Grant Cameron, No Such Thing As Evil ET? |449|

Alex

Administrator
Continuing with this line of thought... I think this should be a chapter in my book, "An Engineer's Guide to Spirituality"... which I will write someday maybe.

One of the Hermetic principles is Polarity, so let's draw an analogy to electricity. (Being an Engineer, it has always bothered me when New Agey types start conflating non-specific metaphysical "energy" with actual electricity, but bear with me for a moment.)

"Electric Potential" or "Voltage" is stored up energy. When a circuit is completed this static potential energy is transformed into kinetic motion of charged particles.

We can think of Desire/Will/Faith as analogous to Voltage or Potential Energy. Like a charged particle, there is always something we want to get to or get away from and the separation or time lag between the desire and the manifestation of that desire creates the "voltage potential". The time lag or resistance allows this potential energy to be released on a timescale that produces useful work and builds interesting structures.

In our present reality, there are mechanisms that typically prevent the will from manifesting instantly. An open circuit or a circuit with significant resistance can allow a voltage to build up across the gap or resistor. A closed circuit with no resistance is a short-circuit and cannot store energy... any stored energy across a short circuit will be released in a catastrophic rush of current. The time lag between Desire and manifestation of that desire enables us to build useful "circuits".

The Bengston Healing method makes more sense with this electrical analogy in mind. Why should cycling through a list of 20 personal desires heal anything? Well maybe think of the Bengston rapid "cycling" to be like literally pedaling on a generator that is creating "voltage" and for whatever reason the positive terminal happens to manifest physically in the left hand (As others have reported, I always experience the tingling in my left hand when attempting this method). I believe in Yogic traditions the navel and perineum are considered to be "terminals" as well.

In a ceremonial magical ritual, there is also a buildup of focused desire or intent which is the rising voltage potential which is released at a certain focal point.

Please keep in mind I'm still using electrical terms as an analogy and not saying electricity actually has anything to do with this although we might view electric potential or gravitational potential as a rudimentary forms of Desire which can complexify into pain/pleasure and then heaven/hell.

Heaven and Hell are like the positive and negative terminals on a power source. In an electric field the direction of force acting on a particle depends on its charge. A positively charged particle is drawn to the negative and a negatively charged particle is drawn towards the positive. We always want what we don't have. So maybe think of a person's Soul as a circuit board attached to an electromagnet which can flip polarity which changes the direction of the push/pull in the Voltage Potential field across the gap between Heaven and Hell. (Maybe Heaven and Hell both start with an "H" to represent a bridge across a gap not unlike a circuit?)

..........................

The Buddhists say the solution to suffering and getting off the wheel of karma is to end desire.

So yes, that is a solution. Be content with what you have. Drain the batteries of any potential energy and keep resistance across your short circuits as low as possible. Wu-Wei. Effortless action. With all potential eliminated you can safely bring the positive and negative terminals together as one node and make them Oneness without letting the magic smoke escape.

And when you do this, the work of creating is done. You have nothing left to do but sit. You can't even turn on your metaphorical flashlight. Probably good to do this from time to time, but if you want to continue creating, you need a power source and that power source is desire.

Power sources are dangerous and can cause serious harm, so use with care... especially since we aren't taught Metaphysical Circuits 101 in college.

....................

All the different types of Magic that can be studied are basically efforts to classify, characterize, and engineer Metaphysical Circuits that are powered by the Voltage Potential of Desire/Will/Faith.

The Human Mind full of desire is a power source. In the movie, The Matrix, humans were a thermal/electrical power source for the machines, but this is a metaphor for the power of desire.

In the biological ecosystem, the sun is the power source and everything that happens down here is a transfer of that energy from one form to another. Lightning as well is a transformation of the sun's energy.

If there is an "astral ecosystem" then there are surely a diverse set of "organisms" and mechanims that are fed by the power source of desire. There may also be the occasional astral lightning strike as well as the egregore - an astral robot complete with metaphysical circuits and a "Willithium" battery pack created to serve you.

...................

