The August 1, 2005 Dinner and a Dead Guy Session called "Rose Colored Glasses" started out with Janie in Oregon talking about a concept taken from the Lazarus material on 'the negative ego'.

As the evening unfolded, the conversation grew from a discussion into a very heated and 'Passionate' debate with a few of us becoming quite voisterous.

From what I gather, the session started around 4:30 / 5 o'clock-ish (California time) and the debate and conversation lasted until around 11 PM.

This discussion even overflowed into the Aug.15th DAADG Session, but I won't get into that one just yet.

As I go through the transcript I will pull tidbits out and post them here for your enjoyment, as I always do.

quote:

---

However, as we have hinted, personal and collective convictions are one of several determining factors in the behavior of the individual or the group, or even the entire collective. It becomes important to identify these items and specifically that the ego is a psychological construct and it holds no definite actions that are labeled negative or positive. And it is also important to recognize that the responsibility is with the individual that chooses to engage various conviction patterns. Without that recognition, the individual or the collective acts by default.

The individual or the collective will feel swayed and influenced and even controlled by forces it would consider outside of itself, foreign to it. And if the individual, and ultimately the collective, are to recognize their own divine origins, then there is a much, and long overdue need to examine what factors influence the lives of the individual or the collective. [q]Without such an examination, you will continue living your lives as if there is a force outside of your self that ultimately can nullify whom and what you are.[/b]

---

quote:

---

The individual is an amalgamation of all of these factors. The individuality is composed of many, many factors, and only by understanding the individual - YOUR individuality - can you come to the conclusion that you can indeed transform consciousness, YOUR consciousness. It is not sufficient to say: "Today I am thinking pretty thoughts, and therefore my entire day will be pretty" at the expense of everything else you will feel during the course of your day. Does that make any sense to any of you?

---

quote:

---

Your own neurological structure is so sophisticated, that even with all of their hard-earned knowledge, your best scientific minds can marvel at the wonders of your brain and neurological system and make concerted efforts to explain some of it, but are at a loss to how and why it works. And the determining factor is YOU - the individual. Without your individuality, animating the imagery of your body, there is no reality as you understand it.

---

quote:

---

Your most precious and lovely individuality is what separates you from what you call the "dead body." That spark of energy or of life is often unrecognized even by your lovely selves. And yet the energy encapsulated within that one spark of individuality is such that all of the reality and the worlds that you know are instantaneously manifested from one leap to another, from one blink to another. That spark of individuality contains more energy than a billion suns put together because the suns, the planets, the solar systems, the entire spectrum of reality is projected FROM that spark of individuality. Such is its creative power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaust:
Hey Mark, From these excerpts, it is difficult to see what the controversy was...
Anyway, waiting for the transcript, Kaust.

---

I haven't gotten to the controversy yet, but I suspect that I will tease everyone by making them read the transcript to discover what it was anyway.

quote:

---

KRIS: Indeed, now we have briefly touched upon this in discussions in the past, about the great global disaster that was manmade. A great war followed by disturbances in the weather patterns and so on, and so forth. If you notice all of the major religions today, those that were founded 2500 to 3000 years past, all have a common thread: that the individual is tainted and flawed, that the individual, even before his or her birth has already seen that there is a spark of what you refer to as evil within the person. And that flaw, that stain -- what is in the Judeo-Christian view called the original sin -- is feared, and therefore the major world religions are set up in such a way as to try and mitigate the evil that that stain or flaw can unleash onto the world. Do you understand?

---

quote:

---

It is individuals like yourselves, by your deeds, and your words, and your actions, and your authenticity, and your integrity, that can indeed show others that it is possible to experience a different kind of reality altogether. And you still do this with the full knowledge and awareness that there are those in your societies that have become far too fearful of that inner reality and must therefore strongly adhere to the dogmas and principles of orthodox religious teachings; and therefore live in their own pretty bubble until they eventually recognize that what they considered to be a Divine Being outside of their own realm, is merely a projection of their own beliefs about their iniquity.

What they fear the most is projected outwardly into their god, a god that would be vengeful, merciless -- even though they will try to speak of that Being as simultaneously being merciful -- but they cannot reconcile it until and unless they reconcile their own knowledge of self. And that knowledge of self is that you are the Divine Being in question. You are basically then, rediscovering your own divinity. And we are not speaking here at the superficial, infantile level, where anyone may think that they can do anything they want, and everything is fine. That is also narcissistic. Does that answer the question somehow?

---

quote:

---

Indeed, one should take appropriate action, but overall, pathological behavior of such nature - destructive behavior of such nature - is also a communication. Just as your thoughts are communicating to you the realities and the beliefs that you hold, so do such individuals communicate to the society what that society is neglecting to address. Often society as a whole will stick its head in the sand thinking there is nothing going on. Do you understand?

(Yes)

The longer the collective head is buried in the sand denying there is anything in need of addressing, then the stronger that cancer becomes because it is not being addressed. It is a social cancer in the same manner that symptoms and diseases in the body are a last ditch attempt to communicate that you have avoided your responsibility to your body and your emotions. So those pathologies at the social level are a communication that the society, the culture, has neglected its responsibilities and has acted like a collective ostrich sticking its head in the psychological sand.

---

quote:

---

KRIS: It comes about as a result of a lack of fulfillment and you have, especially in North America, two kinds of existences. There is the existence that the consumption, the consummation of goods and services will bring about happiness; but the flip side of the coin is that people are not specifically any happier. In fact, they are even unhappier than they were. And though we are making a generalization, the statistics will show that there is an increase in the usage of dangerous drugs in your societies and very much so with even the younger crowds. This leads to a specific dilemma. It is a symptom and a communication, and like a cancer it can spread as it already is, and as a result, the society is crippled.

This hinders the society's abilities to unfold toward its objectives and simultaneously the challenge that is taken upon by the individual incorporates the challenge itself. So it is a very difficult quest that your culture, globally and locally, is seeking to bring about with Balance and Harmony. It is indeed GREATER than any of the challenges have been attempted in many, many decades, because this time you cannot use a bomb and blow them away. This time there is a global awareness that literally demands better, more carefully thought out solutions be utilized and in a pro-active manner.

But you are not yet there. It will take time still, but the potentials are great because the efforts are quite great to bring about an acknowledgement and addressing and accepting of the situation. So it is indeed a tremendous challenge, one that demands that the individual dig deep within and use all of his or her resources to bring about change, to bring about a new reality. But just like the birthing process - of which there is nothing pretty about - the end result gives a pretty infant. Do you follow?

---

Hi Rob,

What Drew was saying is that Kris is WRONG because there is no RIGHT or WRONG, but if Kris is WRONG then there is a RIGHT and WRONG. Do you see the oxymoron? Both statements can not be true.

By saying that there is no right or wrong, you are ultimately saying that it is okay to KILL anyone who does not share your beliefs.

Please remember that Kris was talking to PEOPLE, to FOCUS personalities, to EXPRESSIONS of ESSENCE and down here in the physical world there sure is right and wrong.

That is where dualism comes into play. We are Essence and we are simultaneously Expressions of Essence. From the perspective of Essence there is no right or wrong, good or bad, just different experiences. From the perspective of the Focus Personality there is right and wrong. Our very existance is a paradox.

When the ghosts talk about there being no right and wrong, what they are attempting to do is tear down the walls of the Judeo-Christian beliefs in heaven and hell and of judgement in the afterlife.

Hi Rob..

Yes I agree with your last statement: terrorist bombings is something we will get thru, which Kris was talking about I think and that we must look at what we are doing and not stick our heads in the sand.

That was the gist of his presentation, however, I must also partially disagree with your other statement even wen i agree with part of it as well: there is no right or wrong just things we created as a play, a game, as experience.

I agree that at some Essence level there is no right and wrong, but while we are physical is it a violation to take another life, even if at some OTHER level (ESSENCE) there is no right or wrong. In fact that IS what Elias is trying to present in the link below.

At some "OTHER" layer or level of our being that may be true, but remember that Kris' audience is not limited to people sitting in Paul and Jo's living room, we get about 2 thousand visits on the website a week... that is also his larger audience at the moment.

That said, we must also realize that we live in a temporal, duplicity filled world of everday events. For instance, it would not be suitable or even agreeable for you to have your baby snatched from its crib, killed outright and then tell the judge: "But your Honor, there is no right and wrong, we are all here for the play, the game and the experience"!

I'm almost certain the judge would not smile and nod in agreement, and neither would you.

We must keep things in context.

What IS of importance, and I think in the larger scheme of what Kris is trying to approach, even if with some controversy, is the issue of VIOLATIONS!!!!

In fact.. in some of the 1998 sessions from Elias (http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/victims_perpetrators.html) there is a curiously interesting and very "deja-vue" discussion between a couple of people and Elias, and one of these people is Drew, holding onto the same argument with Elias from 1998 as he had with Kris in 2005. That is a period of 7 years on the same issue.

Even though this is a VERY complex issue, involving belief systems left right and centre, it is evident that many people would rather just have it watered down to only a couple of lines of text and little else, perhaps because it is too challenging and complex, and we'd rather it be swept under the carpet so we can put on our rose colored glasses.

Another aspect of this as it appears in both Kris' and Elias' discussions on the topic is the mention of people holding specific beliefs, in this case about violations of one kind or another.

There is a very clever dance around the subject of beliefs from those challenging both Kris now and Elias in the 1998 sessions on this subject. From what I gather from ALL the sources (Seth, Elias, Kris, Abraham, Bashar to name a few), we come to physical life with ALL the belief systems in place and our intention and desire would in some way activate those beliefs needed to bring about the reality, whatever it is at that moment.

What is this talk of some not holding the beliefs? More to the point, why would the person asking the question act like "they" do not hold such beliefs, exactly as Elias is asking?! Somewhere in all the Kris transcripts Kris does address this very issue.

More to the point, why would anyone think that because they are not "CONSCIOUSLY" aware of a set of beliefs, they do not hold the beliefs, whatever they are??!! It is quite clear that in terms of subjective awareness, we are not consciously aware of ALL the beliefs we hold, so why claim that because we don't have immediate awareness of a set of beliefs, that we do not have those beliefs?

Kris once pointed out that physical reality itself is a complex set of convictions which means that those who participate in it hold all the beliefs necessary to make physical reality happen, each one filed with all the blueprints needed.

Upon a closer read of that session, it is evident that Drew is also trying to put words into Elias' mouth so to speak, even when Elias is trying to broaden the topic as well as bring in the realism of the situation, Drew won't have any of it... its either black or white for Drew even when Elias is trying to bring in the shades of grey!

What makes this even more interesting is that we do tend to think that because we don't have certain situations in this life, then we are free of the beliefs that may plague others. Are we so sure? There may well be other focusses in other 'places and times' that experiences some of the beliefs we may not be able to handle in this probability.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:

That said, we must also realize that we live in a temporal, duplicity filled world of everday events. For instance, it would not be suitable or even agreeable for you to have your baby snatched from its crib, killed outright and then tell the judge: "But your Honor, there is no right and wrong, we are all here for the play, the game and the experience"!

I'm almost certain the judge would not smile and nod in agreement, and neither would you.

We must keep things in context.

---

What is your context?

You do not create your reality?

You do not draw people and events to you according to what beliefs you are choosing to express and the direction that you are choosing to move?

You are a victim?

Just curious,

Sailer,

Please stick to the topic at hand. You have this nasty tendancy to take a quote out of context and twist it into something that doesn't really make any sense.

We were talking about dualism. Do you have any comments regarding dualism? Do you have any comments as to whether there is such a thing as right and wrong?

Interesting that Drew has been battling over this same issue for so many years. The phrase, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," comes to mind.

I've always thought, when hearing that axiom, "True, but the fact is the horse WILL get thirsty sooner or later."

Drew is drawn back, again and again, to these sessions. It seems he is VERY thirsty, but he judges the water to be unsatisfactory, so he refuses to drink. In the meantime, he's becoming quite parched and dehydrated.

The water is love, compassion, understanding, and the wisdom of the heart; which, as Paul said, is where Kris wrapped up the discussion, and where Drew and others who insist upon that relativistic point of view ultimately MUST drink from.

Drew's position keeps him in a place where he hopes he doesn't have to contend with the messiness of having to deal with love and hate and fear, with pain and loss and anger, with grief and tears, or even with joy and ecstasy.

Drew doesn't want to have to feel, but that's what the game is here in physicality. And the fact is, we've all been right where Drew is at one time or another. Sometimes I find myself going there again, just wanting to get 'above' it all so I don't have to indulge in painful feelings of angst, or remorse, or sympathy, or even overwhelming love, because it seems oh so very COMPLICATED, it's all so very MESSY and it just completely throws off my well-planned day, can't I just stick my head back in the nice dark and quiet sand here, where I won't have to look at or think about these awful things? And maybe then it will all go away......

But Drew DOES feel! He shows it all through the session, but he displaces his feelings, he projects his feelings onto others, like the London bombers: "Oh, surely they had a 'good' reason to do what they did? Surely in their way, they were fighting the 'evil' as they saw fit? Do they not merely wish to express their pain and anger? How can they be then judged 'wrong' or 'evil'? Are they not just like us, just like me?"

About a year or so back, there was an Elias group session where he talked about intrusiveness. Several people were a bit distressed by this session, as it seemed that Elias was taking on a more "chiding" and judgmental approach than he had in the past. He described intrusiveness as "unacceptable", and definitely made it seem as though he were taking back the whole "there is no right or wrong in Essence" concept.

But what I got out of it was that in OUR society, there most definitely is right and wrong, and there are actions that people take with the clear intention to cause harm to another person or group of people. When he described this as "unacceptable", I took it to mean that it was an ineffective means to accomplish whatever underlying goal one may have, and that in most cases, it serves to accomplish the opposite of our true intentions. In harming others, we are ultimately harming ourselves, and there is no situation for which it can be said that the most effective or efficient course of action is an intrusive or intentionally harmful one.

I think that's what the Dead Guys are getting at, but that's just my interpretation. The "cancer" that Kris describes seems to be the overall mentality that our goals and aspirations can be met through the pain and suffering of others.

For anyone who's interested, here's the Elias session about intrusiveness. http://www.eliasforum.org/transcripts/E1532_032004.html

Hi Steve.. yes.. it is a controversial subject, but one we can learn to take in, even in small doses till its full impact is absorbed.

Seth often said that "the ends do not justify the means", and he also often asked that people do not violate.

Kris has often also mentioned that if you must have a certain code of conduct, it should be "Do no harm to others".

Otherwise it can get nasty and into interpretations and distortions that somehow justify that it is OK to intrude, violate, because after all, its just a play.

Mark and I were toying with the extremes of the distortions that are so readily engaged last night. For instance, it is so easy to put a scalpel or other weapon to someone's jugular and say: "Our actions right now tell me you WANT me to slice your throat and kill you, so I will indulge the play".

That is not Essence or play. That is a criminal act and has nothing to do with this concept. Even if "someone" comes along and adds: "You do not draw people and events to you according to what beliefs you are choosing to express and the direction that you are choosing to move?"

Beliefs notwithstanding, there are no excuses that can justify such criminal acts.

I am FULLY aware of the Essence POV (point of view), as well as the focus pov, and we can't just willy nilly interchange them to suit our goals and moods (the ends do NOT justify the means).

There is a big difference for instance in understanding the harmful and severe dramas that unfold in cases of domestic violence, and understanding that there are heavey duty beliefs of duplicity and victimhood at play.

To tell a woman that is being abused that its just a play and there is no right or wrong, just beliefs, thus no harm being done and then just walk away leaving her to continue receiving physical or other abuses just because we might think we are superior and elevated above the struggles of the flesh, well it is itself a gross violation of human nature and disrespect for another's well being, and we are ourselves no better than the man who is abusing her.

As for being on the RECORD here, I abhor domestic violence to the max. I grew up in it, watche dmy mother be so often severely beaten till she had to be hospitalised. Back then the police would not interfere, considering it just a family dispute.

IT IS PLAIN WRONG!! Even if I understand all the intricate details of reality creation and belief engeneering involved.

Now if "someone" wants to make a federal Essence case out of that and still claim it is wrong to consider abuses as wrong.. hey, just put on the rose colored glasses!

Cheers,

Originally posted by Marky Mark:
"Hi Rob,

What Drew was saying is that Kris is WRONG because there is no RIGHT or WRONG, but if Kris is WRONG then there is a RIGHT and WRONG. Do you see the oxymoron? Both statements can not be true."

Thats right.

"By saying that there is no right or wrong, you are ultimately saying that it is okay to KILL anyone who does not share your beliefs."

No no, I'm not saying it is okay to kill someone, you are saying is not not right or wrong, it is something that is choosen by all parties involved in acknoledgement whit you beliefs.

"Please remember that Kris was talking to PEOPLE, to FOCUS personalities, to EXPRESSIONS of ESSENCE and down here in the physical world there sure is right and wrong."

Yep I agree that it is the reality currently.

"That is where dualism comes into play. We are Essence and we are simultaneously Expressions of Essence. From the perspective of Essence there is no right or wrong, good or bad, just different experiences. From the perspective of the Focus Personality there is right and wrong. Our very existance is a paradox."

I agree whit that, yet I feel more comfertable if Kris when he talks about right and wrong would lay more emphasis on the fact that it is the belief system of duplicity at work and that we have to accept that this is a belief system and that it influences our opinions, and that those opinions are not ultimatly the "truth".

I can understand drew when he says those bombers are doing what THEY think is right, and no that doesnt make it right what they do, but really doesnt make it wrong either in a wider sense, because it is what we, WE together create as an reality!

As for the situation as a whole, yet again it is what WE create, for a purpuse! So to call something that is purpusely created a cancer is kind of strange I think.

I think the point of this information is to accept that we create our reality and create it with our belief systems and that we have to accept them so that we are not bound by them. When passing judgement in the way that happend in the transcript I kind of feel your not accepting the belief system.

"When the ghosts talk about there being no right and wrong, what they are attempting to do is tear down the walls of the Judeo-Christian beliefs in heaven and hell and of judgement in the afterlife.

- Mark -"[/b]

I think it's relevant to point out one very important concept that both Kris and Elias keep reiterating and goes largely overlooked. The idea is that beliefs are very much a part of this reality. We incorporate beliefs, and therefore they are our reality. The point of the Shift in Consciousness is NOT to eliminate beliefs, but rather to suspend judgment in relation to those beliefs. Even after the Shift, we will continue to believe that one expression is right and another expression is wrong. Our ability to do that is part of our very existence in this reality.

The idea of "There is no right and wrong in Essence" ignores the reality that right now, most people, including myself, are largely unaware of the freedom they hold in the moment to not be a victim, and to not have any experience that they don't wish to have. Therefore, being unaware of my choices, I would fall into the role of a victim if someone tries to harm me. My response would be automatic, and I would translate the perpetrator's energy in a way similar to the manner in which is was intended, causing harm to me. If we were all more aware of the choices we held in the moment, and of the freedom we have to choose our experiences, I feel that intrusiveness and hurtful expressions would diminish greatly, and even be eliminated because we would find that sort of behavior unnecessary.

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:
"Hi Rob..

Yes I agree with your last statement: "terrorist bombings is something we will get thru, which Kris was talking about I think and that we must look at what we are doing and not stick our heads in the sand."

That was the gist of his presentation, however, I must also partially disagree with your other statement even wen i agree with part of it as well: "there is no right or wrong just things we created as a play, a game, as experience."

I agree that at some Essence level there is no right and wrong, but while we are physical is it a violation to take another life, even if at some OTHER level (ESSENCE) there is no right or wrong. In fact that IS what Elias is trying to present in the link below.

At some "OTHER" layer or level of our being that may be true, but remember that Kris' audience is not limited to people sitting in Paul and Jo's living room, we get about 2 thousand visits on the website a week... that is also his larger audience at the moment.

That said, we must also realize that we live in a temporal, duplicity filled world of everday events. For instance, it would not be suitable or even agreeable for you to have your baby snatched from its crib, killed outright and then tell the judge: "But your Honor, there is no right and wrong, we are all here for the play, the game and the experience"!

I'm almost certain the judge would not smile and nod in agreement, and neither would you.

We must keep things in context.

Yes and that is that we hold belief system and that things are not outright wrong or right!

"What IS of importance, and I think in the larger scheme of what Kris is trying to approach, even if with some controversy, is the issue of VIOLATIONS!!!!

In fact.. in some of the 1998 sessions from Elias (http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/victims_perpetrators.html) there is a curiously interesting and very "deja-vue" discussion between a couple of people and Elias, and one of these people is Drew, holding onto the same argument with Elias from 1998 as he had with Kris in 2005. That is a period of 7 years on the same issue.

Even though this is a VERY complex issue, involving belief systems left right and centre, it is evident that many people would rather just have it watered down to only a couple of lines of text and little else, perhaps because it is too challenging and complex, and we'd rather it be swept under the carpet so we can put on our rose colored glasses.

