exceptionally ironic and more than a little weird.
I am a fan, that's for sure. I think he makes an exceptional case for his theory. That's all it is to me, a theory but a really well thought out one.
It's not weird at all in the context that I used it. Obviously no one has ever believed the easter bunny to be anything more that fiction. I can't believe I have to explain that.
I used it as a reference to show how absurd skeptics think we are for believing what most of us have accepted as objectively true from our own subjectivity. More than anything, I am playing the devil's advocate.
The renewed diagram is better.
My question is based on many events that happened where I knew what was taking place and one in particular actually saved a life. The strangest part of this one is where the family saw something on a regular occurrence when one of the members were in some 'difficulty'.
I had no knowledge of this and when it became extremely prominent the rest of this incident was 'seen'. I knew who to speak to and what to say. A messenger of sorts. It couldn't be ignored and it resulted in a saved life and an emotional breakdown of the one who had to recieve this message.
It worked fully and was totally out of the blue.
Other times I simply KNOW.
William these 2 threads in which you posted have been very entertaining. I couldn't help but ask a "trick" question and I am curious what is your answer.
Please explain what consciousness is without using any concepts that you know.
My my... this thread surely does evolve drastically when one is away for a little while. :-)
The new diagram is great. :wink:
The dotted line represents fragmented 'useful Big Picture' data I presume.. not experiential data; that which one gets up to while nonphysical, flying, retrieving, exploring etc.
"Why do you 'collect data' and where does this data end up and for what purpose do you suppose the data is for?"
This is going to take some explaining... :lol:
Here's one aspect I don't mind sharing... Before I read MBT I was content to play and use my explorations as a tool to improve my physical life. 26 years of playing and frolicking around in the garden of the wider reality. I was seemingly allowed access to areas that according to Campbell are only acquired by one who is consciously evolved. I have never felt spiritual and I as I said... everything I did was performed for the betterment of myself. It wasn't until I read MBT that doors were closed... access denied in various areas. I read the first book in 2 days. I didn't put it down and basically locked myself away. The next day I couldn't eat meat. Two weeks later I had lost a stone (14lb) and my arthritis and general sense of getting older where diminishing. I also found I was craving specific food groups that I previously hated. In a month I felt better than I did when I was 20. The difference was that I was finding it difficult to AP.
I then had what I call an 'event' experience after pondering why I had changed so much. The experience that night actually took place the night before I couldn't eat meat one month earlier. In a nutshell I met a representative of myself (Higher me?) who I was designated to meet during a previous experience I had blocked [?]. We chatted and I was told some home truths about me. I was knocked down and reduced to a babbling bawling baby... all the ways I had hurt others.. and the reasons I had made bad choices. My final request of this other me was "How can I change? How can I be more like you? (the higher me)" I said to me "that had already been arranged" or thoughts/words to that effect. I had basically been reprogrammed by me to optimise myself physically.
Who was this ME? How did it work? Who made the decision to change ME? How was I not able to remember the event when it took place at the time and why was I not aware of it the day it happened? Why did it take place directly after being nudged by 'Awakenings'?
So in essence I am asking the same question. Where does this data end up and why am I collecting it? Is the data more useful to the other end or do I specifically need the data from the top end? How would I make use of it here or visa versa.
The question/s you are asking are actually fundamental questions and the hardest to answer. :)
Another thing is that I have been specifically told to NOT divulge certain things that I have done and accessed during my experiences. This is very frustrating because I want to but I truly don't want to find out the consequences of doing so. Also they seem benign but there must be a reason. Maybe this is why Campbell leaves certain things out. I don't know. Another reason Campbell leaves certain things out is probably because of the 'fantastical' nature of them. If what I experience sometimes is anything to go by, the scientific community would definitely NOT take him seriously.
Quote from: its_all_bad on March 15, 2013, 02:51:40
I am a fan, that's for sure. I think he makes an exceptional case for his theory. That's all it is to me, a theory but a really well thought out one.
It's not weird at all in the context that I used it. Obviously no one has ever believed the easter bunny to be anything more that fiction. I can't believe I have to explain that.
I used it as a reference to show how absurd skeptics think we are for believing what most of us have accepted as objectively true from our own subjectivity. More than anything, I am playing the devil's advocate.
