• From: US.VA
  • Registered: 2004-03-27

Topic: excercising the question mark

==============Begin Topic Excerpts===========

BlackBox wrote:

Sedna, no need to hope. Nothing can stop an STS being from getting what he/she/it wants. Reality can bend just as we know our brains are more like plastic than a hard-substance. A brain changes it's shape from every thought to every debate. Plastic.

In regards to mirrors...there are two ways I look at it. One is there are mirrors (meaning opposites) for every factor of existence. Something must always balance the other. Sweet = Sour. Now for example if you think there is an evil SednaSphere, or maybe 3-evil Sedna's equal 1 good Sedna tongue. However you should keep in mind that the evil-Sedna's (and I know i'm on thin ice since we're speaking in subjective terms) and the evil-BlackBox's, in the future, ARE the SAME entities as our MCS controllers. It's not like they are they and we are us. It is much more intermingled than that. Souls are fragments, not individuals. We become individuals when we enter from birth (amnesia) and are programmed through maturation.

The hyperdimensional beings cannot be separated from fragments like us. They are US. Some of us become them or we become their counter-balance on the STO-realm. Either way, when you look UP the levels of existence (that of the 7-grades the C's and Ra speak of), you are seeing yourself or your mirrors.

In response I quoted and wrote:
BB wrote:

The hyperdimensional beings cannot be separated from fragments like us. They are US. Some of us become them or we become their counter-balance on the STO-realm. Either way, when you look UP the levels of existence (that of the 7-grades the C's and Ra speak of), you are seeing yourself or your mirrors.

  Who are you talking about as "us"?  "Us" who?  Again, it's always important to speak for oneself.  Also, "which" hyperdimensional beings are you referring to?  So, how do you "look UP the levels of existence"?  Are you saying you can do this?

BB wrote:

Nothing can stop an STS being from getting what he/she/it wants.

How did you come up with this nonsense?

To which Black Box responded:

BlackBox wrote:

BB wrote:

(BB) Nothing can stop an STS being from getting what he/she/it wants.
(c) How did you come up with this nonsense?

Hmm, well I can explain before you call it nonsense...

STS - Service To Self - Black-Hole a cosmic symbol. In 3D, it is much more complicated than just adding and subtracting to the equation. C-transcripts go over what they term "wishful thinking". As the grades climb up the learning curve and the transition from 3D to 4D occurs, further separation/division between STO and STS occurs. It's like the Universe is just a filtration system for a dualism that is based on polarity.

So, with that said, at 4D STS, wishful thinking, as the C's state, becomes ultimate. A STS being in 4D is not veiled behind time like we are. What is wished, wanted, etc, is the physical reality that is manifested. The conscious-mind at this state is at the ethereal milestone that allows god-like existence for those of us (half of all existence?) that "wish it". I think in 4D, sex is no longer there, as energy feeding itself is like a drug, a habitual drug that is necessary for maintaining "life". No males or females...that's why I said "it" after "he/she".

Now the same power that the 4D STS use to manipulate matter and thought as they please, can be achieved by those in 3D. Of course not even to any close vicinity of what it is like in 4D but the same effects can be created. Mind-power, etc. YCYOR = You Create Your Own Reality. These theories imply that the mind, orients our individual magnetism (FRV) to manifest whatever we concentrate/focus on. I've been practicing theory like this for the past month, and I've been stunned by what concentrating on certain outcomes actually does IF you don't negate the thoughts by countering with what psychologists call self-destructive beliefs.

Maybe "nothing" is the wrong word, since that is ultimately the subjective DOWNFALL of STS-strategy/game-theory. They are so focused at what they want to see, wish to see, that they may, or rather as the C's suggest, WILL not achieve what they are goaling for (this time around).

Who are you talking about as "us"?   "Us" who?   Again, it's always important to speak for oneself.   Also, "which" hyperdimensional beings are you referring to?   So, how do you "look UP the levels of existence"?   Are you saying you can do this?