Another aspect of this as it appears in both Kris' and Elias' discussions on the topic is the mention of people holding specific beliefs, in this case about violations of one kind or another.

There is a very clever dance around the subject of beliefs from those challenging both Kris now and Elias in the 1998 sessions on this subject. From what I gather from ALL the sources (Seth, Elias, Kris, Abraham, Bashar to name a few), we come to physical life with ALL the belief systems in place and our intention and desire would in some way activate those beliefs needed to bring about the reality, whatever it is at that moment.

What is this talk of some not holding the beliefs? More to the point, why would the person asking the question act like "they" do not hold such beliefs, exactly as Elias is asking?! Somewhere in all the Kris transcripts Kris does address this very issue."

No no, it is not acting like you don't hold beliefs (thats not my view anyway) it is knowing you do, and that those beliefs are there and infuence what you create. We have to accept those beliefs and know they are not the truth, if we do this we we hold more choices in what we create and less conflict in what we create.

So in the case of the bombers we can not just say it is wrong what they do, because we are as much resposible (on a level) as they, and the situation is [Edit= NOT] a cancer either to my view as it is an expirience WE CREATE FOR OURSELFS. Does this mean we shouldnt try to solve it, NO, we should try, but not blame anyone for the problem, not even ourselfs and realise it is what we desires on some levels of Self.

To solve the problem is also something we desire I believe, but we want to process of solving it, not just *pling* and it is gone, soplease don't misunderstand me that we should try to solve it.

"More to the point, why would anyone think that because they are not "CONSCIOUSLY" aware of a set of beliefs, they do not hold the beliefs, whatever they are??!! It is quite clear that in terms of subjective awareness, we are not consciously aware of ALL the beliefs we hold, so why claim that because we don't have immediate awareness of a set of beliefs, that we do not have those beliefs?

Kris once pointed out that physical reality itself is a complex set of convictions which means that those who participate in it hold all the beliefs necessary to make physical reality happen, each one filed with all the blueprints needed.

Upon a closer read of that session, it is evident that Drew is also trying to put words into Elias' mouth so to speak, even when Elias is trying to broaden the topic as well as bring in the realism of the situation, Drew won't have any of it... its either black or white for Drew even when Elias is trying to bring in the shades of grey!

What makes this even more interesting is that we do tend to think that because we don't have certain situations in this life, then we are free of the beliefs that may plague others. Are we so sure? There may well be other focusses in other 'places and times' that experiences some of the beliefs we may not be able to handle in this probability.

So many permutations, so many avenues, yet a few lines seem sufficient to make conclusions that may themselves be most inaccurate. Kris has demonstrated in the past on numerous occasions that he is at his best when there is controversy. That means that the very next transcript will (and does) hold surprises on the issue, since it is not over and done with."

Greetings,
Rob

Hi All,

Glad to see this topic develop. My position is clear in the Aug. 1, 2005 transcript, and my further comments here and on DAS.

I am glad to see folks trying to integrate Elias into Kris' and Seth's positions, too. It is a slippery slope, but it seems like we're making some collective progress (i.e. growth on this important issue).

Elias talks about ten foundational belief systems inherent in the blueprints for our dimension. Duplicity is one of the ten, and THIS is the area of moral and ethical values, beliefs, memes, schemas, etc. So Elias has been very clear about the fact that an innate sense of right/wrong, good/bad, health/pathology is hardwired into our experience here.

Now Elias also goes on about NIRAAing our belief systems, as Steve pointed out, they are not being eliminated! Duplicity WILL REMAIN in some form after the shift is completed ca. 2075, according to Elias. (Seth's version of 2075 has to do with a spiritual reformation and the Christ Entity, which dovetails into Elias' nine children of Rose mythos. I point this out to help connect the dots between Kris, Elias, and Seth in particular).

NIRAA is simply the method Elias has presented to notice, identify/recognize, address to, and accept (neutralize) belief systems. Sounds good in theory, but in practice there's more. Elias also talks about holding preferences and opinions AFTER having accepted and neutralized, NOT eliminated. This is the key.

So if neutralize does NOT mean eliminate, and acceptance does NOT mean eliminate, then what is his point? I believe it has to do with our overall development, as individuals AND the collective. That is, there IS an evolutionary path we've taken, and that includes ever increasing complexity. Put another way, we develop in stages of increasing embrace and widening.

So what does Elias really mean by widening awareness and engaging the remembrance of essence?

While physical, developmental psychologists have shown to my satisfaction over the past 100 years that we grow and develop in STAGES, from narrow to wider. This is universal to all humans on the planet, the research has been done in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world countries and societies.

Simply put, humans develop from acorn to sapling to trees, not acorn to butterfly to pig. These are clearly discernable stages of growth all around us, not just limited to humans, but involving all physical, biological, and mental life forms in our dimension. Thus, we also have a moral or ethical stage of development, which in terms of Elias simply means that the belief system of duplicity actually unfolds in stages, which according to Lawrence Kohlberg and Ken Wilber extend from egocentric (me) to ethnocentric (us) to worldcentric (all of us) to consciousnesscentric (all focuses of essence AND essence).

When applied to the London bombings we can clearly see an ethnocentric moral stance. Kill the infidel, love myself, my family, and mosque members.

To confuse THAT with a consciousnesscentric perspective taken by Seth, Elias, and Kris is fatal and actually perpetuates the cycles of violence and violation. And this is exactly what Drew and now Rob are doing in their comments.

Therefore, there IS a value hierarchy very much underlying Elias' words and intent. THERE IS NARROWER AND WIDER, whcih is a form of BETTER OR WORSE. In other words, duplicity!

And while Elias has said there are no absolutes, which is a self-contradictory universal statement that there are no universals, he ALSO points out that he is at least aware of the logical contradiction, which is a limit of our present stages of cognitive and linguistic development. Drew and Rob's statements still are riddled with this kind of pretzel logic, but they are NOT yet aware of it.

For example, Rob's last post stated:

"Yes and that is that we hold belief systems and that things are not outright wrong or right!"

This is a universal statement that there are no universals. It is NOT logical at all because it is self-contradictory AND there is no qualification that Rob is self-aware of the contradiction. That's the difference between Elias and Drew and Rob right now.

In Drew's case we would also invoke Elias' hamster wheel, which is a metaphor for being arrested or stuck on a particular issue, going furiously round and round and getting KNOWHERE in terms of personal growth and development. Sure it's still an experience for the experience, but it's one that is stuck.

Now having said that, I will also mention that both Rob and Drew's comments come from a very sophisticated and highly developed worldview space, so make no mistake you guys are in the ballpark, and make lots of good and valid points elsewhere. My comments are not intended to marginalize you completely, just the pretzel logic in relation to extreme moral relativism. You still refuse to acknowledge your own HIDDEN or STEALTH value hierarchies of better and worse!

THAT IS MY MAIN POINT HERE! Let's acknowledge that we hold the belief system of duplicity and let's properly situate our value hierarchies of right and wrong and move FORWARD from there.

Therefore, it's healthier in collective terms to deligitimize, discredit, and dismantle the terrorist cells responsible for the bombings in London (note that I am still focusing on this issue here, and need to take other's on a case by case basis).

My concern is that claiming Seth, Elias, and Kris say ABSOLUTELY that there is no absolute good or bad perpetuates the cycle of violence and violation. For if we do not take a stand and condemn this bombing as a brutal act and instead say, "it's not wrong," then we lend energy to those who would get up one morning, put a knapsack bomb on and detonate it in a subway full of "enemies."

This is NOT a worldcentric worldview like Seth, Kris, and Elias promote, but a tribal, ethnocentric worldview limited to me, my family, and tribal affiliates. The rest can go to hell. We need to situate these various value hierarchies. JUST THAT is a HEALTHY form of moral relativism. So I'm not saying we need to eliminate moral relativism, just combat its extreme forms that are riddled with performative contradictions and pretzel logic, and ACTUALLY perpetuate the cycles of violence and violation by sugar coating them and making them OK.

Again, Seth offers two moral imperatives to us all, the first is from The Nature of Personal Reality = "thou shalt not violate." The second is from The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events = "the ends do not justify the means."

Seth is clear that murder is wrong. But Seth doesn't comment about euthanasia, medical abortion when the mother's life is in jeopardy, and on and on. Again, we need to apply these concepts on a case by case basis, they don't universally cover every situation. Moral relativism is viable in my view, but it must be properly situated within stages of moral and cognitive development so we can see what worldviews we are actually dealing with.

So where does that leave us? Again, my main point is to STOP using stealth and hidden value judgments that all judgments are BAD. Accept the fact that we discern, judge, and value different things according to our overall acorn, sapling, or tree development.

That situates the relative values of good/bad, right/wrong, and healthy/pathological into different stages, and we can take it from there. The bottom line in any moral theory is to promote value fulfillment, the innate quality of Consciousness that seeks to fulfill its own potential in all possible variations in such a way that furthers the creative potentials of every other aspect of All-That-Is. And when we factor in HOW moral stages of development, or HOW the belief system of duplicity develops in people over time, then will can discern, value, and judge according to our preferences and opinions from a more worldcentric worldview. Anything less, will perpetuate the cycles of violence and violation.

And this shift will accomplish JUST THAT, namely, large percentages of the global population will widen awareness toward worldcentric forms of duplicity that will nurture collective value fulfillment and take the species to the next evolutionary plateau.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
[QB]
it is not acting like you don't hold beliefs (thats not my view anyway) it is knowing you do, and that those beliefs are there and infuence what you create. We have to accept those beliefs and know they are not the truth, if we do this we we hold more choices in what we create and less conflict in what we create.

So in the case of the bombers we can not just say it is wrong what they do, because we are as much resposible (on a level) as they, and the situation is a cancer either to my view as it is an expirience WE CREATE FOR OURSELFS. Does this mean we shouldnt try to solve it, NO, we should try, but not blame anyone for the problem, not even ourselfs and realise it is what we desires on some levels of Self.

To solve the problem is also something we desire I believe, but we want to process of solving it, not just *pling* and it is gone, soplease don't misunderstand me that we should try to solve it.

QB]

---

Yes! The point IS that we do create our realities individually and it is not possible to create the realities of other individuals. So the transformation or reconfiguration of energy must come withing ones own perception!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
My concern is that claiming Seth, Elias, and Kris say ABSOLUTELY that there is no absolute good or bad perpetuates the cycle of violence and violation. For if we do not take a stand and condemn this bombing as a brutal act and instead say, "it's not wrong," then we lend energy to those who would get up one morning, put a knapsack bomb on and detonate it in a subway full of "enemies."

---

On a fundamental level of essence, it can be argued that those individuals involved chose that experience and the event was exactly that, a choice, or an agreement. However, there are many levels of interpretation and implication to the statement "it's not wrong". Let's look at some of them.

One interpretation is, "It's not wrong. Therefore, people can hurt me if they want, because that's their choice". This is a dangerous line of thinking, because it validates the other person creating their reality, and invalidates my own ability to choose.

Another is, "It's not wrong. Therefore, the people getting hurt are choosing that experience and I needn't help them." I know this sounds like how I started this message, but remember that I made that statement speaking in terms of Essence, and not in terms of this reality, which as I said before, is based upon beliefs. Anyway, this mentality is also dangerous. It's an attitude of indifference. By helping others, I help myself by creating supportiveness and harmony in my own personal reality. That in turn reflects positively on my own self, and back out toward others, and so on. An attitude of indifference implies a certain lack of interest in changing my reality for the better. Even if the harm is being inflicted upon someone else, if I am observing it, I am creating it, and therefore it's my reality.

Another is, "It's not wrong. Therefore, I can hurt someone if I want to!". This is dangerous, for obvious reasons. As I said before, paraphrasing Seth, Kris, and Elias, if we harm someone else, we harm ourselves and ultimately act against our own true value fulfillment. There is no situation or circumstance for which it can be said that the only, or even the best, course of action is one that harms another against their will with the intention to do harm.

Just as quick note here, the "Rose Colored Glasses" session was immediately followed up by the "Being Passionate" session which is a continuation of the debate. I will endeavor to get this second one posted online this weekend, if at all possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:

I think the point of this information is to accept that we create our reality and create it with our belief systems and that we have to accept them so that we are not bound by them. When passing judgement in the way that happend in the transcript I kind of feel your not accepting the belief system.

Greetings,
Rob[/QB]

---

If that were the case, then we are simply pawns to our belief systems and we do not have the ability to change anything in this physical world.

Elias talks about noticing and identifying beliefs. Kris talks about identifying beliefs as well. WHY? So that we can CHANGE them, we can replace them with beliefs that bring about more desirable solutions to our conflicts and our challenges.

I do NOT accept terrorism. I do NOT believe that terrorism is GOOD. I do NOT accept murder. I do NOT believe that disagreements should be settled through bloodshed. That is what I believe.

Terrorism is a BAD thing, HOWEVER it may cause us to identify that we have these beliefs that are inhibiting us, that are preventing us from creating Joy and by noticing and identifying them, we can CHANGE them and bring about a GOOD state where are not violating each other.

The plague is another example of unconscious collective creating an undesirable series of events in order to bring about a global change. Living conditions prior to the plague were the worst that were ever experienced on this planet and as a result of the plague, no one will ever have to live in such squalor again. It is a case of the ends justifying the means.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
....a long story....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky Mark:
Just as quick note here, the "Rose Colored Glasses" session was immediately followed up by the "Being Passionate" session which is a continuation of the debate. I will endeavor to get this second one posted online this weekend, if at all possible.

- Mark -

---

Originally posted by Marky Mark:

"If that were the case, then we are simply pawns to our belief systems and we do not have the ability to change anything in this physical world."

No thats not what it means at all!

"Elias talks about noticing and identifying beliefs. Kris talks about identifying beliefs as well. WHY? So that we can CHANGE them, we can replace them with beliefs that bring about more desirable solutions to our conflicts and our challenges."

Not only change, but also accept, else we just keep changing things around, not that I would be againsed that, it just not what I think the shift is about.

"I do NOT accept terrorism. I do NOT believe that terrorism is GOOD. I do NOT accept murder. I do NOT believe that disagreements should be settled through bloodshed. That is what I believe."

Listen I don't think it is good either, but I also know this is a belief, and not a truth, and I also know I'm creating this, and we are creating this, and it is an experience, not a good or bad experience in any absolute way (the view of essence), and a bad experience in a human way, and something we want to get thru, and also there for good reason, and also those people are not bad, and in a way what they are doing is not bad - atleast not from their point of view. I feel that a wider view should include all these things, not just new beliefs, but a new understanding!!

"Terrorism is a BAD thing, HOWEVER it may cause us to identify that we have these beliefs that are inhibiting us, that are preventing us from creating Joy and by noticing and identifying them, we can CHANGE them and bring about a GOOD state where are not violating each other."

And accepting them ALSO! I feel that is very important too, not just chnaging things, but accepting them!

"The plague is another example of unconscious collective creating an undesirable series of events in order to bring about a global change. Living conditions prior to the plague were the worst that were ever experienced on this planet and as a result of the plague, no one will ever have to live in such squalor again. It is a case of the ends justifying the means.

- Mark -"

So then was the plague a bad thing?

Greetings,
Rob

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
It seems you have not understood what I was saying at all (have you even tried?) and you also come of to me as a knowitbetter I'm afraid. No hard feelings though!

---

Hi Rob,

Oh I understand what you are saying, and challenging the pretzel logic portions throughout.

Do you feel like commenting on any of my points on moral relativism besides the obfuscating "knowitbetter" comment?

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

"Hi Rob,

Oh I understand what you are saying, and challenging the pretzel logic portions throughout."

No I really think your not understanding me and I don't like you condescendingly call it pretzel logic, have a little respect for my opinion please. (even if you do disagree)

"Do you feel like commenting on any of my points on moral relativism besides the obfuscating "knowitbetter" comment?

Paul"

Im kind of feeling I told you everything I believe already, but you keep rejecting it whit - I feel - not good reason, but I will try one more time, after that Ill let it rest.

ps. You sound a bit angry, I hope that is not true.

Greetings,
Rob

from pauls post: "For example, Rob's last post stated:

"Yes and that is that we hold belief systems and that things are not outright wrong or right!"

This is a universal statement that there are no universals. It is NOT logical at all because it is self-contradictory AND there is no qualification that Rob is self-aware of the contradiction. That's the difference between Elias and Drew and Rob right now."

Lets go whit this one.

I do not believe there are absolutes, no, and this would appear to be an absolute, but I still stand by it, and I don't see how this would provide an argument for your opinion that there are certain things that are right or wrong in a very absolute way, which I believe you are saying.

My view is that there IS right and wrong, BUT NOT IN AN ABSOLUTE WAY, this mean you cannot just say, bad bombers, bad action, bad bad bad, it is not that black and white, because there are also "good" things that are attached to this situation, it is an experience for essence and a opportunity for us to create something new! To believe it is bad in an absolute way is to NOT accept the belief systems that have to do whit this, and that is something we DO want to do, to create less conlict and more choice!

Greetings,
Rob

Rob,

I don't agree with everything that you have said on this topic, but I do like this quote from you:

quote:

---

My view is that there IS right and wrong, BUT NOT IN AN ABSOLUTE WAY, this mean you cannot just say, bad bombers, bad action, bad bad bad, it is not that black and white, because there are also "good" things that are attached to this situation, it is an experience for essence and a opportunity for us to create something new! To believe it is bad in an absolute way is to NOT accept the belief systems that have to do whit this, and that is something we DO want to do, to create less conlict and more choice!

---

This is a very salient point and I whole heartedly agree with it. It also important to note though that there are other important points and issues being made in this discussion. 'Duality' for instance. We are attempting to analyze and ascertain concepts on a human level AND on an Essence level and at times these two different view points are in conflict with each and at the same time NOT, thus creating a paradox.

Kris and possibly Elias, often says "The other is ALSO YOU" and this statement is true, even though the other is someone else. Another paradox.

It is all a matter of perspective. On the evening of this session, Kris was sitting in Toronto, addressing HUMAN BEINGS (physical beings), talking to a group of people who are all choosing to experience a "Western philosophy and existance" and that is relative.

Another valid point is that no one said that the beliefs of these people who choose to BEHAVE as terrorists are bad. No one said that there religion was WRONG, that how they choose to live was wrong. What was being said that the 'ACT OF TERRORISM' was wrong. The very act of killing the other because of a different belief and belief system was wrong.

Terrorism IS a cancer, whether it is the is the Islamic extremists blowing up the World Trade Center, whether it is the American Government over-throwing another country or whether it is Pat Robertson telling his Evangelists that the new leader of Venezuela should be assassinated.

What is it called when Marky Mark proclaims that sailer has a "Nasty" Tendency? What do you call that?

s.

In my view I see my questions as inquiries.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
from pauls post: "For example, Rob's last post stated:

"Yes and that is that we hold belief systems and that things are not outright wrong or right!"

This is a universal statement that there are no universals. It is NOT logical at all because it is self-contradictory AND there is no qualification that Rob is self-aware of the contradiction. That's the difference between Elias and Drew and Rob right now."

Lets go whit this one.

I do not believe there are absolutes, no, and this would appear to be an absolute, but I still stand by it, and I don't see how this would provide an argument for your opinion that there are certain things that are right or wrong in a very absolute way, which I believe you are saying.

My view is that there IS right and wrong, BUT NOT IN AN ABSOLUTE WAY, this mean you cannot just say, bad bombers, bad action, bad bad bad, it is not that black and white, because there are also "good" things that are attached to this situation, it is an experience for essence and a opportunity for us to create something new! To believe it is bad in an absolute way is to NOT accept the belief systems that have to do whit this, and that is something we DO want to do, to create less conlict and more choice!

Greetings,
Rob

---

Hi Rob,

Thanks for making another try, and no I am not angry, just passionately debating various interpretations of moral relativism spawned by the words of Seth, Elias, and Kris.

Now, you start again with an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. This is another example of contradiction that negates your own point. So we need a "better" way (pun intended ) to communicate the subtext here. Invoking this contradiction simply muddies the waters, particularly in any discussion of right and wrong.

Further, there ARE absolutes, and even Elias agrees on this, but they are so abstract as to not be simple black and white qualities because they must apply to ALL areas of All-That-Is. Seth calls them natural laws, and they also apply to all fields within All-That-Is.

I am not invoking those Absolute Universal Truths as the basis of my sense of right and wrong in my belief system of duplicity. My belief system of duplicity is relative only to this dimension, the physical field of consciousness, so it is relative. Thus, while it is NOT absolute, my values of right and wrong are still based upon stages of development in the physical field. This is the scale I use to track right and wrong in this reality.

What scale to you use? I still get no traction from your contradictory comments. If there IS good and bad, as you SAY, then what is your position on terrorism/murder as a means to an end? Is it bad? Is is good?

Second, you merge that initial contradiction into the next statement to put words in my mouth. I never said your initial contradiction was my basis for right and wrong in any absolute way. Again, it's not. Stages of development are.

