Dr. Tom Zinser, Clinical Psychologist on Difference Between Darkness and Evil |451|

Alex

Administrator
#1
Dr. Tom Zinser, Clinical Psychologist on Difference Between Darkness and Evil |451|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jun 10 | Uncategorized
Share
Tweet
0SHARES

Tom Zinser’s clinical psychology practice took a turn when he discovered the difference between darkness and evil.
photo by: Skeptiko
[Movie clip 00:00:00 – 00:00:23]
Nobody plays a deal-making devil better than Al Pacino and no one plays an unsuspecting dupe better than Keanu Reeves. It’s from the movie, The Devil’s Advocate and it fits perfectly with today’s controversial and just incredibly amazing and for me, paradigm changing interview with Dr. Tom Zinser.
Tom Zinser: As souls we have the choice, and evil does not run our life, evil does not have power over us. So as souls we do have that power to deal with evil, to stop it, to refuse it. And it’s one of the reasons I said that distinction between darkness and evil is so important.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:01:09] So our natural state is to have likes and dislikes that inadvertently, not our fault, but it happens, we block that light in one way or another, and sometimes we connect with those blockages more than we connect with the light and it all becomes a confused state. What I hear you saying then is that we can begin talking about evil, darkness as just blockages of the light. That of course, you always have the power to remove those. It makes them a lot less scary.
Tom Zinser: [00:01:43] And we do need that. We’ve grown up in our Western culture to be frightened of darkness and evil, to think of it as so powerful, to stay away from that topic for fear that it’s going to get us. People need to know it doesn’t have that power.
Alex Tsakiris: [00:02:00] I hope this came through in the interview, is this idea of the contract, because that is not only a method of deception that seems to be in play, but it’s been enshrined in our culture through books, movies, as being, don’t make that contract with the devil, you could never break it. And what Gerod says, and you prove in your work is that, no, there’s no such contract, it’s null and void, it’s unenforceable. All we have to do is say, No, I choose to go to the light,” and it’s all over.
Tom Zinser: [00:02:33] That’s right. Yes.
 
#2
What timing... you can't imagine -

OK, around the 18:20 mark - "That line (the question of the soul) is implicitly known by these folks (the old guard science crew) at an unconscious level, it's known... and it scares them.. they resist it." (That implies one type of person - perhaps a "good hearted" or "well intended" person... or perhaps not so good hearted, but resistant to what a breakthrough like this might mean for their career, their "perceived esteemed place" in the science community.

And Alex does his thing - "Do you think it might be known at a conscious level..." "...and is not crossed because the implications for social engineering, social control, manipulation in either a positive or negative way," and not crossed for that reason?

But I don't think the answer expected was what was delivered... Dr. Zinser went beyond and straight to the most likely primary and most powerful reason.

"Yes, I believe that ultimately there is the concern that if people really began to understand the power they have as conscious beings, I would believe that the powers that be would not want that to be given full freedom. ["the powers that be" - emphasis mine]


Chester: THAT (IMO) is what we are dealing with. It is a top-down suppression mechanism.

But I have a question about this... if this be the case, why? Why would "the PTBs" feel a need to keep this information hidden and to themselves when they know that "a conscious being" (as Zinser called "it") continues on? What's to hoard? I have a few theories about this too - for another post.
 
Last edited:
#3
It would be a hard thing to determine if someone was suffering from a schizophrenic issue or an entity from outside. Maybe there’s a crossover :(
I agree that psychiatry doesn’t help much. I think their function is more to do with diagnosis & sorting the different chemicals (drugs) to subdue feelings. There’s still some helpful practices like cognitive therapy but that’s different for a personal crisis with underlying spiritual issues.
 
#4
What timing... you can't imagine -

OK, around the 18:20 mark - "That line (the question of the soul) is implicitly known by these folks (the old guard science crew) at an unconscious level, it's known... and it scares them.. they resist it." (That implies one type of person - perhaps a "good hearted" or "well intended" person... or perhaps not so good hearted, but resistant to what a breakthrough like this might mean for their career, their "perceived esteemed place" in the science community.

And Alex does his thing - "Do you think it might be known at a conscious level..." "...and is not crossed because the implications for social engineering, social control, manipulation in either a positive or negative way," and not crossed for that reason?

But I don't think the answer expected was what was delivered... Dr. Zinser went beyond and straight to the most likely primary and most powerful reason.

