HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 ARCHIVE: Pseudo-intro and question

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Archive



Posts : 354
Join date : 2010-02-05

PostSubject: ARCHIVE: Pseudo-intro and question   Thu May 06, 2010 11:54 am

From Sentru 4 Dec 2007

Hello all,

I came across your site a couple of weeks ago and have been visiting on and off ever since. Though I have a great deal of reservation as it concerns "otherkinry" of all kinds, personal experience has led me to believe that there might be something "real" buried at the core of this phenomenon.
Obviously I cannot take anything written or claimed on this site or any other at face value. Yet, that said, many of things written on this specific site without a doubt tap into a belief that has manifested itself in one form or another in many different cultures throughout history. Personal experience (again) seems to point to a truth - psychic or otherwise - behind these myths.
I have many reasons to believe that I, like yourselves, may have a strong connection of some kind to this world-wide belief, whatever it's true origins may be. Though I would like to keep the specifics of my case vague for reasons which I'd be happy to state if you'd like me to (it's nothing mysterious or dramatic), I'd like to ask a question of those of you who feel inclined to answer.
The question is: Are there any links between what you call "the fallen" (or for that matter, "grigori" or angelic choirs generally) and the so-called "UFO" and "alien abduction" phenomenon? If so, what are the nature of these links?


From Azaz'el 4 Dec 2007

Welcome Sentru,

many thanks for joining the forum. I hope you will feel welcome here and feel free to join in any of the discusions or even start more new threads. If we can help with anything, just ask.

It's important that you keep whatever information about your own personal experiences you have private until the time is right to share it with others, if at all. This forum is has been designed as a place of safety for the Fallen and Shadow, but also to anyone, human or kin, who finds it and feels they would like to become a part of it.

The origins of what we are all linked to will only become clear to you as you continue to search and research into what is right for you. There are many different names, but all paths come from the same Source. Keep searching and keep asking.

As for your question...... the Fallen, the Grigori, are Shadow - which is the true name for Angel. I shy away from using the word angel as it tends to conjour up an image of a christian divine being and this is very far from the truth. Some have linked the Shadow with UFO phenomenon and alien abductions, as they have looked at them as a modern day attempt to bring about human ascension, now that our direct connection to the Source no longer exists in a pure form. Add to that the fact that the Gateways were invoked in and took the form of constellations. So when Shadow orignially sterpped through it was through the Sky Gateways, in particular Orion. At least until the ground based gateways were built.

On top of this is the knowledge that Shadow are not human, do not natrually exist in this physical plane, that they stepped through from another level of existence and spirituality. So the modern, secular explanation for this tends to only be Alien. And that is correct - but only in the way alien is used to mean something that does not come from here. If it's used in the other way to mean something that comes from another planet in this physical universe, then no, it's wrong, as we're not aliens.

So it can be a case of looking at what the stories and legends say and putting them into context. Take the spiritual side out of the story, and you have non-humans living on Earth - so they must be extra-terrestrials. Add a spiritual side and we're as much a part of the universe as Humanity, just not from this physical plane.

Try to remember that the Shadow, those who were trapped here when the Gateways closed after the Source was cut off, have had control of this world for a very long time. They can do and have done whatever they have wanted to humanity. What better way to remove any suspicions than to blame it conveniently seem to be the work of aliens.

I've rambled on enough, time for someone else to jump in here.

Az


From Sentru 4 Dec 2007

This is exactly the sort of reply I was looking for. I was hoping that, yes, you looked at the "UFO/abduction" phenomenon as one of extra-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial origins.


From Azaz'el 4 Dec 2007

One day I'll manage to reply in such a short and concise way.

or maybe not. wink.gif

Yup, you got what I was meaning.

Az


From Lael 5 Dec 2007

As a side note, it might be worth to remember that there are all sorts of different beings in the universe (sans Shadow, for one) and I really wouldn't put it past some of them to stage an "UFO abduction"-esque event out of boredom/curiosity/malice (take your pick), particularly having witnessed the human fascination with the "unexplained".

But then, I might just be looking at it from a warped perspective. ;-)

Welcome, Sentru. Incidentally, that username sounds familiar to me. Hmm.


From Sentru 5 Dec 2007

The human mind may, in fact, falsely interpret what it is experiencing.
It is a known fact that the minds of many children who are severely abused re-interpret the abuse and produce false "screen memories". These "screen memories" are often bizarre in the extreme. For instance, a person might "remember" an experience they had at the age of five in which a purple elephant walked through the walls of their bedroom and sat down. Let's say that this "memory" bothers the person greatly so they go to therapy. Lo and behold, the purple elephant turns out to be that person's dirty uncle Bob, or whatever.
Sometimes these screen memories don't actually take the place of the true event, but seem to add to the terror. You see this sort of phenomenon in cases of so-called "satanic ritual abuse". The "memories" these people have are incredibly bizarre and have an almost dreamlike (or nightmarish) quality to them. Undoubtedly, in many of these cases at least some (if not all) of the outrageous "satanic" imagery is a product of the mind.
Now any instance in which a sentient, corporeal, non-human entity presents itself openly to a person is bound to cause a high level of trauma, and this regardless of the nature of the contact. Immediately the mind is going to try to protect itself and throw up numerous screen memories. Some of these memories may be of a very normal kind. Perhaps "remembering" being out in the woods one night and encountering a 'strange' dog or bird of some sort. Other screen memories may not fully shield the mind from it's experience, and instead simply distort it, as in the cases of "satanic ritual abuse".
In fact, I would say that these screen memories have 'layers' to them. A seemingly 'normal' memory that causes odd feelings gives way to a decidedly bizarre memory which in turn gives way to the "truth". But here we run into a second problem, that being, our mind's ability to comprehend the "true" nature of the force or beings responsible for so-called 'abductions'.
The reality is that this force is not only non-human, but quiet possibly not even carbon-based. There are SO many things we take for granted as it concerns perceiving the world. Space, time, and the law of causality, for instance, are all "forms" which reside WITHIN the human/animal mind. Beings of a wholly different substance may very well not have within them these "a priori" forms. It is impossible for a human being to conceive of any experience which does not include space, time and causality. Impossible. So now imagine a race of being at least as intelligent as humanity who LACKS these three forms. Interaction between such beings and humanity would be exceedingly odd, to put it mildly. If these beings were far superior to us intellectually and in other ways, the possibilities become truly strange. For instance, a tribe of gorillas is likely to go it's whole life with only minimal contact with humanity, if that. Gorillas live out their whole lives blissfully unaware that humanity surrounds them on all sides. There is a greater world which the gorilla will never experience and simply cannot comprehend. The human world is beyond the ability of the gorilla to understand. It's not a matter of the gorilla lacking education. It's a matter of his brain not being evolved enough.
Now what if humanity is to this force what gorillas are to humanity? Due to the limitations of the human brain, humanity would have absolutely no way of knowing such a hypothetical civilization. Yet, just as the occasional scientist or poacher disrupts the gorilla tribe, so to might the occasional "higher being" disrupt the lives of humanity. The result? Various myths, religions and episodes of Jerry Springer.