Third, you then state that you believe there IS right and wrong, but not in any absolute sense. We are in agreement on that point, and yet, you don't provide any scale in which to judge good and bad, except that there is an experience for essence and something new. So that is unclear to me what you mean. You seem to be confusing essence and focus, subjective and objective awareness. This then gets twisted into a metaphysical justification for murder, and this is not what Kris, Seth, or Elias promotes.

Fourth, I never said the bombers were bad in any absolute sense that required eternal punishment, for example. I pointed out that their value system is less evolved, less wide than a worldcentric belief system of duplicity, one that simply will not use murder as a means toward its ends. So your other conclusion that I'm judging them as bad in some absolute sense is incorrect, I am judging them as bad from a worldcentric perspective, which is relative but firmly grounded in a scale of individual growth and widening of awareness.

Again, my advice is to discredit, dismantle, and deligitimize their murderous political ideology. That doesn't require murder, but it certainly includes jail time and rehab as effective strategies for political murder. I would say the same thing about Pat Robertson's recent public call for assassinating the leader of Venezuela. I suppose you support his call for murder, too?

It seems as if you're trying to invoke "Elias said" in contexts that Elias never intended or meant his words. When Elias says there are no absolutes, his intent in not to promote extreme moral relativism, with no traction where there is no right or wrong, good or bad, health or pathology. Instead, he's pointing out how often we think in terms of absolutes that are indeed only relative to our belief systems in physical reality. In terms of morality, there are still worldviews that believe in absolute right and wrong and use threat eternal punishments as deterrents. He is critiquing that. In terms of science, it believes its laws are absolute, but again they're only relative to our physical field. And science is amoral, deals only in facts and data. The meaning of those facts are beyond scientific method. So seeing them as relative and not absolutes is important. Elias is also critiquing that through use of relativism.

But to take relativity to its extreme to DENY the human belief system of duplicity is another contradiction. And that's exactly what your words promote, whether it's intended or not, because narrower belief systems of duplicity will jump all over that "no good or bad" as a justification for murder. If that's NOT your intent, then I'm asking you to clarify your position and use specifics, not generalities.

If I'm wrong, and not understanding you, which is possible, then exactly what scale do you use to judge good and bad? What do you recommend be done with the bombers in custody? How do we reduce or eliminate further murders in the name of Allah or Jesus? Tell the bombers to be accepting, per Elias? At their ethnocentric stage of moral development, they are NOT capable yet of Elias' acceptance. THAT requires a widening of awareness to at the very least a worldcentric moral embrace, concern, and care.

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

"Hi Rob,

Thanks for making another try, and no I am not angry, just passionately debating various interpretations of moral relativism spawned by the words of Seth, Elias, and Kris.

Good, but sometimes you can't tell on the internet when a friendly discussion becomes something else.

"Now, you start again with an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. This is another example of contradiction that negates your own point. So we need a "better" way (pun intended ) to communicate the subtext here. Invoking this contradiction simply muddies the waters, particularly in any discussion of right and wrong.

Further, there ARE absolutes, and even Elias agrees on this, but they are so abstract as to not be simple black and white qualities because they must apply to ALL areas of All-That-Is. Seth calls them natural laws, and they also apply to all fields within All-That-Is."

I stand corrected on that one then.

"I am not invoking those Absolute Universal Truths as the basis of my sense of right and wrong in my belief system of duplicity. My belief system of duplicity is relative only to this dimension, the physical field of consciousness, so it is relative. Thus, while it is NOT absolute, my values of right and wrong are still based upon stages of development in the physical field. This is the scale I use to track right and wrong in this reality.

What scale to you use? I still get no traction from your contradictory comments. If there IS good and bad, as you SAY, then what is your position on terrorism/murder as a means to an end? Is it bad? Is is good?"

I would say it is bad, but at the same time an experience in accordance to our beliefs, beliefs we can accept to lessen conflict in this area and change to make a beter world. My scale would also be the believe system of duplicity.

"Second, you merge that initial contradiction into the next statement to put words in my mouth. I never said your initial contradiction was my basis for right and wrong in any absolute way. Again, it's not. Stages of development are."

If I accused you personality of that Im sorry.

"Third, you then state that you believe there IS right and wrong, but not in any absolute sense. We are in agreement on that point, and yet, you don't provide any scale in which to judge good and bad, except that there is an experience for essence and something new. So that is unclear to me what you mean. You seem to be confusing essence and focus, subjective and objective awareness. This then gets twisted into a metaphysical justification for murder, and this is not what Kris, Seth, or Elias promotes."

Im not promoting murder, lets get that straid, because I dont believe in it, and alot of other people don't, but alot of others do, and I don't know if I would pas judgement on those people, but I would resist. (and do I guess being part of a society that punishes this crime)

"Fourth, I never said the bombers were bad in any absolute sense that required eternal punishment, for example. I pointed out that their value system is less evolved, less wide than a worldcentric belief system of duplicity, one that simply will not use murder as a means toward its ends. So your other conclusion that I'm judging them as bad in some absolute sense is incorrect, I am judging them as bad from a worldcentric perspective, which is relative but firmly grounded in a scale of individual growth and widening of awareness."

Ok then I agree whit that.

"Again, my advice is to discredit, dismantle, and deligitimize their murderous political ideology. That doesn't require murder, but it certainly includes jail time and rehab as effective strategies for political murder. I would say the same thing about Pat Robertson's recent public call for assassinating the leader of Venezuela. I suppose you support his call for murder, too?"

I was never a supporter for murder.

"It seems as if you're trying to invoke "Elias said" in contexts that Elias never intended or meant his words. When Elias says there are no absolutes, his intent in not to promote extreme moral relativism, with no traction where there is no right or wrong, good or bad, health or pathology. Instead, he's pointing out how often we think in terms of absolutes that are indeed only relative to our belief systems in physical reality. In terms of morality, there are still worldviews that believe in absolute right and wrong and use threat eternal punishments as deterrents. He is critiquing that. In terms of science, it believes its laws are absolute, but again they're only relative to our physical field. And science is amoral, deals only in facts and data. The meaning of those facts are beyond scientific method. So seeing them as relative and not absolutes is important. Elias is also critiquing that through use of relativism.

I agree whit this.

"But to take relativity to its extreme to DENY the human belief system of duplicity is another contradiction. And that's exactly what your words promote, whether it's intended or not, because narrower belief systems of duplicity will jump all over that "no good or bad" as a justification for murder. If that's NOT your intent, then I'm asking you to clarify your position and use specifics, not generalities."

It was not my intention to deny the human system of duplicity. I will however not clarify my position, I have enough to think of in light of this discussion and I figure you may be right on some things, and I will have to figure this out for myself. (and redifine what I thought was true)

"If I'm wrong, and not understanding you, which is possible, then exactly what scale do you use to judge good and bad? What do you recommend be done with the bombers in custody? How do we reduce or eliminate further murders in the name of Allah or Jesus? Tell the bombers to be accepting, per Elias? At their ethnocentric stage of moral development, they are NOT capable yet of Elias' acceptance. THAT requires a widening of awareness to at the very least a worldcentric moral embrace, concern, and care.

Paul"

No further comments.

Greetings,
Rob

[ 08-25-2005: Message edited by: Rob ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

If I'm wrong, and not understanding you, which is possible, then exactly what scale do you use to judge good and bad? What do you recommend be done with the bombers in custody? How do we reduce or eliminate further murders in the name of Allah or Jesus? Tell the bombers to be accepting, per Elias? At their ethnocentric stage of moral development, they are NOT capable yet of Elias' acceptance. THAT requires a widening of awareness to at the very least a worldcentric moral embrace, concern, and care.

---

Do you get no glimpse of your own reflection Paul M. Helfrich?

Have you not read in all of your organizing of the YCYOR Information, of the Reflective Quality of Physical Reality?

Do you get any glimpse of yourself at the Center of your Own Reality?

Just Curious,

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

Do you get no glimpse of your own reflection Paul M. Helfrich?

Have you not read in all of your organizing of the YCYOR Information, of the Reflective Quality of Physical Reality?

Do you get any glimpse of yourself at the Center of your Own Reality?

Just Curious,

s.

---

This response sounds to me like condescending rhetoric masquerading as insightfulness by outlining the obvious fact that we all have yet to completely personalize this information.

This discussion concerns the difference between personal beliefs in "good" and "evil" and the greater reality within Essence that intrusiveness and hurtfulness is contrary to the natural movement of consciousness. To point out that this discussion and its contents are reflections of its participants is tangential at best. If you want to make a point about reflection and personal reality, then make that point with a substantial argument that ties it to the topic at hand, rather than a rhetorical "Don't you see?" statement with no substance to back it up.

It almost sounds like you're saying, "Yeah, well, I'm rubber and you're glue! Everything you say bounces off of me and stick to you! Nyeah nyeah!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

[snip]

Paul H.: "But to take relativity to its extreme to DENY the human belief system of duplicity is another contradiction. And that's exactly what your words promote, whether it's intended or not, because narrower belief systems of duplicity will jump all over that "no good or bad" as a justification for murder. If that's NOT your intent, then I'm asking you to clarify your position and use specifics, not generalities."

Rob: It was not my intention to deny the human system of duplicity. I will however not clarify my position, I have enough to think of in light of this discussion and I figure you may be right on some things, and I will have to figure this out for myself. (and redifine what I thought was true)

Paul H: "If I'm wrong, and not understanding you, which is possible, then exactly what scale do you use to judge good and bad? What do you recommend be done with the bombers in custody? How do we reduce or eliminate further murders in the name of Allah or Jesus? Tell the bombers to be accepting, per Elias? At their ethnocentric stage of moral development, they are NOT capable yet of Elias' acceptance. THAT requires a widening of awareness to at the very least a worldcentric moral embrace, concern, and care.

Rob: No further comments.

Greetings,
Rob

---

Hi Rob,

I hope you will respond again after you think some more about these nuanced and important issues.

This is not easy at times, this is a process of growth and transformation trying to put theory into practice for all of us. And sharing our insights in forums like this is very important.

What's difficult for me is taking this information and trying to apply it to social, political, economic, educational, etc., circumstances. In other words, how it could be used institutionally by groups of people, but in a postmodern, relativistic, pluralistic fashion that doesn't get lost in extremes?

I am making progress, and so are you, and that's as good as it gets, because it means we're moving forward with this material.

It seems that Kris and Elias give us info that is a half-step ahead of where we're at, so it challenges us to assimilate and make sense of it, and again, it's a frothy and sometimes difficult process. But in the end we are ALL contributing to this shift and lessening potential trauma, and that's a beautiful and good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

Do you get no glimpse of your own reflection Paul M. Helfrich?

Have you not read in all of your organizing of the YCYOR Information, of the Reflective Quality of Physical Reality?

Do you get any glimpse of yourself at the Center of your Own Reality?

Just Curious,

s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:


How about commenting on some of my specific points with specific examples, not generalities sailer?

And as Steve pointed out, without the obfuscating non sequiturs masquerading as deeply informed spiritual realization?

Or will that reveal that the person behind the curtain is just as shallow and narrow as their online persona?

Equally Curious,

Paul

---

I do not see that your examples are Centered in your Own Reality and your Creating Of This Reality, Paul M. Helfrich.

Reading this session in My Reality Here, what I view is something like this: Drew noticed some reflection --Probably in All that Water where the Horses were lead to drink. He dismounted his High Horse and he began to look around seeing some of the reflective Qualities. He attempted to express some of what he was seeing and he began to ask different questions because of what he was noticing.

It seems to me that a great deal of this discussion is about trying to discredit what Drew was noticing and what questions he was attempting to ask.

sailer, I disagree wholeheartedly with your POV. I see that you are the one on a High Reality Horse Creation!

You barged in on this discussion and as you have often done in the past, completely veer it into something about you!

Its the last time I'll point it out. Everyone is welcome to participate intelligently, constructively and coherently to expand the base of the discussion, but it is something you always fail to do, instead making it an issue about something else, always having a slight edge of superiority to the discussion, as if you are somehow aloof and above the discussion, exactly as Steve pointed out: "This response sounds to me like condescending rhetoric masquerading as insightfulness by outlining the obvious fact that we all have yet to completely personalize this information".

On nearly every thread you have added your comments, the threads have eventually degraded or stopped. Have you not ever noticed that? It always turns into something about sailer.

So, I am curious.. three or so weeks ago, you shook the dust off the feet in our collective faces here, actually calling people near idiots for not listening to you where they prefer to discuss about Elias or Kris, and you said you'd leave and now you just sneak back in like that and think its all okey dokey????

Takes some nerve!

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

I do not see that your examples are Centered in your Own Reality and your Creating Of This Reality, Paul M. Helfrich.

---

This doesn't communicate anything to me beyond its shallow surface, except to suggest that "not being centered in my own reality and my creating of this reality" is YOUR version of bad?

So you DO have a scale of better and worse, too. Why not own up to it and stop the obfuscation? Or is that the high horse you enjoy prancing around on in the name of deep spiritual realization?

quote:

---

Reading this session in My Reality Here, what I view is something like this: Drew noticed some reflection --Probably in All that Water where the Horses were lead to drink. He dismounted his High Horse and he began to look around seeing some of the reflective Qualities. He attempted to express some of what he was seeing and he began to ask different questions because of what he was noticing.

---

Yes, and what Drew noticed was riddled with his own contradictory stance, as I have pointed out repeatedly, saying there are no universals via a universal proclamation of his own. Again, you fail to address that key point in this Topic.

So, just what is your position on the London murders as a means to a political end? Be specific. Is murder an acceptable tool for constructive change in the world? And further, what do we do with the sociopaths and psychopaths whose egocentric belief system of duplicity does NOT allow them to understand Elias' concept of accepting self and others? Again, be specific.

What about jail time? What about rehab and education? What about job opportunities to create a sense of purpose and meaning?

quote:

---

It seems to me that a great deal of this discussion is about trying to discredit what Drew was noticing and what questions he was attempting to ask.

s.

---

Not discredit, simply to situate it within a scale of better and worse based on a worldcentric belief system of duplicity, one that CLEARLY shows the performative contradiction and hypocrisy in the position. I also made comments acknowledging the deep insights that Drew has in other areas. It's never been a simply black and white smear campaign. Drew is a friend of mine and one of our regulars at Dinner and a Dead Guy.

There are many satellite issues circling around this important topic of moral relativism, which you refuse to address to in your comments.

And speaking of discrediting, your comments seek to discredit my own, as did Drew's. And I have every right to a rebuttal, as do both of you. That's called dialogue, and is the constructive process we promote in these Forums.

So let's own up to our own stealthy, contradictory platitudes (rose colored glasses) that currently riddle our belief systems of duplicity, and move forward from there. I believe we can stay within a morally relative framework, but one that has the traction of narrower to wider, less evolved to more evolved, less accepting to more accepting, one that is freed from the insanity of the chronic contradiction of universally declaring there are no universals (good or bad in this case).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

(quote:Originally posted by sailer:
I do not see that your examples are Centered in your Own Reality and your Creating Of This Reality, Paul M. Helfrich.)

This doesn't communicate anything to me beyond its shallow surface, except to suggest that "not being centered in my own reality and my creating of this reality" is YOUR version of bad?

So you DO have a scale of better and worse, too. Why not own up to it and stop the obfuscation? Or is that the high horse you enjoy prancing around on in the name of deep spiritual realization?

---

This has nothing to do with anything being "Bad"! However! If you are talking about YCYOR, do you not need to be viewing yourself Centered in it to talk about it in any manner that makes sense? This is the Point that I am addressing to here!

I do not claim to "Have" "Spiritual Realization". However, I Do View MySelf to Be a Physical/Spiritual or Spiritual/Physical Being! These Qualities are not Separate!

Yes! I climb up on a High Horse at times! I have said many times in many posts here that I do not see clearly and I wish to see clearly and this is why I am interacting in discussion here on this site to state how I view things which is my perception. And to receive my reflection. I realize that the manner in which I see things is not how many who interact here see things. It is different.

s.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:
sailer, I disagree wholeheartedly with your POV.

---

Yes! You have expressed that you see things differently many times!

You have eliminated many posts that I have created here because you disagree with my POV!

However, I am a Physical/Spiritual Being and I Do have a POV!

Personally I do not see why it is a threat to you! At times it seems to me that you want to fight and you become frustrated because I do not sling back.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

Yes! You have expressed that you see things differently many times!

You have eliminated many posts that I have created here because you disagree with my POV!

However, I am a Physical/Spiritual Being and I Do have a POV!

Personally I do not see why it is a threat to you! At times it seems to me that you want to fight and you become frustrated because I do not sling back.

s.

---

On the contrary Sailer,

If you took the time to read and understand the comments being expressed to you, then you would realize that you have yet to express a POV on this topic or any other for that matter.

We are discussing the topics of right and wrong, of duplicity, of abolutes, amoung others and you are expressing that you are a victim here on NWV. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Paul asked you some very clear, straight forward questions about your POV on the topic and you have ignored them.

My Grandmother used to have an expression: "Either piss or get off the pot!" or in other words either contribute something of value to the conversation or go somewhere else.

sailer, I have deleted ONE post of yours in the past because I deemed it incendiary!

In fact I even left behind the one where you more or less called everyone on NWV loosers for discussing the Kris, Elias, Seth and other materials instead of your own non-logic.

Now, I will ask you one last time, stop making this thread something about you! Stop hijacking.

Either make constructive contributions that are clear, participartory and level headed and stop hiding behind you own brand of pretzel logic, or go elsewhere. This is NOT a campaign or crusade about or against you, even though it is well known here that you love to make it so.

Okay, I am going to try one more time to bring this back to the original topic.

I am proof reading a transcript from walk that we had on July 12, 2005 that I am currently calling "Getting Technical - How YCYOR". Here is a quotefrom that session that talks about terrorism and genocide, etc.

quote:

---

KRIS: As we have suggested earlier, even though the acts, the genocide, the cruelty and the wholesale murder of entire peoples cannot be condoned, there is an underlying exploration with a new worldview, an emergent worldview. And the implications themselves were not yet fully understood nor fleshed out. The experiment was undertaken in order to specifically examine how a reality is created utilizing a very narrow bandwidth of perception that deals with an enormous amount of contradictory material - material that contradicts itself.

---

quote:

---

(#270) ELIAS: I may offer you another belief system which shall not be so readily accepted. You hold the belief system that it is wrong to strike a small one. You view another individual strike violently a small one. In the acceptance of the belief system you may choose to engage or not engage this activity, but in the acceptance of this belief system, recognizing that your response is influenced by a belief system, you hold no affect in viewing another individual's choice to engage this action, and you also hold no value judgment in respect to the other individual.

This may appear harsh initially to you, for your belief systems are so very strongly-held, but in recognizing that the element of right and wrong, good and bad, are the expression of the belief system of duplicity, which is a belief system, all that stems in action from this belief system is an expression of the belief system, and as you hold value judgment of any belief system, you lend energy to the perpetuation of the very belief system. The neutralization of a belief system is the acceptance of a belief system, which no longer lends energy to the perpetuation of that belief system.

---

Hi Rob,

I am confused by that last quote. From what I understand from it, Elias is saying that:

Beliefs are BAD
Eliminating beliefs is GOOD
Eliminating the belief of right and wrong is GOOD
Punching babies SHOULD BE acceptable behaviour, but it isn't right now because of our belief in right and wrong.

Somehow or other, I don't think that my perception of this quote is quite accurate. Can you please give me your take on it? What is the context of this quote?

Originally posted by Marky Mark:
"Hi Rob,

I am confused by that last quote. From what I understand from it, Elias is saying that:

Beliefs are BAD"

No I don't think that is what Elias a saying, how did you come to that conclusion?

"Eliminating beliefs is GOOD"

He talks about accepting belief systems, I didnt see any mention of eliminating beliefs.

"Eliminating the belief of right and wrong is GOOD"

Same as above.

"Punching babies SHOULD BE acceptable behaviour, but it isn't right now because of our belief in right and wrong."

This comes after the quote I have given, maybe it will help you understand.

quote:

---

In this, within the action of this shift you may express to me, "But Elias! We shall experience lawlessness within the action of this shift, for individuals shall run amuck, realizing there is no right and wrong and no guidelines!" Incorrect. It is unnecessary to be experiencing these elements if there is no value judgment placed upon them. The desire is diminished. Therefore, the exploration of unacceptable territory is neutralized.

You implement your limitations and your restrictiveness upon yourselves -- and the implementation of your laws and rules -- in mirror action to your judgment and your lack of acceptance, and this is the perpetuation of the belief systems that you hold. This has been your reality throughout your existence to this present moment. This be the area that I express to you [that] your reality shall be entirely altered within the accomplishment of this shift in consciousness, for this shall no longer be your reality. You shall experience tremendous freedom for creativity, as opposed to limitation and restriction. (Smiling at Robert)

---

"Somehow or other, I don't think that my perception of this quote is quite accurate. Can you please give me your take on it? What is the context of this quote?"

You can read the entire transcript to see the context, its transcript #270.

