What is quite remarkable about the whole human race, as it expresses itself down through centuries and centuries - to me at least - is that no one takes a good long hard look at the existential reality of people's personal experience of self.
'Existential' means, as you know: what you experience from your senses, rather than what you are speculating about through your secondary thinking levels and therefore what you could simply be imagining by doing that latter thing.
Contemporary, but a classic and worth collecting. |
On the one hand people say that they 'live,' except they only live for a short time - while on the other hand human society itself as a whole claims to be this on-going very long-term thing that seemingly does not in fact die. But it goes on continua continua. Supposedly.
This seemingly amorphous long-term human society though, is made up only of short-term units of life; individual persons' particular lives. And there is no practical existential bridge between the units and the larger thing.
It is not a widely socially accepted thing at all, for people to recall what they experienced before they were born and come to next be living as a growing, and dying, human.
There are the odd handful of individuals who claim to remember so-called 'past lives' but funny how this already takes on the rubric that 'living' means somebody's life; for example like a Napoleon, Cleopatra, or just some unknown private person, but in all events a single, singular, standard human life.
Well that does not really tell us anything that we don't already know, except that clearly we do not know from an ordinary existential basis, what was going on before our common physical material brain systems got sufficiently arranged all together so that we recognize and make sense of sensory experiences and have these sorted and stored in our brain cells and putative 'memory.'
It is the 'we don't already know' part that is significant.
The blackness. The darkness. The apparent non-existence.
But now let's look at this another way.
You are aboard some super futuristic and advanced extreme high technology, um, platform out here in space and although there are no 'cryogenic' tubes that sci-fi wants to say can be used to hold a material living body in stasis through long trips between planets and stars - there are other kinds of tubes in which material iterations of your precise personal DNA composition are formed and grow.
Overcast day in Asia somewhere... |
By this means you really do not 'die' as such, but jump from one receptacle to another similar one. And that would presume of course that your actual personal self aware consciousness is transferable; which it is.
How do we know it is?
We 'know' it is from (our; there are others) standard Western sacred writings. Jesus was not immediately physically recognized when re-appearing, by many or even most who otherwise knew him over a complete adult life...
This is Easter-time. Jesus died and then He rose, but He did not 'come back' in exactly quite the same form as what was originally there that people had once seen and experienced.
Early on in the transition scenario, He had obvious marks that pertained to what had recently happened bodily; a very short while later He was physically a different-looking person!
He says to Mary Magdalene: 'Don't touch me, I have not yet gone (back) up. (To change into a new organic dynamic 'container,' I guess).
But then, for the ordinary human being, they do not seem to have any recollection of any previous experiences that they are clearly aware of, when they were in some other physical organic body and therefore personal consciousness 'container.'
Well there are several 'problems' with this model - yet, let us for interest's sake, assume the model.
As I have said before, if the internal intellectual mechanisms and the formats of those were transparent to people, it would be instantly possible to see when someone is lying, instantly possible to see what was motivating them anyway -, instantly possible therefore to avoid harm from them.
Which one - the car or what's behind the gates? LOL |
My proposition to you has always been that no K-type II plus civilization can afford to circumvent this concept of being able to literally see other people's motivations, their emotions, their psychological motivations.
No such society exists out there that avoids that. In other words, those that do exist out there, absolutely can 'see' you. And they can see all their members all of the time if they want to.
And which means they act uniformly, if it may be that they look like individual agents on the surface.
The reason you cannot 'remember' your earlier existence prior to this immediate mortal physical one is that you will necessarily be remembering all others' experiences that you were grouped into or along with, and not just one single existence. If, you are from an advanced group.
So there is a huge differential calculus relationship involved between the particular measured human mortal life - which begins, grows, declines, and then dies - and the life of someone, some other kind of 'one' being that is in a minimum K-II plus civilization set.
Standard religious ideas and theologies as they have come to be part of the human world, in fact, never handle this - but that is very strange because it simply must be an existential fact if, the very basis of all of these 'religions' are even vaguely 'true.'