"Yes, I believe that ultimately there is the concern that if people really began to understand the power they have as conscious beings, I would believe that the powers that be would not that to be given full freedom.


Chester: THAT (IMO) is what we are dealing with. It is a top-down suppression mechanism.

But I have a question about this... if this be the case, why? Why would "the PTBs" feel a need to keep this information hidden and to themselves when they know that "a conscious being" (as Zinser called "it") continues on? What's to hoard? I have a few theories about this too - for another post.
PTBs? I missed something :)
What does that stand for?
 
#6
Alex, I hear a much different word than what your transcript says and it is a critically important word - here's the quote -

"So it was my first attempt to engage and communicate, in a way with what appeared to be a separate entity, and I felt that I received enough confirmation, enough back and forth communication with this entity, and the information we finally had is that it was willing to leave." (I highlighted the word I think I hear differently).

I hear the word "wasn't." I watched his mouth too... it really seems like he says "wasn't."

The difference is HUGE.

[UPDATE: Dr. Zinser verified the word he used was "was."] - here
 
Last edited:
#7
Question at end: What are we to do with channeled material that is used in this way (consulting a channel as one would consult a colleague regarding clinical cases).

Considering that TRUTH = USEFUL then if channeled material proves to be useful I guess we can label it as truth.

But then as was touched on: is the Jesus character people encounter the "real true" Jesus? The good doctor's response was familiar: people see who they need to see to help communicate to them in a way they are able to accept. So "literal" truth is not important? Naive Realism would take it that sensory input is Truth, but Jungian psychology would argue that the physical reality presenting itself to our senses is a manifestation of the subconscious or collective unconscious. So really there is no difference between sensory experience of physical reality and a symbolic manifestation of the subconscious.

I found this interview very interesting as Dr. Zinser spoke with a lot of authority generated from personal experience on the battlefield of the mind. However, I failed to hear anything paradigm busting as Alex did. I heard the same metaphysical world view I've heard from others (like Grant Cameron) and from which I presently operate: this life is just one chapter or one thread of a greater story. Death is just the end of a chapter. We all contain a broken off piece of God/Higher Self/Light which has deliberately gotten lost in the Labyrinth order to have the experiences of returning, and along the way some souls get REALLY really lost and need help getting back to the light.

The inherent contradictions or polarities or open questions in this worldview remain:
Should we individuate and develop the Self or should we merge into the Oneness?
Should we be ambitious, desirous, willful, or should we stop desiring... and even stop desiring not to desire?
Should we pursue growth, gain, reward? Should we pursue it for this life or the next? What is our end goal? Is there an ideal end goal, or do we make it up as we go along?
Can we pursue power and love at the same time?
If heaven was so boring that we had to create hell, then why rush back to the Light? Why not play around a bit with shades of gray?
Should we develop our internal power or appeal to a higher power?
Should we be rogue elements - a Neo, a One - a fully integrated Christ-Consciousness-Self - a mature expression of the Will - a culmination of the fluctuations in even the simplest equations leading to an integral anomaly that results in systemic destabilization?
Or should we attach ourselves to a hierarchy and find greater meaning and purpose within it?
Collectivism or Individualism?
Growth of the individual the Ego, the Self - or propagation of copies of the self - or merging of the self into something greater than the self?
What are the rules about breaking the rules? Can we break those rules too? Should we? Does acknowledging that there are rules artificially limit us and inhibit us?
Is our present structure a prison or a penthouse?
Should we create or destroy? Do we have to destroy in order to create?
Should we be truthful or are we surrendering our power to create by submitting to someone else's truth?
How can we hack the rules to get what we want? Are we creating bad Karma if we hack reality and assert our force of will upon the world?

I could go on...
 
#8
Question at end: What are we to do with channeled material that is used in this way (consulting a channel as one would consult a colleague regarding clinical cases).

Considering that TRUTH = USEFUL then if channeled material proves to be useful I guess we can label it as truth.

But then as was touched on: is the Jesus character people encounter the "real true" Jesus? The good doctor's response was familiar: people see who they need to see to help communicate to them in a way they are able to accept. So "literal" truth is not important? Naive Realism would take it that sensory input is Truth, but Jungian psychology would argue that the physical reality presenting itself to our senses is a manifestation of the subconscious or collective unconscious. So really there is no difference between sensory experience of physical reality and a symbolic manifestation of the subconscious.

