Richard Cox, Spiritual Journey Conspiracy |555|

Namely:
"you don't believe the polar bears either!"

It seems to be an established fact that polar bear numbers are increasing - partly because they were declared an endangered species for purely political reasons.

The guy who took the famous picture of a polar bear sitting on an iceberg admitted that the bear wasn't in any danger - they are strong swimmers.

David
 
Rather than asking essentially the same questions on REPEAT ...
When I start getting coherent answers instead of deflections and hand waves — I'll stop asking the same questions. What exactly is this "extended realm" that keeps getting referred to? It's perfectly reasonable to ask that question and expect a reasonable answer.
 
It's disturbing to me how easy it was to predict all my friends and associates reaction to the whole COVID narrative. 'Man is a machine', as Gurdjieff said.
I was just thinking about Gurdjieff and Ouspensky yesterday. Have you ever read Rodney Colin’s “theory of eternal life”? He was a 4th way student. I highly recommend it.
 
It's disturbing to me how easy it was to predict all my friends and associates reaction to the whole COVID narrative. 'Man is a machine', as Gurdjieff said.

Yes, has been my personal social experience as well unfortunately...
But/and I wonder if (as it seems) that (predictable) machine-nature is a reality if it is possible to be exact in examining/ describing its parts for pragmatic purposes, for it per definition meaning that the trigger ( in this case official Covid-narrative) that set the cog-works in motion is completely interchangeable -and will for certain just be exchanged for another in the future- while still bringing forth the exact same endresult/state..?

In my social circle experience the core motives for accepting the narrative/jab are simply uncertainty and fear it seems.
Uncertainty of feeling helpless to judge/know the nature/realm of health/viruses/medicine and fear of being painfully personally affected by (in-)actions due to that perceived lack of knowledge, thus clinging to the nearest straw of perceived authority-advice..

So, is it a basic state of fear/helplessness that is the most triggerable and thus effective button of the machine for anyone looking to manipulate it and looking into the looking glass ahead, what might the next interchangeable outer trigger look like?
Fear/helplessness of... food shortage....natural disaster (affecting locally)... the eternal Saddams/Vladimirs of the world (nuking MY backyard)...Epidemics must sure become a default-evergreen from now on..?
What do you think?
 
I'm still not sure what you mean by an "extended realm". Please elaborate. Are you using it as a convenience term for several different concepts, or as a reference to a very specific concept? If so what concept exactly? For example outer space could be considered an "extended realm" because it is a different environment that "extends" beyond the "realm" of planetary environments. So what exactly is this extended realm an extension of?

There are too many problems with the idea of "higher dimensions" to take them seriously. You end-up with them being equal to separate universes. But separate universes aren't "extensions". Although, perhaps when they are connected to this one in some way, they can be looked at as extending this universe in the same way connecting a second story to a house might be considered an "extension". Is that what you mean?

I don't think we can consider our imagination or subjective experiences as taking place in an "extended realm". They might seem "extended" because the content appears to be coming from a remote location. But that would be like saying your TV is in an "extended realm" because it's picking-up a remotely delivered signal. Anyway, if you can help clarify this, it would be helpful.

"Are you using it as a convenience term for several different concepts, or as a reference to a very specific concept? If so what concept exactly? For example outer space could be considered an "extended realm" because it is a different environment that "extends" beyond the "realm" of planetary environments. So what exactly is this extended realm an extension of?"

All rational questions in my (five cent) opinion, but I wonder if sometimes answers (or lack thereof) already lay in the questions.
F.ex. - in accordance to one of Alexs earlier regular guests (whose name slips my senile memory right now- wasnt it the gnostic fellow..?)
I would turn this one around for an answer:
Instead of ".. what exactly is this extended realm an extension of?":

"What exactly is this un-extended realm (of consciousness) that you seem to be referring to so frequently, please describe exactly what concept(s) that is based on?"
Not as a cop-out but the opposit, just scientifically/rationally- the mystical extended realm ( to quote from one of Richards great Deep State Consciousness podcasts as well)- As compared to What?
How would you define precisely the established unextended realm from where to then judge the im-or possibility of an extension?
 
"Are you using it as a convenience term for several different concepts, or as a reference to a very specific concept? If so what concept exactly? For example outer space could be considered an "extended realm" because it is a different environment that "extends" beyond the "realm" of planetary environments. So what exactly is this extended realm an extension of?"

All rational questions in my (five cent) opinion, but I wonder if sometimes answers (or lack thereof) already lay in the questions.
F.ex. - in accordance to one of Alexs earlier regular guests (whose name slips my senile memory right now- wasnt it the gnostic fellow..?)
I would turn this one around for an answer:
Instead of ".. what exactly is this extended realm an extension of?":

"What exactly is this un-extended realm (of consciousness) that you seem to be referring to so frequently, please describe exactly what concept(s) that is based on?"
Not as a cop-out but the opposit, just scientifically/rationally- the mystical extended realm ( to quote from one of Richards great Deep State Consciousness podcasts as well)- As compared to What?
How would you define precisely the established unextended realm from where to then judge the im-or possibility of an extension?