As for my take on it, Im a bit confused as well, this seems to be what I was saying all along, however you kindly pointed out where I was wrong and I was beginning to agree, but now? I dont know, I came across this quote on accident, so I thought ill trow it in the open, see what others think of it.

Hi Rob,

I have to admit, this quote is really confusing and ambiguous. I'm going to have to read the whole session in order to try to make some sense of it. Unfortuantely, I have a busy schedule right now and won't be able to do that for some time.

One VERY flashed about word in Elias vocabulary is "neutralize". Here is a dictionary definition: "to counteract the activity or affect of: make ineffective."

In that light, and since words can have many other connotations from a linguistic perspective, it would be very helpful to understand what people actually understand from it.

I've come across many people who equate it with 'getting rid of', or 'eliminating', even when Elias says it is not the intended meaning. Heck, I've even come across people who will put words in Elais, Seth or Kris' mouth, so exploration and clarification from the perspective of language may help a lot.

Even flashing some quotes may inherently proove counterproductive in the long run. Its like the Evangelists throwing Biblical quotes at you to prove their point, even if they have to take it out of context, as in the means justify the ends.

Hopefully this may open up new doors of understanding.

Cheers,

The neutralization of a belief system is the acceptance of a belief system, which no longer lends energy to the perpetuation of that belief system.

This is the art of the quote where Elias says that eliminating or neutralizing the belief in right or wrong is acceptable. As Serge just pointed out, it would be nice to know what Elias means by "Neutralizing".

- Mark -

Hi,

Regarding Elias' use of paradox in his teaching of accepting self and others, it has been, is, and will continue to be interpreted through a spectrum of moral development, or belief system of duplicity, to use Elias' framework.

Therefore, there will be egocentric (me), ethnocentric (us), worldcentric (all of us), and consciousnesscentric (all beings) interpretations of Elias' words.

We need to stop imagining that there will be one single, final, correct or false interpretation of accepting self and others.

We are exploring relativism on this Topic in relation to stages of personal development that move from narrower to wider. We can put labels of better or worse on that, but that's not the main point.

Now, regarding Elias' use of the verb "neutralize," it is still subject to the same performative contradiction I have been pointing out on this Topic, namely, a universal statement that there are no unversals. For example, neutralize = it matters not! get interpreted to mean that there will be no good and bad, it will be eliminated.

But as Steve pointed out, Elias also states that we're not eliminating belief systems, in this case duplicity is here to stay. THUS, good and bad are here to stay.

So is Elias senile? Intentionally misleading? A pathological subpersonality of Mary? Some will take just that position. But I intuit Elias' intention as something very different. The subtext of these contradictions forces the rational mind toward a deeper understanding and introspection, noticing, of how it creates.

Therefore, neutralize = it matters not does NOT EQUAL nothing matters. Elias has stated that repeatedly. Things matter, and THOSE are valued by Elias.

Further, he can not escape casting his words into our belief duplicity! He comes here, ostensibly, THROUGH an energy exchange with Mary, and must use her vocabulary and cultural context to communicate with us.

His words are Regional Area 1 constructions, nothing more, nothing less. His Regional Area 4/Quadrant 2 (subtle field) perspective gets translated into a cultural context we can understand. As such, IT IS LIMITED, and itself not absolute.

So what does Elias mean in his accepting self teaching? Again, meaning will be filtered in four general stages of development of increasing embrace, wholeness, care, and concern = the belief system of duplicity.

Egocentric will interpret neutralize = it matters not to mean I CAN DO WHAT THE FUCK I WANT. I maintain that sociopaths, psychopaths, and other pathological conditions use this moral stage to interpret Elias' words. One important feature of this stage is the inability to take the role of other, to empathize, to walk a mile in another's shoes. Thus, egocentric means and interprets "it all about ME and my egoic concerns."

Ethnocentric will interpret neutralize = it matters not to mean something along the lines that WE CAN DO WHAT THE FUCK WE WANT, as long as you're part of my gang, tribe, family, corporate team, etc. Anyone else is other and I don't relate to them as people of my tribe, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

Worldcentric will interpret neutralize = it matters not to mean roughly that all creeds, genders, sexual orientations, races, etc. CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT as long as they don't cause violence to another person.

Consciousnesscentric will interpret neutralize = it matters not to mean that some things DO matter, but they are very different from the Absolute thinking of egocentric and ethnocentric stages, and even difference from the Relativistic and pluralistic thinking of worldcentric stages, for example, concepts like purpose, experience, exploration, interaction, and cooperation.

Further, we need to realize that we're all in different stages of moral development, in terms of our belief system of duplicity. So there are four main ways that Elias' acceptance (and really anything by Seth, Kris, and Elias) will be interpreted.

If we are somewhere between an ethnocentric and worldcentric stage (they can each be subdivided into early, middle, and late, for example, giving us 12 overall moral stages), and I believe most of us are here on NWV, then we will NOT YET KNOW anything about the consciousnesscentric stages. We may be able to mouth the verbiage, talk the talk, but we NOT have the cognitive capacity to grok it yet.

So when I hear people mouthing Elias' consciousnesscentric words, I only hear empty platitudes. They may be well intended, but by confusing moral stages, I maintain that we actually lend MORE energy to the perpetuation of the earlier stages of duplicity, because the earlier stages are only too willing to hijack worldcentric talk to justify murder, oppression, and injustice in the name of freedom, liberty, and justice!

Hence, the need to OWN UP to our scales of judging narrower vs. wider, better or worse, and move forward from there.

Otherwise, we get lost in a swamp of moral relativism that actually helps to perpetuate the London bombers (yes, I am still focusing on this event), as even Elias suggests in the short Rob quote about from #270:

"... and as you hold value judgment of any belief system, you lend energy to the perpetuation of the very belief system."

And so, we take this to mean that I must become numb, flat, one dimensional, everything is OK, nothing is higher or lower, hot or cold, black or white, good or bad, yadda frickin' yadda. It's a kind of New Age moral relativistic insanity and hypocrisy that perpetuates egocentric and ethnocentric behaviors because goddess forbid that me and my worldcentric, or aspiring worldcentric stance should judge anybody as "bad" and YET I AM DOING JUST THAT via chronic performative contradictions.

Moreover, a key part of this Topic also shows that importance of adequate interpretation of scripture, or written words by spiritual sources. The fancy name is hermeneutics, but it involves group interaction and meaning within a cultural context. It's relative again, but the kind of relativism and worldcentric moral perspectives I'm promoting are the ones that acknowledge stages of moral development in the first place.

That is the scale I use to judge. There, I'm out of the closet! I own it, and accept it fully. These are MY Rose Colored Glasses. What are yours?

I suggest we forget a literal interpretation of Elias, that's not his game anyway (I hear him laughing right now!). His words are full of intentional paradox to force us to be honest with ourselves first, so that we can be honest with others. The rest, including acceptance, surely follows from there.

So, rather than trying to come to a final conclusion on what Elias means by accepting self and others, realize that this is an ongoing process that must be NIRAAed, per Elias' own method. It demands time, practice, and sincere transformative effort. Otherwise, we end up like our own Steve Lord, who always wants the quick-fix, instant enlightenment solution, but NEVER FINDS IT because he refuses to DO THE TRANSFORMATIVE WORK over a period of YEARS.

Part of what is slowly making NWV stand out as a premiere spiritual salon (hey, we're only four years old) is that many regulars here are committed to some kind of spiritual practice, walking the talk, and it shows clearly in people's posts (you know who you are).

Finally, then, in terms of adequately interpreting Elias' words, first read:

NIRAA - A Summary of Accepting Self

BUT keep in mind the concept of intentional contradiction or paradox that riddles Elias' words.

This provides the praxis, the method, the way to directly experience the concept through introspection and mindful noticing practice. Take your time, it's not a race.

Then, read the following Elias Digests with the four stages of duplicity in mind and imagine how those aspects of you would interpret Elias' words:

accepting self (belief systems) Digest

the secret of life Digest

In the clarity of sweet dreams,

Paul

Hi sailer,

I appreciate you trying to answer some of my questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:
This has nothing to do with anything being "Bad"!

---

It has everything to do with refusing to own up to your own scale of better and worse, or in other words, your belief system of duplicity. You are in denial that you even have a belief system of duplicity! You can't even write the word bad without putting it in quotes, as if to show that its universally nonuniversal, and goddess forbid you judge someone or something as bad. This is another example of the performative contradiction that riddles your thoughts.

You refuse to admit that you're judging my ideas as wrong and less than yours, which I find to be more dishonest and UNaccepting in Elias' terms than anything.

It's fine to disagree with me, I expect and encourage it in constructive ways, even polemical ways, just deal with my logic, my case, my position like Rob did. We don't have to agree on everything to be accepting in Elias' terms.

quote:

---

However! If you are talking about YCYOR, do you not need to be viewing yourself Centered in it to talk about it in any manner that makes sense? This is the Point that I am addressing to here!

---

I talk about Integral Conscious Creation, not YCYOR, so let's keep that straight. I define the "you" who creates ALL its reality quite differently than most Sethians, and even Eliasians (there aren't enough outright Krisians yet for me to say that).

So what I am "centered" in is quite different than the standard New Age version of YCYOR.

How, then, do you define YCYOR? Be specific, and give examples.

And further, how do you define the "you" that is 100% causal and creates ALL? Again, be specific.

quote:

---

I do not claim to "Have" "Spiritual Realization". However, I Do View MySelf to Be a Physical/Spiritual or Spiritual/Physical Being! These Qualities are not Separate!

Yes! I climb up on a High Horse at times! I have said many times in many posts here that I do not see clearly and I wish to see clearly and this is why I am interacting in discussion here on this site to state how I view things which is my perception. And to receive my reflection. I realize that the manner in which I see things is not how many who interact here see things. It is different.

---

We all get on our horse sometimes, and none of us claim to have it all figured out.

But, in THOSE differences lies YOUR belief system of duplicity, your version of right and wrong, good and bad. As long as you try to interpret Elias' words literally as "no good, no bad" you will remain lost in chronic contradiction, claiming universally that there are no universals, and remain UNaccepting.

Come out of the closet and join the rest of us...., tell us all what Rose Colored Glasses you wear! I told you what mine are.

So, for the last time, what is YOUR scale of judging within your belief system of duplicity? And how do you apply THAT to the London bombers, the very issue that triggered my comments in the Aug. 1, 2005 Dinner and a Dead Guy session and sent Drew into a tizzy?

Elias has said that people don't need to be fixed, and yet, what to do when there are chronic, egocentric violators who murder? What is your position on the London bombers using murder for political ends? Tell the families that Elias says these individuals don't need to be fixed? Just parrot Elias back to people? NO ONE will take you seriously, and I won't because I don't interpret Elias so literally.

HOW would you make "it matters not" apply in the real world to the London bombers?

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
Hi sailer,
I appreciate you trying to answer some of my questions.

We all get on our horse sometimes, and none of us claim to have it all figured out.

But, in THOSE differences lies YOUR belief system of duplicity, your version of right and wrong, good and bad. As long as you try to interpret Elias' words literally as "no good, no bad" you will remain lost in chronic contradiction, claiming universally that there are no universals, and remain UNaccepting.

Come out of the closet and join the rest of us...., tell us all what Rose Colored Glasses you wear! I told you what mine are.

So, for the last time, what is YOUR scale of judging within your belief system of duplicity? And how do you apply THAT to the London bombers, the very issue that triggered my comments in the Aug. 1, 2005 Dinner and a Dead Guy session and sent Drew into a tizzy?

Elias has said that people don't need to be fixed, and yet, what to do when there are chronic, egocentric violators who murder? What is your position on the London bombers using murder for political ends? Tell the families that Elias says these individuals don't need to be fixed? Just parrot Elias back to people? NO ONE will take you seriously, and I won't because I don't interpret Elias so literally.

HOW would you make "it matters not" apply in the real world to the London bombers?

Paul

---

What I am reading here is that you are demanding that I justify according to a linear scale and I cannot do that.

I Do believe that each individual Creates the Own Reality. I am not always centered in and viewing my world through my own creating of it. I feel quite aware that I express victim belief at times and sometimes for long periods of time. I also am aware When I am Centered in my Own Creating of My Reality. At times I cannot move my attention.

I feel that I contribute to disharmony in the world which in my view, includes murder, when I am fighting either myself or others. At times it eludes me how not to fight. The "London Bombers" is not a charged issue in my reality. How I would respond is Relative to My Participating Directly in any such event.

I do not feel that I have answers for any other individual because I do not create their reality. If I were involved, I would attemtp to share my perspective if I were moved to do so. I usually do not talk about any material or information that I have studied with people who have not studied it unless it somehow comes up and they express an interest.

I felt that I did understand Why the world trade bombers chose to do what they did. This is a feeling kind of understanding and it does not fit into any Goood/Bad Frame. I felt deeply sad. I do not take it upon myself to try to know the answers for those individuals who partook more directly in any of these extreme events. I do not create their reality.

I do see that there is "Good" and "Bad" but it is a believing in this that is creating it. No individual can create a "Good" without also creaing a "Bad". It comes hand in hand. The Jane Roberts Seth Material has explained this in a way that makes sense to me. It matches my Own feeling and sensing.

I am beginning to understand how "Good" is the Same movement of energy as is "Bad". I think that it is in a very Experiential Way that this Can Be Understood.

In what I personally feed is "Good" or "Right": In the course of my experience in living, I see that this changes. I like the Elias term of "Preference". It makes Sense to me.

So sailer, your very first sentence is extremely revealing indeed:
"What I am reading here is that you are demanding that I justify according to a linear scale and I cannot do that."

In other words, what you are saying is that linear scales of thinking is something you cannot do. In still other words, that means you are not human at all?

I earlier said I would not let this thread become an issue about you, and your post-reply to Paul really is little more than the same, albeit longer rethoric, which only says that you are unable to deal in linear human terms, or perhaps even that you 'can not' and 'will not' go there bu your own admission.. afraid of your own humanity. That is possible the worst of all spiritual affectations, and also the least endearing human quality.

By claiming you do not create the reality of others you are also simultaneously claiming you do not create your own. The "ENTIRE" scope of reality IS your creation, even that of bombers and murderes as well as loving mothers nursing their children and loving them into the world.

You really have missed the "ESSENCE" of Paul's points and questions by invoking Elias' "Preferences".. again hiding behind it. This simply says that the murderer 'prefering' to murder is equal to the lover prefering to love, so nothing has changed and you still wear that slick teflon jacket.

That is simply dealing in absolute black and white terms, as literalists do all the time, alwyas hiding behind this or that Bilbical quote, and 99% of the time, it is taken out of its context, adding further confusion all around, yet appears to project some kind of informed, knowledgeable spirituality, and it is neither.

In any case, my "preference' is I wish no further discussion from you and do not care to have to read your pretzel inaneties.

And my other point still stands: why did you brush the dust of your feet in our faces then decide to come back?

I came home from work a while ago and after supper had the deepest impulse to just sit there and let the fingers do the talking. I know from past experiences that this is not a Kris trance, but it certainly is a 'type' of altered state. I literally sat at the keyboard and the mind went sort of out of normal focus, the words near effortlessly appearing on the screen (with the random curse for my own bad typing). Here is the result:

Right, Wrong, Good and Bad.. belief systems of duplicity... it certainly is an interesting and passionate topic, one that really is unavoidable in our every day lives.. we make judgement calls all the time, it is part of our discerning process. There is, as pointed out a long time ago, a marked difference between a judgement call and being judgmental, even if some people cannot see that difference and consider them to be equal.

Perhaps an analogy can help. Consider glass for example. It is something that's been around, even before people began making it, in those terms. Lighting bolts hitting the sandy soil will turn the sand into glass objects.

People began making glass much further back in time than science thought possible.

We use glass in one form or another for many of our daly tasks. Even that you are looking at and reading this indicates that you are using it in the monitor. Even LCD monitors have glass in the small tubes that provide the light to make the crystals in the monitor show up.

Now, we tend to regard glass as good, since it is so useful. We could also consider glass not so good if we get cut by it. However, by and of itself, glass is neither good or bad, it just is.

Just because we generally consider glass good does not mean however that we would consider the same value towards glass if we grind it up and eat it because it is 'good'. In fact, it is highly inadvisable to do that because we would die if we ingest ground up glass.

Does that mean glass it then 'bad'? Not really, glass is just glass.. it simply is.

However, we have discerned, either by observing someone else doing the eating of ground glass, or knowing it could kill us, that eating ground glass will not be a productive action. We judge that eating ground glass is not good, i.e., bad for us. But is it the glass that is bad? No, just grinding it and eating it is bad for us.

Does it mean then that glass is bad and we should stop using it? Again, no. We use it for windows, keeping the elements out of our homes with it. We use it when we get dressed to see if we are wearing the correct apparel, and that we are at best color and style coordinated.

We most likely drink our water or other liquids in containers made of glass, but don't think these are bad because eating ground glass is not a healthy habit, generally speaking.

There are rare human beings who have demonstrated that they can eat ground glass and survive, but this is not something the general populace indulges in on a regular basis, and even these rare people do not do this continually or consistently. There are no restaurants that make ground glass their speciality, even if there are restaurants that make extensive use of glass in the decor or in the glassware or otherwise.

We we continue to observe that it is a definite no-no to ingest ground glass. In simple words, eating ground glass is bad for the major portion of the population, and definitely bad for one's constitution.

But it doesn't mean that glass is bad, period.

This, by the way, cannot be denied simply by hiding behind the "preferences" view, saying I prefer to not eat ground glass.

We arrive at our conclusions about our 'choices' by similar processes, using discernment and observations, deciding one this is bad for us (eating ground glass), even if that one thing (glass) is in and of itself not a bad thing.

I am not sure if this is well brought out enough, but I was thinking about this earlier this afternoon and thought it may help clarify some salient points in the discussion.

In fact, most things in our world can easily be used in this analogy. The point being that it has to be in context.

Even some things Seth or Elias or Kris say might be deemed good or bad by the observer, as it actually has been done, but that often happens when things being said are taken out of context and the sub-text, the between-the-lines intent is being ignored to carry an egoic perspective.

All in all, we can conclude that glass is both good and bad from the human point of view, but in and of itself, glass is little more than what is it.

Electricity can be used as well, we use it, it is useful, but it can also be deadly. The same applies to guns and so on.

The same can also apply to terrorists. Yes they are human beings, they subscribe to different belief paradigms and convictions that may be very, even extremely different that the convictions-values-paradigms we hold in the western world. But the act of 'terrorism' itself is certainly not good for anyone, including suicide bombers. Everyone can and often does get killed by the acts of the terrorist.

They too are people with families, sons and daughters and wives and husbands and certainly mothers and fathers. Yet, their own convictions, values and paradigms have altered their human experience in such a profound manner they can no longer discern that their convictions and values have become dehumanized, that they can no longer empathize with and be compassionate towards the human condition, and that this act they will commit will somehow make humanity a better place. Such mental distortions towards fanaticism and martyrdom are not new, but the present use is certainly escalated and is escalating.

Condemning terrorism is not a bad thing, condemning terrorist acts is not a bad thing, even condemning the terrorists is not a bad thing, as long as we understand what we are doing. the ends do not justify the means. Blowing up people and the world will not a better world make.

Coming to terms with our beliefs and convictions concerning whether everything is good or bad or all good or all bad will not help. Dealing with the reality of our personal convictions, truthfully will go a long way towards that end. This means that the more honest we are about our personal INNER values, and the more we do NOT deny them even if they seem more shadowy, it is the honesty of the self-revelation that is important.

Acting "Essence-tially" correct while denying our own humanity is little more than wearing the cloak of sanctimonious hypocrisy. We have to recognize and balance out who we are, and who we are in the moment.

As Paul has pointed out: "I suggest we forget a literal interpretation of Elias, that's not his game anyway (I hear him laughing right now!). His words are full of intentional paradox to force us to be honest with ourselves first, so that we can be honest with others. The rest, including acceptance, surely follows from there.

So, rather than trying to come to a final conclusion on what Elias means by accepting self and others, realize that this is an ongoing process that must be NIRAAed, per Elias' own method. It demands time, practice, and sincere transformative effort. Otherwise, we end up like our own Steve Lord, who always wants the quick-fix, instant enlightenment solution, but NEVER FINDS IT because he refuses to DO THE TRANSFORMATIVE WORK over a period of YEARS."

That means, plain and sweet that reading a few or even hundreds of Seth, Elias or Kris sessions is NOT doing the work. Its often the gut wrenching, world-personal changing transformation due to understanding at the ultimate level, the human heart that makes the change valid. In other words, its the change in us that changes the world, not the paint job and the talk about how much we have read and intellectualized that is the difference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:
So sailer, your very first sentence is extremely revealing indeed:
"What I am reading here is that you are demanding that I justify according to a linear scale and I cannot do that."

In other words, what you are saying is that linear scales of thinking is something you cannot do. In still other words, that means you are not human at all?