We have a tendency to anthropomorphize everything, unwisely so. See, I don't think it's so much that abductions are being staged, I think it's more along the lines of the human mind's inability to grasp what is being done. It then either puts up screen memories or uses it's limited abilities to 'interpret' what it is not really even capable of truly experiencing....or both.

EDITED TO ADD: Lael, it would be odd if this username were familiar to you as I've never used this name as a username before! I suppose maybe someone else might have, though that too would be strange as "Sentru" is merely a "code" I was given and is not the name of any "occult" being or whatnot.


From Lael 5 Dec 2007

Pardon the shortness of this answer but I fear that, at this time, I might just end up going off on a tangent if I elaborate. So let me ask this first:

The limitations of the human brain, and indeed the very nature of the human kind, might and I believe do get in the way of perception/knowledge/understanding of non-human and/or non-corporeal beings. The brain not being evolved enough is something I am willing to accept as a valid point for the sake of the discussion. What I wonder is this: what happens with everything you said when you add the concept of the soul to the equation? A soul which, for the purpose of this thread, is 'energy' (however loosely defined) capable of some kind of memory (ie, past life).

Just curious. Good topic, too.

QUOTE
"though that too would be strange as "Sentru" is merely a "code" I was given and is not the name of any "occult" being or whatnot."


Ah, do I sense a kind of fear of getting stuffed into the 'occult' box? No worries there. I did say it sounds familiar to me, because it does, but that's all there is to it. Perhaps it sounds similar to something else and I'm making a subconscious connection. I tried googling it but didn't come up with anything, so. *shrug* ;-)


From Sentru 5 Dec 2007

Adding the "soul" into the equation has actually been done by many philosophers and, of course, religionists. It seems as if you have the same idea as they, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Their idea, or rather their theory, was that human beings had a "built in" capacity to understand metaphysical reality. The problem with this theory is pretty simple: If humanity had such a built in capacity, there would not be such arguments over metaphysical topics. There are more arguments over metaphysical topics than over any other. If human beings had "souls", and these souls functioned as you say, grasping metaphysical truths would be stated as intuitively and incontestably as the statement "two plus two equals four".

No, no fear over getting stuck in an 'occult box'. I just meant that, as the name does not carry any meaning outside of a personal one (so far as I know), it'd have been odd to see it somewhere else, that's all.


From Lael 5 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"Their idea, or rather their theory, was that human beings had a "built in" capacity to understand metaphysical reality."


Indeed, although 'metaphysical reality' is such a broad term that I'd wager it's still nothing but scratching the proverbial surface.

QUOTE
"The problem with this theory is pretty simple: If humanity had such a built in capacity, there would not be such arguments over metaphysical topics."


How about the fact that even if we assume that humans have two means of processing information available to them - the brain, and the soul - they are (generally, and to my knowledge) unable to
consciously choose which one they're using in the process of data interpretation. Or in other words, since there is no scientific proof (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong), humans simply might not know everything that factors into the interpretations of the metaphysical things they experience. Following that vein, it is known (and you sort of touched upon that too) that past experience affects the process of 'translation' of the unexplained into comprehensible, in that interpretations will vary depending on the human's knowledge/experience.

Is it not therefore possible that one and the same metaphysical occurence will be seen differently by each respective individual subjected to it? To me, if we assume that (and in my opinion it's something worth considering) it seems natural to conclude that disagreements over metaphysical topics are sort of inherent in the very nature of said things. If the experience is never the same to two different individuals, then those individuals can only go so far in search of a middle ground before disagreements begin.

QUOTE
"If human beings had "souls", and these souls functioned as you say, grasping metaphysical truths would be stated as intuitively and incontestably as the statement "two plus two equals four"."


What about the fact that some individuals do in fact grasp those metaphysical truths as easily as that? What is it that makes them different? Do you think it is not possible that some people are simply more 'in touch' with that side of their nature (ie, soul? other aspect of the human being responsible for comprehension/processing) than others, much like it occurs with talents, for example?

QUOTE
"No, no fear over getting stuck in an 'occult box'. I just meant that, as the name does not carry any meaning outside of a personal one (so far as I know), it'd have been odd to see it somewhere else, that's all."


I haven't seen it anywhere else; not as far as I can recall, at least. It just sounds familiar. That's all. ;-)


From Ishtahar 5 Dec 2007

Wow. Deep topic. Which, of course is excellent even if you have already lost me (that is not so hard to do)

Welcome to the site Sentru, sorry I was not here to welcome you sooner.

One thing I would like to add to the mixing pot is, that if he human brain, or brain/soul combination is incapable of truly comprehending mataphysical concepts such as beings of pure energy etc how come that humans were not only capable of complrehending but also of loving Grigory who were beings of fire and energy?

I believe that humanity is capable to comprehending but does not always seek to. As Grigori and Shadow have moved away from their connection with the Source so have humanity. Our only connection now is at a sub atomic level and I think that gradually over the generations we have forgotten so that it is not a matter of not being capable of comprehending but forgetting how to comprehend.

This may explain why some people are far more in tune than others...the just have better memories.


From Sentru 5 Dec 2007

I have not figured out how to quote other posts yet, so bear with me. I'm just going to copy and paste.

Lael: How about the fact that even if we assume that humans have two means of processing information available to them - the brain, and the soul - they are (generally, and to my knowledge) unable to
consciously choose which one they're using in the process of data interpretation. Or in other words, since there is no scientific proof (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong), humans simply might not know everything that factors into the interpretations of the metaphysical things they experience.

Sentru: I would say that humanity absolutely does not know everything that factors into these interpretations. The human mind is limited in it's ability to "know". There are things that it just cannot perceive, and this is due not to lack of experience or education, but to the actual biological limitation of the brain.
So yes, I completely agree with your latter statement here.

Lael: Following that vein, it is known (and you sort of touched upon that too) that past experience affects the process of 'translation' of the unexplained into comprehensible, in that interpretations will vary depending on the human's knowledge/experience.

