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

#21
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
[EDIT: I am unsure how I should interpret your reference, Alex, to Zone 3. It could be you meant it within the context of the three zones you mentioned at around the 43:00 minute mark or within the context of the "map thingie" I communicated with you about. I answered in context of the latter.]

Yep (although I call them zones now and have broken it into 5 - haha), and yep, yep... but (as mentioned), I have a theory... based in part on what I know about Germanic Paganism... where it has been said that they believed they could reincarnate in their ancestors and in fact (in part due to much shorter lifespans) into their grand children that arrive after their death. And it is from this idea that became law that property was inherited by the children, and so forth... (though ancestral inheritance did not originate from this by any means).

...and it is rumored that "the elite elite" or at least some, still secretly believe this and that is why the wealth they hoard in this lifetime is so important to them. When you consider the dumbing down of the rest of us... and all the things they do (and have planned) to, in essence, domesticate the masses - in light of the above, it all makes sense.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#22
Considering that TRUTH = USEFUL then if channeled material proves to be useful I guess we can label it as truth.


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. [/QUOTE]
sure... nothing is new :) but here are points I found particularly interesting/ reinforced:
- ego states... disassociated parts of ourselves... create unique entry points for entities in the extended consciousness realm.
- energy blockages in disassociated ego states may find resonance with entities in the extended consciousness realms.
- since all of this is ultimately of the light, the return to the light is an addition by subtraction exercises... remove the blockages and get more light.
 

Alex

Administrator
#23
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
fair point... I'm a little bit uncomfortable with these categories as well... but I think the real goal is to show how this model exposes the weaknesses of the path being taken the other folks we've had on Skeptiko
 

Alex

Administrator
#24
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.
sounds consistent with what I'm hearing.
 
#25
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.
The bit highlighted in red makes no sense to me (may be a typo). Should it be "would not want that to be given full freedom"? Or something else perhaps?

Then, as regards the bit highlighted in green, why would the Powers That Be necessarily be consciously keeping information to themselves? Couldn't it just be that they think any such idea is poppycock because they're materialists? Or, that they might suspect spirits exist but not want to acknowledge it (either because it would be too threatening to their world view, or it might put them beyond the pale with the majority of their colleagues)?
 
#26
The answers to these questions are obvious. Live as an individual or merge into the oneness and cease to exist. Oneness = spiritual suicide.
I think we do get to experience our individuality, even in the next realm(s). The book I mentioned earlier, discusses how in the heavenly realms we get to create and experience all the things we love and there are less limitations than we experience here. I've struggled with this topic for a long time...I don't want to lose my individuality but why does it have to be an either/or? This book gave me a new P.O.V....maybe we get to have our individuality until it loses its grip on us and then we merge. Maybe all the "time" in these lesser realms actually starts to push us closer to Oneness because of the restlessness of being separate?
 
#27
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.

sure... nothing is new :) but here are points I found particularly interesting/ reinforced:
- ego states... disassociated parts of ourselves... create unique entry points for entities in the extended consciousness realm.
- energy blockages in disassociated ego states may find resonance with entities in the extended consciousness realms.
- since all of this is ultimately of the light, the return to the light is an addition by subtraction exercises... remove the blockages and get more light.
Thanks for the bullet points. :)

So you’re saying Scientology is legit?

(j/k)

No, I agree these are some helpful useful bits of information. I’m really digging into Jungian psychoanalysis right now and so...

Becoming the archetype of Christ is the fully integrated Self where you’ve descended into your hell and ministered to the spirits in prison there (the fragments of your psyche or sub personalities who are locked in pain) before ascending again. We have to cast our nets into the deep waters of the subconscious and fish out the slippery sub personalities hiding in there and eat their flesh to integrate them.
 