I didn't mean the last statement to be taken literally. I meant observe the teachings so far that have been revealed in regards to MCS-theories and channeled material that seem to orient towards the same major points of Universal structure. As Above, So Below. What occurs ABOVE US cannot be observed or understood like we do that of a T.V. show or a park we can walk and experience with our senses. UP means you've looked DOWN and you have seen structure, and you are putting faith upon the alchemical rule-of-thumb to expect structure from every angle. Cycles, Circles, etc etc. Structure, or rather the act of ORDER being created from CHAOS, I think, allows us to understand the universe as objectively as any other state-of-mind. Regardless of illumination or enlightenment, this type of philosophy brings PURPOSE back to the people.

"US" means that we symbolically represent what is also intermingled and connected in other Densities. This is because time doesn't exist and everything occurs simultaneously. There are some of US that go to the Dark Side and some of us that retain the light and continue to walk closer and closer "towards the light"...reminds me of near-death experiences...hmm, I wonder why I have that thought, but perhaps that's an important thing to discuss also. I'm speaking in regards to the common "bright-light" and the common societal expression of saying "Don't walk to the light Billy, stay with me!!!" to dramatize and symbolize that one should NOT go towards the life. Stay in Prison people!!! (or a hotel for some of course)

==============End Topic Excerpts===========

BlackBox said a mouthful here.  At the risk of putting on the surgical gloves, here are some comments on his response. (for the sake of syntax, BlackBox's words will be italics)

STS - Service To Self - Black-Hole a cosmic symbol.

STS is short for Service To Self and is a concept for a reality.  A Black-Hole is a concept and a reality which may be said to symbolize Service To Self.  This sentence fragment doesn't make sense if the three subjects together are to be seen as a symbol (namely, STS - Service To Self and - Black-Hole).  It might make sense as: 'A Black-Hole is a cosmic symbol for Service To Self'.

In 3D, it is much more complicated than just adding and subtracting to the equation.

What is more complicated?  Adding and subtracting from what equation?  Again, this sentence is without meaning.  Given sufficient leeway, one could surmise 'it' meaning 'a cosmic symbol', the subject from the previous sentence.  But then, how is 'a cosmic symbol more complicated than just adding and subtracting to the equation'?  I guess 'it' is something we can't know.

C-transcripts go over what they term "wishful thinking".  As the grades climb up the learning curve and the transition from 3D to 4D occurs, further separation/division between STO and STS occurs. It's like the Universe is just a filtration system for a dualism that is based on polarity.

Okay, so the 'grades climb up the learning curve'.  Wait, what is a 'grade', and does it do any climbing?  It would seem a 'grade' is a 'level' - and one could, say, 'climb up a level'.   Not knowing what is 'climbing', it is impossible to understand what is to 'transition'.  And then, when there is 'further separation/division between STO and STS', one does not know with whom this is occurring.

The last sentence sums it up: It's like the Universe is just a filtration system for a dualism that is based on polarity.

Okay, so there's a dualism.  This is a object, and a noun.  And it is a thing 'based on polarity'.  'Dualism that is based on polarity'.  Dualism (n): "any system holding that all phenomena in the universe can be explained in terms of two fundamental and exclusive principles, such as mind and matter, being and non-being, etc."  and Polarity (n): "That quality of a body in virtue of which peculiar properties reside in certain points called poles."  With a Pole (n) being: "in magnetism, one of the two points at which the magnetic strength of a magnet is principally concentrated.  Basically, for a 'dualism' to be present, there must be a system with 2 exclusive principles in the universe.  And for a 'polarity' to exist, there must be a system with 2 points of concentration.

So, the object of the sentence could also be read: 'a system with 2 principles within the universe that is based on a system with 2 points.'  Now the 'Universe is just a filtration system' for 'a system with 2 principles within the universe that is based on a system with 2 points.'  The object of filtration is not know, and the result of filtration is not known.  And, with the Universe defined as: the general system of things; all created things viewed as constituting one system or whole, should it be subjected to merely acting on another system that is itself a subset of the universe?

