AP Adventures outside the norm

[Andali27]

Sorry Major Tom !

Soooooooo,..... where do people wanna go when they AP?

[Nostic]

Thanks for the insightful post Frank

There are two words a have a hard time understanding and I would be happy if you could help me out and explain them (again), because I think they are vital to understand.
I'm talking about objective vs. subjective
You use them quite often in your posts.
Thanks Tom

An objective world is a world that appears to exist separate from you. A subjective world however responds to your thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

... just to be even more clear:

Objective- independent of your personal beliefs or feelings.
Subjective- dependent upon your personal beliefs or feelings.

[Tombo]

Thanks for the reply Nostic. Could you please copie it to the Thread "couple of phasing questions" cause I would like to discuss the subject further but I don't wanna abuse this thread any longer  

[Frank]

Nostic:

Thank you for your input on the subjective/objective question.

Tombo: I'm sorry I overlooked the necessity of a reply, but I've been a bit pushed for time the past few days and Nostic has answered it in a nutshell.

Andali: On this forum you are welcome to question whatever you like no matter who is saying it. Any debate on any subject is welcomed: provided the normal rules of respectful discussion apply... and it is ON TOPIC for the thread in question.

So if you would like to engage in a debate about anything else, then by all means go for it and open a new topic.

For the record:

Adrian is the boss who rules by "divine right". Major Tom is king, Nay is queen. The rest, well, we just fight amongst ourselves, lol.

Regards,
Frank

[Gandalf]

Adrian is the boss who rules by "divine right". Major Tom is king, Nay is queen. The rest, well, we just fight amongst ourselves, lol.


I make the tea!

[Muesli]

Good day fine people, a very intriguing thread to follow indeed...

I do, however, have a few thoughts that I would like to weave into this thread, concerning in particular Frank's assertations about the FxoC model of consciousness/ the Kosmos. As a brief disclaimer, I would like to point out that I am at this time not a conscious projector (though I am learning, and know on some level what this learning is merely an act of conscious remembrance, not a novel acquisition of skills), and thus I come from a perspective of philosophical curiosity, rather than being able to offer an actual alternative position. I would also like to state that I am not suggesting, as it may be interpreted, that Frank's ideas are inherently wrong, I merely seek clarification as to one or two points that trouble a peculiar feeling of the gut that many are inclined to call intuition. Whether my position is defensible, or merely stems from a certain degree of ignorance, which I am happy to proclaim, is open to question.

Now then, preamble over.

What intrigues me, and sets my little internal alarm bells ringing, is the certitude with which you assert your ideas. To quote an old adage, "The thing to be most wary of in the whole world is not people telling lies, but people who claim they are telling the truth." I am curious, exactly where and how did you arrive at this four-level system of consciousness/reality? If, as you say, this is a model you devised yourself, there are two possible answers to this initial question (there may well be more possibilities, and I accept I may indeed be entirely off the mark!):

1. You obtained this information from a 'higher being' either encountered on a level of reality higher/deeper/on a different focal resonance than this one, or the information/model was 'channelled' through you while in the physical plane, or some other similar set of circumstances.

2. Your model is based entirely on direct subjective experience of the proposed arrangement of focal points.

If the answer is, or is in the region of, the first point, then I am extremely dubious as to its credence and worth, as I would recommend you to be. In my earlier years when a desire to expand my interest and wonder in the universe compelled me towards certain areas of New Age thought that now seem rather tenuous, I encountered and read a lot of different channelled works - many of which had entirely novel, and completely contradictory 'secret histories' of mankind and the universe, and each providing a unique model for existence or consciousness. The important point being, depsite the probability that a lot of people channelled nothing more than the capitalist urge to sell books to slightly lost teenagers such as my earlier self, there were undoubtedly people among them who genuinely felt the made contact with other entities, and indeed did, and recieved the information which they faithfully wrote down and gave to the world, somehow thinking that what was provided them was unique, and certainly different to all the other various tales told by countless aliens from Lyra, the Pleidies, Sirius etc. and untold numbers of Angels and manifestations of God. Yet still, the contradictions illustrate the important point here...

If, however, as I would deem more likely to be the case, you have in your experience as a serious practitioner of the art of astral projection arrived at these conclusions via experiential empiricism, then a more pertinent, pressing question arises. (Please, for the purposes of this message, set aside the semantic differences of the various 'labels' applied to astral projection - I entirely agree with the points made on the matter, however, let AP suffice for this discussion!) While I agree with you when you say:

"... people went within themselves and saw many different "levels" of consciousness with all their attendant characteristics, like planes and sub-planes, etc. But there are no levels and there are no planes. Consciousness just is. It is all the same."