#28
I think we do get to experience our individuality, even in the next realm(s). The book I mentioned earlier, discusses how in the heavenly realms we get to create and experience all the things we love and there are less limitations than we experience here. I've struggled with this topic for a long time...I don't want to lose my individuality but why does it have to be an either/or? This book gave me a new P.O.V....maybe we get to have our individuality until it loses its grip on us and then we merge. Maybe all the "time" in these lesser realms actually starts to push us closer to Oneness because of the restlessness of being separate?
I’ve never understood “we are all one” as intergration.
Seems unfair that certain souls live in bliss and others hell, if it’s not for individual soul growth.
 
#29
I don't think that's what happens...all souls grow at a different pace but we all have innumerable chances to progress or move to the higher levels. The hellish realms exist because the souls there are stuck or replaying the same destructive thought patterns. It's like you have to be willing to move on and heal.
 
#30
I don't think that's what happens...all souls grow at a different pace but we all have innumerable chances to progress or move to the higher levels. The hellish realms exist because the souls there are stuck or replaying the same destructive thought patterns. It's like you have to be willing to move on and heal.
I’m agreeing with you ;;/?

It’s the opinion that we all just are part of one consciousness that doesn’t logically or emotionally ring true to me.
 
#31
The answers to these questions are obvious. Live as an individual or merge into the oneness and cease to exist. Oneness = spiritual suicide.
I wonder, have you ever been to a theatre, cinema, music concert or sports event? Or maybe such gatherings are anathema to you? Those are certainly examples of oneness which many people enjoy. The attendees also survive intact.
 
#32
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.
This idea seems to me to be very problematic. If it's true, it implies that all of life is a game created by God/M@L/TWE to entertain itself. It's as if it says to itself: "I am bored. I know what I'll do -- I'll instantiate myself in living beings and purposely forget who I am just for the craic, the sheer exhilaration of struggling to rediscover myself". Evidently, the supreme being never tires of this game no matter how many billions of times it plays it.

To my mind, it makes more sense to postulate that the supreme being (as Bernardo Kastrup believes), isn't intrinsically metacognitive (i.e. isn't self-aware; isn't aware that it's aware), operating instead at something akin to an "instinctive" level. Everything is a process in its mind, and such processes can interact in myriads of ways determined by its inherent nature (which seems to be patterned and regular).

It isn't omnipotent or omniscient. There are things it can't, doesn't know how, wouldn't even want, to do. Somewhere along the line, it discovered how to dissociate itself into (living) beings that over time have become progressively more self-aware. We and all living beings, be they lesser or more advanced, are its means of exploring itself through the phenomenon of self-awareness, a natural outcome of dissociation. It isn't that we forget what we are, so much as that we have arisen to assist in its ongoing evolution.

That implies that what we experience is as much news to it as it is to us. We aren't Abrahamic-style creations to whom it issues rules and regulations which must be obeyed in order to find a way out of the maze and return to it. No: we're beings that have complete freedom to explore metacognitively, on its behalf, more of its own potential. We're all participants in its journey of self-discovery.

In this view, its eventual aim would be to become completely self-realised in a metacognitive way. It already has all the power that's possible (albeit not omnipotence), and can do whatever it "instinctively" wants or wills within the constraints of its own nature. However, employing the constantly evolving tool of self-awareness, it can experience itself more and more in ways conducive to its aim. It's not playing elaborate games with itself, but rather constantly striving to come to know and experience itself in ways it might be harder (impossible?) to do otherwise.

Hence we wouldn't be different and separate from it, but part and parcel of it. Nor, Intrinsically, would it necessarily know what good and evil are: it would be discovering this vicariously through our agency. "Good" would be whatever promotes its evolution (and thereby ours), and "evil" whatever inhibits that. To evolve, to come to know and metacognitively understand more and more of itself, it might instinctively want to evolve (good to prevail). However, because it's the other side of a dissociative boundary, in a sense it has let go of control, let the chips fall as they may. Theoretically, evil could eventually triumph, but in doing so, it would destroy the option the supreme being is pursuing; it would have to find some other way to evolve.