So what is good and evil? Good is fulfillment of the Will bringing pleasure - a completed circuit discharging voltage as useful work. Evil is resistance to the Will causing pain - an open circuit (or high resistance) causing voltage.

Why do people engage in SRA or other forms of intentional Evil? My guess based on electric circuits: the combination of binding a person against their will and creating the intense desire to escape is like the inverse of the Bengston Healing method: this generates a strong voltage potential which can somehow be used/consumed/transformed into something useful or pleasurable to the user/abuser or the entity possessing them.
interesting. you know where to come when the book is out :)
 
Chris7 - I agree with you but I would add that uniqueness can be seen as separate...maybe if we each show love in different ways but not in conflicting ways???

Chester - Let me approach this by asking a question... do you perceive beauty in our world?

Chris7 - Of course!

Beauty... would that which we see as beautiful be as beautiful if all there is is beauty? Consider love a product of the perception of beauty. If love were a commodity (as so many see it) you have what we have here - a bunch of daughters and sons playing hide and seek with love.

Then back to this -

Chris7 - I agree with you but I would add that uniqueness can be seen as separate...

It has to be seen in contrast to that which it appears not to be. The key in ACIM is holding to the knowing that fundamentally, seperation is an illusion (all is one), yet living in the world as your own conscious agent among a plethora of conscious agents where the landscape we navigate is formed from the same sea of consciousness. It is a reversal of one's most influential point of view from seeing everything separate to knowing fundamentally it is not. This is a gift we have "being the Son" (spoken in ACIM terms). I prefer to use my language - Divine Feminine / Divine Masculine / Divine Child (my personal "holy trinity" noting I put the feminine first)... and it's not religion. I only capitalize to express my respect for what each represents.

Why I moved past ACIM is I saw too many get hung on the separation thing. They seemed to want to see everything as one which would lead to boredom and eventually, they really would go insane as they are anchored in a realm of form... no matter how much anyone wishes to convince themselves otherwise. But again, that is the gift we experience being.
According to the course, the world is an illusion and there is no form. It seems like Oneness would be boring but that is the ego talking...pure Oneness is joyful but it's hard to imagine in the illusion.
 
According to the course, the world is an illusion and there is no form. It seems like Oneness would be boring but that is the ego talking...pure Oneness is joyful but it's hard to imagine in the illusion.
Understood, you wish to take the course literally. Nothing wrong IMO as we all have free will to interpret the course as we wish. I like to live in the illusion, even when I drop that heavy rock on my barefoot toe.
 
Understood, you wish to take the course literally. Nothing wrong IMO as we all have free will to interpret the course as we wish. I like to live in the illusion, even when I drop that heavy rock on my barefoot toe.
I do follow it, the way it teaches...it's very clear on that point and is not metaphorical. It's not something that's bleak however. I think you can still enjoy the illusion... actually more so because you don't get caught up in it.
 
Understood, you wish to take the course literally. Nothing wrong IMO as we all have free will to interpret the course as we wish. I like to live in the illusion, even when I drop that heavy rock on my barefoot toe.
Here's a video I found that discusses Oneness in equality in ACIM, if you're interested.
 
I do follow it, the way it teaches...it's very clear on that point and is not metaphorical. It's not something that's bleak however. I think you can still enjoy the illusion... actually more so because you don't get caught up in it.
Amazing - as this is precisely what I tried to communicate. We seem to agree... in fact, completely. We just use different words to communicate about it (as does ACIM). I remember back in the day (20 - 25 years ago when I was full blown ACIM and would communicate with someone uninformed of ACIM and uninformed of the view this world is an illusion but desperately wishing they could reduce their "caught upness" and I would use the language of ACIM... it no lights went on.

Many years later I realized I held within me that core "lesson" (the world is illusion) and started to "see" that which I call, "The Pathway of Point of View" and started to develop an ability to "see" at what point "I" am at along that pathway while traversing my experience... a pathway that actually "ends" in the eternal of the Absolute.*

Essentially as Hurmanetar points out above - "but only if you can come and go from that experience as you please."