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
Quote from: Szaxx on March 15, 2013, 07:00:35
The renewed diagram is better.
My question is based on many events that happened where I knew what was taking place and one in particular actually saved a life. The strangest part of this one is where the family saw something on a regular occurrence when one of the members were in some 'difficulty'.
I had no knowledge of this and when it became extremely prominent the rest of this incident was 'seen'. I knew who to speak to and what to say. A messenger of sorts. It couldn't be ignored and it resulted in a saved life and an emotional breakdown of the one who had to recieve this message.
It worked fully and was totally out of the blue.
Other times I simply KNOW.
I have wondered at a few things to do with families, DNA and what have you. I remember my dad saying once that he had premonition now and again and at one time it may have saved his life.
Sometimes I have thought about 'hide and seek' too – the fun of finding out things through your own participation and cognitive abilities.
I get the feeling though, that the holistic aspect is not purposefully hiding and is able to be 'mirrored' on any level/aspect of consciousness.
For whatever reason, I just think that we are not intended to know all the answers from this point of view. It would somehow negate the purpose, whatever that is exactly. But I do believe we are only aware of a fraction of what we can know.
The family in question has absolutely nothing to do with me at all. The one who suffered I only met a few times fleetingly. The member the message had to be delivered to was a good friend. It doesn't fit into anything per se. The rest just occur randomly.
If this is some connection with the holistic I can understand it. A mirror, Im not sure of the terminology here. Having experienced the oneness with everything on a few occasions this data link fits the reasoning to immediate access and the non physical link fits the bill completely. Theres nothing physical that can be utilised in any way to explain the whole. It needs to be experienced to even begin to understand that connection. The 'entire knowledge' of all thats presented is unbelievably mind blowing, you know everything about everything instantaneously. From thoughts to the strain on metal components. Everything is known and understood.
You have a great insight and I have wondered why none of your replies have anything related to a personal experience that instigated your dedication to this study.
Are you collaborating facts to generate a greater understanding of the subjectivity or somewhat fearful of misinterpretation by a personal perspective from the inherent distractions that abound while non physical?
Quote from: ingerul9 on March 15, 2013, 09:36:54
William these 2 threads in which you posted have been very entertaining. I couldn't help but ask a "trick" question and I am curious what is your answer.
Please explain what consciousness is without using any concepts that you know.
Ingeral - The closest I (as consciousness) have come to that is in realizing that consciousness had no beginning. 'No beginning' as a state of being is not a concept I 'know' because as this aspect (consciousness within physical form) I have had a beginning (and no memory of a prior existence but can still understand the concept) so I understand the concept of beginning and the concept of having a prior existence, even though I have no memory of having had one.
From the various models I have studied, it appears that the 'Astral' also had a beginning, so I can understand from the same perspective how that most likely would have evolved (and use metaphor directly from the physical) to 'paint a picture' which allows me (from this state) to understand why 'fractal simulations' were created and consciously explored (I being one of the 'explorers') I can even understand (as you should be aware, having read the threads) that the most likely explanation as to how this all started - how the 'fractal simulations' came to be (same reason - consciousness created them) all things which have a beginning were create by consciousness - therefore Consciousness had no beginning.
Any aspect of consciousness which has gone through the process of a 'beginning' can understand this concept as a possibility, and even as extremely likely but cannot comprehend it in a way which would allow it to experience a state of no beginning - this state would - for all aspects of consciousness which have experienced a beginning - be non-explainable because it cannot be experienced from our perspective...(unless...as a memory...? *ponders*) :|
Therefore (to answer your "trick" question) Consciousness has no beginning or end and is aware of having no beginning or end.
I think I answered your question the way you asked me to.
Since we are all aspects of Consciousness which had no beginning or end, we can 'touch' (and be touched by) its significance (acceptance) and even allow it to influence our expression.
I have to go to work now.
I have read what you have shared Ben, Simon and Szaxx - and I am excited by the data.
I will use my time at work to allow the data to merge and look forward to replying in a few hours.
:)
QuoteAlso how would you answer this:
If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?