Sentru: Absolutely. Think of this: Our mental images of past mundane, every day events change over time. This much is obvious. Now if the human mind is unable to retain a perfect mental representation of some ordinary event which happened in, let's say, late childhood, how much more difficult would it be to retain such a representation when the event in question included elements totally outside the minds abilities of comprehension.
As little as mankind knows about it's own mental processes, it knows even less about those things which exist truely outside itself.

Lael: Is it not therefore possible that one and the same metaphysical occurence will be seen differently by each respective individual subjected to it?

Sentru: In my opinion, it is not only possible, but a certainty.

Lael: To me, if we assume that (and in my opinion it's something worth considering) it seems natural to conclude that disagreements over metaphysical topics are sort of inherent in the very nature of said things. If the experience is never the same to two different individuals, then those individuals can only go so far in search of a middle ground before disagreements begin.

Sentru: Very good point. However, this only further shows that it is the human mind (brain) and not the soul that does the experiencing...at least usually. Why do I say this? Because if the soul dwelt at the same "level", so to speak, as the 'realms' which we are discussing, the subjectivity (in the way you mean it) would not exist. The reason FOR the subjectivity is that the mind of each person interprets something that it cannot fully know in it's own way, and this interpretation is colored by the psyche of the individual in question. As no two personal psyches are identical, no two interpretations will be identical.
On the other hand, a "soul", being in it's own element, would understand itself and not need to "fill in the blanks" of incomprehensibility.

Lael: What about the fact that some individuals do in fact grasp those metaphysical truths as easily as that? What is it that makes them different? Do you think it is not possible that some people are simply more 'in touch' with that side of their nature (ie, soul? other aspect of the human being responsible for comprehension/processing) than others, much like it occurs with talents, for example?

Sentru: I think that some individuals have a much deeper understanding than most. The depth of the former is as inborn and probably very largely genetic as the lack of understanding is in the latter. Of course, the general subject of this whole website would factor into the equation also.
To put it bluntly: In my opinion, most people don't have souls and actually lack the ability to remedy this situation. They have understanding. They have reason. They have self-awareness to a degree, and they have will. But for all this, they lack a center and when they die, the wind blows to the four corners of the earth everything which their physical bodies managed to artifically hold together.


From Azaz'el 5 Dec 2007

QUOTE (Sentru @ Dec 5 2007, 10:57 PM)
"In my opinion, most people don't have souls and actually lack the ability to remedy this situation. They have understanding. They have reason. They have self-awareness to a degree, and they have will. But for all this, they lack a center and when they die, the wind blows to the four corners of the earth everything which their physical bodies managed to artifically hold together."

Ah, there's so much to get your teeth into in this thread. But this did catch my eye. I'm curious, Sentru, what to you is a soul then, and what is it that dictates who or what has a soul?

Az


From Sentru 5 Dec 2007

QUOTE (Azazel @ Dec 5 2007, 11:07 PM)
""QUOTE (Sentru @ Dec 5 2007, 10:57 PM)
In my opinion, most people don't have souls and actually lack the ability to remedy this situation. They have understanding. They have reason. They have self-awareness to a degree, and they have will. But for all this, they lack a center and when they die, the wind blows to the four corners of the earth everything which their physical bodies managed to artifically hold together."

Ah, there's so much to get your teeth into in this thread. But this did catch my eye. I'm curious, Sentru, what to you is a soul then, and what is it that dictates who or what has a soul?

Az"

Well, Lael referred to the soul as a sort of 'energy' which has the ability to retain certain bits of information. I would call this, for lack of a better term, the "life force". I do believe that this is something which all human beings (and all other living things) possess, but I do not believe that it, in and of itself, comprehends much of anything - metaphysical or otherwise. This "life force" is more of an elemental force. The 'spark of life'.
Now in some people, though not many, there exists the potential to centralize this energy. much in the same way that the air can be "centralized" into a breeze or even hurricane or tornado. It's this latter, centralized force, coupled with a deep understanding, which I would call the "soul" in the sense of a sentient, intelligent entity capable of a cohesive existance even after physical death.

Now I also think it's possible that at times certain entities can incarnate in human (or other) bodies. I can't really give specifics, as really it all boils down to opinion, but basically I think that in cases like this, the human in question is born outright with a "true soul" (a centralized "life force").
There are beings, in my opinion, dedicated - for one reason or another - to human advancement, and it's these beings which I feel incarnate in human form every so often. Yet, again in my opinion, I think that such incarnations are becoming less and less frequent (despite the emergence of so many "otherkin" as of late) as humanity shows itself to be a lost cause.


From Ishtahar 6 Dec 2007

I have a very different concept of the soul. I think that anyone who has seen a dead body would be very clear about the fact that upon death something leaves. THe body is, indeed just an old coat to be cast aside, it is different in every way than it was when inhabited by the soul. The flesh is cold and grey, it loses texture very quickly and it all falls apart remarkably rapidly once the soul is no longer there to hold it together. Or is that the spirit? Is there a difference between Soul and Spirit?

I believe that there is a life force, a stream of energy that flows directly from the creator, the Source whcih is in and of itself merely a soure of energy.

This energy flows through everything, every level, every dimension, every plane of existence. It links us all at a sub atomic level. It is there in the space between our atoms and, at that level it is a living flow whether the, for want of a better word, 'thing' it makes up is living or not. Everything within creation is linked by it but in most things it is inactive. Alive but inate, creative but unaware. In short, stale.

In the time before the fall, it was a dynamic thing, it flowed through everything directly from the Source and returned there in a never ending cyvle. And then our direct connection was severed and a part of the cycle was cut out of the loop so to speak. The force still circulates, and still gives life and energy but it is not constantly renewed and revived as it was. It is like water which circulates though a pipe system. So long as it keeps moving it does not become stagnant and fouled but unless there is fresh water coming in and stale water going out the quality of what is in it degenerates over time.

A really really good filter will still get water which is fairly pure but lesser ones get poorer and poorer quality. That is why some people are less spritual and why humanity as a whole is becoming less spiritual. Quite simply the life force is getting stale.

We need to find that direct access again, to inject fresh energy into the cycle and flood us with the purity of the creator and the understanding that flows from it.

I dont know whether I have made a complete hash of ecplaining what I mean. I have a habit of speaking in analogy constantly. Sometimes they clarify and sometimes only cloud.