The point is while "any conscious agent" - even if they are totally anchored in the illusion of their individuated being immersed in an illusory world - maneuvers "the illusion" they access the faculty of "mind" as a tool for operating in the illusion. It is like playing a guitar with fingers instead of a pick... where you might be playing the lower pitched strings as percussion yet concentrating on the upper pitched strings because your are playing complex melodies that require greater focus. If we deny this aspect of operation and being or simply characterize it as all illusion when we might be striving to teach technique to an interested student... as Hurmanetar adds - "Otherwise you are stuck there in Cloud Cukoo land and you are literally useless."

*When I meditate, I sometimes find myself as the Absolute. At other times I rest as the pure witness... essentially consciousness void of conscious agency - "One" - one taste. As I exit the meditative state, "I" arises again, conscious agency arises again. I retain the "lesson" of the experience while I begin "normal" operation in the (illusory) world. The world is fun, challenging, interesting, exciting, sometimes terrifying, sometimes painful, never seems fair (especially to others), but if I simply tell the ones who struggle, don't worry, it's all illusion anyways - I have served few if any and I certainly haven't been in service to God (IMO).
 
Last edited:
As I read, I see so many getting hung up on "we are all one" or "we aren't 'one' but each are all 'equal'" or "we are all unique" and the problem is so easy to see when "Point of View" is considered.

By looking at each of the three by "seeing" the context from which each statement arises, one can "see" that all three could be true.

I am consciousness ("we are all one")

I am a conscious agent arising from the infinite "sea of consciousness" ("each of us are equal")

I am an individual ("we are all unique")

To me, all three are true and to me, I am that which holds all three Points of View.

This is at the core of the whole "disconnection of communication" that seemed to dominate the discussion between Alex and Grant.
Whether or not these 3 statements are true is entirely your decision based on your purpose for making these definitions. You can't evaluate the truthfulness apart from your purpose.

For example, consider the statement: "There are two apples." This statement implies both an equality and a uniqueness (or a similarity and a difference). The two objects are similar enough to receive the same label: "apple", but different enough to be considered unique. Maybe their only difference is that they occupy different spaces. Or maybe one apple has a worm in it and the other does not.

Now how can this statement be true? "The two apples are one."
There are three ways we can justify this apparent violation of basic mathematics. And all three methods were conflated in this discussion with Grant.

1) We can zoom out until we find a connection between the apples and we can arbitrarily choose to focus on that level of connection. For example maybe they're both hanging from the same tree or maybe they're found on the same planet. The decision to see two apples rather than one tree or one planet is arbitrary. So by omitting any noun at the end of the above sentence we have increased the ambiguity of the statement allowing it to be interpreted as true no matter how absurd it might sound. Or we can interpret it as false if we have a specific purpose in mind. This little trick allows us to say that anything is one: The Cat in the Hat and Hairy MacLary and the Zorg from planet Borg are all One.

2) Perhaps we're looking at an apple and a mirror image of that apple which creates the illusion of two apples. One apple maintains all the common properties associated with the label "apple" and the other apple is merely the image of that apple. So then was the original statement, "There are two apples" even true? It depends on whether you're counting images of apples or the complete set of properties associated with an apple. It is your choice. As I am currently teaching my little boy to count, images of apples are sufficient for my purposes, but if I wanted two apples to eat, then I would call one apple an illusion and say there is only one.

3) Suppose the two apples are hanging from the same tree and each apple has its own unique experience of conscious awareness and further suppose that the tree also has its own unique experience of conscious awareness. In addition the tree also experiences the unique perspective of each of the apples. So there are 3 experiences occurring simultaneously from the tree's perspective, but from the apple's perspective these experiences can only happen serially such that after the good apple is plucked off the tree and eaten and the wormy apple is thrown in the fire, the wormy apple and the good apple can apparently swap perspectives and experience things from the other's perspective since all were contained within the simultaneous experience of the tree.

Grant was simultaneously appealing to all of these methods to unify the multiplicity. He said:
1) There are no nouns.
2) Everything is an illusory screen image.
3) Everyone will experience what everyone else has experienced or will experience.