So, with that said, at 4D STS, wishful thinking, as the C's state, becomes ultimate.

True. The Cassiopaeans said: "4th is the last density for full manifestation of STS." (on 01/01/95)

A STS being in 4D is not veiled behind time like we are.

True.  Time is not linear in the 4th Density as we understand time to be from 3rd Density.

What is wished, wanted, etc, is the physical reality that is manifested.

There is no subject of this statement.  From the previous sentence, it could be assumed to be 'A STS being in 4D'.  So 'what is wished, wanted, etc, by a STS being in 4D is the physical reality that is manifested'.  Okay, so we now understand, again, that what the Reptilians want, is what the Humans get.  So, Reptilian want 'chicken' - Human get 'chicken'.  Reptilian want 'Human' - Human get 'Human'?  No, that can't be it.  Perhaps it is that when the Reptilian wished the Human to die - the human died.

The conscious-mind at this state is at the ethereal milestone that allows god-like existence for those of us (half of all existence?) that "wish it".

One subject - 'us'.  Let's leave out the 'half of all existence' as a fleeting thought.  We don't know who's 'conscious-mind' we are speaking about.  If we take the subject of two sentences ago, as there was no object of the previous sentence, than we are speaking of 'A STS being in 4D's 'conscious-mind'.  Let's also assume our Reptilian friend's 'conscious-mind' is in a 'state' of 'wishing' or 'wanting' - after all, 'at this state', implies the state given by the previous sentence.

Therefore, when a Reptilians' conscious-mind is in a state of wanting, the ethereal milestone allows god-like existence for those of us who wish for it.

I think in 4D, sex is no longer there, as energy feeding itself is like a drug, a habitual drug that is necessary for maintaining "life".

'Energy feeding itself is like a drug'.  'Energy' being the subject, with 'a drug' being the object.  Should 'energy' really be allowed to feed itself?   If it is energy consuming itself, it is still not like a drug.  A drug is something taken by someone.  One does not take 'energy feeding itself' to get high.

...'a habitual drug that is necessary for maintaining 'life''.  The 'drug' could be, as before, 'energy feeding itself'.  Or maybe even, 'energy consuming itself'.  Certainly, 'sex' couldn't be the 'drug', as it is 'no longer there'.  How can something 'no longer there', be necessary for maintaining life?

No males or females...that's why I said "it" after "he/she".

Okay, this last sentence was in reply to this statement I made:

> How did you come up with this nonsense?

which was in reply to this statement BlackBox made:

>> Nothing can stop an STS being from getting what he/she/it wants.

To be clear, this character /, usually denotes the word - or.  So the original statement reads:

'Nothing can stop an STS being from getting what he or she or it wants.'  So, the sex of the STS being is unknown.  Could be male, could be female, or could be anything.  But there's no sexes in 4th Density, as stated above.  And this statement was certainly implying a 4th Density STS being could not be stopped from getting what... it wants.

The obvious argument is that something surely can stop an STS being from getting what it wants.  STO or Service To Others 4th Density entities are fully capable of 'wishing' or 'wanting' that 3rd Density physical reality be altered.  If the STO 'wishing' is contrary or opposed to the STS 'wishing', then it is quite possible the STS being will not get what it wants.

MU'06
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

Yes, this is correct. In one of Montalk's articles he shows STS and STO as two poles, if I am not mistaken. STS beings "get what they want" through their manipulations, however, they lose more and more freewill as they near the inert state of maximum density. Ironically, they get what they want, which is to have no freewill and be passive and unable to create orginally or through gnosis. Therefore, they "get what they want" which is NOT getting what they want, because how can an inert, lock-down state of things DO anything?

Now I'm not sure if BB was serious when he said "There's no need for hope" nor exacty what in my posts he was responding to (BB care to comment as simply as possible?) but I would certainly say that I don't need hope when I have knowledge.
But hope about what exactly? I'm not sure what exactly is meant by this, but I "hope" it doesn't hiss!