From Sentru 6 Dec 2007

No, I understand what you are saying.
The problem with words like "soul" and "spirit" is that, if you ask ten different people what they mean, you're likely to get ten different answers....especially if the ten people asked come from ten different cultures. I personally use the word "soul" (or "animal soul") to refer to what I called "life force" earlier. Based on what you've written, it seems as if we have similar definitions here.
On the other hand, I'd use "spirit" to refer more to what I called the "true soul" above. That is, "soul" = blind, elemental life force and "spirit" = centralized soul imbibed with sentience. I try not to use terms like "spirit" and "soul" because I know that oftentimes by using these words, the reader is likely to assume that I share his/her definition. This is why I use phrases like "life force" instead.
Solely from what you've stated above, I don't think our concepts are very difference, so long as we're talking solely about the "life force".

PS: As far as seeing dead bodies goes, I've seen more than most. I work at a hospital and am training to become a mortician. I've seen many people die in front of me, and I have to tell you that their deaths were just like their lives: unremarkable.


From Azaz'el 6 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"as humanity shows itself to be a lost cause."


If humanity is a lost cause, if there is no hope for them, what is the purpose of life, what is the purpose of being here, of Kin, of the Fallen? I have heard many, many points of view as to why Humanity is a lost cause and should be left to dwindle and die out. I have even heard from some that they should be helped to die out. Why such a dim view of humanity?

They are brash, destructive, self destructive, all consuming, arrogant, egotistical, ungrateful, greedy ...etc etc etc. However, they can also be the total opposite of all these negative qualities. And I have to say that I have not yet met a race that shows other more evolved or purer qualities than humanity!! tongue.gif

I know you probably didn't mean much by your comment, but having gone through all I have for the sake of Humanity, I'm not yet prepared to give up on them.

Az


From Sentru 6 Dec 2007

What I mean is that humanity, at least in the West, pretty much peaked in pre-Roman Greece. Humanity has had it's high spots since then (Renaissance, Enlightenment), yet never managed to quiet get back to that first "golden age"...let alone beyond it.
Yes, the human race has advanced technologically since then, and this gives the illusion that it's been steadily progressing straight along from the neolithic era through to the present moment. Yet that illusion is a lie, as all illusions are. Technological progress has effectively masked the cultural dark age into which the Western world has plunged.
So we're looking at what? 2500 some odd years since humanity's "high point"? The human race has had every possible opportunity to become more than what it currently is, but it fails, collectively, every time such an opportunity is presented.
When it comes to the future of humanity, there seems to be two types of people. These two types have probably existed since the creation of the first civilization, if not before. The first type of person believes that his generation is on the verge of some great enlightenment. The second type believes that his generation is on the verge of extinction.
I, on the other hand, don't believe that humanity on the brink of enlightenment or extinction. What I do think is that humanity reached it's upper limits 2500 years ago and will continue to fluctuate up and down, back and forth, between good times and bad times until either a meteor crashes into the earth, the sun burns out, or people wipe themselves out via a nuclear holocaust.

Also, I want to note that I don't hold myself above humanity when I say these things. "Humanity" is not somewhere "over there", away from me. Regardless of my "true essence", biologically (and thus also psychologically/mentally) I am fully human, as is everyone who exists within a physical human body.

My answer to the question, "If humanity is a lost cause, if there is no hope for them, what is the purpose of life...?" is, there may not be a purpose to life beyond the biological.


From Ishtahar 7 Dec 2007

Good points.

I tend to agree that humanity as a whole has long since ceased to make any realistic progression at all. However I would point out that this is not entirely thir fault because

1. They were not properly taught in the first place. They were led so far down the line and then abandoned and left to get on with it with a little knowledge (which as everyone knows is more dangerous than none at all) and less wisdom. If Shadow had never intervened in the first place we would have made our own tiny steps and learned to deal with each discovery as it came along instead of being presented with it all together and not being able to deal with it.

2. I know, although I have no way of proving that high level Shadow have been involved with humnity at the highest level for generation after generation. They have always been amonst those who pull the strings and they could have pulled them differently. They are like children playing with kittens and crying when the kittens scratch and bite when their tails are pulled.

3. Humanity could have been ascended...and still can,,.,,but for the attitude of certain high ranking members of Shadow who were too power greedy to want to share something which was not theirs to either give or withold in the first place.

Not that I am bitter but I have suffered so much for this and I am, after at human and always have been


From Azaz'el 7 Dec 2007

Interesting issues raised there.

Personally I think that humanity began a decline in their personal and spiritual growth at the beginning of the age of enlightenment. Once humanity began to move away from looking at the spiritual side of their natures, relying upon science to explain the mysteries of life and the meaning of the universe, they lost their capacity for growth and development.

As for the issues raise by ishtahar, I should step in here and make a few explanations.

1. Humanity wasn't taught properly. I have to raise my hand and admit to failure here. I was one of those who began the process of teaching and it was from my example and insistence that my brothers began to join me in teaching and guiding humanity. I .... we, all knew the risks but we thought that it could never happen to us. We just thought our teaching would go on, in secret, until we have achieved ascension of many humans. This would then prove we were right. Unfortunatey we were caught and punished, as were the humans and it all ended in our failure. Yet I still believe in what I did, what we did. I still believe that humanity should be ascended and should have the right to the knowledge we have gained.

2. Once the gateways were closed after the disconnection to the Source, many Shadow were left here, unable to fully step through to our home. So they remained, with power and with money and with all the political might they needed. So it seems that Shadow have had a hand in the development ... or lack of development ... of humanity after the fall of the Grigori.

3. Some members of the Shadow Councils and cohorts do not want Humanity to be ascended, so they pull political power within their own ranks to prevent any development and growth taking place. To this end we are here to bring about unification and allow all races to grow and ascend.

As for the concept that there may be no purpose to life beyond the biological, I would have to say that this goes against everything I know, believe and do. Even the formation of this forum and the opening of a dialogue between the Fallen, Shadow, Kin and Humanity is based upon a spiritual concept that at a soul level we are different races, different spiritual beings. I was born a human, brought up a human, my family is human, but through a process of initiations, awakenings and happenings, i have come to understand that i an not human beynd the physical. So for me there is meaning, is purpose, there is a meaning to life beyond the biological - and that meaning is the reason for this forum.

Az


From Dreamsend 8 Dec 2007

I'm curious what criteria we're considering for "fail/pass" of humanity in the last 2500 years ^^;? In the Western World, at least. And then, what happens when considering all ethnicities?