That would be one way to approach the question. However it still doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem, because once again it front loads the label with an assumption that there is or can be such a thing in the first place, when we don't really know that's the case, and for that matter seems impossible in the first place.

We can safely assume that whatever "realm" we're conscious of at the moment exists because we're perceiving it, but we have no way of knowing whether it's entirely subjective ( like a dream ), or a stimulus response to an objective ( external ) reality. Generally speaking, we usually have a pretty good idea of what we think is the case, but there's no way to know for sure.

Nevertheless we know that they are two separate possibilities, and it would obviously seem inappropriate to call an internally generated ( subjective ) perception ( such as a dream ) an "extension" of an external realm, because one is entirely in your mind, while the other is not. They're two different concepts. A dream about a car is not the same as having one parked in your driveway.

The dreamed driveway is not an "extension" of the one you park your car in every day after work. To "extend" that driveway you'd need to do some external construction work, and no matter how much construction work you imagine before internally, it will never actually get "extended" until the real-world work is done.So this whole notion that one is ( or even can be ) an "extension" of the other, just doesn't make any sense — at least not to me.

If it makes sense to you somehow — please explain it in a way that solves the problems outlined above.
 
That would be one way to approach the question. However it still doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem, because once again it front loads the label with an assumption that there is or can be such a thing in the first place, when we don't really know that's the case, and for that matter seems impossible in the first place.

We can safely assume that whatever "realm" we're conscious of at the moment exists because we're perceiving it, but we have no way of knowing whether it's entirely subjective ( like a dream ), or a stimulus response to an objective ( external ) reality. Generally speaking, we usually have a pretty good idea of what we think is the case, but there's no way to know for sure.

Nevertheless we know that they are two separate possibilities, and it would obviously seem inappropriate to call an internally generated ( subjective ) perception ( such as a dream ) an "extension" of an external realm, because one is entirely in your mind, while the other is not. They're two different concepts. A dream about a car is not the same as having one parked in your driveway.

The dreamed driveway is not an "extension" of the one you park your car in every day after work. To "extend" that driveway you'd need to do some external construction work, and no matter how much construction work you imagine before internally, it will never actually get "extended" until the real-world work is done.So this whole notion that one is ( or even can be ) an "extension" of the other, just doesn't make any sense — at least not to me.

If it makes sense to you somehow — please explain it in a way that solves the problems outlined above.



I think that in general the basic question to start with is what kind of examination/discussion it is one (we in this case I guess..) is having:
a) a pragmatic (rubber on road-) or
b) theoretical/philosophical one.
Nothing wrong nor better with either of course, each has its purpose/time I guess, but to confuse them usually never goes far at least in my experience.

If the former -a) -then words/expressions used to describe ("real" or imagined) concepts are simply used as rough approximate ballpark tools to get something approximately working done.
If the latter -b)-then pretty much every single expression can actually be(come) quite a mystery and examined (and doubted) potentially endlessly.

If I take your description here f.ex. (of the un-extended consiousness concept I presume?) applying a)-approach:

"We can safely assume that whatever "realm" we're conscious of at the moment exists because we're perceiving it, but we have no way of knowing whether it's entirely subjective ( like a dream ), or a stimulus response to an objective ( external ) reality. Generally speaking, we usually have a pretty good idea of what we think is the case, but there's no way to know for sure."

-Then at least in my experience I think I get/ can distill the gist of what idea/mental concept you are trying to express by using the specific words you employ and reply at least (hopefully) to some degree with something that might be constructive.
Interestingly that implies, as far as I can see, me keeping b) consiously (at least semi..) out of the way, for potentially of course every concept (in your example f.ex. even the most basic terms like "We", "conscious of at the moment", "subjective"/ "objective"..) can potentially actually become hugely difficult and even -if one wanted to- proven nonsensical when looked at too closely and mistaking the word for having any meaning in itself instead of being a mere ballpark carrier for the meaning tried to hint at through using it.
Long rant point being -
The expression " Extended Consciousness" -is it that certain (probably certainly exchangeable) term that you dislike/raises the (a)- or b-)?)questions you are having and if so, what would you exchange it with to more aptly convey the idea behind?
If one were to call it instead (totally approximately)"other frequency/part of consciousness spectrum" or something like that would that change anything?

Personally -fwiw- in my experience the (badly paraphrased) Twain quote
" Its not what you dont know that gets you into trouble, but what you (think to) know for sure that (perhaps) aint so"
is perhaps a key to the infamous human reality/consciousness question.

In concrete terms in your example:

"We can safely assume that whatever "realm" we're conscious of at the moment exists because we're perceiving it,."
- I cant help but wonder- would you agree that actually boiled down to this is nothing more nor less than a sophisticated theoretical concept-description?
What scientific evidence would you cite as basis for that -your-(safe) assumption and which "realm" are you describing, the one of purely physical matter and/or of thoughts (during waking time between sleep-phases) or energy flux or... and/or all these intermingled and how in that case?