  • From: US.VA
  • Registered: 2004-03-27

Re: excercising the question mark

I guess it is important once again that we are aware of our words, their meanings, and try our best to make it clear to others what that meaning is.

MU'06

4 Reply by lyra (edited by lyra 2004-05-01 09:41:34)

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

I guess I'm not the only one experiencing that occasional problem with Black Box's posts.  They don't always make sense to me, due to general missue of grammar, vocabulary, and fragmented sentences.  I'm glad you tried to tackle this one Cameron, because when I saw it it just made my head spin.  smile

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

  • From: US.VA
  • Registered: 2004-03-27

Re: excercising the question mark

Yeah, it's easy to just glance past something that makes only vaguely little sense.  After a while, it just becomes too much work to actually stop and look closely.  I thought I'd see what I could find in this post and it turned into an exercise.  I hope I'm not the only one who benefits from having done so. wink

MU'06

6 Reply by ermolai (edited by ermolai 2004-05-02 08:39:07)

  • From: sw tz rl nd
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

Do you people ever practice brainstorming? IE gathering as many ideas as possible on a particular subject and then discarding all the bullshit and keeping the few pearls which are left? Like long trials-and-errors? I feel this is what BB was doing in this post and there was some interesting stuff, such as "STS-oriented beings are us", which made me realize some important things today. There are days when I write 10-20 pages of thoughts coming to my mind and usually never read them again, this is exhausting but usually it helps a lot in the long term.

Maybe that "unprocessed thoughts" shouldn't be posted on message boards but then again, we are all intelligent enough to make up our mind and, if it's too long to read, no one is forcing you to read it. Cameron, you advised BB to "speak for himself", but I feel you're arguing here in the name of the forum as a whole, as if everyone was supposed to be offended/confused by BB's "unprocessed thoughts"? I don't mind them... Brilliant truths can spark from complete non-sense, if we stay open to them.

(This makes me think we all have different ways to read, like we all have different ways to write. We should all make efforts to respect this, as this is part of our unique ways to see reality and express light.)

ermolai's Website

7 Reply by lyra (edited by lyra 2004-05-02 09:54:41)

  • lyra
  • lyra
  • Naked Emperor Pointer Outer
  • Offline
  • From: my own private idaho
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

ermolai wrote:

Do you people ever practice brainstorming? IE gathering as many ideas as possible on a particular subject and then discarding all the bullshit and keeping the few pearls which are left? Like long trials-and-errors? I feel this is what BB was doing in this post and there was some interesting stuff, such as "STS-oriented beings are us", which made me realize some important things today. There are days when I write 10-20 pages of thoughts coming to my mind and usually never read them again, this is exhausting but usually it helps a lot in the long term.

Maybe that "unprocessed thoughts" shouldn't be posted on message boards but then again, we are all intelligent enough to make up our mind and, if it's too long to read, no one is forcing you to read it. Cameron, you advised BB to "speak for himself", but I feel you're arguing here in the name of the forum as a whole, as if everyone was supposed to be offended/confused by BB's "unprocessed thoughts"? I don't mind them... Brilliant truths can spark from complete non-sense, if we stay open to them.

(This makes me think we all have different ways to read, like we all have different ways to write. We should all make efforts to respect this, as this is part of our unique ways to see reality and express light.)


Ermolai, I understand that you're coming from the perspective of someone who likes and gets along with BB, hence, your post, however, I can't really say the same.   I'm being honest here.   Some people just don't "click".    I don't click with BB because his posts don't make any sense to me half the time, and contain the wrong words, and general missuse of grammar, as well as ideas that don't jibe with me.   Like Cameron noted, "Yeah, it's easy to just glance past something that makes only vaguely little sense"......which is exactly what I'd been doing whenever I see a BB post.   He hit the nail right on the head!   Anytime I see a BB post, I'd just gotten to the point where I was skipping all of them, because I knew most of it wouldn't make any sense to me anyway.   Personally, I'm thankful somebody was finally able to tackle this.   We shouldn't be afraid to step up and question material that doesn't make any sense, especially if there's a consistant problem with that person's posts causing your eyes to glaze over.   