I think I use entirely different criteria... for instance, the measure of the population that can express itself and its life's work (on an individual basis) freely without fear (giving rise to souls that are not "suppressed"), that can love openly, that are connected with the magical realms (as people have and are still over time), and with the planet (i.e. the environment and the creatures/spirits in it).

And, even then... if the grade is "fail," is it humanity that is to blame, or something else? I've come to the conclusion, after much thought and observation that it is the natural tendency of humans to love (as opposed to hate). Thus, to share, to grow, to become enlightened more and more. Yet, when I look at humanity, personally, I see "something," like a virus or a plague... it doesn't infect everyone, just enough to keep everyone down. It's not the truth (i.e. it is foreign in origin to the human "system") as far as I can tell, I've been searching for ways to cure it for ages. Is it an oppressor, hidden? Or the cycle of lack/violence, the cycle of control/controlled that has to be broken, or something missing like some vital nutrient? Some essence of the soul?

.....

Without considering the reason (if there is indeed a reason) and the whole, holistic picture, I cannot agree that humanity is collectively "lost."


-- Dreamsend


From Ishtahar 8 Dec 2007

I think you are right Dreamsend....absolutely right.

Humanity does have a great capcity for love and caring but somehow it has been twisted and turned inwards to becaome in many a selfish love, a love of power and control.

I will not go into too much detail about this at this time because I have tried a number of times and it has kept turning into a rant against those who have hurt me so much and I believe that this would be neither fair nor productive at this time when I am actively seeking reconciliation and unification.

However, I think it is important that we are aware of the level of infiltration there has been by high ranking Shadow into human society and the amount of control they have continued to exhert.

I am not saying by any means that this applies to all Shadow but there are those who do not want us to unite, who do not want humanity saved, who do not want humans to ascend.


From Sentru 8 Dec 2007

Just to further touch on some points, and respond to others:

To Azazel:
When I stated that there may not be any purpose to life beyond the biological, I was speaking of "purpose" in the sense of some grand, all-encompassing, divinely sanctioned meaning. I'm not saying that there absolutely is not such a thing, only that there may very well not be. But I will say this: If there IS such a "greater meaning" out there, it's almost certainly beyond the capacity of the human mind to understand.
All of this is not to say that an individual cannot make for himself a purpose (this would include the idea of a "soul" reincarnating into a body for a certain reason), or that one person or "entity" of some kind cannot force a purpose (or "task") onto another.

To Dreamsend:
So far as the criteria used when considering whether humanity has passed or failed, you can pick pretty much at random. The only way in which humanity has evolved past pre-Roman Greece has been technologically.
The problem with your criteria is that they have manifested themselves in different cultures throughout history. And, with just the same sort of regularity, they've been lost. This has happened time and time and time again.
Some people in this current era make a huge mistake, believing that an era like this has never before existed. Many of us think that this early portion of the 21st century is the product of thousands of years of social evolution and that now, finally, we all stand ready and poised on the brink of a great new age.
Bullshit.
EVERY SINGLE THING which people in the modern era point to as a sign of our evolved social consciousness has existed in the past. Do you know that 19th century Germany was filled with "neo-pagan" secret societies? That homosexuality was openly tolerated in some areas of the country? That later, under Hitler, pro-environmental and animal protection laws were passed?
This is just one example.
Believe me, the newness of the modern era lies solely in technological advancement and nothing else.
I really don't think the natural tendency of humans is to love. I think the tendency is to conform. Conformity is basically the herd or pack instinct shared by all social animals, but heightened and complicated due to the high intelligence of man. Conformity is one of the things that has allowed mankind to build civilizations and become the dominant form of life upon this planet. On the other hand, it's also responsible for mob madness and all other sorts of ugliness. I would not call it "love". I'd just call it basic, animal nature.
Love itself is something most people are totally ignorant of. Co-dependence and psychological projection, on the other hand, they know much about, frequently confusing these with "love".


From Azaz'el 8 Dec 2007

I think that we're starting to go around in circles here and so before the discussion turns into a love or hate humanity one, I thin it's best just to say that here, Sentru, you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I do fidn it difficult to comprehend your view on humanity as a whole. We have all had some bad experiences and these can taint our view, but to my mind we have to try and rise above any personal experiences we may have... and I have had a lot .... and look at the bigger picture and the future outlook. I cannot agree that the human mind in general terms would not be able to comprehend a greater meaning to life's purpose. Perhaps you should keep trying to see humanity's potential, perhaps open your mind and heart once more to what they could do given the opportunity and unerstanding. All races behaved in a similar way in their youth.

is there something that has brought about your dislike and pessimistic view of Humanity? Do you feel that you are linked to some kind of Kin or do you feel completely human? I am curious that you seem to have a strong disregard for that race yet join in discussions about their future growth and potential.

Az


From Dreamsend 8 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"The problem with your criteria is that they have manifested themselves in different cultures throughout history. And, with just the same sort of regularity, they've been lost. This has happened time and time and time again."


I can shortly at this time say that I am aware of this cyclical nature. This is, in fact evocative of a problem that also manifests in waves, don't you think? Thus, my theory above.

But, I cannot reply at length now. More will come later tonight when I have time and space wink.gif

eta: Or, a quiet moment. I wanted to continue on to say in response to this --

QUOTE
"Some people in this current era make a huge mistake, believing that an era like this has never before existed. Many of us think that this early portion of the 21st century is the product of thousands of years of social evolution and that now, finally, we all stand ready and poised on the brink of a great new age."


I agree with you wholeheartedly. Personally, I often find myself dumbfounded at the regularity with which we "isolate ourselves" from the rest of the long line of history again and again. In particular, I have grievance against the attitude that now, in this time and place, certainly we "know it all," or contain the tools to know it all; that nothing too new will ever be invented, more or less. That there are no new aspects to life undiscovered....

It is not that I disagree with your last comments. Your thoughts do not necessarily conflict with mine, here.

-- Dreamsend


From Sentru 9 Dec 2007

There is no one particular experience that has served as catalyst for my views on humanity. The foundation upon which my views are based is experience in general. I've never been abused or bullied or anything of that sort. Most people actually seem to like me.
I don't hate humanity, really, by any means. I do think that the human mind is a prison of sorts, and each of us trapped within these bodies is serving our time. We can never, while in these prisons, see the world as it actually is. Let me explain:
Our senses tell us almost nothing about the world, at all. They furnish our minds with a small amount of raw data. That data is then taken by the mind, which intuitively and immediately uses it to build up the entire world which we experience. This world is but a representation of the mind. What lies beyond that representation? Who can say? We can't. We have no way to comprehend a world without space, without time, without cause and effect. It's impossible.
Now if experiencing even the day-to-day world of "ordinary reality" as it is in and of itself is impossible, how could experiencing an even higher level of being in such a way be possible...at least while living in a physical human body?