Why, if this is the case, would it want to allow us to become inexistent when we die? If we could continue and perhaps reincarnate (i.e. re-dissociate), and in our essence/soul be able to retain at least something of what we had previously learnt -- and subsequently evolve further, which is the same as saying that it could evolve further towards its aim -- then to me, it makes a certain sense.

We, on our side of the dissociative boundary, could perhaps be said to be vulnerable to experiencing its intrinsic existential angst, associated with its desire to evolve. We have free will, and probably necessarily so -- why? I'd say the dissociative boundary represents a distinction between two modes of experiencing: (i) M@L's native, instinctive and inevitably determinative, way, and (ii) its alters' (and therefore its own) proclivity to explore new territory.

Because the territory hasn't previously been explored, mistakes are bound to be made, i.e. there's bound to be evil. If it weren't so, there wouldn't be the boundary; there'd just be more of the same. M@L at the get-go doesn't know if there's anything worthwhile there, or if it turns out there is, how best to deal with it to further its aim. This idea hinges on the assumption that it isn't omniscient; if it were, we'd necessarily have an Abrahamic and dualistic conception of it as a trickster or joker that cynically manipulates us for its own amusement to avoid cosmic boredom.

If this idea has merit, then why is there any need to worry? We would be immortal, at least insofar as M@L's ideas/processes are effectively indestructible; it can't ever forget anything it has done - which is what true destructibility would imply.

Moreover, since we all originate from its one source, quite naturally we would all be interconnected. It would obviously be counterproductive for us to act in a way that would frustrate it and harm ourselves. That's not to say that we don't ever act in this way: we do, and quite often, but in aggregate (hopefully) are making progress on M@L's behalf.

As to the ins and outs of what happens between lives, and to what extent there's bi-directional interaction between M@L and us, I can't say much. Whether there are angels, demons, spirits, ETs, "paranormal" activity and all the rest -- or at least what they might actually represent -- I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind about all that.
 
#33
I’m agreeing with you ;;/?

It’s the opinion that we all just are part of one consciousness that doesn’t logically or emotionally ring true to me.
Oh I see haha. I think we are part of the one consciousness. We all have the ability to grow and relate to one another. I think consciousness or being is the thing being shared...like we're all in this together.
 
#34
This idea seems to me to be very problematic. If it's true, it implies that all of life is a game created by God/M@L/TWE to entertain itself. It's as if it says to itself: "I am bored. I know what I'll do -- I'll instantiate myself in living beings and purposely forget who I am just for the craic, the sheer exhilaration of struggling to rediscover myself". Evidently, the supreme being never tires of this game no matter how many billions of times it plays it.

To my mind, it makes more sense to postulate that the supreme being (as Bernardo Kastrup believes), isn't intrinsically metacognitive (i.e. isn't self-aware; isn't aware that it's aware), operating instead at something akin to an "instinctive" level. Everything is a process in its mind, and such processes can interact in myriads of ways determined by its inherent nature (which seems to be patterned and regular).

It isn't omnipotent or omniscient. There are things it can't, doesn't know how, wouldn't even want, to do. Somewhere along the line, it discovered how to dissociate itself into (living) beings that over time have become progressively more self-aware. We and all living beings, be they lesser or more advanced, are its means of exploring itself through the phenomenon of self-awareness, a natural outcome of dissociation. It isn't that we forget what we are, so much as that we have arisen to assist in its ongoing evolution.

That implies that what we experience is as much news to it as it is to us. We aren't Abrahamic-style creations to whom it issues rules and regulations which must be obeyed in order to find a way out of the maze and return to it. No: we're beings that have complete freedom to explore metacognitively, on its behalf, more of its own potential. We're all participants in its journey of self-discovery.