---

To justify MySelf within a linear scale of thinking does not make Sense to me. It leaves out much of What is Real For me in My Experience!

I might rephrase the statement I made to clarify what it is that I am meaning or attempting to express here. I choose not to attempt to do this; I have certainly tried to do this (to justify My Self within a linear scale of thinking)!

I do not feel that I was ever able to do that and Feel Well at the Same Time. I do not at all feel centered within My Self and My Reality when I attempt to Justify My Self within a Linear Scale of Thinking.

And I am Quite Human! So my Personal Experience leads me to believe that to attempt to limit my Expression and my Definitions of Physical Reality to Linear Scales of Thinking is to Limit My Self! The "Reality" of Physical Reality is Much Larger than the Scope of Linear Scales of Thinking! I Feel it! I Sense it! And I Experience it!

I would also like to request of you, Serge, that you take your time in reading my post because it seems to me that you are juming to some conclusions without granting me My Own State of Grace in What I am attempting to express. Thank You.

s.

It is quite clear that despite repeated attempts and requests to Sailer to stop HiJacking this topic, he has absolutely no intention of doing so.

As a result I give up and hand this topic over to Sailer! From now on this topic is officially RE-named

ALL ABOUT SAILER!

Finally we all have the opportunity to finally ask Sailer all of the questions that we have been yearning to ask. For starters, is Sailer a male or a female? What year was he/she born? Where does he/she live? What is his/her favorite color? How did he/she stumble upon NWV? How much of the Seth MAterial, Elias material and Kris Material have he/she read?

sailer, my original question still stands: "why did you brush the dust of your feet in our faces then decide to come back?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:

And my other point still stands: why did you brush the dust of your feet in our faces then decide to come back?

---

It is probably clear to everyone that my involvemnet with NWV feels quite conflicted to me.

If I could see it all clearly I would certainly not choose to be involved with what creates conflict within my reality!

If any reader has a question I can link to this post that you are talking about but I do not feel like looking for it this moment. I can do so if anyone requests this, and I would take the time to do this to clarify what this is about.

I feel connected to Humanity as a Whole. There are many many posts here on NWV that refer to "Them" as if they are a sort of separate sort of system of individuals from the individuals who interact here. But we are a Human Family. Whether we choose to get our information by going to church or by listening to the news or reading books or gardening or sitting at the feet of those who we call "Dead Guyes", we are One Human Family.

I can say that I have felt conflict with Every Group I have ever interacted with when they choose to think that they are in some way privy to What? "Better" information than others?

And this is how I felt about what Drew was expressing. He is my brother. It is not that I feel that Drew was expressing "Correctly". But as i read it, he Was Feeling his Feelings and Seeing What He was Seeing In His Moment! It seemed to me that people were crouding around his expression attemping to stomp on it and to not let it Breathe!

Now why I feel that I need to jump in because of this is something that yet eludes me. I certainly would not think that I am "sneaking back in"! How can you have a New World View if you are not allowing for expression of individual perceptions?

Hey Serge! How about this we posted our last tso posts at the SAME TIME!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

And this is how I felt about what Drew was expressing. He is my brother. It is not that I feel that Drew was expressing "Correctly". But as i read it, he Was Feeling his Feelings and Seeing What He was Seeing In His Moment! It seemed to me that people were crouding around his expression attemping to stomp on it and to not let it Breathe!

s.

---

Now, in Drew's words and in your words this can only happen if Drew DESIRES it. Only Drew can create Drew's reality and the rest of us at that session of no influence upon it what-so-ever.

Just a fly by........

Haven't read here in long while, had another dream about Kris, came over here, the title of this thread caught my eye, so I clicked it.

Have I read the entire Kris session? No, just what Mark posted here. I find myself skimming over all the technical duplicity stuff and the male scientific way of disecting it.

I feel the different communications I offer myself. There is so much offered with in this thread alone, but mostly the answer to the questions that are posed here.

Sailor, as always, I so enjoy reading your insights from your gut, and greatly admire your unwavering commitment to your own presense. It IS all about sailor, as it is all about Paul and all about Serge and all about..... As it should be.

I had a dream a while back about being at a certain speaking engagement of a metaphysical nature. Someone (feeling Paul) told me that Sailor was there. I told them not to tell me who, I will know. I'll just look for the sailor cap. I remember the feeling of confidence I felt that we knew each other.

I had the opportunity to attend the Elias session in Chicago a couple months ago. It was just too close to my home to not take advantage of it, as well as satisfing my curiouslty. This dream of Sailor came to mind. It is a specific dream? Will sailor be there?

Nope, not a specific dream but a symbolic one. Sailor was there by being here in this thread. The Chicago session addresses many of the dynamics flowing thru this thread. I would suggest that this session be bumped up to the top in transcribing schedule, deal with what's going on NOW, instead of in the past.

Let me offer some glimps of content. Viewing and interacting in the world thru the eyes of a child. (My favorite bible quote, only those that that view the world thru the eyes of a child shall inherit the kingdom of heaven")

Being centering in your own existance, in your own presense.

He answers the question, "Are there those that walk amoung us that are more evolved, alien if you will?" Yup, he chooses his words carefully, they have a higher sense of noticing, requiring no recognition.

He answers a question of mine which is entirly about duplicity.

The London bombing

Are ya ready for this one????

Maybe you all should sit down.

The fundamentalist Muslims are much more tolerant and accepting, then the western world.

Hmmmmmmm........ There it is on an en masse scale,

Makes sense to me. And this understanding, does not in any way shape or form, justify violence as a answer or solution, thru word or action.

Hmmmmmmmmm....... and here it is on a much smaller group scale. I wonder where this opposing energy goes? Out into the universe perhaps like little seeds waiting to be sown on furtile ground.

This "Us and Them" mentality, present here and there and everywhere. Children don't see it that way. They accept, express and move on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

What I am reading here is that you are demanding that I justify according to a linear scale and I cannot do that.

---

Hi sailor,

Well, it was a passionate request. How's that for trusting my feelings?

One of my key points on this Topic is that you, and everyone, is indeed using a linear scale to judge, but in your and Drew's case, you're using a hidden, closeted, stealth linear scale to judge that there are no linear scales! It is a chronic performative contradiction. So you continue to contradict yourself.

quote:

---

I feel that I contribute to disharmony in the world which in my view, includes murder, when I am fighting either myself or others. At times it eludes me how not to fight. The "London Bombers" is not a charged issue in my reality. How I would respond is Relative to My Participating Directly in any such event.

---

And yet you are participating directly in the event by discussing its moral merits here on NWV. Again, my point is that by continuing to dissociate and repress your own belief system of duplicity you lend EVEN MORE energy to these kinds of things happening in your reality.

quote:

---

I do not feel that I have answers for any other individual because I do not create their reality. If I were involved, I would attempt to share my perspective if I were moved to do so. I usually do not talk about any material or information that I have studied with people who have not studied it unless it somehow comes up and they express an interest.

---

Again, I asked you, passionately, to fess up to what scale of duplicity you've noticed exists in your reality? I never said you or anyone else creates anyone else's reality. So that's a red herring, another obfuscation.

quote:

---

I felt that I did understand Why the world trade bombers chose to do what they did. This is a feeling kind of understanding and it does not fit into any Goood/Bad Frame. I felt deeply sad. I do not take it upon myself to try to know the answers for those individuals who partook more directly in any of these extreme events. I do not create their reality.

---

But again, you create your own via the belief system of duplicity, if you study Elias, and all I'm asking is for you to share how you judge good and bad, what scale do you use to get traction within the morally relative mindscape that is you?

quote:

---

I do see that there is "Good" and "Bad" but it is a believing in this that is creating it. No individual can create a "Good" without also creating a "Bad". It comes hand in hand. The Jane Roberts Seth Material has explained this in a way that makes sense to me. It matches my Own feeling and sensing.

---

This is more pretzel logic, it goes something like this: the belief system of duplicity (believing) creates good and bad, but I will never admit what scale of bad to worse to better to good I use within my own belief system of duplicity. My own feelings know what is good and bad, but I haven't yet been able to put those in words.

Again, I'm asking you to put those feelings into words.

quote:

---

I am beginning to understand how "Good" is the Same movement of energy as is "Bad". I think that it is in a very Experiential Way that this Can Be Understood.

In what I personally feed is "Good" or "Right": In the course of my experience in living, I see that this changes. I like the Elias term of "Preference". It makes Sense to me.

s.

---

This "same movement" is another version of the performative contradiction. It is a universal claim that there are no universals (good or bad in this case).

And then you hide in your "feelings" as a way to not have to engage your intellect, reason, and language skills. What about Seth's challenge to develop our high intellect, the combination of physical senses (including feelings), intellect, and inner senses?

You can "feel" good and bad, but still have to use quotes to express it, goddess forbid if you do, you will lend energy to more 9-1-1s and London tube bombings, when in fact, your refusal to admit what makes you judge good and bad, what your belief system of duplicity consists of, lends just as much energy to the continuation of these events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gina:
Just a fly by........

Haven't read here in long while, had another dream about Kris, came over here, the title of this thread caught my eye, so I clicked it.

Have I read the entire Kris session? No, just what Mark posted here. I find myself skimming over all the technical duplicity stuff and the male scientific way of disecting it.

---

Hi Gina,

So you'll marginalize the "male scientific way of" expression? How convenient. Then you don't have to actually address to any of the key points in the topic.

quote:

---

I feel the different communications I offer myself. There is so much offered with in this thread alone, but mostly the answer to the questions that are posed here.

---

But what about all those "male scientific" questions? You simply marginalized them right out the window, denied, dissociated, repressed from having to face, acknowledge, or even honor them.

quote:

---

[snip]

The Chicago session addresses many of the dynamics flowing thru this thread. I would suggest that this session be bumped up to the top in transcribing schedule, deal with what's going on NOW, instead of in the past.

---

FYI, the group sessions are always bumped up to the top of the list. So it will come out soon.

But why is the past forbidden? We live in it constantly, recreate it constantly? We are bathed in the momentum of all the actions in our past. Why deny, repress, and dissociate from that?

quote:

---

Let me offer some glimps of content. Viewing and interacting in the world thru the eyes of a child. (My favorite bible quote, only those that that view the world thru the eyes of a child shall inherit the kingdom of heaven")

Being centering in your own existance, in your own presense.

He answers the question, "Are there those that walk amoung us that are more evolved, alien if you will?" Yup, he chooses his words carefully, they have a higher sense of noticing, requiring no recognition.

He answers a question of mine which is entirly about duplicity.

The London bombing

Are ya ready for this one????

Maybe you all should sit down.

The fundamentalist Muslims are much more tolerant and accepting, then the western world.

Hmmmmmmm........ There it is on an en masse scale,

Makes sense to me. And this understanding, does not in any way shape or form, justify violence as a answer or solution, thru word or action.

Hmmmmmmmmm....... and here it is on a much smaller group scale. I wonder where this opposing energy goes? Out into the universe perhaps like little seeds waiting to be sown on furtile ground.

This "Us and Them" mentality, present here and there and everywhere. Children don't see it that way. They accept, express and move on.

And where is our point of power?

---

As usual, I will reserve my interpretation until I read what Elias actually said. But I will comment on two ideas, first, that children "don't see it that way" seems to imply that ALL children, however you define that, express and create the same. They don't, not even close. And to elevate childish naivete to some kind of deep spiritual realization, simply elevates egocentric, childishness to some kind of high value we adults should all aspire to.

I am glad that my childhood is way behind me, it served me well, and I look forward to the second half of adulthood.

Second, I seriously doubt that Elias said the London bombers (again my focus on this Topic) were "more tolerant and accepting, than the Western world." Besides, these kinds of generalizations are easy to distort, and the London bombers LIVE IN THE WESTERN WORLD, they are Western!

This is not to deny that there are many pious fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. that are tolerant and accepting. But my point is that they do this "accepting" at an ethnocentric stage of development, not a worldcentric stage.

And worldcentric is wider, ethnocentric is narrower.

There will be an Elias private session of mine coming out soon in which Elias acknowledges that humans develop, generally, from preconventional to conventional to postconventional stages.

So our beloved Elias acknowledged that humans, all focuses of essence, do in fact develop in stages, and therefore, yes more male scientific logic coming your way, our belief system of duplicity also develops in stages from narrower to wider. This is what Elias means by widening awareness, moving from conventional to postconventional and wider stages of moral development. Again, the belief system of duplicity develops in stages and forms an innate moral intuition throughout a spectrum. THIS is the kind of moral relativism we need to address to.

THAT is a key point in this Topic, one I keep coming back to because if you read that transcript you will see that this is how Elias explains the shift unfolding That is, large percentages of the population moving from conventional (ethnocentric) to postconventional (worldcentric) stages of development.

Even Elias uses scales of judgment in just this way.

Paul

Danged nice postings, Paul. As usual, you are at your most piercing excellence. Really nice to see you back in the trenches again. I have been gaining a lot of clarity on a number of issues through transcribing these recent DInner & A Dead Guy sessions, not least of which is because of your probing, insightful questioning -- and challenging rebuttals, too. I've been taken right back to square one more than once because your words hit right to the heart of my own issues.

Speaking of being a transcriber - I must say it really helps to understand this material (which can sometimes truly seem paradoxical, I'll grant that) because I am forced to study it as I listen carefully and go over it a number of times to proof it.

That said, one need not be a transcriber to grok this stuff, but one thing is for sure: this stuff requires more than one read-through, and it sure as heck deserves more than a skimming over of the excerpts that are taken out of the total text. The reason excerpts are used here in the forums is in the hopes it will tantalize the reader to go through the entire session itself, so that everyone can discuss from the same vantage point.

I'm reminded of these kids who come into the bookstore at the very end of the summer and, instead of reading their required list of summer reading material, they pick up the cliff notes and think that's going to cut it!

Hey Gina! I just opened my email and I see your group Elias session just got online! I have to leave in a minute, but I hope to sit down with it tonight. I hope you will give the Kris sessions that we've been discussing here a careful readthrough too. I know you have been looking for a long time for the chance to APPLY the material to everyday life - we've discussed this before - and Kris' raison d'etre seems to be exactly that. But you've gotta do more than just sample it - Triple 'A' it, Triple 'H' it, study it, walk it, talk it, dream it, run it through your heart, not just your mind.

Hi Ellen,

I'm glad that you digging down deep these days, congrats. I know it's not a cakewalk, but the good news is that there are a bunch of supportive folk here doing the same thing, and we benefit from sharing and debating things. So I consider myself in excellent company.

Finally, due to your thought provoking insights on the duplicity Topic on CC, I wanted to copy my recent post here to support the basic approach I'm taking these days, one that seem to really work for me.

Cheers,

Paul

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello good people,

As I catch up on this Topic I'm reminded again of why I feel it's important to take an integral view of duplicity. As Ellen points out, we can become TOO intellectual and dissociate, repress, deny our feelings. This applies more to male energy than female.

Hey, we men are taught to deny, dissociate, and repress our feelings from the cradle, so it takes some effort to open up and let the flood gates out.

On the other hand, we can become TOO emotional, or feelings-based, and deny, repress, dissociate from our intellect and reason. And women are often taught to deny these aspects, so it takes effort to develop these abilities, too.

Integral means balanced, comprehensive, inclusive. And Seth's concept of high intellect from The "Unknown" Reality sets the bar here. It's a blending of feeling and thinking, facts and deep intuition. I hold it as a gold standard.

In this context, then, the kind of innate moral intuition that I've been riffing on on the Rose Colored Glasses Topic is best served by feeling AND thinking our way through our belief system of duplicity.

To deny one or the other is not the point, it's about balance and harmony (to invoke a couple of the Sister Archetypes deep within our subjective awareness).

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sailer:

What I am reading here is that you are demanding that I justify according to a linear scale and I cannot do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi sailor,

Well, it was a passionate request. How's that for trusting my feelings?

One of my key points on this Topic is that you, and everyone, is indeed using a linear scale to judge, but in your and Drew's case, you're using a hidden, closeted, stealth linear scale to judge that there are no linear scales! It is a chronic performative contradiction. So you continue to contradict yourself.

---

Hey there Paul, Sure! Passionate request; I see similarities and differences in terms of the manner in which each of us expresses ourselves!

It seems to me that you jumped to conclusions in relationship to the post that I made. If you read again my post as well as my clarification in reply to Serge you will find that I did not say that ther are no linear scales! What I said was that to justify myself according to a linear scale does not make Sense to me. In this statement that you quoted I said that I "cannot do" this. I feel that my statement Is Accurate in terms of what I am attempting to express here, because I do not feel that I Was Able to JUSTIFY MySelf with any "linear scale to judge"! Attempting to do so has created what I Experience as Tangledness and Knots of Tight Energy within My Reality.

I Do See that there are Strong Beliefs in Relationship to and in Association with a "Linear Scale of Thinking"! And I Do Feel the Strength of Them! I Do feel the Strength of Beliefs that state that it is "PROPER" to Define and Express MySelf, Because I am "Human" according to them! I am Seeing this Reflecting Quite Strongly Here!

I will add, that I am Aware that I Do in Many Moments Express Particular Beliefs Even Thought they Do not make Sense to me! When I notice that I am Expressing Such Belief I Attempt to Turn my Attention to MySelf and What I am doing! At times the Strength of Belief Catches my attention in a firm hold.

And Hey, Man! Gotta Appreciate the Strength of Belief!

If you Like and Prefer your Linear Scale to Judge, and it makes Sense to You, Go For It, Paul! Just Go For It YourSelf! In my view the Seth and Elias bodies of Information don't fit into this Linear Scale to Judge. It is becoming clearer to myself that to attempt to Explain how I view this is Quite Beside the Point!

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

If you Like and Prefer your Linear Scale to Judge, and it makes Sense to You, Go For It, Paul! Just Go For It YourSelf! In my view the Seth and Elias bodies of Information don't fit into this Linear Scale to Judge. It is becoming clearer to myself that to attempt to Explain how I view this is Quite Beside the Point!

---

I'm sorry, I know this is somewhat off-topic and largely irrelevant, but I really think you're overdoing it with the capitalization of every other word. I don't know if it's supposed to make something sound more important or meaningful, but to me, it severely distracts from the actual content of what you're trying to say. At first I thought maybe it was supposed to put things into a larger context (e.g., "Self" instead of "self"), but now I can't find any rhyme or reason behind why certain phrases are capitalized. It looks completely arbitrary.

Like I said, I know I'm not addressing the content of what you're saying here, but I had to say something because it's really distracting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve M.:

I'm sorry, I know this is somewhat off-topic and largely irrelevant, but I really think you're overdoing it with the capitalization of every other word. I don't know if it's supposed to make something sound more important or meaningful, but to me, it severely distracts from the actual content of what you're trying to say. At first I thought maybe it was supposed to put things into a larger context (e.g., "Self" instead of "self"), but now I can't find any rhyme or reason behind why certain phrases are capitalized. It looks completely arbitrary.

Like I said, I know I'm not addressing the content of what you're saying here, but I had to say something because it's really distracting.

~ Steve

---

Thanks for your reply, Steve.

It is Interesting to me that So many Individuals Feel that I SHOULD Be Expressing Myself DIFFERENTLY than the manner in which I am choosing to Express myself!

If you Like and Prefer your Linear Scale to Judge, and it makes Sense to You, Go For It, Paul! Just Go For It YourSelf! In my view the Seth and Elias bodies of Information don't fit into this Linear Scale to Judge. It is becoming clearer to myself that to attempt to Explain how I view this is Quite Beside the Point! - sailer reply to Paul.

It is Interesting to me that So many Individuals Feel that I SHOULD Be Expressing Myself DIFFERENTLY than the manner in which I am choosing to Express myself! - sailer reply to Steve M.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sailer -- both of these replies to Paul and Steve are both condescending.

You claim Paul is being judgemental, yet you yourself are making judgemental relevence in your reply.

You also claim in your reply to Steve that you are somehow unable to Linearly communicate, you use LINEAR structures to communicate. Now there's a Contradiction if ever there was one!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is interesting that your language is riddled with contradictions.

Your claim, again, that you can't go to linear is pure pretzel logic, and therefore of not much use.

You have stated many times that You Want to be recognized as a Being, yet you can't even communicate that clearly.

Frankly, I wish you'd do AL your communications telephatically!

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

It seems to me that you jumped to conclusions in relationship to the post that I made. If you read again my post as well as my clarification in reply to Serge you will find that I did not say that ther are no linear scales! What I said was that to justify myself according to a linear scale does not make Sense to me. In this statement that you quoted I said that I "cannot do" this. I feel that my statement Is Accurate in terms of what I am attempting to express here, because I do not feel that I Was Able to JUSTIFY MySelf with any "linear scale to judge"! Attempting to do so has created what I Experience as Tangledness and Knots of Tight Energy within My Reality.

---

No, I made a very logical, rational conclusion after careful thought and feeling.

And again, my point is that "to justify myself according to a linear scale does not make Sense to me" you ARE STILL using a linear scale!