In regards to Cameron's comment to "speak for yourself"......I've said the identical same thing to Black Box myself.  Why?  Because (and I've already told this to BB) he is very presumptuous, making (sometimes arrogant) sounding asusmptions about where the rest of us are in terms of our knowledge.  He proceeds to speak for the rest of us.   He's also prone to saying stuff like "You must have just gotten off a roller coaster to make a statement like that!"  and stuff like that. 

So, that is an explanation in defense of why Cameron would have said that to BB.  BB has a history of speaking for the rest of us and coming across as arrogrant sometimes.

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "Holy shit ... what a ride!"  - Anonymous
-----
"I get by with a little help from my (higher density) friends."
-----

lyra's Website

  • From: sw tz rl nd
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

lyra wrote:

Ermolai, I understand that you're coming from the perspective of someone who likes and gets along with BB

I don't like BB more than others here, I just like messages which make me think and this happened with a recent one from BB so I thought I'd mention it here. I have to admit I don't really look at the names of who is posting so I can't tell you the percentage of BB's material I have found valuable.

lyra wrote:

I'd just gotten to the point where I was skipping all of [BB's posts], because I knew most of it wouldn't make any sense to me anyway.

Well, what's wrong with that? And what would you suggest to do, exactly? Do you think you can change someone's way of thinking/reading/writing (all are deeply interrelated) just by asking/wishing it? Did you try to do that to yourself? (I'm not attacking you, just curious smile)

ermolai's Website

9 Reply by Christine B. (edited by Christine B. 2004-05-02 12:25:33)

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

Hello,

Here's my perspective.  While I find your posts, Lyra, quite clear without punctuation errors etc., I find them at times to be exactly what you don't like about BB:  arrogant, ideas that don't jibe with me (ie.avocadoes are great for everyone), defensive and now feeling as if you need to defend Cameron - who appears perfectly capable of defending himself, if he so chooses.

As I have said at least twice before, I recognize in Lyra things in myself.  So...for this reason it's almost amusing to see Lyra speak her mind, as I can now see how abrasive I was on the other board I was a part of.  Others would cringe when I'd post, worried about what salvo was going to hit them.

To this end - seeing aspects of myself in Lyra (whether she sees herself in me is immaterial) is very beneficial and the fact that BB triggers this type of behavior makes BB very valuable to me...even if most of the time I don't understand his posts either.  Additionally, his posts have brought out aspects of Cameron I didn't know and Ermolai...all valuable to me, as well.

I've found that it's pretty easy to get along with people I get along with - duh and double duh - it's finding that aspect of another that is valuable to MY growth, irrespective of whether or not I agree or like him/her...that is the challenge and for me part of how I grow. 

My unsolicited two more cents,
Christine

  • From: US.VA
  • Registered: 2004-03-27

Re: excercising the question mark

Ermolai - It is true that wisdom and knowledge sometime draw from ideas which do not pass through the mental mind of analysis.  Some examples are automatic writing, channelling, journalling, and "mind mapping(tm)".  A web forum could be added to this list, as a way to hash out seemingly unrelated ideas and thought-balls as a group - with different folks adding different ideas with the intention of clarifying a big-picture idea or concept.

As I have stated elsewhere, the devil's in the details.  It is important not to take in too many unsubstantiated, or untrue, details because these details then lead one to understanding.  Understanding can build knowledge and be applied with wisdom.  However, false understanding leads to false knowledge, which is worse than no knowledge at all.

So for me, the approach is, first compare new ideas to the knowledge already gained.  If it contradicts, it is important to not let the idea fall through the crack, but rather highlight it's shortcomings and if necessary alert others to the findings.  If the idea does fall in line with existing knowledge, the ideal next step is the offer this idea to others for group analysis.