My response to these is that their truthfulness depends on your purpose. If your purpose is to unify then they are true. So purpose has to be inserted by choice. Purpose does not "materialize" from these statements. These statements are not moral imperatives to love or seek the good and could be used to do just the opposite.

And that is what I think Grant is missing. He is an empathetic loving person raised in church so his purpose is to love and unify. He sees these three "facts" as creating the purpose of love and unification, but rather it was his purpose of love and unification that created these "facts".

Edit: Whether #3 can be considered true is still an open question in my opinion. What if I don't want to be the girl in the cage or the man drowning in the Mediterranean? It seems that this notion destroys free will the same as the multiverse does. I suppose free-will is still in play if we have the ability to experience those things, but don't have to if we don't want to. But Grant said that everyone WILL experience them meaning we have no choice about it.
 
Last edited:
@Hurmanetar - What a post... The highlight for me is "purpose" is a choice. I have been working with someone who (as many) has a book and in the book, she seems to delineate between what would be an individual's purpose and what (in my opinion is simply her opinion) -

The Purpose Everyone Shares

The ultimate purpose of being alive as a human is to awaken to the soul.


I so often experience "resistance" when I come across someone making metaphysical statements like that... as they appear to be pronouncements "that apply to all." Yet, I still sometimes catch myself doing the same. For example, I have my own opinion as to the purpose of life, but I view this as solely my own opinion and that it may very well only apply to myself - And, for me, the purpose I attribute to having life is...

to live! (to risk, to face challenge, etc.)... and I can see that be there "soul" (and I operate under the assumption there is) by "living" (as I define it), one can't help but either connect with soul or experience a dark inevitability (at least in their current lifetime, be there more).

Another operational assumption I hold is that, as a conscious agent, one or more aspects of that agency may continue unbroken beyond the deanimation of my physical body. Some might call that "my soul."

I can see a moral benefit in making one's purpose "the refinement of my soul" - refinement being - the increase of integrity within one's soul. The moral benefit increase from the perspective of some others.

I don't like the idea that the above is "imposed on me" (much less anyone else). I do like the idea it is my choice to view things this way. This is why I felt resistance to -

The Purpose Everyone Shares

The ultimate purpose of being alive as a human is to awaken to the soul.
 
Amazing - as this is precisely what I tried to communicate. We seem to agree... in fact, completely. We just use different words to communicate about it (as does ACIM). I remember back in the day (20 - 25 years ago when I was full blown ACIM and would communicate with someone uninformed of ACIM and uninformed of the view this world is an illusion but desperately wishing they could reduce their "caught upness" and I would use the language of ACIM... it no lights went on.

Many years later I realized I held within me that core "lesson" (the world is illusion) and started to "see" that which I call, "The Pathway of Point of View" and started to develop an ability to "see" at what point "I" am at along that pathway while traversing my experience... a pathway that actually "ends" in the eternal of the Absolute.*

Essentially as Hurmanetar points out above - "but only if you can come and go from that experience as you please."

The point is while "any conscious agent" - even if they are totally anchored in the illusion of their individuated being immersed in an illusory world - maneuvers "the illusion" they access the faculty of "mind" as a tool for operating in the illusion. It is like playing a guitar with fingers instead of a pick... where you might be playing the lower pitched strings as percussion yet concentrating on the upper pitched strings because your are playing complex melodies that require greater focus. If we deny this aspect of operation and being or simply characterize it as all illusion when we might be striving to teach technique to an interested student... as Hurmanetar adds - "Otherwise you are stuck there in Cloud Cukoo land and you are literally useless."

*When I meditate, I sometimes find myself as the Absolute. At other times I rest as the pure witness... essentially consciousness void of conscious agency - "One" - one taste. As I exit the meditative state, "I" arises again, conscious agency arises again. I retain the "lesson" of the experience while I begin "normal" operation in the (illusory) world. The world is fun, challenging, interesting, exciting, sometimes terrifying, sometimes painful, never seems fair (especially to others), but if I simply tell the ones who struggle, don't worry, it's all illusion anyways - I have served few if any and I certainly haven't been in service to God (IMO).
I agree with you...it's not helpful to just say "it's all an illusion". Compassion is necessary but as you start seeing the world as an illusion, things don't affect you in the same way. You have to walk before you run.
 