So the human race in general is limited by the nature of it's mind, which it has no way to rise above...at least not while living. Yet within that prison, there is still a good deal of room for growth. However...I don't believe that all people have the same capacity for growth. That is, not everyone has the same potential. In fact, most have a very limited potential. This is where I'd refer back to what I wrote earlier about the soul/spirit as a centeredness which seemingly only very few people have the ability to achieve.

I really don't like the term "kin" and hesitate to identify with it, and that mainly due to the type of person most drawn to the label. I feel very uncomfortable going to "otherkin" forums and feel almost embarassed for some of the posters as I read over threads. I like this board because all of the regular users seem to be out of high school, mature, intelligent and don't at all act like the "otherkin stereotype" which is all too sadly all too accurate.
For a variety of reasons, I do identify, at my core, as something other than human. I guess "daemon" would be most accurate, in the sense of a entity existing somewhere above men and somewhere below "the Gods" (whomever they might be). I don't like using the word "angel" for reasons similar to your own, and "demon" would be even worse!
But yes, despite this, I am also very much human. By stating that my "essence" is "somewhere above men", I in no way mean to imply that I, Steve, the frail and faulty man, am something special. Whether I'm here as I am now because of some "punishment" or even willful choice, the fact is that I am here in this body and I'm in no way exempt from the flaws of my "fellow men".


** Quick aside: I have to give a 'thank you' to Lael. Her comment about recognizing the word "Sentru" piqued my interest. Imagine my shock to learn, nearly 8 years after receiving this 'code', that it is actually a word! Apparently, the word is of Tamil (Dravidian) origins, though for the life of me I cannot figure out what it translates to in English. So if anyone out there has a Dravidic friend and wants to help me out, I'll be in your debt!


From Dreamsend 9 Dec 2007

(Also, Ishtahar, on what you said above,

QUOTE
"However, I think it is important that we are aware of the level of infiltration there has been by high ranking Shadow into human society and the amount of control they have continued to exhert."


I wish I knew more about this. I actually know very little on the Shadow and how they are active or inactive in this era, unfortunately. Infiltration in incarnate form or discarnate? In visible human organizations live government and religion? that would be very fascinating....

I know basically nothing, and I'd really like to learn =).

I'm glad to know of your agreement on that subject, too. It helps to see that some others feel what I feel... eventually I still hope to help solve some of these issues, but I think they have to be identified before anything can be done if the change is to last. It's nice to feel validation, that maybe we're on to something that can lead to progress here =) It's exciting, to be sure.)


-- Dreamsend


From Lael 9 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"** Quick aside: I have to give a 'thank you' to Lael. Her comment about recognizing the word "Sentru" piqued my interest. Imagine my shock to learn, nearly 8 years after receiving this 'code', that it is actually a word! Apparently, the word is of Tamil (Dravidian) origins, though for the life of me I cannot figure out what it translates to in English. So if anyone out there has a Dravidic friend and wants to help me out, I'll be in your debt!"


You're welcome.

I was pretty sure it was a word, but I didn't get into the details; a hunch is just that, a hunch. ;-) I did find, after reading that last post of yours, that sentru varukireen means 'goodbye' in Tamil. Not exactly what you're looking for, but a step closer, perhaps? If you want me to, I'll poke around. Maybe my academic background will be of some use at least here, if not in my everyday life. tongue.gif

As for other things, pondering a longer reply that I'm hoping to get around to writing at some point. The so-called 'real life' is being entirely too distracting at the moment.


From Sentru 9 Dec 2007

Yeah, any further help you might be able to give would be appreciated wink.gif
I also came across "sentru varukireen" and a few other phrases. Unfortunately, it's been impossible for me to isolate the meaning of "sentru" based upon those phrases.


From Azaz'el 9 Dec 2007

Many thanks for explaining your view more clearly Sentru, I now understand and know where you stand on thsese matters and they make much more sense to me.

Without wanting to labour the point here, I would say that in some ways I would agree with you regarding the human mind being a prison. It has a limited perception and this does greatly reduce the capacity for understanding and knowing what existence is really all about. So as you would expect me to say, this is the reason why we wanted ascension for humanity. this would offer the chance to see beyond the physical, to aid in the growth and awareness and so expand the views of the Human race. Ascension did, in ways which I never fully understood, bring about a mental, emotional, spiritual and physical change so that perception was increased. As to how, I'm not sure if Ishtahar can remember anything of this?

I also can understand your view of trying to define who or what you are. The language we have at our disposal is limiting as the only terms to describe what we are have been hijacked by those less fortunate humans who seek a boost for their ego or a wayh in which to roleplay. It's the reason why I spent over a decade knowing I was Shadow but refused to openly admit it even to those who would know or accept, as not many would truly understand.

Being now incarnate in human form, as are all of the Fallen that are awakening (to my knowledge unless someone can tell me otherwise), it can and does at times feel like a prison, as much as I like Humanity and strive for their development. The shape and form and capacity for thought is limited and irritates me so much. But it's all we have for now.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain.

Az


From Ishtahar 10 Dec 2007

There is so much to comment on that I dont know where to start. I identify with everything you have said Sentru, you are absolutely right that everything we have now, we have already had and that the pool is somewhat stagnant as it were. i also believe that we can take it a stage further and say that not only has everythin we have been had before but also that there is much that was had before that we do not have.

Think of the engineering knowledge of the Egyptians or the enlightenment of the ancient Greeks or Druids. We do not posess a fraction of the knowledge they had and we have to keep learning it over and over. More has been lost that we can ever hope to know, at least through material ends.

I think that I agree about the human mind being a prison, I have felt it, and that is from someone who has never been anything other than human. I believe this to be a indication of the fact that ascention does expand the capabilities of even humans. To consinder the human condition a prison I must at some point have experienced something differnt, somethin higher

Dreamsed, I am afraid I cannot give you any information about what Shadow is up to. That is one of the things I am hoping to find out for myself. I was once given a message by Shadow and that was simply as I think I might have told it somewhere here...that they have infiltrated all levels of human society. Whether that is physically metaphysically etherically or all of them I dont know


From Sentru 13 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"this is the reason why we wanted ascension for humanity. this would offer the chance to see beyond the physical, to aid in the growth and awareness and so expand the views of the Human race. Ascension did, in ways which I never fully understood, bring about a mental, emotional, spiritual and physical change so that perception was increased."