In general, when posting ideas for others to read/respond to, there has got to be some level of clarity of presentation so that the idea can be seen.  You're right that everyone has a different style of writing/reading and thinking.  But what keeps communication possible on a written level is understanding the meaning of these words.  If the understanding is NOT possible, the communication brakes down.

When reading, it always occurs to me whether the author is attempting to convey meaning, and hence teach, or is attempting to obscure an existing idea or concept.  It is not always clear which is which - and often when reading advanced philosophy or physics, I find myself changing my mind back and forth on this.  But often one can tell pretty quickly whether there is an honest attempt at presenting one's ideas clearly.

With written words, more than most other forms of communication - spoken, psychic, dreams, visions - it is always a challenge to avoid misunderstanding and obscurity.  After all, if one is not intending to increase clarity, one must be intending to increasing obscurity.  If the goal is clarity of concept with the intent to build knowledge from understanding, let that show in the way one shares one's ideas in all forms of communication.

Also, to continue the exercise, you could go read all of BlackBox's posts (you can do this in each member's profile) and see what you can see.  I've noticed some great ideas sprinkled in with a lot of unconnected ideas.  Some are nonsense, without meaning, and some have meaning which is questionable.

These questionable ideas should be highlighted and subjected to group analysis, and this is what I was attempting to do.  For the sake of it, I looked at the nonsense as well.  The alternative, as you've suggested, is to let these ideas pass by.  But what of the person coming behind?  Are we not responsible for paving the way for others to follow?  If we struggle with bringing false truth to light, others will be freer to follow.

This is an important concept, and I'm open to discuss further any questions or concerns.  Does the above make sense to anyone?

MU'06

11 Reply by ermolai (edited by ermolai 2004-05-02 12:35:47)

  • From: sw tz rl nd
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

cameron wrote:

These questionable ideas should be highlighted and subjected to group analysis, and this is what I was attempting to do.  For the sake of it, I looked at the nonsense as well.  The alternative, as you've suggested, is to let these ideas pass by.  But what of the person coming behind?  Are we not responsible for paving the way for others to follow?  If we struggle with bringing false truth to light, others will be freer to follow.

I think your intentions are good, but maybe not so easy to achieve. As your first post on this thread shows, each sentence, even each word, can be questionned and analyzed with the logical mind. But the mind is not all there is, and I find again and again that my unconscious can integrate information and sort out disinfo much better than my logical mind. Ultimately all words have different meaning / depth for each of us, depending on our experiences (or lack of experience) and we could spend days discussing each one of them.

I personnaly feel this is something that each person has to deal with and we cannot really do the work for them. All messages we read help us refine these words and concepts on a personal level (depending on our current experience of reality), but doing it on a group level would be difficult, as it would require more words, and thus more concepts to be explained. And as I said previously, we all process information completely differently, and it would IMO not be a good idea to try to make everyone fit on a certain model, as it would reduce the overall creativity (light) of the group.

All that we can do is express our own truth of the moment, as best as we can (and BB seems aware of his confusion so is probably doing his best) (BB are you here? smile), and then it's the responsibility of others to integrate (or not) these ideas as best as they can (depending, again, on their current experience of reality) within their own psyche / brain structure.

This thread is definitely interesting but maybe it would be a waste of energy if done excessively. Carefulness is good, obsession with details (perfection) should IMO be avoided. I think it's best to only highlight important/dangerous untruths and leave the details for each person to deal with. Most of us are probably used to read with discrimination, otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place wink

Anyway, just my own perspective, but I agree with much of what you said Cameron. I hope I didn't rant too much!

ermolai's Website

  • From: sw tz rl nd
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

What I wanted to say in short is that too much attention on details can kill creativity, so a balance is necessary smile

ermolai's Website

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: excercising the question mark

The important thing here is that no matter how disorganized our thoughts, no matter how nonlinear the intuitive impressions we get when we brainstorm, the least we can do is put effort into communicating each fragment in a clear manner - even if the fragments themselves don't fit together in a perfect mosaic.