In this view, its eventual aim would be to become completely self-realised in a metacognitive way. It already has all the power that's possible (albeit not omnipotence), and can do whatever it "instinctively" wants or wills within the constraints of its own nature. However, employing the constantly evolving tool of self-awareness, it can experience itself more and more in ways conducive to its aim. It's not playing elaborate games with itself, but rather constantly striving to come to know and experience itself in ways it might be harder (impossible?) to do otherwise.

Hence we wouldn't be different and separate from it, but part and parcel of it. Nor, Intrinsically, would it necessarily know what good and evil are: it would be discovering this vicariously through our agency. "Good" would be whatever promotes its evolution (and thereby ours), and "evil" whatever inhibits that. To evolve, to come to know and metacognitively understand more and more of itself, it might instinctively want to evolve (good to prevail). However, because it's the other side of a dissociative boundary, in a sense it has let go of control, let the chips fall as they may. Theoretically, evil could eventually triumph, but in doing so, it would destroy the option the supreme being is pursuing; it would have to find some other way to evolve.

Why, if this is the case, would it want to allow us to become inexistent when we die? If we could continue and perhaps reincarnate (i.e. re-dissociate), and in our essence/soul be able to retain at least something of what we had previously learnt -- and subsequently evolve further, which is the same as saying that it could evolve further towards its aim -- then to me, it makes a certain sense.

We, on our side of the dissociative boundary, could perhaps be said to be vulnerable to experiencing its intrinsic existential angst, associated with its desire to evolve. We have free will, and probably necessarily so -- why? I'd say the dissociative boundary represents a distinction between two modes of experiencing: (i) M@L's native, instinctive and inevitably determinative, way, and (ii) its alters' (and therefore its own) proclivity to explore new territory.

Because the territory hasn't previously been explored, mistakes are bound to be made, i.e. there's bound to be evil. If it weren't so, there wouldn't be the boundary; there'd just be more of the same. M@L at the get-go doesn't know if there's anything worthwhile there, or if it turns out there is, how best to deal with it to further its aim. This idea hinges on the assumption that it isn't omniscient; if it were, we'd necessarily have an Abrahamic and dualistic conception of it as a trickster or joker that cynically manipulates us for its own amusement to avoid cosmic boredom.

If this idea has merit, then why is there any need to worry? We would be immortal, at least insofar as M@L's ideas/processes are effectively indestructible; it can't ever forget anything it has done - which is what true destructibility would imply.

Moreover, since we all originate from its one source, quite naturally we would all be interconnected. It would obviously be counterproductive for us to act in a way that would frustrate it and harm ourselves. That's not to say that we don't ever act in this way: we do, and quite often, but in aggregate (hopefully) are making progress on M@L's behalf.

As to the ins and outs of what happens between lives, and to what extent there's bi-directional interaction between M@L and us, I can't say much. Whether there are angels, demons, spirits, ETs, "paranormal" activity and all the rest -- or at least what they might actually represent -- I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind about all that.
You made some really good points here. I don't think we will ever have a complete grasp as to the ins and outs of why we're here, on this side of the veil at least, but a lot of what you said makes sense to me. The idea of Source choosing "forgetfulness" is a pretty common interpretation and I think the most logical and moral one. If we all came form the same source, then we share in the same nature and are moving towards the same "goal".
 
#35
fair point... I'm a little bit uncomfortable with these categories as well... but I think the real goal is to show how this model exposes the weaknesses of the path being taken the other folks we've had on Skeptiko
I completely agree, and of course Zinser is coming to this from the point of view of helping patients - not blue sky consciousness research.

There is a strange parallel between the plethora of sub-personalities he discusses and the neuroscience viewpoint, where bits of the brain do different things - e.g. the amygdala are where anger is 'processed'. In both cases I am left thinking, how can a subpart of consciousness operate without itself being a complete conscious entity. For example how can an amygdala 'process' anger without knowing all the information that relates to that anger.

I wonder if a better picture might be that each mind exists in a social context with other conscious entities that contribute either constructively or negatively. Imagine for example, you are one of a crowd of kids in the playground - some are friendly, some are daring you to do something risky, and some are downright hostile.