I found this interview very interesting as Dr. Zinser spoke with a lot of authority generated from personal experience on the battlefield of the mind. However, I failed to hear anything paradigm busting as Alex did. I heard the same metaphysical world view I've heard from others (like Grant Cameron) and from which I presently operate: this life is just one chapter or one thread of a greater story. Death is just the end of a chapter. We all contain a broken off piece of God/Higher Self/Light which has deliberately gotten lost in the Labyrinth order to have the experiences of returning, and along the way some souls get REALLY really lost and need help getting back to the light.

The inherent contradictions or polarities or open questions in this worldview remain:
Should we individuate and develop the Self or should we merge into the Oneness?
Should we be ambitious, desirous, willful, or should we stop desiring... and even stop desiring not to desire?
Should we pursue growth, gain, reward? Should we pursue it for this life or the next? What is our end goal? Is there an ideal end goal, or do we make it up as we go along?
Can we pursue power and love at the same time?
If heaven was so boring that we had to create hell, then why rush back to the Light? Why not play around a bit with shades of gray?
Should we develop our internal power or appeal to a higher power?
Should we be rogue elements - a Neo, a One - a fully integrated Christ-Consciousness-Self - a mature expression of the Will - a culmination of the fluctuations in even the simplest equations leading to an integral anomaly that results in systemic destabilization?
Or should we attach ourselves to a hierarchy and find greater meaning and purpose within it?
Collectivism or Individualism?
Growth of the individual the Ego, the Self - or propagation of copies of the self - or merging of the self into something greater than the self?
What are the rules about breaking the rules? Can we break those rules too? Should we? Does acknowledging that there are rules artificially limit us and inhibit us?
Is our present structure a prison or a penthouse?
Should we create or destroy? Do we have to destroy in order to create?
Should we be truthful or are we surrendering our power to create by submitting to someone else's truth?
How can we hack the rules to get what we want? Are we creating bad Karma if we hack reality and assert our force of will upon the world?

I could go on...
Lots of great questions. It seems to me that we should enjoy our time here and just focus on love and growth.
 
#9
Lots of great questions. It seems to me that we should enjoy our time here and just focus on love and growth.
And another one:

He talks of "dark souls" that are warring against the light, violating other souls, to use them and harness them.

But he also equates a "soul" with light. So "dark soul" is a dark light... juxtaposed opposites... a contradiction?

Why do evil dark souls want to grow their power? Desires are ultimately connected to feelings of pain or pleasure. How do souls feel?

...........

Enjoy our time here:
Just as in our dreams, the complete fulfillment of our desires always seems just out of reach. So we try to get away from pain as much as possible, and try not to desire anything too strongly so that we aren't disappointed. But on the other hand if we accept that fact that we are often not going to enjoy our time here and instead accept the pain that inevitably comes with desire and try to accomplish something meaningful, then we will probably hopefully find some enjoyment in the end.

Focus on love and growth:
Unless you are very selective, then love will cause pain. Being selective in itself will cause pain.
Growth: all things want to grow, to become greater than what they were. Why? Why do we want to grow? The result of growth is eventually decay and death and if those are unnaturally avoided then excessive growth is destructive or cancerous to those living more in balance.

Can a soul grow too much?
 
#10
I certainly think it is good that this interview in the 'evil series' is trying to look at what is behind evil, not just cataloguing a mass of evidence of evil activity. I also admire the fact that Dr Zinser has broken out of the materialist paradigm pretty completely, while staying within his profession!

I guess I got rather bewildered by the number of different types of entities that Dr Zinser thinks exist. I mean, I counted
a soul
assorted sub-personalities
spirit guides
the higher self

That seems a lot, and I may not have included them all, and I do rather want to apply Occam's Razor here.

I really hope that Dr Zinser will join the forum to discuss with us all.

David
 
#13
The inherent contradictions or polarities or open questions in this worldview remain:
Should we individuate and develop the Self or should we merge into the Oneness?
Should we be ambitious, desirous, willful, or should we stop desiring... and even stop desiring not to desire?
Collectivism or Individualism?
Growth of the individual the Ego, the Self - or propagation of copies of the self - or merging of the self into something greater than the self?
The answers to these questions are obvious. Live as an individual or merge into the oneness and cease to exist. Oneness = spiritual suicide.
 
#14
The answers to these questions are obvious. Live as an individual or merge into the oneness and cease to exist. Oneness = spiritual suicide.
Unless Oneness is the highest expression of the individual and “merging” is the integration process of bringing things out of the darkness/subconscious into the light/consciousness.