Now, I understand english is a second language for BB, though the peculiar aspect is that rather than his posts being more simple for that reason, they are instead more convoluted with words bungled for the sake of being erudite - college can do that to you.

Excuses aside, the question here is intent and "external considering" (having consideration for others, as this is a forum after all) - the intent to be clear instead of even more convoluted when asked to clarify. The intent to be curteous instead of arrogant. People can only be held accountable for the choices they can make, not the conditions beyond their immediate control. What choices can BB make? This determines intent. What conditions are beyond his immediate control? This determines valid excuses. Same goes for all of us.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: excercising the question mark

I responded to Cameron in the hopes that BB would see it and realize a couple of things he might change, if he wants to. But Ermolai's right. People read and post as they read and post, and if they want to change to become more readable, they will. Personally, I value BB's posts as they have flashes of brilliance in them, and "food for thought." Others are better at being clear, dissecting phrases, and logical expression in English. All are valuable. Some of us, for various reasons, might want to "winnow down" and clarify our ideas, and use this to protect from clever ploys of the MCS. But others may not. It's a matter of individual taste, and another reason we have topics. I value everyone's way of posting here. Everyone has had something good or interesting in their posts. Christine said that BB's posts brought out things in others' posts besides being a valuable "trigger."  That's another thing to note: the contrasting posts in a thread are themselves teaching tools. So I would add to my comments earlier that I did not mean them as an attack on BB at all, I was just impressed with Cameron's ability to illustrate his desire for clarity. Or  at least, so I would wish it to be now.


It takes guts for all of us to post here on Noble Realms!

15 Reply by BlackBox (edited by BlackBox 2004-05-02 13:13:39)

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: excercising the question mark

Sigh! Sorry for not replying earlier but I just moved back from Toronto to my family's place in Vancouver (for the summer) and the topic name of this thread wasn't obvious that it was for me.

I have to admit, I had one of those "Oh boy, I hope they dont misinterpret my ideas" feelings when starting to read this thread but I'm thankful for Cameron pointing out certain things. It is true that I am unclear at times. I truly do not mean to be. When Cameron points out things like / = or, this is very helpful as I didn't know this.

I'm someone who grew up with the veil of truth invisible and I grew up a happy child. I was hence very programmed. EGO, arrogance I suppose at times, and even acts of cruelty were part of my childhood. I was as programmed as any of the sleepers but what pulled me out of my bed and alerted me to wake-up, were my interests. Atlantis, UFO's, good vs bad, etc. My interests, driven from my intuition, led me to breaking the grips of my programming. My effort dropped in highschool (due to family melodramas that many of us share) and my english-grammatics suffered. So, all of the tips and disections (as like camerons) are very beneficial to me.

I'm trying to break my programming one step at a time. I think I've made great progress. I feel good to know that I am in control of my actions, even subconsciously. I know that I am not here at this forum to manipulate or insult or give false truths. And I feel good to know that I have found a forum, alas, which is filled with those who are not quick to judge some of my ramblings.

Since my formal studies went down the gutter early on, I've naturally been one that communicates by brain-storming. Mind-mapping. I think and reflect and converse with friends, and I get so excited from the effects of networking that I dont realize that the medium of which my communication occurs (my posts) needs to be revised and corrected before posted. Many of the mistakes that make my posts confusing may be due to just lack of discipline. I should force myself to edit and fix errors in grammatics. Perhaps if you listened to one of my conversations (verbal) you would see that I am somewhat not even clear on my thoughts, even when I speak. I babble and ramble at times. I'm certainly one of the least-perfect thinkers in this forum, but I try to contribute from what I have to share. I notice some who are all around us, either in the shadows or right-in-your-face, who are suspicious and ever-vigilant. This is a good thing but also a double-edged sword. This is because without some trust, it is hard to network.