There seems to be an obvious answer but I think it's misleading. We as individual consciousness's analyze each other personally everyday. In fact, I think that's all we ever do. To do this, we have to separate ourselves from each other and take on personal identities. But I think this is only an illusion that benefits the purpose of a physical and non physical existence. Which appears to be a paradox because we can't imagine another possible form to exist in and maybe there isn't. But if the "astral" didn't come first, that implies that a physical existence did.
I think it's more appropriate to say that the "parts of the astral" we access did not come first though I'm not aware of the data that you say suggest otherwise. But that's not a fruitful debate IMO as I don't think it matters to our identity. At least not as I view it.
The easy answer is that consciousness analyzes everything. We as humans analyze other humans so why wouldn't this be true for consciousness as well? It's misleading though because we are not aware of all aspects of consciousness, as you say and I agree with.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 15, 2013, 10:43:55
The new diagram is great. :wink:
The dotted line represents fragmented 'useful Big Picture' data I presume.. not experiential data; that which one gets up to while nonphysical, flying, retrieving, exploring etc.
I have an idea of what the dotted line might represent, but I put it there because you asked for it.
"Why do you 'collect data' and where does this data end up and for what purpose do you suppose the data is for?"Quote from: Bedeekin on March 15, 2013, 10:43:55
Here's one aspect I don't mind sharing... Before I read MBT I was content to play and use my explorations as a tool to improve my physical life. 26 years of playing and frolicking around in the garden of the wider reality. I was seemingly allowed access to areas that according to Campbell are only acquired by one who is consciously evolved. I have never felt spiritual and I as I said... everything I did was performed for the betterment of myself. It wasn't until I read MBT that doors were closed... access denied in various areas. I read the first book in 2 days. I didn't put it down and basically locked myself away. The next day I couldn't eat meat. Two weeks later I had lost a stone (14lb) and my arthritis and general sense of getting older where diminishing. I also found I was craving specific food groups that I previously hated. In a month I felt better than I did when I was 20. The difference was that I was finding it difficult to AP.
It is interesting that you had access to areas which Campbell believes are not accessible to the aspect of consciousness which are not 'evolved' enough (I assume he is referring to QoC).
It is interesting too that the GOTWR can be used in order to...enhance lifestyle in the physical – without QoC being necessary.
It almost seems as if by reading MBT your 'innocence' was lost (you had new data) and the effect of that data changed your physical expression and also became a kind of block to your AP-ing abilities which were not so hindered prior to this.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 15, 2013, 10:43:55
I then had what I call an 'event' experience after pondering why I had changed so much. The experience that night actually took place the night before I couldn't eat meat one month earlier. In a nutshell I met a representative of myself (Higher me?) who I was designated to meet during a previous experience I had blocked [?]. We chatted and I was told some home truths about me. I was knocked down and reduced to a babbling bawling baby... all the ways I had hurt others.. and the reasons I had made bad choices. My final request of this other me was "How can I change? How can I be more like you? (the higher me)" I said to me "that had already been arranged" or thoughts/words to that effect. I had basically been reprogrammed by me to optimise myself physically.
Prior to this, had you ever experienced the 'babbling baby' and associated realisations?
I am asking because I have had these – but within the framework of the physical reality. While a sense of 'a higher being' was involved, this was 'presence' rather than face to face.
Similar episodes of revelation have also happened while involved in earlier communication through Ouija.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 15, 2013, 10:43:55
Who was this ME? How did it work? Who made the decision to change ME? How was I not able to remember the event when it took place at the time and why was I not aware of it the day it happened? Why did it take place directly after being nudged by 'Awakenings'?
So in essence I am asking the same question. Where does this data end up and why am I collecting it? Is the data more useful to the other end or do I specifically need the data from the top end? How would I make use of it here or visa versa.
If we come from the angle of the model that this...invisible but nonetheless intimately connected alternate reality came first (is not a product/creation of the physical) then the answer could be that this 'higher self' is YOU before YOU became YOU.
How cryptic.
Was YOU, before and aspect of it became 'Ben – the human being in the physical universe.
Data is interesting...Why are you collecting data which is mostly hidden from you?
Why is Ben collecting data in the non physical which is mostly hidden from Ben in the physical?
One possible answer which came to mind while I was at work is that help is given (like teachers) but the answers are not.
It must be important to the 'higher self' that the 'lower self' has as much opportunity to learn for itself.