I agree with you...it's not helpful to just say "it's all an illusion". Compassion is necessary but as you start seeing the world as an illusion, things don't affect you in the same way. You have to walk before you run.
I thought about this a lot today, Chris7. It seems to me that language is critically important. It also seems pretty clear that regardless of the best efforts to communicate, when using words (written or spoken), all to often, that which is meant to be conveyed by the speaker/writer just doesn't get received and then interpreted in the same precise way.

So, having said these two things - on the one hand, I get the presentation of "the world is illusion" for those struggling with ego. On the other hand, just like wearing a mask for the COVID-19 fearful sends a message as well (be afraid... be afraid you will kill someone or die, yourself), this phraseology of "the world is illusion" to me, though it may be helpful for a few caught up in pain their desires led them into, because I have no fear of death, I prefer to transmit a different message in my words (and by way of my being) - See the beauty. See the beauty in the world, see the beauty in life, see the beauty in all expressions of life, the beauty visible to the five senses and the beauty within that radiates through all manifestation.

I see now why I feel I moved through ACIM and journeyed onward.

This is just a trailer... but the beauty of all, the world, life... and that 'what some know' (which, when known, alleviates false ideas of separation), that all is connected, can result in a true freedom for "The Son" and that, IMO, would be the atonement.

 
I thought about this a lot today, Chris7. It seems to me that language is critically important. It also seems pretty clear that regardless of the best efforts to communicate, when using words (written or spoken), all to often, that which is meant to be conveyed by the speaker/writer just doesn't get received and then interpreted in the same precise way.

So, having said these two things - on the one hand, I get the presentation of "the world is illusion" for those struggling with ego. On the other hand, just like wearing a mask for the COVID-19 fearful sends a message as well (be afraid... be afraid you will kill someone or die, yourself), this phraseology of "the world is illusion" to me, though it may be helpful for a few caught up in pain their desires led them into, because I have no fear of death, I prefer to transmit a different message in my words (and by way of my being) - See the beauty. See the beauty in the world, see the beauty in life, see the beauty in all expressions of life, the beauty visible to the five senses and the beauty within that radiates through all manifestation.

I see now why I feel I moved through ACIM and journeyed onward.

This is just a trailer... but the beauty of all, the world, life... and that 'what some know' (which, when known, alleviates false ideas of separation), that all is connected, can result in a true freedom for "The Son" and that, IMO, would be the atonement.

I agree with part of this but I think it's important to understand that we projected this world...the beauty and the ugliness. I understand you saying this for the practical purposes of choosing to see the beauty and living a happy life but what about the ugliness??? Where does that come from?
 
I agree with part of this but I think it's important to understand that we projected this world...the beauty and the ugliness. I understand you saying this for the practical purposes of choosing to see the beauty and living a happy life but what about the ugliness??? Where does that come from?
I believe I understand your dilemma about "the ugliness" and it is my opinion that if we, on Earth, achieve a shift in world view away from materialism and towards a (the) science that proves out the philosophical understanding that we are all connected (thus all "one" in that way) a shift in consciousness would result in the disappearance of ugliness as opposed to the disappearance of the universe - the goal of some I know are proponents of ACIM.
 
Are you saying that Michael Newtons books align with the reported experiences of key OBE explorers? If so, That’s Not my impression at all. I could draw several parallels I suppose, like the use of seemingly physical energy bodies, like the ones we have now, As use for a avatars. along with other similarities. But the map and purposes and structure of these other realms seems very rigid and systematic in Newton’s work. As if he has it ALL figured out. And it, to me, it doesn’t line up well with Jurgens experiences and what guys like that say about the structure and function of the afterworlds. Newton has the whole thing drawn out perfectly as if everybody always does the same thing, And that we all follow this cosmic order of things. I think it seems clear that really isn’t so ordered and is highly individual.
Much of the core experience is very similar, that the afterlife is more akin to a world constructed by thought, that individuals can communicate beyond language barriers in what seems to be a mind to mind connection, that people tend to do the same sorts of things they did in real life into the afterlife. I think what could account for the dissimilarities (soul group, shower rooms, lesson plans and so on) is that Jurgen, Monroe etc are looking into this world from the top down from the perspective of an explorer while Newton is contained to relying on the accounts of people who are A) Ultimately coming for a therapy session, to solve some kind of problem and B) Claim to be part of a school group which astral explorers may no longer have any need of and instead are 'self-teachers'.