To encapsulate the whole point though - there is on the one hand, a grouped-together, massive and not linear time-locked existence (at least it is theoretically possible, and complies with the rules of logic and philosophy), but that is very different from a linear time-determined Gauss profile human mortal life.
And what happens to a group consciousness society, when in a 'mortal' format, suddenly the members do things that harm other members?
What does that say about the underlying real nature of the individual personal consciousness, as ego, in the strict sense...?
Just have a cup (or glass) of tea... |
K-II plus societies must of necessity of survival be 'good.'
(In the model posited here).
Yet apparently that does not actually mean each real individual member ego is really naturally good at all - not if you stick one of them, separate them from their hive group and place them into the mortal human race only to discover they are capable of harming each other wantonly and very badly.
Actually, let me put it another way, seeing how it is 'Easter.' The Christian text, falls in line with what I am saying re K-II plus civilizations; and it is meaningless in terms of 'sin' and 'Creation narratives' and all of that. And it does not fall in line with the standard modern theology/theologies.
Further, it categorically and explicitly (especially in the non-canon books of Peter and Mary Magdalene) confirms the 'other worlds' and K-II plus format that I have posited, and does not confirm or affirm the 'Jehovah' or 'Creation' religious narratives at all. This despite modern theologies say different. But they cannot demonstrate it.
The danger of harm comes from the limitations of the Gauss profile single and isolated organic material life - not any moral 'fall' or 'Original Sin' because of some individual human or whatever, which has no logic or rationality to it in any case.
The danger of harm comes from the fact, that humans are less than a K-II plus civilization.
You say -, oh but prove it.
You get three (or five!) of the hottest people (that way there will be less resistance in your thinking to the idea!) that you know, and have them totally and transparently go along with every single thought that you have in your head. Can you?
Well that's in fact actual 'Christianity.' It's what it expressly and explicitly teaches.
'When two or more are...'
Fact.
That, is the moment that you will see what Muslims are only talking about on these current 'odd-numbered' nights of Laylatul Qadr.
The Universe is vast. It has numerous civilizations, each on different levels of development. The so-called 'human condition,' this one filled with pain and suffering, is to do with its level of development.
'If only I could just see an ET Alien with super-incredible technology, then I will do all of this.'
What, because prior to that you will be and act like all other limited humans, inside their silly little limited lives and lifespans? Well we already know that. You must jump forward. And you have to do it by yourself. Otherwise you just have to keep on staying behind.
If you saw and got to go into some place with K-II plus people, you would be in the group mind situation.
Put you back then from that place to this place - and are you going back to slaughtering and killing and demanding and issuing orders and overpowering others and perpetually trying to overpower others and claiming you are the ones with 'rights' and who 'know' everything; and wanting to be the ruler/s because until then you are the victims? (Because after all, others do the same thing back - and they absolutely do too). It's just nothing but fighting among humans all the time. Every 'peace' is on the edge of failure each second.
Unless you get to rule you won't play, right.
Well stay behind here then. No problem. Your call.
I asked a friend who had never done this to go around town and "make some targets" and I told her briefly what to do. So then I and another friend had two "targets" to view, and we did not know "what they were." If we go to a street corner and someone shows me a tree and I say "oh there is something to do with a flowing river here" and there is no river to be seen anywhere nearby then there will be an argument. But if I and another person "look into" a thing without "knowing" what it is ahead of time, and we both see flowing water of various sorts, and then we also both see a single tree in various stages of development... AND then we are told later "well the target was a tree and here is a picture..."
ReplyDeleteYet we both saw bodies of water. There is no argument between us about that. If we want to argue then we can discuss which of us is going to vote for Donald T. It's not that we're above disagreement.
Obviously there is something fundamentally flawed in a very deep way about how we were taught to "put together" a bit of knowledge about things. Not "knowing" a thing in the usual sense can lead to a greater degree of certainty about it. Oddly.
Or so I say. I imagined all that had something to do with "... when two or more..."
Interesting. We go there next.
Delete