David
 
#36
I completely agree, and of course Zinser is coming to this from the point of view of helping patients - not blue sky consciousness research.

There is a strange parallel between the plethora of sub-personalities he discusses and the neuroscience viewpoint, where bits of the brain do different things - e.g. the amygdala are where anger is 'processed'. In both cases I am left thinking, how can a subpart of consciousness operate without itself being a complete conscious entity. For example how can an amygdala 'process' anger without knowing all the information that relates to that anger.

I wonder if a better picture might be that each mind exists in a social context with other conscious entities that contribute either constructively or negatively. Imagine for example, you are one of a crowd of kids in the playground - some are friendly, some are daring you to do something risky, and some are downright hostile.

David
Hasn't the research shown as well that the brain also can function as a whole even after its damaged? I've heard of people with pieces of the brain removed and cognitive functioning remains the same as if it was complete. Kind of a hologram??
 
#37
Hasn't the research shown as well that the brain also can function as a whole even after its damaged? I've heard of people with pieces of the brain removed and cognitive functioning remains the same as if it was complete. Kind of a hologram??
Well my understanding is that damage early on can be bypassed in some people. The extreme example is that some people in which hydrocephalus has crushed most of their brain, function pretty normally! Of course, the reverse of that is that people who get a stroke (or whos brain is damaged in other ways) can get damage in specific areas - such as the speech centre.

Some people were treated for extreme epilepsy (I think) by the removal of one half of the brain! I think they still functioned reasonably.

David
 

Alex

Administrator
#38
Thanks for the bullet points. :)

So you’re saying Scientology is legit?

(j/k)

No, I agree these are some helpful useful bits of information. I’m really digging into Jungian psychoanalysis right now and so...

Becoming the archetype of Christ is the fully integrated Self where you’ve descended into your hell and ministered to the spirits in prison there (the fragments of your psyche or sub personalities who are locked in pain) before ascending again. We have to cast our nets into the deep waters of the subconscious and fish out the slippery sub personalities hiding in there and eat their flesh to integrate them.
agreed. Jung seems to be shining a light in this direction. so does a lot of the vedic stuff. the interesting thing about zinser is that he's a western man who has taken clinical approach. Jung's dance with metaphor is great, and may at some level be closer to " reality" (ie consciousness is fundamental) but it seems like we need a little more zinser in the mix right now.
 
#39
This idea seems to me to be very problematic. If it's true, it implies that all of life is a game created by God/M@L/TWE to entertain itself.
Yes. And you find that problematic because "game" implies that it isn't serious?

What makes something serious? Pain or threat of loss makes something serious. You can also choose how serious you're going be when playing a game.

Many channelers, experiencers, and explorers of the mystical have said basically this: that after this is all over we can have a good laugh about whatever happened here.

It's as if it says to itself: "I am bored. I know what I'll do -- I'll instantiate myself in living beings and purposely forget who I am just for the craic, the sheer exhilaration of struggling to rediscover myself". Evidently, the supreme being never tires of this game no matter how many billions of times it plays it.
While the human notion of boredom is surely an anthropomorphization and a metaphor (as is any description of the ineffable Oneness at the core of Being), it is the opposite pole of something. Action/creation/dynamism/movement vs. Stasis/stagnation/immutability/boredom.

Since the divine nature of the Oneness is dual, then one begets the other. Action demands rest. Rest demands action.

To my mind, it makes more sense to postulate that the supreme being (as Bernardo Kastrup believes), isn't intrinsically metacognitive (i.e. isn't self-aware; isn't aware that it's aware), operating instead at something akin to an "instinctive" level. ... In this view, its eventual aim would be to become completely self-realised in a metacognitive way.
So why hasn't it yet? Or if time is a construct, then we can't really say it hasn't yet.