Would you agree that all somehow seems to end up with consciousness (whatever that may be or is or not) sitting at the absolute centre for to even think or formulate any concept like that or others it is needed to start with and whether if so or not- what scientific evidence would you cite as basis for any (safe or not) assumptions regarding "it"?

No trick questions, just interested.
 
I think that in general the basic question to start with is what kind of examination/discussion it is one (we in this case I guess..) is having:
a) a pragmatic (rubber on road-) or
b) theoretical/philosophical one.
Nothing wrong nor better with either of course, each has its purpose/time I guess, but to confuse them usually never goes far at least in my experience.
I would say that philosophical discussions are where the rubber meets the road. They are where we delve into basis for truth and the nature of reality. If truth is not where the rubber meets the road, what is?
If the former -a) -then words/expressions used to describe ("real" or imagined) concepts are simply used as rough approximate ballpark tools to get something approximately working done.
If the latter -b)-then pretty much every single expression can actually be(come) quite a mystery and examined (and doubted) potentially endlessly.

If I take your description here f.ex. (of the un-extended consiousness concept I presume?) applying a)-approach:
I'll just set that aside for the moment.
"We can safely assume that whatever "realm" we're conscious of at the moment exists because we're perceiving it, but we have no way of knowing whether it's entirely subjective ( like a dream ), or a stimulus response to an objective ( external ) reality. Generally speaking, we usually have a pretty good idea of what we think is the case, but there's no way to know for sure."
Okay
-Then at least in my experience I think I get/ can distill the gist of what idea/mental concept you are trying to express by using the specific words you employ and reply at least (hopefully) to some degree with something that might be constructive.
That's encouraging !
Interestingly that implies, as far as I can see, me keeping b) consiously (at least semi..) out of the way, for potentially of course every concept (in your example f.ex. even the most basic terms like "We", "conscious of at the moment", "subjective"/ "objective"..) can potentially actually become hugely difficult and even -if one wanted to- proven nonsensical when looked at too closely and mistaking the word for having any meaning in itself instead of being a mere ballpark carrier for the meaning tried to hint at through using it.
Long rant point being -
That's a valid observation.
The expression " Extended Consciousness" -is it that certain (probably certainly exchangeable) term that you dislike/raises the (a)- or b-)?)questions you are having and if so, what would you exchange it with to more aptly convey the idea behind?
If one were to call it instead (totally approximately)"other frequency/part of consciousness spectrum" or something like that would that change anything?
So far I just suggested that we treat the notion of extended consciousness as a theory instead of an assumed fact. So I proposed that it be called Extended Consciousness Theory ( ECT ).
Personally -fwiw- in my experience the (badly paraphrased) Twain quote
" Its not what you dont know that gets you into trouble, but what you (think to) know for sure that (perhaps) aint so"
is perhaps a key to the infamous human reality/consciousness question.
That's exactly my point. The way the phrase has been used up until now implies an explanation that the user seems to to think is the case, when from outside that ketchup bottle, I have my doubts.
In concrete terms in your example:

"We can safely assume that whatever "realm" we're conscious of at the moment exists because we're perceiving it,."
- I cant help but wonder- would you agree that actually boiled down to this is nothing more nor less than a sophisticated theoretical concept-description?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. But to attempt to clarify, if we're perceiving some realm or another, including that of our everyday experience, it's safe to say that the realm being perceived exists. We cannot say for sure what sort of existence it has relative to other realms, or if any others exist at all.
What scientific evidence would you cite as basis for that -your-(safe) assumption and which "realm" are you describing, the one of purely physical matter and/or of thoughts (during waking time between sleep-phases) or energy flux or... and/or all these intermingled and how in that case?
Again, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Science doesn't deal with these issues. Science just deals with what can be detected and how it relates to other things that can be detected. It takes it as a given that whatever is detected exists, but it has no explanation for how or why such things came into existence in the first place — other than in the context of the purpose an inventor might give a particular thing.
Would you agree that all somehow seems to end up with consciousness (whatever that may be or is or not) sitting at the absolute centre for to even think or formulate any concept like that or others it is needed to start with and whether if so or not- what scientific evidence would you cite as basis for any (safe or not) assumptions regarding "it"?

No trick questions, just interested.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the absolute center". Certainly for humans, consciousness is a first-person experience, so in the frame of any given person's conscious experience, they are at the center. However if you mean it in the sense of as a universal fundamental — that everything else emerges somehow out of consciousness, I would say that is not the case. Rather, I would say that the last turtle down — the ultimate fundamental nature of all things, is nature itself. From there all things begin, and to there all things return.

To summarize, what I think is really going on with ECT is that consciousness itself isn't being extended at all. Rather, the experiencer is perceiving imagery that seems to be of a location other than where they actually are — not unlike a dream state where the person is safe and sound in bed, but it feels like they are someplace else.

It may be the case that what we think our everyday reality is, is the same thing — like some kind of Matrix reality. But either way we the experiencer exist someplace. From there we can begin to piece the puzzle together. But I can't seem to get many others to that level of understanding here. I'm not sure why. It all seems fairly obvious to me. That being said, there was a time when it wasn't obvious at all. So maybe that has something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top