Whatever conflict occurs from my thoughts and its interpretations by those who read my words, also occured at casschat, and it is VERY helpful for me to be able to work on my technical-faults here so that I can not fall into the same spots that I have in the past.

With all that said, I still believe that lyra responds mechanically at times to what my implications are. I see triggers in lyra that are due to nothing but programming.

Besides for saying to you all that I will do my best to improve my grammar, I would still like to post the way I do. My posts are intended, at the core, to freely EXPRESS myself and my thoughts. I don't express them to teach but to trigger responses (granted they understand what I'm saying! smile) I think the first post leads to an effect in the readers, that with their response, creates the glorious benefits of networking. In my head I can describe this effect like chipping a rock until the diamond in the ruff is revealed. If "blackbox's posts" are symbolic of the "before" and the "diamond" which occurs from followup-posts the "after", then isn't it all for a good-purpose?

-------------

To be honest, there is a side of me that thinks that some of the comments above are a little too "picky".

For example:

STS - Service To Self - Black-Hole a cosmic symbol

The above should have written "Black-Hole as a cosmic symbol"

I type very fast (about 130/wpm) and I tend to go through some posts, thinking that I wrote those connector words like "as" or "to", but realizing that I omitted to do so.

But does this sentence truly need to be analysed? I mean, how formal is this forum? May I not share and brain-storm? Or rather, is it not clear what I mean by the original (incorrect) sentence? STS defined as Service-to-self and physical-existence as STS symbolized cosmically as a black-hole. I mean, even if the word "as" is missing, it doesn't mean that one cannot understand where I'm going with this idea. Or so I "hope".

These questionable ideas should be highlighted and subjected to group analysis, and this is what I was attempting to do.  For the sake of it, I looked at the nonsense as well.  The alternative, as you've suggested, is to let these ideas pass by.  But what of the person coming behind?  Are we not responsible for paving the way for others to follow?  If we struggle with bringing false truth to light, others will be freer to follow.

Why do you use the word "nonsense", Cameron? I find this as presumptious. In a forum of metaphysics, I would think some lee-way would be given. My thoughts may be translated unclearly into words, but perhaps if I elaborate on some of the factors that you consider "nonsense", maybe it'll make sense? And if it makes sense, was it worth calling it "nonsense" initially? Is what I say mostly jibberish to you at times? I may not be able to express myself as well technically as you can, but we should elaborate before judgment occurs. I think labeling anything "nonsense" is a judgment, and if so, deserves some further discussion before the "foot goes down", so to speak.

With your post, Cameron, I felt you really didn't add to anything I was saying. You simply corrected and cleared up my words and thoughts (which is beneficial, dont get me wrong) but holistically, my original thoughts still stand. Dualism. Wishfulness. All of the topics I brought up are beneficial to bring up. To discuss. I believe they are beneficial because I see my thoughts intermingle with other people's thoughts, and then miraculously the subject is so detailed by the end that we could consider ourselves experts on the topics.

I think it all comes down to how critical we are in reading thoughts. Since I've never been a talented artist or innately gifted with any great gifts, I believe that my writing is my own type of art. It may be confusing at times. It may be unclear and make some like lyra not even want to read (glad we all have free-will, eh?) anymore of my follow-ups, but it does have some benefit with the dizzy-spells. I make myself think and encourage others to think. My thoughts could lead another (perhaps an influential person) to think upon an idea and take action that effects the world. If that is so, isn't it worth my thoughts being expressed? I notice when montalk reads my posts he usually translates it very well. He even extends my thoughts to his own thoughts and elaborates for others. I think with further experience in writing out my thoughts, I will be able to increase my accuracy. But being critical has its limits. Especially when we are speaking of ethereal-topics. I am a forum-moderator at www.volitionth.com. I speak very clearly in my posts, as I represent the company, and because of this caution, I am never misunderstood there. Over HERE is a totally different ball-game, because I am translating avante-garde thoughts, in the hopes that others who read my thoughts can elaborate and enhance the quality of my intentions and the implications that I strive to make others aware of.