Somewhere along the line, it discovered how to dissociate itself into (living) beings that over time have become progressively more self-aware.
...basically the same thing as what I originally said: "We all contain a broken off piece of God/Higher Self/Light which has deliberately gotten lost in the Labyrinth..."

Except I wouldn't say "somewhere along the line" because we're talking here about the polarities, the archetypes, the extremes. They don't have a storyline. Storylines only exist in the dimension between the opposites.

It isn't that we forget what we are, so much as that we have arisen to assist in its ongoing evolution.
So earlier you said, "it discovered how to dissociate itself..." which sounds like the discovery was an accident, but also sounds like every implementation of this new ability is an act of the will. But here with the word "arisen" it sounds like you're saying this dissociation is not an act of the will, but a happy accident which fortunately assists the MAL (Mind At Large) with its overall purpose to evolve towards its end goal of complete self-awareness.

So is MAL purposefully exercising its will towards an end goal, or is it stumbling around trying to figure itself out?

Or to put it another way: Is MAL a baby God or is it a mature God? And does this question have any meaning at all?

That implies that what we experience is as much news to it as it is to us.
Okay so MAL is a baby god.

But again, if time is a construct, how can we say the MAL which creates time is at one stage or another of development? How can we say MAL has a storyline? Only the fragments that break off from it have storylines.

I guess this comes back to the duality mentioned earlier: Action/creation/dynamism/movement vs. Stasis/stagnation/immutability/boredom.

The MAL, must necessarily contain both of these opposites, so then there is an aspect of MAL that is firm, stationary, immutable, and then there is an aspect that changes, and has a storyline.

We aren't Abrahamic-style creations to whom it issues rules and regulations which must be obeyed
broken
in order to find a way out of the maze and return to it.
No: we're beings that have complete freedom to explore metacognitively, on its behalf, more of its own potential. We're all participants in its journey of self-discovery.
Agreed.

It already has all the power that's possible (albeit not omnipotence)
So it can pick up any rock except a rock that is too big for it to pick up because doing something it decided it couldn't do would be a violation of the stationary/immutable/rock-like aspect of its nature?

and can do whatever it "instinctively" wants...
"Instinct" is an interesting word to ascribe to God/MAL/IT... Instincts are patterns of behavior built up over many generations that arise in the mind as an impulse without analytical conscious effort. They are the result of many episodes of pain/reward/death/life.

Hence we wouldn't be different and separate from it, but part and parcel of it.
A choice. A matter of perspective.

Nor, Intrinsically, would it necessarily know what good and evil are: it would be discovering this vicariously through our agency. "Good" would be whatever promotes its evolution (and thereby ours), and "evil" whatever inhibits that.
And we need bad things to happen to us so that we can help it evolve and become more self-aware, so all these evil people running around doing evil are really helping to achieve the greater good. And since the greater good is most important, it is fine if you want to go do some evil things too to help others deal with their pain which assists God with his journey of self-discovery.

in a sense it has let go of control, let the chips fall as they may.
But you said it is not omnipotent... so is it willfully letting go of its will which results in randomness/chaos/disorder, or is it that it is inherently limited? Limited by... ignorance?

We, on our side of the dissociative boundary, could perhaps be said to be vulnerable to experiencing its intrinsic existential angst, associated with its desire to evolve. We have free will, and probably necessarily so -- why? I'd say the dissociative boundary represents a distinction between two modes of experiencing: (i) M@L's native, instinctive and inevitably determinative, way, and (ii) its alters' (and therefore its own) proclivity to explore new territory.

Because the territory hasn't previously been explored, mistakes are bound to be made, i.e. there's bound to be evil. If it weren't so, there wouldn't be the boundary; there'd just be more of the same. M@L at the get-go doesn't know if there's anything worthwhile there, or if it turns out there is, how best to deal with it to further its aim.
I like this.

If this idea has merit, then why is there any need to worry?
If MAL is changing/evolving, what if it becomes something we don't like? Has it already become something we don't like?