This would suppose that there is a purpose in the lower self existing which is important to the higher self.
In every aspect of fractal experience, a 'new thing' is effectively created, which while part of the holistic, is still new.
This pattern repeats itself through the layers.
In relation to the holistic in the ...'source fractal' which is seen to come from the void, it is also a 'new thing' (which as a discussion deserves a thread of it own) and everything after that which involves consciousness is also a new thing.
My own data of experience leads me so far to conclude that the fractal process is in part, a way in which the original new thing set about to discover its 'self' because it – for some reason – could not penetrate the void from which it obviously (to itself) came from.
The usefulness of the fractal process is significant in that it can reduce consciousness – by degree – into 'parts' which are able to be studied – especially by the preceding 'parts' (which are 'higher selves' to the postceeding 'parts') proceeding as they do together.
[yep I know 'postceeding' is not a word – but at this time I can't think of the correct word.]
In effect, this universe consciousness is experiencing is bouncing back data – in our own attempt to discover who we are and what purpose we were 'created' for.
It would seem natural for any consciousness which has a beginning to want to know the answers.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 15, 2013, 10:43:55
The question/s you are asking are actually fundamental questions and the hardest to answer. :)
I don't think consciousness is data. I will explain more in my answer to Simons latest post.
Quote from: Bedeekin on March 15, 2013, 10:43:55
Another thing is that I have been specifically told to NOT divulge certain things that I have done and accessed during my experiences. This is very frustrating because I want to but I truly don't want to find out the consequences of doing so. Also they seem benign but there must be a reason. Maybe this is why Campbell leaves certain things out. I don't know. Another reason Campbell leaves certain things out is probably because of the 'fantastical' nature of them. If what I experience sometimes is anything to go by, the scientific community would definitely NOT take him seriously.
Through my own experience with Ouija principle and the forthcoming data communicated with that method, there were things I was also specifically told not to divulge – but I questioned this because I was quite adamant that everything need be transparent in order for trust honesty etc...also I had a specific experience while using this method which taught me that I can be too trusting...that I needed to also be able to make my own decisions and learn to trust in those decisions.
One thing I was told was to keep secret my use of Ouija, but under the circumstances it had such a profound effect on my understanding, learning, growth and insight that I could not really keep it secret and felt my intent to share HOW I came to access the data was important, especially because at that time I thought that others might also want to access this incredible way of getting data which was extremely helpful and beneficial.
While I knew Ouija had a shadowy reputation, I did not realise to the fullest extent how bad that rep was.
This I have learned well enough now – I can tell you that in my revealing how I got a lot of data set me up – in one forum in particular two individuals were very outspoken about it and never let a chance go by to use the info to cast doubt and demonise me and these individuals were purposefully doing so in order that others would turn off even wanting to read my data...which was exactly what was intended by these particular individuals who saw my information as dangerous to their own agenda.
Others, who were more 'spiritual' types – the 'love and lighters' tended to act nice when they were in positions where they had to make some kind of reply but would generally avoid having to interact with me.
Ah..so what would have happened if I had of taken the advice and kept things secret?
Who knows? I don't regret being open and upfront about that – and the ripple effect, while very uncomfortable and often working against what I was about (unity – getting on the same page etc) it still taught me so much – the data feedback is always worthwhile and since my initial intent was not untoward or otherwise hiding some sinister agenda, the overall affect hasn't been bad for me.
I would take into account too that sometimes in order to get someone to do something, you tell them not too.
But I don't think it really applies to my particular example.
QuoteI would take into account too that sometimes in order to get someone to do something, you tell them not too.
I'm sure Beedeekin will also keep in mind that people interested in this "secret" will try to coerce the holder into divulging the info by pretending to remain neutral when it they are anything but. :wink::-D
Quote from: Szaxx on March 15, 2013, 13:27:07
The family in question has absolutely nothing to do with me at all. The one who suffered I only met a few times fleetingly. The member the message had to be delivered to was a good friend. It doesn't fit into anything per se. The rest just occur randomly.