Yes, and I have reasons to believe that this is possible. To some extent, potent initiatic experiences do include actual physiological changes. Yet still, the fundamentals of the mind/brain remain the same. In these experiences, it's mainly a matter of using more of the mind and/or gaining a conscious awareness and control of things which had previously been floating in the "dark sea" of the unconscious.
The sort of ascension I think you are talking about would, I believe, require some major. almost 'surgical', alterations to the brain itself. But yeah, I think it's entirely possible, though completely out of the realm of human ability.
Of course, I'm sure I'm just typing things you are already aware of. The above was more of a way for me to communicate what I mean by certain terms.

QUOTE
"I also can understand your view of trying to define who or what you are. The language we have at our disposal is limiting as the only terms to describe what we are have been hijacked by those less fortunate humans who seek a boost for their ego or a wayh in which to roleplay. It's the reason why I spent over a decade knowing I was Shadow but refused to openly admit it even to those who would know or accept, as not many would truly understand."


Yeah, this is a major problem and one I've thought and even written about often. Although I go on at length about my views on this subject in the blog entry I posted earlier on this thread, the jist of it is that the "occult fad" which has swept the western world is one in which fancy labels, names, titles and symbolic images are hoarded away and identified with by people who are oblivious to the actual meaning BEHIND said images. This has, in a way, cheapened those images and made their usage nearly impossible, unless one wants to take a half hour to explain what he or she means by a certain term.
Honestly, in "real life" (offline), there are only 3 people who know that "other than human" in "essence". I told none of them...they just knew. 2 of the 3 I would have told anyway, and that's only because I know that, unlike most people (especially most "occultists") they would not have 'read into' what I was claiming and twisted it all around by throwing half-understood symbols upon it like some cat trying to bury a turd in the litter box.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Archive



Posts : 354
Join date : 2010-02-05

PostSubject: [part 2]   Thu May 06, 2010 11:55 am

From Sentru 13 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"I think that I agree about the human mind being a prison, I have felt it, and that is from someone who has never been anything other than human. I believe this to be a indication of the fact that ascention does expand the capabilities of even humans. To consinder the human condition a prison I must at some point have experienced something differnt, somethin higher"


I'll say this: No matter who or what any of us are, we've got our limits. Potential is not limitless. I don't believe that only those who are non-human in essence, or those who have experienced the things which you have, are the only people capable of reaching this conclusion. It seems, really, like a basic conclusion all intelligent people eventually arrive at...crappy though it is, in a way!
It's not at all a "dig" at humanity to say that it's got certain limits which it'll be unable to rise above (barring the sort of miraculous ascension mentioned). The major problem with most people isn't that their minds have a limited potential. The problem is that the potential that IS there is rarely ever tapped in any but the most material of directions.


From Ishtahar 13 Dec 2007

True, indeed.

Maybe the true ascention of humanity as a whole can only happen when we, as a race are able to accept that and be prepared to move beyond it.


From Ishtahar 16 Dec 2007

i have thought about this a lot and i am not sure that i agree. In fact i think that not only is potential limitless but it is only in thinking that it is not that we create limits.

I suppose we aqre never going to actually know which view is correct until we have thoroughly tested the limits and experienced the answer.

I have to say that I really hope that I am right and I would suspect that this is one situation when you wold not mind to be proven wrong biggrin.gif


From Sentru 16 Dec 2007

Well the problem here is that our brains really do limit our abilities to perceive things as they truely are. Some philosophers, like Kant and (my favorite) Schopenhauer, have written volumes on this very subject.
In essence: our physical senses tell us almost nothing about the world as it actually is...the "thing in itself" of Kant. It is our minds which, taking the scant raw data from the senses, "create" the world which we experiece.
I hate to bring up movie references, but the guys who wrote "The Matrix" were really on to something. In many ways, this is just how the world is. Our minds project what we call "reality" before us, but this reality is nothing but a screen or curtain which covers the "thing in itself".
This is the reason why I say that the brain/mind is like a prison.

So we really do have these limitations to our perceptive abilities. We also have physical limitations (ie: most of us are not strong enough to, let's say, pick up a truck and twirl it upon our little fingers) and intellectual limitations (ie: we're not all Stephen Hawkings).

Only at the most primal, "archetypal" level MIGHT it be true that we have no limitations...though at that level, any talk of "we" or "I" or "you" is nonsensical.


From Ishtahar 16 Dec 2007

Yes, as far as it goes I follow that but this is only if we accept that what we know we can experience is ACTUALLY what we can experience. If our minds create our reality then surely our limits are no less than anything that our minds can conceive and in this respect we are back to Dremsend's idea of belief creating reality.

We do not believe that we cannot twirl a lorry therefore we cannot. But there is a whole exostential world out there with limitless energy that we MIGHT be able to use IF we believed in it.

If it is possible to move a glass with your mind and create bread and fish out of thin air and turn water to wine or lead to gold then it is possible to do just about anything.

The fact that we CANNOT do these things does not necessarily mean that we are INCAPABLE of doing them.

I believe that the mind is truly limitless in potential. The only reason we are not able to achieve that potential is that we neither know how to nor believe it is possible to.

Think of the abilities of the mind to heal and create in 'freak' or 'miraculous' cases. Think of the mothers who have liften trucks off their children, the people who have walked unscathd from fires. All the unexplained miracles which are not miracles at all but what we are all capable of if we only knew how.

I think that when we again achieve union with the Source we WILL know how...or will remember how


From Sentru 16 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"If our minds create our reality then surely our limits are no less than anything that our minds can conceive and in this respect we are back to Dremsend's idea of belief creating reality."


There is a big, big difference between our minds creating what we PERCEIVE on the one hand, and saying that our CONCEPTIONS (beliefs or otherwise) create reality on the other. These are two very different statements.
First off, what is the difference between perception and conception? Between perceiving and conceiving? Perception is what we could call an intuitive function and relates to the empirical world; i.e.: the "real world" of matter as we understand it. Perception is intuitive and immediate. For example, right now, you are looking at your computer. You see it there in front of you. You perceive it. No analysis is required. No thought is required.
On the other hand, conception is the province of the reasoning aspect of the mind. It refers to our ability to mentally extract data from our perceptions (i.e.: from the empirical world) and form abstractions from these abstractions. "Dog" is a concept. "Book" is a concept. We can not empirically experience "dog" or "book", but rather only individual dogs and books. It's our ability to conceive and to reason that allows us to use language.
So perception and conception are two very different functions of the mind.