You are using a version of duplicity to make that very judgment, and it's linear in the sense of narrower or wider, better or worse. Own up to that.

Notice it.

Indentify it.

Recognize it.

Address to it.

Accept it.

That is, if you claim to take Elias' teachings to heart.

Paul

I also wanted to wax on Serge's earlier comment about Drew in the victims and perpetrators Digest on the Elias forum. I actually went back to the broader conversation in the transcript, and it is germane to the performative contradiction we're exploring on this passionate Topic.

Mark pointed out a crucial ontological distinction out in the Aug. 1, 2005 transcript. And Joanne actually asked Kris about it again this past Monday (Aug. 29) to clarify, and Kris took a similar position that it's critical to understand the difference between the essence (subjective) layer and the focus (objective) layer of Self, particularly when dealing with morals and ethics, or what Elias calls the belief system of duplicity. Yes, they're nested together, interdependent, but still autonomous relative to their focuses of attention. The objective self exists in the physical field (Framework 1) and the subjective self exists in the subtle field (Frameworks 2, 3, and 4...).

This is what I mean by asking who is the "you" who is creating 100% its reality? The subtext = how do subjective and objective awareness work together to create all my reality?

Anyway, here's what Elias had said just prior to the beginning of the excerpt in the victims and perpetrators Digest:

"Here we enter into another area of misinterpretation! You automatically move into the areas of placing judgments and misinterpretations upon this information. I offer you realities, truth within essence, but I have also stated to you many times that your physical reality IS YOUR REALITY. Therefore, within your physical reality you DO hold right and wrong, good and bad, AS REALITY. You DO hold very strong belief systems in what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. When I am expressing to you that there is no right and wrong and that all is an agreement, this is WITHIN ESSENCE. But your physical reality IS reality, and therefore you have created rules that you abide by that make up your officially accepted reality. In this, agreements, which I have stated many times previously, are not the same as what your thought process in physical focus dictates." [session 260, Sunday, January 18, 1998]

So to reduce all murder, car accidents, terrorist bombings, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. to "agreements within essence" is called a category error. But what about the impact on the focuses? What about the trauma of violence, murder, rape, etc. on focuses?

How does this relate to the belief system of duplicity? It shows another shadow side of what we're exploring on this topic, how we use metaphysical assumptions to numb ourSelves, and to dissociate, repress, and deny the HORRORS that occasionally face us as focuses, as physical reality. And so, we conclude that since there is no good or bad in essence, that when a group of young Londoners of Pakistani descent bomb the tube in London (an extreme example granted), that it's OK, it's "all point of view" and I don't have to deal with it.

And that's fine, actually a choice, but again, I maintain it's evidence of an ethnocentric (us) form of duplicity masquerading through performative contradiction and category error as a worldcentric (all of us, relativistic, pluralistic, integral), because the lack of condemnation of such acts is missing. It's a sapling masquerading as a tree, and by nature a sapling can know nothing of treehood. Though it may be able to talk tree-talk, it stays only an intellectual concept, not a direct realization.

I'm not talking about invading Pakistan to wipe out the Madrasas, as some in the Bush administration secretly would like to do (an ethnocentric view), but simply taking a stand that using murder as a means to an end IS a violation, and violation is always intended to prevent further acts. So when further acts continue, something must be done, and it may include use of force (not genocide, not murder, not political assassination, etc. There is a scale of what's appropriate, moral, and ethical all along this spectrum of duplicity).

Anything less is not a worldcentric approach. Anything less actually perpetrates these kinds of events continuing. (And the Bush administration's policies reflect an ethnocentric belief system of duplicity). However, duplicity is not going away, but it IS widening toward a worldcentric form that uses cooperation and acceptance, and yes, THAT may include the use of force when egocentric and ethnocentric fanatics wantonly murder in our cities.

Paul

I was pondering the various points mentioned in this thread, and a thought occurred to me...

We've been saying that Elias's insistence that "there is no wrong or right" was made in the context of Essence, and not here in this physical reality. Therefore, right and wrong are beliefs that we hold in this reality, and to us, they're very real.

Elias and Kris both talk about such-and-such being a reality "in Essence", as opposed to in this reality. My question is, when are we ever "just Essence"? Aren't we always focused in some reality or another, physical or not? Is there ever a situation where our focus is purely in the realm of Essence, and not focused in the rules of some reality somewhere? Would that manifestation as pure Essence be, in itself, a kind of reality with its own rules?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:

Thanks for your reply, Steve.

It is Interesting to me that So many Individuals Feel that I SHOULD Be Expressing Myself DIFFERENTLY than the manner in which I am choosing to Express myself!

s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve M.:
...

Elias and Kris both talk about such-and-such being a reality "in Essence", as opposed to in this reality. My question is, when are we ever "just Essence"? Aren't we always focused in some reality or another, physical or not? Is there ever a situation where our focus is purely in the realm of Essence, and not focused in the rules of some reality somewhere? Would that manifestation as pure Essence be, in itself, a kind of reality with its own rules?

---

Hi Steve,

Great question, and relevant to the Topic. Google "perennial philosophy" or "perennial wisdom" and you'll find that most premodern worldviews held, and still hold, some belief in a "Great Chain of Being", or that the physical field is not all that is, but the physical part of All-That-Is.

A little cross-cultural survey of the world's wisdom traditions Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi (Islamic mysticism), Gnostic (Christian mysticism), Kabbalah (Judaic mysticism), Taoist, etc. shows that there are three common zones or fields of consciousness that have been perceived by various Seers:

Physical
Subtle
Causal

They are nested, interpenetrated, and exist as a simultaneity within a "spacious present" (to use Seth's term). My current understanding is that we exist within these three fields of consciousness "always already" in some form or another. Therefore, there is no "just essence" state or field or Regional Area of consciousness. Essence is one field within many that exist within All-That-Is.

More technically, if we incorporate Seth's CUs (Elias' links) and Seth's EEs, we get:

Physical (quantum fields)
Subtle (EEs = electromagnetic energy units)
Causal (CUs = consciousness units)

These are the three main "units" of conscious creation, all nested together, all causal in some way (CUs are Primal Cause, or first cause). But again, this is just a very simple orienting generalization to show that there is never "just essence" or "just focus" or "just All-That-Is" but endless action, becoming, motion of consciousness in play.

quote:

---

My only hope at an explanation is that perhaps no matter what reality we're focused in, there is some layer of our existence that is "just Essence", which provides a sort of root structure for our existences in various realities. Kris mentioned a bit of this in his Quadrants material, which I haven't examined in nearly the detail I feel that I should. I guess I'll go back and read a bit more.

---

Here's another secret, "just essence" is NOT the root. All-That-Is is the root, in that sense.

For example, Kris just mentioned a spectrum of consciousness in the last Dinner and a Dead Guy session at extends from focus to essence to essence bodies to multidimensional. I believe this maps directly to his four quadrants (different from Wilber's four quadrants! I mention this just to be clear which definition we're using).

focus = Q1 (Framework 1)
essence = Q2 (Frameworks 2, 3, 4...)
essence bodies = Q3 (Seth's pyramid gestalts, Elias' pools of consciousness, Kris' clusters)
multidimensional = Q4 = All-That-Is = nondual turiyatita (Brahmajyoti)

In this Integral Conscious Creation cosmology, "just essence" is hardly the Prime Root, but instead a relative, nested "root" or subjective awareness for physical focuses.

In turn, essence in Q2, like Elias, has its own Root or subjective awareness nested in Q3. This is where Kris claims to hold his native focus of attention.

In turn, Kris, who claims to consist of sixteen (or so) "essence bodies" has his own Root or subjective awareness nested within Q4.

And what about Q4? What is Its Subjective Awareness? This is the fundamental paradox of consciousness ItSelf, and where all maps essentially become meaningless to describe Nondual Reality. From what various Seers and Speakers have discerned and translated into physical terms, All-That-Is is simultaneously Primal Cause (or Ground) AND Goal of all development, whether in causal, subtle, or physical fields.

But they are all interdependent, none can exist without the others.

All of which is to simply say, there is no condition or state or field of consciousness that is "just essence," but constant, endless cycles of creation, involution, AND evolution.

Hi Paul.. wow. Your last post really helped me as well in understanding these issues from a new perspective.

Even though I voice Kris, it doesn't mean I understand it all, and your post put it in context.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Hi Paul,

So you'll marginalize the "male scientific way of" expression? How convenient. Then you don't have to actually address to any of the key points in the topic.

Hardly Paul, I love men. I love everything about them. All the different ways they are shaped and formed. I love the way they smell. I especially love the way they think and process information. I let them do best what they do best.

I simply stated, by being prompted by a dream where I saw KRIS in capital letters, to come and see what was going on here, this is the thread that caught my eye.

Sailors feeling tone caught my attention, and the opposition that was generated and it is to that which I responded.

But what about all those "male scientific" questions? You simply marginalized them right out the window, denied, dissociated, repressed from having to face, acknowledge, or even honor them.

I don't think so, I could be wrong I was wrong once, (Joke, heh, heh) the age old question of social ills, and the age old answer that has been passed down in many forms thru the centuries. Responsibility of the individual. The generation of opposition on an individual level.

I see in the news, the mother, the female camped out in front of Bush's home peacefully demanding answers for her sons death, completely present with herself. That is her path and her purpose and I support her in my home with taking responsibility for recognizing the opposition, and shifting the perspective. I could go camp out with her, but I don't think it would be as effective, nor did I loose a son to this war, or I would be camped out with her.

Again, it is this that caught my eye in this thread. The opposition.

FYI, the group sessions are always bumped up to the top of the list. So it will come out soon.

But why is the past forbidden? We live in it constantly, recreate it constantly? We are bathed in the momentum of all the actions in our past. Why deny, repress, and dissociate from that?

"Never forget where you came from" Very strong beleif of mine. You forget that, you're screwed. You dwell there and you're screwed too. It can not be recreated unless you are present in the NOW, I was simply reinforcing that belief.

As usual, I will reserve my interpretation until I read what Elias actually said.

Good. I would expect nothing less from you Paul. A smile and a wink.

But I will comment on two ideas, first, that children "don't see it that way" seems to imply that ALL children, however you define that, express and create the same. They don't, not even close. And to elevate childish naivete to some kind of deep spiritual realization, simply elevates egocentric, childishness to some kind of high value we adults should all aspire to.

I am glad that my childhood is way behind me, it served me well, and I look forward to the second half of adulthood.

I disagree, in my experience, with many many different children that run the spectrum, from privliged and sheltered to abused and made to grow up way too soon. There is a common thread that can be reached in all of them. It is there innnate inherant, not yet forgetton knowingness of from where it is they came, their connection to all things. Tapping into that is as much a buzz for me as it is for them.

Second, I seriously doubt that Elias said the London bombers (again my focus on this Topic) were "more tolerant and accepting, than the Western world." Besides, these kinds of generalizations are easy to distort, and the London bombers LIVE IN THE WESTERN WORLD, they are Western!

Either did I.

This is not to deny that there are many pious fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc. that are tolerant and accepting. But my point is that they do this "accepting" at an ethnocentric stage of development, not a worldcentric stage.

And worldcentric is wider, ethnocentric is narrower.

There will be an Elias private session of mine coming out soon in which Elias acknowledges that humans develop, generally, from preconventional to conventional to postconventional stages.

So our beloved Elias acknowledged that humans, all focuses of essence, do in fact develop in stages, and therefore, yes more male scientific logic coming your way, our belief system of duplicity also develops in stages from narrower to wider. This is what Elias means by widening awareness, moving from conventional to postconventional and wider stages of moral development. Again, the belief system of duplicity develops in stages and forms an innate moral intuition throughout a spectrum. THIS is the kind of moral relativism we need to address to.

THAT is a key point in this Topic, one I keep coming back to because if you read that transcript you will see that this is how Elias explains the shift unfolding That is, large percentages of the population moving from conventional (ethnocentric) to postconventional (worldcentric) stages of development.

Even Elias uses scales of judgment in just this way.

I'm love jugdement, I have posted a excellent Seth quote regarding judgment here.

I couldn't agree with ya more, Paul. Narrower and wider. The indigenous people of this country taught this concept with viewing the world and messages the eyes of the circling hawk provide and taking them down to the ground and arranging stones in a cirlce of individual thought and then rearrangig them, and taking that back to the hawk.

With out a doubt Science plays a huge role in this shift. Intuitivly I feel that it is indeed science's concrete discovery of the soul, if you will, that will force the different sects of religion to accept. (which I have posted here before) I think of the popularity of "the Divinci Code" speaks to that.

Leaving you to what you do best, and asking acceptance to what I do best.
Believe me Paul, We are on the same page.

Gina

[ 09-01-2005: Message edited by: Gina ]

Hi,

Serge, glad my post made sense to you, it reflects my "connect the dots" or integral approach.

Gina, I know we're generally on the same page, it just would have helped if you read the transcript and commented on the issues in this passionate Topic, instead of the drive-by, which tends to come off as marginalizing without addressing to the key issues as a result. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to dig in, and clarify your ideas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sergegrandbois:
Hi Paul.. wow. Your last post really helped me as well in understanding these issues from a new perspective.

Even though I voice Kris, it doesn't mean I understand it all, and your post put it in context.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Serge

---

Paul,

I echo Serge's comments to your post. It puts an interesting perspective on things, and highlights the idea of no separation, and our existence is rooted in layers and intertwined with other energies and the realities we create. I enjoy Douglas Adams's notion that all of consciousness is referred to as simply WSOGMM (Whole Sort Of General Mish-Mash).

If I strain really hard, I can almost picture it.

Hey Ellen!
I just opened my email and I see your group Elias session just got online! I have to leave in a minute, but I hope to sit down with it tonight.

I was anxious to read it, as I told you, at one point I had the feeling I had when Nick would speak to me. It is a soarly missed feeling. That stacking and restacking of information energy flooding my head. From experience I knew to just allow it to happen and get to the completion of one circle. Elias is is a bit more sneaky than Nick. When we were talking and I felt myself trying to specifically grab and hold information I keyed into a few significant words, they are not in the transcipt. Crack me up! I love that over lapping reality thing too much.

Elias addresses this in another transcript that has come thru in the past month about hearing what you want/need (oh that's a whole 'nother can of worms) to hear. Needless to say, I heard you Elias, Thank you.

I hope you will give the Kris sessions that we've been discussing here a careful read through too.

Read the "Intution" session, per your suggestion, as well as the "Rose Colored Glasses" session through, thoroughly.

I know you have been looking for a long time for the chance to APPLY the material to everyday life - we've discussed this before - and Kris' raison d'etre seems to be exactly that.

Indeed, we have. This application request of mine was strongest probably 10 years ago after ingesting as much Seth as was available. Three years later Nick appeared, and my request was answered.

But you've gotta do more than just sample it - Triple 'A' it, Triple 'H' it, study it, walk it, talk it, dream it, run it through your heart, not just your mind.

Indeed. Nick taught me that.

I know you're up to it. Gleanings and skimmings and flyby's - not gonna make it here no mo', if they ever did! But seriously, I believe that the Kris material in particular has revved up more than just a notch, and I think maybe it's because we've graduated from kindergarten, and he knows it, and more is expected of us, as it should be.

Double indeed!!! Ya gotta take me when ya can get me! But Seriously, daily life application is time comsuming. I still have small one that are teaching me far more than I am them. Got my responce to Paul off before work and this is the first time that I am able to respond to you.

There is a lot I am processing right now Ellen, more so allowing. As I read the transcript from the group session I could take and match paragraph for paragraph, Elias's words and mine in a response to Serge, I wrote a year ago, when his threatening email entered my inbox. And to which I have never received a reply.

The waking dream is such a buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Also, In my deleted post at your forum then, to which prompted Serge's threat, I say almost word of word to Bob/parriah, what Elias says to someone in a recent transcript that has come out in the past month.

I'm processing. I've seen Nick in a dream this past week, it's been far too long since I've seen him there. Mostly messages of self trust, cuz it's all about me!! wink wink.

The "Intution" thread and the homework made me smile. It's amazing the coincidences one finds from "chit chat" and every day life experience. And you know how much I enjoy chit chat. (Drove Z completely nutty, wink wink) I think there is room for both here at NWV between these four forums, I think that it is necessary, the joining of male and female.

I have studied my dreams long enough to know that the lucid dream I had at Serge and Mark home with Kris will come to pass, just allowing it to.

Twice I have posted here, or maybe once and once in my response to Serge that I never received a reply back from, the specific "King's Crossing" message from my dream so long ago. The major cross street closest to the Elias session I attended was Kings Cross.

Am I ready?

I'm being patient, something a very dear friend of mine in Kansas has been teaching me. And Elias says equal allowance.

I apologize for this not fitting under the title and topic of this thread. Chose to put it here because it is here that it is posted. Where does it belong? In Inner Visions I suppose.

This is going to be an uncharacteristic post for me. I happen to place great value upon keeping my posts focused upon myself. It doesn't mean I believe that others should, I'm well aware that this is my guideline for myself. This might sound like Elias-speak, but it's not, it's honestly how I feel; those that know me know that I'm not one to dogmatically parrot Elias or anyone else.

Having said that, I'm aware that it's still really about me, but I don't understand how yet or what my motivations are for posting it, what it is for me. Maybe I'll get some idea as I write it.

Mark said, regarding this topic being hijacked, that it's "ALL ABOUT SAILER!" Gina said, "Sailor, as always, I so enjoy reading your insights from your gut, and greatly admire your unwavering commitment to your own presense. It IS all about sailor, as it is all about Paul and all about Serge and all about..... As it should be." (Interesting misspelling, "presense". One letter away from "presence" and "pretense", both of which hold some accuracy in my perception.)

I have a different perception. In my perception, I see a definite pattern in sailer's posts, as exemplified by her first post to Paul in this topic:

"Do you get no glimpse of your own reflection Paul M. Helfrich?

"Have you not read in all of your organizing of the YCYOR Information, of the Reflective Quality of Physical Reality?

"Do you get any glimpse of yourself at the Center of your Own Reality?"

This is not about sailer, this is about Paul. In other words, she baits. All the time. If she posted on Slashdot she'd get modded down to -1 as flamebait.

And people rise to the bait. THAT'S when the topic gets hijacked - if hijacked it is; there's a real and interesting correspondence between the energies of the discussion about the baiting and the discussion about terrorism; in energy I can hardly tell one subtopic from the other. If no one responded to sailer's posts, then there could be no hijacking.

I guess that's my point. Paul said, in the context of the London bombings, "...by continuing to dissociate and repress your own belief system of duplicity you lend EVEN MORE energy to these kinds of things happening in your reality." I have no idea how to evaluate that, although I'll observe that at present the bombings seem to have less presence in sailer's reality than they do in that of most others posting in this topic. But that's my perception, and appearances can be deceiving in my world, more so when there's not much direct exposure and I begin to infer and assume. Appearances may be deceiving there too, I don't know. Doesn't matter.

No, I don't know how to evaluate that, but what's easier for me to evaluate is what's going on in this topic. I don't see the repression of one's own duplicity beliefs lending more energy to the baiting. What I do see is that matching energy and attempting to battle it does lend energy to it.

Believe me or not, I don't see the baiting or the response to it as wrong. None of it is to my tastes, but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong. But I do notice it catches my attention, and do want to understand why.

So what is this for me, and what motivates me to express this? I suppose it's that I personally don't give much objective attention to mass events, and I'm noticing my beliefs, maybe addressing to them also, that this lack of attention on my part is wrong. Wrong and different, and wrong in being different. I also have beliefs to the contrary; my beliefs are conflicting here. I can find all kinds of stuff spoken by TDGs to support that I'm not wrong, but that doesn't change the beliefs I align with. I change them. So, yes, anyway, my addressing to along with my $.02.

Hi Don,
This is going to be an uncharacteristic post for me. I happen to place great value upon keeping my posts focused upon myself. It doesn't mean I believe that others should, I'm well aware that this is my guideline for myself. This might sound like Elias-speak, but it's not, it's honestly how I feel; those that know me know that I'm not one to dogmatically parrot Elias or anyone else.

A- Freaking -men! It's all about Don.

Having said that, I'm aware that it's still really about me, but I don't understand how yet or what my motivations are for posting it, what it is for me. Maybe I'll get some idea as I write it.

Writing and connecting are such a great way to express, I agree.

Mark said, regarding this topic being hijacked, that it's "ALL ABOUT SAILER!" Gina said, "Sailor, as always, I so enjoy reading your insights from your gut, and greatly admire your unwavering commitment to your own presense. It IS all about sailor, as it is all about Paul and all about Serge and all about..... As it should be."

As I began to read this long thread of mostly Paul and Rob I think, Sailor quoted Rob and wrote a short response as to her understanding. It made sense to me. I'd bet my right arm that sailor is a 5 energy personality, a heirophant in Tarot. I called her one way, way back.
We stack information quickly and then we express. We aren't quite sure "where" it came from, but it all stacks. If asked we can, unstack, but it takes time. We pay attention which can be a challenge with so much information stacking up.