We would be immortal, at least insofar as M@L's ideas/processes are effectively indestructible; it can't ever forget anything it has done - which is what true destructibility would imply.
How do you know? Why is MAL unable or unwilling to forget anything? If able, but unwilling, and MAL is changing/evoloving, then perhaps MAL will decide later to forget?

Moreover, since we all originate from its one source, quite naturally we would all be interconnected.
There are varying degrees of connectivity. Is an apple plucked from the tree still connected to the tree?

It would obviously be counterproductive for us to act in a way that would frustrate it and harm ourselves.
I see how that is an easy assumption, but I don't see how it is an obviously logical conclusion.

That's not to say that we don't ever act in this way: we do, and quite often, but in aggregate (hopefully) are making progress on M@L's behalf.
Hopefully.

As to the ins and outs of what happens between lives, and to what extent there's bi-directional interaction between M@L and us, I can't say much. Whether there are angels, demons, spirits, ETs, "paranormal" activity and all the rest -- or at least what they might actually represent -- I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind about all that.
Same here.
 
Last edited:
#40
The bit highlighted in red makes no sense to me (may be a typo). Should it be "would not want that to be given full freedom"? Or something else perhaps?
Yes, thank you... not sure how I made the omission of the key word "want" (which you correctly surmised)... I corrected the quote.

Then, as regards the bit highlighted in green, why would the Powers That Be necessarily be consciously keeping information to themselves? Couldn't it just be that they think any such idea is poppycock because they're materialists? Or, that they might suspect spirits exist but not want to acknowledge it (either because it would be too threatening to their world view, or it might put them beyond the pale with the majority of their colleagues)?
In the post you quoted, I mentioned, "I have a few theories about this too - for another post." And I followed up (in part) in this post here -

And this is the part of the post I am referring to - I have a theory... based in part on what I know about Germanic Paganism... where it has been said that they believed they could reincarnate in their ancestors and in fact (in part due to much shorter lifespans) into their grand children that arrive after their death. And it is from this idea that became law that property was inherited by the children, and so forth... (though ancestral inheritance did not originate from this by any means).

...and it is rumored that "the elite elite" or at least some, still secretly believe this and that is why the wealth they hoard in this lifetime is so important to them. When you consider the dumbing down of the rest of us... and all the things they do (and have planned) to, in essence, domesticate the masses - in light of the above, it all makes sense.

end of the post. More commentary.

When speaking of the "elite elite," I am speaking of the high level "insiders" who, as part of their climb to stature "on the inside" achieve high status through secret societies and orders. Examples are the well known various "Free Masonic" orders and there are many, many others. The "order" process allows the "top management" to identify who would be good for what and the rest are left at the lower levels and make up the vast majority of these orders.

Depending on your specific talents and their needs and your will (and drive), you will advance. Though the acquisition of wealth is often seen as a barometer, by the upper management, it is not wealth alone that allows one to achieve higher status. You might be an Allen Dulles type who never really had huge wealth but lived a a king, especially when traveling abroad.

There are high ranking members (many in fact) that hardly hit the radar screen of the general public. Those are the part of the elite elite.

The clowns you see who are the stars of various movements, generally, are either non-members or achieve membership in "outer orders" so they can convince themselves "they belong." But they are identified as useful idiots as long as supporting them in the dissemination of their idiocy serves a purpose. This is why we have a supposed blockade made up of of materialist scientists like Shermer, Dawkins, Bill (de)Nye - the science guy, etc. It is possible too that an individual who is in the position of a Bill Nye, actually knows better but has become involved with one or more of these orders and buys into the commonly held belief at the top levels of most of these orders - that the masses are nothing but sheep or cattle (the profane) and it's best to keep them there. And so an individual like a Nye is actually a conscious conspirator so to speak.

Many of these people have the ability to divorce themselves from empathy for those they deem outside of their sphere. You and me are seen as lower order beings much like many of us view the cow from which the stake we eat is derived.
 
Top