(I’m playing the devil’s advocate here)
 
#15
http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Spirits-Book-by-Allan-Kardec.pdf
The answers to these questions are obvious. Live as an individual or merge into the oneness and cease to exist. Oneness = spiritual suicide.
Forgive me but I beg to differ. According to The Spirit's Book we remain individuals and maintain our identity even after we at last enter the Godhead. Many of the Spirits who Allen Kardec communed with via mediums when he wrote the Spirits Book were accomplished and had ascended. Here is a link to that book:

http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Spirits-Book-by-Allan-Kardec.pdf
 
#16
http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Spirits-Book-by-Allan-Kardec.pdf

Forgive me but I beg to differ. According to The Spirit's Book we remain individuals and maintain our identity even after we at last enter the Godhead. Many of the Spirits who Allen Kardec communed with via mediums when he wrote the Spirits Book were accomplished and had ascended. Here is a link to that book:

http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Spirits-Book-by-Allan-Kardec.pdf
I think we lose our ego attachments the closer we come to the Godhead. I'm reading a book by Jurgen Ziewe and he does an excellent job of discussing how he's experienced the different levels of consciousness. Individual identity is part of the ego imo, and it's something we experience but then we start to let it go.
 
#17
http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Spirits-Book-by-Allan-Kardec.pdf

Forgive me but I beg to differ. According to The Spirit's Book we remain individuals and maintain our identity even after we at last enter the Godhead. Many of the Spirits who Allen Kardec communed with via mediums when he wrote the Spirits Book were accomplished and had ascended. Here is a link to that book:

http://itcvoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Spirits-Book-by-Allan-Kardec.pdf
Yes, I certainly think a spirit shorn of identity is a rather vacuous concept.

David
 

Alex

Administrator
#18
What timing... you can't imagine -

OK, around the 18:20 mark - "That line (the question of the soul) is implicitly known by these folks (the old guard science crew) at an unconscious level, it's known... and it scares them.. they resist it." (That implies one type of person - perhaps a "good hearted" or "well intended" person... or perhaps not so good hearted, but resistant to what a breakthrough like this might mean for their career, their "perceived esteemed place" in the science community.

And Alex does his thing - "Do you think it might be known at a conscious level..." "...and is not crossed because the implications for social engineering, social control, manipulation in either a positive or negative way," and not crossed for that reason?

But I don't think the answer expected was what was delivered... Dr. Zinser went beyond and straight to the most likely primary and most powerful reason.

"Yes, I believe that ultimately there is the concern that if people really began to understand the power they have as conscious beings, I would believe that the powers that be would not that to be given full freedom. ["the powers that be" - emphasis mine]


Chester: THAT (IMO) is what we are dealing with. It is a top-down suppression mechanism.

But I have a question about this... if this be the case, why? Why would "the PTBs" feel a need to keep this information hidden and to themselves when they know that "a conscious being" (as Zinser called "it") continues on? What's to hoard? I have a few theories about this too - for another post.
wow... right to level 3, eh? :)

my default answer to your last question to assume that you were they... your in "get the job done" mode... you're in "control and contain" mode... you don't overthink it. you just do the next logical thing. Keep them scared. keep them dumbed down. just get to the next inning
 

Alex

Administrator
#19
Alex, I hear a much different word than what your transcript says and it is a critically important word - here's the quote -

"So it was my first attempt to engage and communicate, in a way with what appeared to be a separate entity, and I felt that I received enough confirmation, enough back and forth communication with this entity, and the information we finally had is that it was willing to leave." (I highlighted the word I think I hear differently).

I hear the word "wasn't." I watched his mouth too... it really seems like he says "wasn't."

The difference is HUGE.
agreed. thx. I have changed the transcript.
 
#20
The answers to these questions are obvious. Live as an individual or merge into the oneness and cease to exist. Oneness = spiritual suicide.
I still like to support someone's option to say, "hey... I've had enough." As long as they are the one to chose it.

On another note, from my studies of Left Hand Path and Right Hand Path - the former (to live as an individual) is classic LHP and the self annihilate (cease to exist) is classic RHP. Too many people seem to think LHP = evil. When an LHP adherent acts evil, I called that Left and down. Those who like to play both sides (like some who do Wicca for example) I call that Left and left. For those who desire to retain and refine their individuation, I call that Left and up. Some who appreciate forms of Gnosticism (IMO) are examples of Left and up.
 
Last edited:
Top