(Interesting misspelling, "presense". One letter away from "presence" and "pretense", both of which hold some accuracy in my perception.)

Don't read too much into my spelling, I suck at spelling, ask Ellen.
Well actually you can read what ever you wish, it holds a message for you. Oh and now it does for me too cuz I just read it.

Presence is what I meant to write. Later in the thread I felt her clearly expressing from her own presence. Pretense is also interesting, could that mean that every expression has a reason, a payback, a purpose. Words are so funny. Or perhaps a conspiracy.

I don't like words like conspiracy or hijacked.

I have a different perception. In my perception, I see a definite pattern in sailor's posts, as exemplified by her first post to Paul in this topic:
"Do you get no glimpse of your own reflection Paul M. Helfrich?
"Have you not read in all of your organizing of the YCYOR Information, of the Reflective Quality of Physical Reality?
"Do you get any glimpse of yourself at the Center of your Own Reality?"
This is not about sailor, this is about Paul. In other words, she baits. All the time. If she posted on Slashdot she'd get modded down to -1 as flamebait.

But she is not at slashdot. Or one may see it as a plea to be recognized as a reflection. Is baiting what they call that? I'm sure there is more there, Serge torched her many months ago, what do they call that? Flaming? (I'm so not cool when it comes to the hip and now internet lingo.) and I think all the time she remains accepting of self.

And people rise to the bait.

Thank God! How the hell is one suppose to catch a fish with out bait? One would go hungry. Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever. heh, heh.

THAT'S when the topic gets hijacked - if hijacked it is;

Indeed. I don't like the word hijacked and I don't think that it was sailors main intention. But someone did stick out their hook and catch that one rouge fish swimming in her pool. We all have 'em.

there's a real and interesting correspondence between the energies of the discussion about the baiting and the discussion about terrorism; in energy I can hardly tell one subtopic from the other.

The answers to Paul's query are contained in the thread.

If no one responded to sailor's posts, then there could be no hijacking.

Oh, but this gets tricky. One may start to think that when impulsive responses, emotions are withheld, "I'm just not going to respond" then there will be peace love and understanding. Not so. The impulse will need to be expressed sooner or later, the emotion will demand to be heard as reflections in varying costumes.

I guess that's my point. Paul said, in the context of the London bombings, "...by continuing to dissociate and repress your own belief system of duplicity you lend EVEN MORE energy to these kinds of things happening in your reality." I have no idea how to evaluate that,

I'm going point for point thru your message. Did my previous paragraph make sense here?

although I'll observe that at present the bombings seem to have less presence in sailor's reality than they do in that of most others posting in this topic.

I didn't feel that.

But that's my perception, and appearances can be deceiving in my world, more so when there's not much direct exposure and I begin to infer and assume. Appearances may be deceiving there too, I don't know. Doesn't matter.

Truly it doesn't. It is much easier to communicate in close proximity. Energy is more easily felt. We pick up energy all the time though.

No, I don't know how to evaluate that, but what's easier for me to evaluate is what's going on in this topic. I don't see the repression of ones own duplicity beliefs lending more energy to the baiting. What I do see is that matching energy and attempting to battle it does lend energy to it.

Interesting perspective. But isn't that good? Wink Wink. Seriously, lending energy can be very powerful, the energy of love and respect are rivaled only by fear. I didn't feel fear from sailor or Paul's exchange.

Amen, one less bombing.

Now Serge on the other hand.........heh, heh, I'm playing!! I'm playing like a child.

Believe me or not, I don't see the baiting or the response to it as wrong. None of it is to my tastes, but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong. But I do notice it catches my attention, and do want to understand why.

I believe you.

So what is this for me, and what motivates me to express this? I suppose it's that I personally don't give much objective attention to mass events, and I'm noticing my beliefs, maybe addressing to them also, that this lack of attention on my part is wrong. Wrong and different, and wrong in being different. I also have beliefs to the contrary; my beliefs are conflicting here. I can find all kinds of stuff spoken by TDGs to support that I'm not wrong, but that doesn't change the beliefs I align with. I change them. So, yes, anyway, my addressing to along with my $.02.

And a pleasant $.02 it is, and $.02 more for you. Imagine if everyone put in $.02, we'd be rich!!. Some one told me once, "Ask your self the question and then let it go." It has to journey out there awhile before it is reflected back.

Sweet Dreams,
Gina

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gina:
Serge torched her many months ago, what do they call that?

---

YUP!

All in the eye of the Be Holder, really!

It has been ewxplained as "Giving one a taste of their own medicine".

From a particular perspective that works!

There are other perspectives.

It has been explained as: Burned at the Stake.

In any case, the effort to confine movement and what is often called "Spiritual" within the realm of the Dead has been happening for a long long time!

However, Now, the agreement to comply is loosing strength.

What is pertinent for myself, as I see it is that I restrict my own Self when I Harbor any Grudge.

Hi Gina,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gina:
Hi Don,

---

Don? When I read my original post and your comments, I wonder to myself, what Don wrote this? [smile]

Some one told me once, "Ask your self the question and then let it go." It has to journey out there awhile before it is reflected back.

And now someone has told *me* this. Mm-hmm. My participation on internet lists is sporadic, and when I get the urge to it seems to be that I'm searching for some specific understanding, even if I don't know what it is or what it's about.

sailer reflected something key to me yesterday in a post to the "Conscious Creation" forum. I don't remember the exact specifics, but she posted something about the time I was writing two posts myself. When I saw her first version of it, it was a couple of lines long. When I saw it a few minutes later, she'd added to it. The difference ENSURED I would notice the key for me, though I think I would have anyway.

What she added started with the words, "With all due respect". With all the respect due.

I found those simple words kept coming to mind as I went through my day. That was it. That was what had triggered me so strongly when, after following an impulse to come over here and find the amazing "The Art of Being Passionate" transcript, I read the posts in this "Rose Colored Glasses" thread.

Obvious to me now, not so clear last week, I have VERY strong beliefs in respect: respecting others' differences, respecting their right to their opinion, respecting their right to their own process. Respecting where they are, wherever that may be. Allowing them their dignity in their exploration and their expression, however confused I might think them to be, however difficult or mistaken I think they may be, however much difficulty I might believe they are creating for themselves.

So straght from the genuine high of reading "The Art of Being Passionate" - reading it out of context in one sense, I might add, not having any knowledge of the "Rose-Colored Glasses" transcript - I went to the "Rose Colored Glasses" forum topic. I definitely triggered, hard - my tender sensibilities were definitely offended. (And they were again days later when I actually read the Rose Colored Glasses transcript.) Rather than seeing my own rose-colored view of different perspectives accumulating to something greater than the sum of the parts, I perceived rampant disrespect for different perspectives. Doesn't mean that there was any disrespect in anyone's perception but my own - but my perception of disrespect was rampant within me.

More: reading the posts in this topic, I felt like my OWN right to be different, to be how I am who I am where I am, was not being given due respect. I felt threatened.

All very purposeful for me, a wonderful opportunity for me to uncover some of my own beliefs. I identified with those who I perceived as not being respected, on several sides, whenever I perceived it. In that identification I myself felt disrespected. And I found myself suddenly in a difficult position, given my beliefs, and my contradictory beliefs: I felt compelled to say something by my own sense of right and wrong, and at the same time I believed that it would be difficult for me to express myself in such a way that I accorded everyone the respect they were due according to my own guidelines. So I said what I said, and judged myself as bout right (or righteous) and wrong - wrong, because I was not respecting others' right to be disrespectful.

There are surely lots of ways we can discover within ourselves to be compassionate. Common wisdom holds that one way is to simply walk a mile in another's shoes. I had a session with Kris last fall in which I asked him a short question about my overall focus intent. He responded with an in-depth personality profile for me that really blew me away (I'd recommend it to anyone that has a session with Kris!). In it he said:

"These are formidable mountains to climb. But when you reach the peak of one of those mountains, you *do* understand the human condition; not only your own ego construction, but the actual state of the human condition. So there is a deep streak of compassion; it is, indeed, a river that runs through you."

Nothing special to me - it's true for all of us. We develop our capacity for compassion through our difficult experiences. The more miles we walk, the more shoes we share.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gina:
One may start to think that when impulsive responses, emotions are withheld, "I'm just not going to respond" then there will be peace love and understanding. Not so. The impulse will need to be expressed sooner or later, the emotion will demand to be heard as reflections in varying costumes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sailer:
In any case, the effort to confine movement and what is often called "Spiritual" within the realm of the Dead has been happening for a long long time!

However, Now, the agreement to comply is loosing strength.

What is pertinent for myself, as I see it is that I restrict my own Self when I Harbor any Grudge.

---

Yes, yes, yes. Quite so. This is at the very heart of my current challenges and explorations, at the very heart of finally allowing myself - and those around me! - my freedom to express myself. As Kris went on after the above:

"And that is perhaps why you have been hesitant for many years to venture out into the world: because you have an affinity to not only understand the human condition, but you are sensitive enough that you are indeed very empathic to others."

And what fscking good does that hesitation do, for me or anyone else? I'm here. Shall I apply myself to not being here, to reduce my presence as much as possible, out of oversensitivity, out of the desire to "respect"? Well, I have automatically spent a lot of my effort in doing just that.

To paraphrase Paul in another post, I don't know about anyone else, but it is difficult for me to perceive someone being treated without respect. And it's difficult for me to do what I *believe* may be disrepectful of another's unique exploration. But if the energy's within me, then, as sailer says, to rigidly comply with this guideline of mine restricts my self and discards my strength. Poisoning my self in the process.

And who here in this forum or anywhere else would I wish to poison herself or himself by stifling their expression? No one.

Seriously, lending energy can be very powerful...

I get it.

With the energy lent to me - or that I've made use of, lent to me or not [smile] - for one thing, I've walked, if not a mile, then at least a few steps in the shoes of what I had within my own beliefs called "disrespecting". Not that my personal guidelines are now radically different, but I interpret them less rigidly now than I did, and I believe I have a broader understanding than I did. As Elias has said, compassion is knowing, understanding, and as such is a component of love. And, through the energy I've used of those here, I've made more movement in the freeing of my own expression. I have no idea how I've lent energy to others here, but I'm sure it's happened somehow. Yes, it's very powerful.

Imagine if everyone put in $.02, we'd be rich!!

Yep. Gina, sailer, thanks for your comments and energy, and thanks to all in this forum. It's definitely been a help to me, EVERY energy here. The less rigid my interpretation, the greater the help.

With a few cents more in the bank,
Don

I had totally forgotten there were other sections in the discussion forums. I only had the "Conscious Creation" link in my favorites.

Well, now I see a little background to Serge and Ellens arguments with me (in the CC section a few weeks ago) on the topic of murderers and terrorists and remembered someone mentioning to check out the "Rose Colored Glasses" discussion (which I didnt know was elsewhere in this forum).

I also read the Kris session on the topic and was reminded why I could not get into his material (no offense to Serge and Mark). As Rob mentioned, it seemed imbued with too much of a 'human' standpoint or perspective, i.e., human values coming across as essence (Kris) values; i.e., social ills, cancer, necessity of compassion, etc. I believe essence is neutral.

On the matter of duplicity, good or bad, right or wrong as applying to violence, terrorism, fanaticism, etc, I think Drew, Rob and Sailer put forward good arguments and I agree with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
When applied to the London bombings we can clearly see an ethnocentric moral stance. Kill the infidel, love myself, my family, and mosque members.

To confuse THAT with a consciousnesscentric perspective taken by Seth, Elias, and Kris is fatal and actually perpetuates the cycles of violence and violation. And this is exactly what Drew and now Rob are doing in their comments...

---

Nope, Paul, I think you missed out on a vital aspect of the argument here (which nobody really mentioned). You're giving the perpetrators the power of life or death or injury over others. The OTHERS (the "victims") and ONLY THEM, are who call the shots as to when and if the slightest harm or injury may befall them. Basically not much differently than the "victims" of the recent Tsunami that wiped out hundreds of thousands of lives. The only difference being that one group of "victims" employed nature as a vehicle for their deaths and injuries while the others employed other beings to do it for them. These "other beings", the "terrorists", are creating their OWN reality which includes dishing out harm and injury to others. But they do not have the power to over-ride or supercede the ultimate will of the victims to decide exactly what befalls them.

You're basically saying we create our reality, but terrorists or criminals have more power to shape our reality for us in its most intimate aspects, that of our health, injury, death and destruction and can over-ride our will in what ultimately happens to us. In other words, other beings have more power to create our reality for us than we do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
Therefore, it's healthier in collective terms to deligitimize, discredit, and dismantle the terrorist cells responsible for the bombings in London (note that I am still focusing on this issue here, and need to take other's on a case by case basis).

My concern is that claiming Seth, Elias, and Kris say ABSOLUTELY that there is no absolute good or bad perpetuates the cycle of violence and violation. For if we do not take a stand and condemn this bombing as a brutal act and instead say, "it's not wrong," then we lend energy to those who would get up one morning, put a knapsack bomb on and detonate it in a subway full of "enemies."...

---

No sir, nothing perpetuates the violence other than our collective focus on it. To "collectively deligitimize, discredit, and dismantle the terrorist cells" as you say, is probably more of an action that lends energy to its perpetuation.

Even if we stop "lending energy" to the terror and stop the violence, all we would have done is decided to choose other means for our perpetually occuring deaths and injuries. That is accidents or nature. It certainly looks "more proper" and "acceptable" that way. THAT is what you want, I guess. For us to die and be hurt in the "proper" and "acceptable" way.

I believe that for terrorism to end, we should just ignore it. Remember, WE decide how and when we get hurt or die, not others decide for us (despite outward appearances).

If another 9-11 happens (to America), they should just fly all their aircraft and drop tons of flowers over the perpetrators countries. I think that would be so powerful it would create a radical shift in human behaviour throughout the world.

On a closing note, I firmly believe in the no good, no bad, "neutral" nature of reality. I believe in the concept that is. On a practical level, I'm a duplicity filled bastard and if I see one of those damn fuckers/terrorists walking by I will lunge for his throat.

Ahmed

[ 09-15-2005: Message edited by: Ahmed ]

We seem to keep coming back to the concept where people think that they need to deny their humanity in order to be more spiritual. Again, people are just echoing the old Judeo-Christian teaching that humans are flawed and damned, that they need to shed the flesh to be forgiven by God. REPENT!!

We are already Essence, we are already spirit and that Essence part of us is EXPRESSING itself as HUMAN. Do you think that after all that hard work and effort of creating the physical world, the physical bodies, the physical Universe, the human condition, the events and circumstance of our day to day lives that we HUMANS should DENY it, because "it isn't spiritual"?

That is like spending all day creating a feast, then come dinner time throwing it all in the trash can, because it's not spiritual.

Interesting post Ahmed.. in so many words, you've just demonstrated exacty what Kris was talking about.

And by the way, let me reprimand Kris here: "Bad.. Bad Kris for expressing human values that do NOT meet Ahmed's approval. Kris, before you utter another word, PLEASE consult with Ahmed, as he knows the inner workings of Essence so well he can tell you what words to use so you don't sound too human in perspective, and do not remind him of his humanity!

"I also read the Kris session on the topic and was reminded why I could not get into his material (no offense to Serge and Mark). As Rob mentioned, it seemed imbued with too much of a 'human' standpoint or perspective, i.e., human values coming across as essence (Kris) values; i.e., social ills, cancer, necessity of compassion, etc. I believe essence is neutral."

That's a cold, cold thing to contemplate...I do appreciate what you're saying here, Ahmed, because you do put a lot of thought behind your words, but I simply can't understand this point of view. I can't understand why anyone would want to separate Essence from themselves in such a way. As Mark just said, and as many of us keep stressing, WE ARE ESSENCE. There is no separation. Essence does feel emotion, Essence does enjoy life THROUGH us. Essence laughs and cries -- THROUGH us.

However, I believe it is our choice whether we allow a full expression of Essence through us. That's what's referred to as free will. We are expressing Essence all the time, of course, to some extent, but many people keep it to a limited level and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for us because when we don't allow Essence to fully express through us, we are not fully aware. If we won't allow Essence its expression, then we can't fully express either, and I believe that's why we are seeing so much of what Paul calls moral relativism here.

The refusal to express one's true human nature, with its full range of emotions and imagination leads to this stance. I kind of touched on this idea with the "Forbidden Knowledge and Taxidermy" thread on the IVJ forum. One becomes like a taxidermist's stuffed animal, with a ferocious or beautiful aspect, but no true expression, just deadness, lifelessness. Essence is gone, because it's been refused, excised, replaced with neutral, dead material.

When we keep Essence at arm's length by insisting that it's something outside of us, unemotional, above us, all-knowing but dispassionate, we deaden ourselves to a certain extent.

Essence never stops trying to show it's love and longing for US. But the ball is in our court.

Frankly, we've got the real power here. We can call the shots, because this is our ballgame. If we don't want to believe Essence feels, and loves and longs, laughs and cries, then that gives us an excuse not to feel either. The message so many seem to want to hear is: "let's all try to be more like Essence, so we won't feel, see, hear, or know the pain or the violence or the sadness. If that means the joy and the love have to go too, then so be it."

Then choice has to go too, because there is no choice if everything is relative. No good or bad or right or wrong, it's all relative. No choice to love or hate. No choice to laugh or cry. No choice to rage or grieve. No choice to write a poem or paint a picture, because it's all relative, there's no passion for expression of anything.

"I believe essence is neutral."

In the sense that Essence will not interfere with your free will to choose your path, nor take sides in your arguments, that is correct. But in the sense that Essence doesn't give a rat's ass what goes on inside of you? NO, no no! Essence constantly nudges, tweaks, puts signs in your path, sends dream imagery, etc. Essence wants what is best for you and will do whatever it can to communicate that to you. Essence DOES give a rat's ass and much more and never gives up trying. It seeks your value fulfillment.

The amazing thing, the most incredible thing is...you can refuse it and so many do. For many long years, even lifetimes. That is a gift, that you have that choice to refuse. It means you are not a puppet of Essence. Essence cannot demand more than a basic physical survival mode if that's all you want to express, and you can even suicide out of that if you want. It's your choice. That is part of the "Forbidden Knowledge" from my dream.

But man, that's a tough row to hoe, to live that kind of life, never sharing the creative power of your self with your Self.

Hi Ahmed,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmed:
I had totally forgotten there were other sections in the discussion forums. I only had the "Conscious Creation" link in my favorites.

Well, now I see a little background to Serge and Ellens arguments with me (in the CC section a few weeks ago) on the topic of murderers and terrorists and remembered someone mentioning to check out the "Rose Colored Glasses" discussion (which I didnt know was elsewhere in this forum).

I also read the Kris session on the topic and was reminded why I could not get into his material (no offense to Serge and Mark). As Rob mentioned, it seemed imbued with too much of a 'human' standpoint or perspective, i.e., human values coming across as essence (Kris) values; i.e., social ills, cancer, necessity of compassion, etc. I believe essence is neutral.

---

When Seth, Elias, or Kris speak, they speak in our language and use our cultural signifiers to relate to us. In other words, they are hardly neutral, but take on our characteristics, human characteristics. So they are hardly neutral in that sense because they express using Jane's, Mary's, and Serge's linguistic abilities. All human words hold intrinsic value and meaning.

Further, within essence, we have our own value system and preferences as witnessed by the concepts of clusters/life clouds/pools, Source Events, blueprints, cordellas, and other "involutionary givens." Essence is anything but neutral but the very source that makes us possible.

The connection that you intuit is that essence does not hold the currency of belief systems, thoughts, or feelings, so essence may appear to be neutral but it is hardly that. It is the source of all belief systems, thoughts, and feelings. And that is fueled by value fulfillment, which is hardly neutral.

Also, Seth talks about natural aggression, the healthy kind that makes all physical life possible. Without natural aggression Seth claims our universe would cease to exist. So essence uses natural aggression to create, and is naturally aggressive. Why deny our innate natural human aggression? I believe that's what leads to the kind of fundamentalist eruptions, along with sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors, that we're discussing on this Topic.

quote:

---

On the matter of duplicity, good or bad, right or wrong as applying to violence, terrorism, fanaticism, etc, I think Drew, Rob and Sailor put forward good arguments and I agree with them.

---

And again, you make the same performative contradiction that renders your point illogical and useless. It is a self-contradictory claim, to claim universally that there is no good or bad.

What scale do you use? What Rose Colored Glasses do you really wear to judge essence as "neutral" for example? There's a hidden value scale that you use you, and yet you deny at the same time. Hence, the chronic self-contradiction.

quote:

---

No sir, nothing perpetuates the violence other than our collective focus on it. To "collectively deligitimize, discredit, and dismantle the terrorist cells" as you say, is probably more of an action that lends energy to its perpetuation.

Even if we stop "lending energy" to the terror and stop the violence, all we would have done is decided to choose other means for our perpetually occurring deaths and injuries. That is accidents or nature. It certainly looks "more proper" and "acceptable" that way. THAT is what you want, I guess. For us to die and be hurt in the "proper" and "acceptable" way.