If this is some connection with the holistic I can understand it. A mirror, Im not sure of the terminology here. Having experienced the oneness with everything on a few occasions this data link fits the reasoning to immediate access and the non physical link fits the bill completely. Theres nothing physical that can be utilised in any way to explain the whole. It needs to be experienced to even begin to understand that connection. The 'entire knowledge' of all thats presented is unbelievably mind blowing, you know everything about everything instantaneously. From thoughts to the strain on metal components. Everything is known and understood.
You have a great insight and I have wondered why none of your replies have anything related to a personal experience that instigated your dedication to this study.
Are you collaborating facts to generate a greater understanding of the subjectivity or somewhat fearful of misinterpretation by a personal perspective from the inherent distractions that abound while non physical?
A large portion of my insight comes directly from my interactions with the communications device and the data received through this process.
I have had limited experience with OOBE – enough though to allow me a glimpse and the glimpse was to behold.
I am collaborating data (not necessarily all facts/truthful) in relation to gaining a greater overall picture of what is most likely occurring.
I could relay stories which relate to personal experience that instigated my dedication to this study – and believe I may have already done this on this BB.
But in truth I can only say that my whole life (in hindsight) is the main reason.
I think you might be referring to what I said here?:
I get the feeling though, that the holistic aspect is not purposefully hiding and is able to be 'mirrored' on any level/aspect of consciousness.If so, I was saying that the actual state of the holistic Consciousness is not that apparent in the physical or the astral aspects of consciousness and more to the point, the accuracy of 'mirroring' the real is dependent upon the individual and collective aspects of consciousness – wherever they at present reside – to being aligned with that Holistic Consciousness, represented in my diagram as the Blue Line – The unimpeded data.
(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7948/aoc2s.jpg)
I am hoping as this discussion evolves that the diagram can be tweaked accordingly.
When I see the question "If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?" I would answer it based on my understanding of who I am, which is not 'data'.
We as consciousness may well analyze each other but what we are really doing is analyzing the data presented through the individual (aspect of consciousness) and depending on both how the data is processed (sent and received) and the Quality of the consciousness sending and receiving, determines the value of said data, in relation to the holistic consciousness (which is of extremely valuable quality)
The illusion you speak of which benefits the purpose of the aspects of consciousness in physical and non physical has more to do with the red lines in the diagram which are not aligned to the overall purpose of the holistic consciousness (hence the illusions).
As to you saying:
I think it's more appropriate to say that the "parts of the astral" we access did not come first though I'm not aware of the data that you say suggest otherwise. But that's not a fruitful debate IMO as I don't think it matters to our identity. At least not as I view it.
I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here.
Re the diagram. In the physical actually knowing (outside of the 5 senses) of another physical event real time. How would this be represented? It has no connection to the astral or higher. If I assume its a data link between two concious entities then the blue line has no beginning and no end in this circumstance.
It's a very real phenomenon (label accepted).
Quote from: Szaxx on March 16, 2013, 04:38:30
Re the diagram. In the physical actually knowing (outside of the 5 senses) of another physical event real time. How would this be represented? It has no connection to the astral or higher. If I assume its a data link between two concious entities then the blue line has no beginning and no end in this circumstance.
It's a very real phenomenon (label accepted).
My impression is that absolutely all consciousness is connected to all aspects of itself.
The various degrees of density seem to inhibit this connection being particularly noticeable – apparently even in the non physical.
I think this is one of the reasons that 'phenomena' exists – because it is simply not ordinary.
I would not know how to represent these connections. The diagram is simply, and simply represents personal awareness and connection to the unimpeded data stream as a better alternative than the impeded aspect.
This is why I decided to make the blue line thinner as it progress through the different states – the restriction is necessary – like a tap controlling the flow of water – too much and it could 'blow a valve'.
Another observation is that in all cases of travellers' experiences they are connected to the physical instrument and this most likely has an affect on their experience.
It is worth contemplating that the experiences had in this 'mode' are not the same type as will be experienced when the physical instrument is no longer a part of the influence.
It's more prominent when non physical and some of the 'actions' you are capable of when NP are autonomous. In the physical these actions are non existent barring extremely rare cases.
This fits your diagram well enough and the thinning blue line represents this well.
The difference in semi-circle sizes could be expanded. The 'possessed knowledge' in each concious state as a representation is greater by magnitudes, this isn't that well represented.
I think it is adequate enough as the impression is that one can fit into the other, like those Russian dolls. :)