I find it interesting that you should propose a model for Consciousness having previously remarked:

"Every idea, concept, invention, construct, etc., etc. that has been or ever will be invented or otherwise introduced within our physical reality is already lodged within Focus 2 of consciousness."

For while you were of course referring specifically to the idea of fictional worlds, and their presence on the so-called astral planes or Focus 2oC (a topic I find most alluring - the possibilites are unbelievable!), you surely must see the contradiction inherent here. Assuming that there is indeed a physical world, or F1oC, (the likelihood of which it is not my purpose here to delve into), and that within or beyond that, or as you say, visible/attainable through a shift in focus, there is a subtler realm of Being wherein the subjective reigns supreme over the objective, and Mind and imagination take precedence over certain 'concrete' aspects of reality which we associate with this grosser, physical plane (something which, although I cannot project, have read enough about to take on faith), on the basis of F2oC's very nature, how can anything beyond it be concieved of as true? To put it in the form of another question:

How can you possibly know with any certitude that your model of F3 and F4oC are not products/constructs of your own imagination/creative impulse layered on to the Protean and malleable fabric of F2oC? How can you know for sure that you do not percieve the 'transition zone' filled with people enacting their personal Hells and Heavens etc. because that is precisely what you think should be there, and likewise with your perception of the transcendent realm above that? I hope the nature of my enquiry is clear enough. Granted, perhaps you would reply that cumulative inquiry by people has confirmed your theory. But how many of these people have read your ideas, headed off into the unknown and seen precisely the 'landscape' (not a very appropriate word I know!) that you have mapped because they expect it and nothing more? I am aware from  one of your previous posts that Robert Monroe, whose work I have, I confess, not perused in huge detail, asserts a similar, if more elaborate, system of which yours is a more refined version. However, instead of there being empirically concrete aspects that fit the model, could it not be that something universal about the human psyche manifests in certain ways upon the malleable form of the subtler realms, thus giving it the impression of universality, which is however nothing more than universal in the human species?
I only ask these questions mainly because I can. I have been reading various different accounts of the more subtle dimensions of existence for about ten years now, many of which differ on details, some of which vary quite wildly, but all of which differences could be accounted for due to the Protean nature of subtler reality. And while I have been perusing this board for a while, and listened to many great speculations, this is one of the first times I have heard such assertion of truth - something that intrigues me indeed! I must stress that this is in no way an attack, certainly not in a personal way, and not even really an attack of ideas, I am merely offering myself as a devil's advocate to your position for the general furtherance of ideas. It may merely be that I am entirely mislead in my understanding
However, I remain intrigued, and look forward to your response good sir!

Muesli

PS. Although it is not the place, as I do not intend to violate the thread here in my first serious post, I do disagree with you about religion But I won't go into that here...! hahaha!
PPS. I haven't reread this through, I hope it makes sense, or that you at least get the gist of my qualms

[Frank]

"1. You obtained this information from a 'higher being' either encountered"

There are no "higher beings" if you had studied my past posts you would not be accusing me of receiving information from higher beings. There is no higher or lower in consciousness, beings or otherwise. Consciousness is not a place that is occupied by different "levels" of personality.

Many people subscribe to the notion of "higher" whatever... self, beings, blah, blah, blah, some have money taken from them in pursuit of that belief, more blah, blah, blah... that's their problem.

You say you are not a "conscious projector" which is kind-of obvious. I've been at this 22 years. During which time I have gone through every question you have presented myself, and loads of others besides. I take NOTHING at face value.

I am a scientist, not a mystic.

I take no offence whatever at what you say. On the contrary, you ask some *very* valid questions that I have asked myself oodles of times. Your construction is very sound to the extent where, I can definitely say, that if you would learn to explore the wider reality with the kind of attitude you have, you will go a long way.

I only wish I could present to you an objective provable model. Oh, wow, that is my ultimate dream. Alas, at present I cannot. All I can do is present an unproven model, and others will have to take my word for it.

Yep, I understand exactly how short that is of what is necessary. I live with the frustration of that thought on a daily basis.

That's why I am trying my hardest to teach people the same as I have discovered. Hopefully, a number of others will be able to "follow in my footsteps" so to speak, and see the same reality that I see on what is now, almost a daily basis.

Hopefully, one day, we will be able to present that objective, provable model. How that can be possible I do not yet know, but I will always live in hope that that one day it can be accomplished.

Yours,
Frank