---

I never said the issue was proper or acceptable ways to die, but the use of violence as a means toward a political end. I guess you think that's OK.

What value scale do you use to judge it as OK or not OK?

It's your belief system of duplicity. Own up to it, and stop hiding behind "no good or bad" or "it's all point of view."

Also, do you not buy into Seth's "thou shalt not violate" or "the means never justify the ends"? Seth must be wrong here, too. Perhaps he's also sounding too human to you?

Did you ever stop to think that there's nothing but human interaction going on here, and that all this talk of essence is merely abstraction and over-intellectualization? Our direct experience right now, on these lists, in person, is very human. You confuse essence interaction, human interaction, and essence/human interaction. They are three very different interactions.

My point is that WE DON'T KNOW about essence interaction, we can mostly speculate based upon adequate study, research, and doing the practices over decades. We DO know a lot about human interaction. And the small glimpses of essence/human we're privileged to share during these energy exchanges are few and far between.

You confuse the human/essence interaction as evidence for essence interaction to claim that it's "neutral," but that is a completely different field of consciousness, value, and action.

Further, human/essence interactions ALWAYS get translated into our language and cultural symbols, and we must interpret their words based on where we are at in our own growth, understanding, and life experience. And THAT is a very human creation, or fleshy tale as Seth would say. And that is filled with values, judgments, discernments, and beliefs of duplicity. And that is anything but "neutral".

quote:

---

I believe that for terrorism to end, we should just ignore it. Remember, WE decide how and when we get hurt or die, not others decide for us (despite outward appearances).

---

Yes, we should all become human ostriches and just stick our heads where the sun don't shine to ignore it and make it go away. This is a textbook example of an egocentric response Ahmed. If it doesn't exist in your reality, then there's no problem, no suffering, no dis-ease, no rape, no murder, no war. (This is also a defense mechanism used to repress the horrible realities being created at times by your fellow humans.)

The New Age version of this is the NIMR (not in my reality) defense. And actually that IS a valid perspective, let me be clear about that. But just don't pretend that you hold a worldcentric view on the matter. You may be able to parrot the talk, but your words, Drew's words, and Sailor's words, are all further evidence that you still don't see from worldcentric eyes, but mouth egocentric rhetoric thinly disguised in worldcentric words.

quote:

---

If another 9-11 happens (to America), they should just fly all their aircraft and drop tons of flowers over the perpetrators countries. I think that would be so powerful it would create a radical shift in human behaviour throughout the world

---

Al Qaeda will certainly appreciate your flowers Ahmed, and I suggest you personally go and do just that and report back to us all how these thugs respond. Or do you consider them freedom fighters, and their violent means justified?

quote:

---

On a closing note, I firmly believe in the no good, no bad, "neutral" nature of reality. I believe in the concept that is.

---

And you close with yet another performative contradiction. A universal claim that there's no universal claims. You still refuse to admit that you wear Rose Color Glasses, and hide behind contradiction.

quote:

---

On a practical level, I'm a duplicity filled bastard and if I see one of those damn fuckers/terrorists walking by I will lunge for his throat.

Ahmed

---

It's like Jekyll and Hyde are posting in the same paragraph. What happened to the "no good or bad"? So you do wear Rose Colored Glasses and essence isn't really neutral?

You pretend to understand that you hold the belief system of duplicity and yet from the other side of your mouth you claim there is simultaneously no good or bad universally. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

There IS good and bad, and you're judging my post through your belief system of duplicity. All I'm saying is own up to it, and stop hiding behind contradictions. They are beliefs, and beliefs are central to reality creation, or so claims Seth, Elias, and Kris. Even though they're relative, and not absolute (I never said the belief system of duplicity is an Absolute Universal Truth), they ARE real and affecting, and we're not eliminating them.

So what then?

We're collectively moving from preconventional and conventional stages of development toward postconventional stages on a global scale. THAT IS GOOD, THE SHIFT IS GOOD, and human development toward higher stages of development is central to this shift and its insertion and accomplishment. And THAT work is ultimately at the very fleshy, human level that requires, demands a majority to "face up to the abilities of consciousness," grow up, and widen our awareness so that we can BETTER solve problems and challenges that face us.

To ignore them only means we will repeat history. As the saying goes, "to ignore history is to repeat it." Our work is clearly cut out for us.

Finally, I would hope if you lunge for someone's throat you are prepared for the consequences. It won't be flowers they'll be handing you.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

When Seth, Elias, or Kris speak, they speak in our language and use our cultural signifiers to relate to us. In other words, they are hardly neutral, but take on our characteristics, human characteristics. So they are hardly neutral in that sense because they express using Jane's, Mary's, and Serge's linguistic abilities. All human words hold intrinsic value and meaning...

---

Sure, but I dont go by what YOU view that to be, I go with what resonates with ME and hence express what I believe things to be, and yes, most certainly with 'Rose colored glasses'. Seth was as near 'absolute' a 'blueprint to the nature of reality' as could be to ME, until I began listening to other information and factored in what I believed (note the pronoun "I", not God, Elias, Seth, you, etc) to be 'distortion'. There are probably thousands of channellers on the planet today: http://www.greatdreams.com/channeling.htm - and just because info comes out of one, does not mean I should hold it in equal value to the others - again, I go with what resonates with ME, not you, Serge, Mark or Ellen.

What I meant by Kris' too often having 'human values coming across as essence' were simply my code words for 'distortion'- and noticing that the nature of the material is probably no different than what an articulate fellow with background knowledge of Seth could probably deliver - nothing unique or original in itself to grab me by the collar and say 'AHA, theres something profoundly unique about this!'. But again, thats just ME.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
And again, you make the same performative contradiction that renders your point illogical and useless. It is a self-contradictory claim, to claim universally that there is no good or bad.

What scale do you use? What Rose Colored Glasses do you really wear to judge essence as "neutral" for example? There's a hidden value scale that you use you, and yet you deny at the same time. Hence, the chronic self-contradiction.

---

Sure, I use 'my scale'. My scale is that reality is a 'blank canvass' and 'good or bad' are simply colors we apply to it. If you term that viewpoint as my 'rose colored glasses', so be it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

I never said the issue was proper or acceptable ways to die, but the use of violence as a means toward a political end. I guess you think that's OK.

What value scale do you use to judge it as OK or not OK?

---

You miss the point (which I think I made adequately clear in my initial post), that there is no such thing as forced violence or death upon others. We create our reality and choose how we flourish, suffer or die. It is NOT imposed upon us by others, including terrorits! That is my belief, and THAT, excuse me if I'm mistaken, is what Elias, Seth and Kris blabber endlessy too, is it not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

Also, do you not buy into Seth's "thou shalt not violate" or "the means never justify the ends"? Seth must be wrong here, too. Perhaps he's also sounding too human to you?

---

I believe that, not because Seth says it, but because its an ingrained 'human value' that I've been brought up with (and yes, I have those and express those, incl. 'good or bad', but I still hold 'ideals' that 'good and bad' evaluations will not be too predominant a part of my reality at some 'future' point). And why be selective with what Seth says are 'violations'? How about 'procreation' on our over-populated planet as being a 'violation'? If you and your wife had kids in this day and age YOU VIOLATED according to Seth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
Did you ever stop to think that there's nothing but human interaction going on here, and that all this talk of essence is merely abstraction and over-intellectualization? Our direct experience right now, on these lists, in person, is very human. You confuse essence interaction, human interaction, and essence/human interaction. They are three very different interactions.

---

Sure, there's nothing but human interaction going on here, still I thought a big part of this interaction is to relate what we believe to be relevant in what 'essences' relate to us. And if somethin strikes a chord, we shout 'hey, look at this!' I guess we can choose to ignore or embrace it. Confuse essence interaction, human interaction, and essence/human interaction? Lets just say, I hold certain essence utterances with greater weight than certain human utterances (although not exclusively), and certain essence information with greater weight than other essence information. I pick and choose with what resonates with me. Surely you do the same (I certainly hope you do!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:
You confuse the human/essence interaction as evidence for essence interaction to claim that it's "neutral," but that is a completely different field of consciousness, value, and action.

---

Not exactly. I believe the nature of reality to be neutral. And we 'color it' with 'values', good or bad, etc. Some essences try to detach (or appear to detach) themselves from such values, i.e, Elias, while others appear to espouse such values, not as 'colorings' of reality, but AS reality, i.e., Kris, Seth (to an extent).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

Further, human/essence interactions ALWAYS get translated into our language and cultural symbols, and we must interpret their words based on where we are at in our own growth, understanding, and life experience. And THAT is a very human creation, or fleshy tale as Seth would say. And that is filled with values, judgments, discernments, and beliefs of duplicity. And that is anything but "neutral".

---

I agree, but it seems to me that some essences (Elias, Seth) try to make you aware of that as they relate to us, while others (appear to) not make much attempt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

We're collectively moving from preconventional and conventional stages of development toward postconventional stages on a global scale. THAT IS GOOD, THE SHIFT IS GOOD, and human development toward higher stages of development is central to this shift and its insertion and accomplishment. And THAT work is ultimately at the very fleshy, human level that requires, demands a majority to "face up to the abilities of consciousness," grow up, and widen our awareness so that we can BETTER solve problems and challenges that face us.

---

Uhm, whatever you say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

To ignore them only means we will repeat history. As the saying goes, "to ignore history is to repeat it." Our work is clearly cut out for us.

---

"to ignore history is to repeat it.". Really? Absolutely?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

Yes, we should all become human ostriches and just stick our heads where the sun don't shine to ignore it and make it go away. This is a textbook example of an egocentric response Ahmed. If it doesn't exist in your reality, then there's no problem, no suffering, no dis-ease, no rape, no murder, no war. (This is also a defense mechanism used to repress the horrible realities being created at times by your fellow humans.)

---

So you say we dont create our reality. Others create it for us and 'murder' us and 'rape' us. THEY create our death and destruction while we (victims) passively accept it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul M. Helfrich:

Al Qaeda will certainly appreciate your flowers Ahmed, and I suggest you personally go and do just that and report back to us all how these thugs respond. Or do you consider them freedom fighters, and their violent means justified?

---

How will they respond? By 'killing' me or us? Aah, so they DO create our reality! OK, new acronym folks: QCOR. Qaeda Creates Our Reality.

Sorry, have to go. Will resume with the remaining points later.

See ya,
Ahmed

[ 09-15-2005: Message edited by: Ahmed ]

Why are you bothering to return and 'finish' Ahmed.. its 'absolutely' clear that you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. So you DO admit that you wear Rose Colored Glasses!! At least that is a begining.

I'm intrigued by this quote from you: "What I meant by Kris' too often having 'human values coming across as essence' were simply my code words for 'distortion'- and noticing that the nature of the material is probably no different than what an articulate fellow with background knowledge of Seth could probably deliver - nothing unique or original in itself to grab me by the collar and say 'AHA, theres something profoundly unique about this!'. But again, thats just ME."

In other words you hold that Kris is more distorted, which in ALL the ghosts views, would be a REFLECTION of your own views, which means your views are distorted!

Since the very begining of our public interactions here on NWV we have sometimes even been vehemently (and with much vitriol) attacked just because Kris doesn't use Elias Speak. In fact, one person actually got physically ill because she so STRONGLY believed that ONLY Elias is a real essence and NO others can be!

That very same person STILL HOLDS that very same view, even when Elias has publically confirmed that Kris is authentic Essence/Energy Exchange.

Just because Kris speaks and chooses to address people in another way, you have marginalized and discounted ALL Kris says simply because he doesn't meet your HIGH standards. God forbid Elias ever say something you would object to!

Its all right to hold your own views, and who cares really... its all right to pretend only your 'thougts' are real, even when they themselves are distorted. Its your choice, your beliefs, or as Elias has often pointed out, your preferences, which are no more than your own beliefs.

So, from my point of you, whether you consider yourself a duplicity filled bastard or not is irrelevent to me, and whether you like it or not, Kris has been around for 25 years and will continue for another 25.

You are NOT obliged to read anymore.. in fact, I'd advise against it as it may prove a contaminant to your constitution.

From my own perspective, you act just like SO many who think they actually know how things work just because you have read a few books here and there and if you can parrot, you got a handle on it.

Kris has proven himself over and over to hundreds and thousands of people already and you really don't make a dent in anything.

Another thing I notice from your quoted words is that your are looking for the "AHA".. is that all you look for? That means you read for titillation, not for understanding. Also, you claim that Kris is: "probably no different than what an articulate fellow with background knowledge of Seth could probably deliver - nothing unique or original in itself".

Yet I don't see you doing any more yourself.... and poorly at it too. You take a few things, distort it and claim you have answers. At least Kris has already given hundreds of sessions on extremely deep and even highly original insights, but all you are able to say is "Its their choice too" over and over. Not much originality in that.

Actually, its seems to be your catch phrase, as if it should diffuse and make it all right that the child gets killed and the victim and the killer chose this interaction, and as such, its all right.

In fact NO ONE has ever disputed that, ever, that there are choices, but because you don't see the words in print, then it's not authentic??!!

Perhaps if the words you place so much value on, like "choice", "preferences", "no victims" and so on were pronounced at least three times in every sentence, would that make it better?? Herein lies your own contradiction!

This reminds me many years ago when a friend who had severe back pain went to see a 'healer' who actually helped her and for many weeks she was able to do things she could not before. One day while listening to the TV Evangelist, she heard the Evangelist say: "If the healing is not done IN the name of Jesus, its from the Devil, and Evil".

Well, according to her belief system as she was deeply Roman Catholic, she immediately set up doubts and lost all the work done to that moment and immediately her back pains returned for many years till she realized what she had done.

The point being that because her healing was not done to someone else's standards, she lost what she had gained until she worked it out for herself. Similarly for you, you have set up a standard and used it to compare and discount. Yet you don't yet own up to that or many other points Paul brought up, because you can't, and like you called yourself, you are likely a duplicity filled bastard, in your own words!

Another perspective on this is.. if you came across someone that got hit by a car and is conscious but seriouly injured and even bleeding... what would you do:

1) - sit besides them and hold discourse on how its their choice, how they are not a victim, how the person who's car hit them and they who got hit are neither victim or perpetrator of harm but each participant in this scenario, each working it strictly for "experience, preference and choice", then consider your duty done and walk away leaving them to bleed to death,

2)- or would you assist them, call for help, provide perhaps even life saving cpr or comfort them and hold them till help arrived, perhaps saving their life??

Your views are your own, its your choice, you're entirely free to develop an allergy to the Kris material, and go in peace.

Cheers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmed:

You miss the point (which I think I made adequately clear in my initial post), that there is no such thing as forced violence or death upon others. We create our reality and choose how we flourish, suffer or die. It is NOT imposed upon us by others, including terrorits! That is my belief, and THAT, excuse me if I'm mistaken, is what Elias, Seth and Kris blabber endlessy too, is it not?
See ya,
Ahmed

---

No, that is NOT what they blabber on and on about.

To make a point, I am going to quote the Netjers which are from quadrant four and have never manifested in the physical reality as you and I know it. Their perspective is quite different from Elias, Seth and Kris.

quote:

---

Your species is not new.

MARK: I am learning that. Fascinating.

N: Your histories are very long and repeated. You were on your planet when it was very young and you will be on it when it will be very old. And there will come a time when it will lose itself. It will be changed like all things. We have seen many worlds take birth, many die. Even the stars, themselves are older than you think. They, the stars, the planets do a dance around each other. They travel though your skies change. Your planet itself is one of many with life and the life on your planet is not unique. But it is interesting and most unique in some ways. It appears and disappears with regularity.

MARK: Can u explain this?

N: The forms on your planet, they come, they go.

MARK: Does this happen on other worlds?

N: Indeed. NOT like here. If you understood the vast amount of time involved that goes by so quickly your own views on yourself would be different, you would not fear what you call death. You would not kill each other thinking that you have destroyed someone. There are worlds in between your worlds and there are doorways into each. We can flow through these and bring you some information.

Your forms are interesting. You use them to deny your abilities instead of displaying your abilities.

MARK: Is that something unique to this world?

N: It is not something to be proud of or a badge of pride. You offer it out of default, instead of power, self assurance and peace.

---

The salient point that Seth, Elias, Kris and OTHERS are TRYING to put across is that WE as humans have a pattern whereas we KILL each OTHER over and over and over again, thinking and believing that we have no other options or choices in which to resolve our conflicts, BUT that the opposite is true.

We have an ENDLESS supply of options, of CHOICES, of RESOURCES and TOOLS at our disposal. We don't have to continue expressing the same old belief structures that the only way to resolve our conflicts is to kill. You and I may be able to think of a hundred different solutions to our problems, whereas the Universe has ONE THOUSAND or MORE that are available to you... the Universe being representative of YOU, your WHOLE SELF and all of it's aspects whether physical or not.

Yes, from the perspective of ESSENCE, we are NOT forced into death or anything else, HOWEVER, from the perspective of FOCUS we sure as HELL are!

YOU are ESSENCE, but you are also PHYSICAL and even though that is a paradox, it is a truth! Both states exist SIMULTANEOUSLY and it is really frustrating when people shout out that they are "Essence" and "Non-Linear" and are therefore ABOVE everyone else.

You and I trapped on this same God Damn planet Sunshine, whether you like it or not and down here in THIS real world, people get killed by other people when they are not expecting it. I have yet to see anyone murdered who has signed a waiver giving permission for that murder. BOTH physical and non-physical realities are VALID!!!

Seth, Elias, Kris and others speak to us at the request of our Essences, because our Essences desire us to change those old patterns and belief structures. WE are desiring change.

Essence communicates with Essence on Essence level. Essence communicates with focuses through energy exchanges, dreams, synchronicities, etc. If the Essence Elias is speaking to ONLY you as Essence, why is he laboring through an energy exchange to do it? If you are ONLY Essence, why do you even need this information from Elias? You already FULLY know, understand AND act upon the information.

Elias is communicating with focuses, with HUMANS, because they (WE) are the ones that need the information.

- Mark -

Hi again,

Golly, I just read what Cathy had written and that has also been locked(?) away.
(kinda weird, lol)
Now, I sure don't know much about any of that 'flaming' kinda stuff, but it also seems to me that in order to flame there has to be more than one sparky a'goin' on. From what I read though, I felt/saw alot of 'jumping to conclusions' and 'connecting of dots' that just weren't really there in the first place.... and then too, a whole lot of 'touchiness' about something of other a'goin' on. For example; if I were to say that I don't care much for the Bushman as a politician, it sure don't mean that I hate him... does it now? No, of course it doesn't, it doesn't a'tall. And as far as villifying anyone... hey... don't leave me out of that one.... and pleeeeeeze, lol. You know, and as Mae West quite aptly put it, "When I'm good, I'm good, but when I'm bad, I'm even better." And my gooderness do I ever feel/know that one, and to the max too, lol... and cuz, and so far anyways, I am that I am... there is no-thing I am not... I am all that I am not.
(and... all of 'it' is and has been a whole lotta fun too.... more please)

Disagree or no (either or works for me, lol) I whole-heartedly believe in an open (and hopefully honest, lol) discussion, and if'n you guys get all shook up over that kind of 'you said I said' foolishness... well... yikes!... and most gooder luck too.

Now it seems to me that the only way a flamer can possibly remain a flamer is if'n a fish is hooked. Other-wise a flamer will always slip right into being a spammer, lol... and tsk and tsk. And everyone knows what "we" do with them spammers, don't 'we'.... de-lete!

Mehopes there be mucho en-light-en-ing up, and cuz after all, 'the point is, there is no point'.

If: "'the point is, there is no point'", then why bring it up? :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~

Another "point" here in this line of discussion: Pres. Bush said in his address this evening that "Hurricane Katrina exposed deep poverty in the south". Now, without getting into all this metaphysical stuff about choices and all that, because NO ONE questions this point!!!, what can the average joe do to help alleviate poverty??

Do you click the heels of your pretty red shoes three times, close your eyes and wish it all goes away by saying its all choices its all choices its all choices... OR, is there something constructive that people CAN do with all their abilities of consciouseness, to change that situation, without telling each one of them its your choice, your preference. Something tangible, tactile, something they can immediately use without going all woo-woo on them.

Its no wonder many people see New Age philosophy as just another way to blame the victim, when nothing truly constructive is offered to those in need except philosophical clap trap.

For example, "Habitat for HumanityŽ International" does something absolutely wondeful.. help change the status of thousands of people, help give them a new lease on life. Many times this has proven just the thing the people need to transform their existence (and sometimes not).. that someone cares.

So, if the person who has brought Habitat into their focus to help give themselves the much needed boost, they can likely take it from there.

Or would you consider this to be fraudulent, since the idea of 'choice and preference' may not be brought up every third word, or as part of their condition for getting the house?

Questions questions.. so many of them... questions..!

Note added by Paul H:

This Topic was closed because the core issue was no longer being addressed.