It's like asking school children to explain the intricacies of their country vs asking a seasoned international (interdimensional in this case) traveler of their opinion. It's possibly just two very different perspectives, and I think this fits within the overarching and vast expanse of possibilities accounted for by OBE travelers.

It's a shame its so hard to find good discussion forums for this specific topic, because I would love to see a list of every claim made by each reporter so we could cross examine them and try to draw conclusions. Right now in my opinion the hardest thing to say about the afterlife is whether it has ANY limitations at all, or if all reported phenomenon could be equally as valid.
 
I mentioned Cyrus, here is his page. It’s good stuff guys. He’s an astral traveler and avid researcher of these topics. He does great and very objective work.

https://afterlifetopics.com

Cyrus and Jurgen compare notes here on their experiences and afterlife research on Karen Swains show. (Cyrus joins the convo about halfway through)

I would love an interview with Cyrus just to see Alex and him compare notes and see if there's any incongruousness between them.
 
Right now in my opinion the hardest thing to say about the afterlife is whether it has ANY limitations at all, or if all reported phenomenon could be equally as valid.
My thoughts exactly! If Jurgen Ziewe is right, then there are vast variabilities up there. Mediums never seem to concentrate on what the people they contact are actually doing now. I wonder if this is an inherent limitation, or if @Alex could organise a little experiment using one of the mediums that Julie Beischel validated?

David
 
I believe I understand your dilemma about "the ugliness" and it is my opinion that if we, on Earth, achieve a shift in world view away from materialism and towards a (the) science that proves out the philosophical understanding that we are all connected (thus all "one" in that way) a shift in consciousness would result in the disappearance of ugliness as opposed to the disappearance of the universe - the goal of some I know are proponents of ACIM.
The physical universe? We already know scientifically that the universe doesn't exist...or more specifically that it's perceived differently depending on who's looking at it. So if we wake up there'll still be a universe??
 
Hi Chris7, it appears to me the communication we are having is only able to be held within the framework of your interpretation of ACIM whereas I prefer to remain outside of that box.
 
Hi Chris7, it appears to me the communication we are having is only able to be held within the framework of your interpretation of ACIM whereas I prefer to remain outside of that box.
Understood...but I was actually referencing the interpretations of science speaking to the belief in a "physical" universe.
 
Understood...but I was actually referencing the interpretations of science speaking to the belief in a "physical" universe.
Yes, I understood that and I felt that the ability to communicate via metaphor (as I intended in the communication in using the word - "universe") wasn't working. I then concluded (and I may be completely wrong) that perhaps you preferred to see everything through your own interpretation of the ACIM lens and in a literal way.

Note: I had this book in mind when I wrote my posts and referenced it indirectly in my statement - "...the disappearance of the universe - the goal of some I know are proponents of ACIM."

The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk about Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness
 
Yes, I understood that and I felt that the ability to communicate via metaphor (as I intended in the communication in using the word - "universe") wasn't working. I then concluded (and I may be completely wrong) that perhaps you preferred to see everything through your own interpretation of the ACIM lens and in a literal way.

Note: I had this book in mind when I wrote my posts and referenced it indirectly in my statement - "...the disappearance of the universe - the goal of some I know are proponents of ACIM."

The Disappearance of the Universe: Straight Talk about Illusions, Past Lives, Religion, Sex, Politics, and the Miracles of Forgiveness
Thanks! That sounds right up my alley. I do think we're coming at things with a different understanding or interpretation but I'd just want to say one more thing. One thing I like about the course is it's not metaphorical...it says the same things over and over again because it really wants to get that message across. Getting lost in metaphors really confuses things.
 
Top