Now what Dreamsend seems to be saying, and what you seem to be saying (and if I'm misinterpreting here, let me know) is that concepts (or really, concepts based upon concepts based upon concepts, i.e.: "beliefs") determine empirical reality. What I am saying is that, although the mind does indeed largely "create" the reality we see, it does this through INTUITIVE PERCEPTION (which is instantaneous) and not through beliefs, which are rooted in concepts, which are merely abstractions of perceptions to begin with.
For example: we do not construct physical dogs from the concept of "dog" which we carry in our minds. No, we do the opposite. We build the concept of "dog" from the physical dogs which we perceive.


QUOTE
"I believe that the mind is truly limitless in potential.� The only reason we are not able to achieve that potential is that we neither know how to nor believe it is possible to."


I guess this is just going to have to be one of those times where we're going to disagree. I don't believe that the mind of a bird or fish or pig has unlimited potential, so there is little reason (for me) to believe that humankind stands so far outside of the natural order that the limitedness which is a hallmark of all other forms of life does not affect this one species.
I do believe that the human brain has an UNTAPPED potential, but even so, not a limitless one.

So anyway, that's my more-or-less complete thought on the issue.

*edited to remove a misquote


From Ishtahar 17 Dec 2007

I think we are kind of slipping past each other here and I cant qute put my finger on why.

I agree that in our present condition and with our present conditioning the mind is (mostly) incapable of moving past the limits of its physical perception, at least consciously.

However I also believe that this is, to a large extent a matter of conditioning rather than acuality and that it is possible to move beyond that into a realm or limitless potential. We just dont know how.

To use your image of my sitting in front of my computer. We are in some ways similar. We both receive empirical date, the computer through the keyboard or other peripheral mechanism and I through my senses. The difference is that the computer can only process what it is given, I can move beyond that and can concieve of, create and achieve far more than the sum of what was put in, and this is even in my current state of ignorance.

I truly believe that the mind is capable of so much more than we can imagine at this time. I cant explain how or why because I am still this side of the veil. Maybe one day the veil will be lifted and we will be able to utilise our full potential, maybe not.

There is another element that I would touch on with regard to the idea of belief creating reality. On a more personal level, is it not true that the way one perceives a situation changed the reality of that situation?

If I wake up and feel good believing that it is a good day and that everything is great, is it not much more likely that it will actually BE a good day.


From Lael 17 Dec 2007

You touch upon the idea of mind-programming, which is a known technique for anything from quitting smoking to altering your outlook to a more positive one. There is a popular explanation for this based on the example of various superstitions, including the one about friday the 13th being an unlucky day:

one) it's a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. People don't like to be wrong. If they believe bad luck haunts them on that particular day, they might subconsciously put themselves in a situation that will indeed result in something unhappy happening to them. I remember reading a study somewhere years ago, according to which most people prefered to encounter a (minor) obstacle and be proven right, than to go through the day unharmed in any way and have the "silliness" superstition rubbed in their face. Go figure.

two) what happens to one person is often affected not simply by that person's choice of their course of action, but also by what happens to others around them. One person with particularly bad luck on Friday the 13th, who happens to be your boss, is quite likely to make your day a bad one because of their own misfortune. And the wheels keep turning.

I have an awful suspicion I've strayed from the main topic quite a bit, but regardless - the topic of reality and perception thereof is so broad in and of itself that, perhaps, it deserves its own thread somewhere other than the Introductions forum? Maybe other (future) members would have something valuable to add. There's so much discussion fodder in this thread, and it's pretty obscure to someone who doesn't follow it from the beginning because it's disguised as Sentru's intro post. ;-)

Anyway, just my two cents.


From Sentru 17 Dec 2007

I think our disagreements here all boil down to the below two arguments:
1) Although we both believe that the human mind has a far greater potential than it has heretofore tapped into, you believe this potential to be limitless and I do not.
2) Although we both agree that belief colors reality, we disagree as to the extent in which it does so.
We're not really arguing different positions here. It's more like we're arguing over how moderate we should be in our views towards the same subject.


From Ishtahar 19 Dec 2007

I would like to think that we were not arguing at all but your summation is accurate biggrin.gif except that I would say that we are disagreeing about how expasive to be towards the same subject tongue.gif

Lael, you are absolutely right. There is a philosophy about this which I have come across in various arenas through work. I am really sorry that I dont know the correct terms but one of the concepts it that the mind mirrors reality and vice versa. So for example if everything around you is going well you feel good and but also that if you feel good it is more likely that things will go well, at least in your perception of them. The practice derived from this is all about world view and positive thinking so that if you consciously search for the good in any given situation there is a good chance you will find it or at least a better chance than if you were only expecting to find the bad.

Or something tongue.gif


From Sentru 19 Dec 2007

QUOTE
"I would like to think that we were not arguing at all but your summation is accurate� biggrin.gif except that I would say that we are disagreeing about how expasive to be towards the same subject� tongue.gif"


haha...yes, I suppose that is another way to look at it. wink.gif


From Dreamsend 19 Dec 2007

Feel free to start a new thread on reality and perception somewhere it will fit better, like the "Body and Soul" topic, maybe.

This topic has a lot of life to it =D. You're right, future members will probably want to add their two cents.

-- A


From Ishtahar 20 Dec 2007

Well, I did think about splitting the topic and putting the stuff about perception and reality somewhere else under a different heading but it is all so interconnected that I am not sure that it would make sense if we did that.

I am wondering if maybe we start a new topic and then cut and paste appropriate sections or re name and move the whole topic (I am not sure this would be possible but I will ask Az if that is what you want)

Or anything else you might suggest.


From Dreamsend 23 Dec 2007

This does seem like a big topic that everyone has a lot to contribute to. I feel a new post with just a summation of everything's that's been said for points and counterpoints could work.


From Ishtahar 23 Dec 2007

That in itself would be a mamoth task. I would not like to try and summarise all that.

Maybe we could open the new topic and then everyone who contributed could summarise their own posts on the new topic. That in itself would be quite a task but easier than someone trying to summarise the whole thing
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
ARCHIVE: Pseudo-intro and question
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Video Intro for guests
» theme-background-question
» When Reseting Passwords add a Security Question(s)
» question-about-forum-securities
» tos-related-question-regarding-softwear-i-created

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Welcome to New Members :: Introduction-
Jump to: