Montalk - a question on your "Commentary on God's Gladiators"

I know you're only asking Montalk, but since I understand what he's saying, and I know that he won't see this til the afternoon, maybe I can help....?   

- He's saying that no source is definitive and no source has all the answers or has 100% of the truth, referring of course to Stuart Wilde.    So in a way, this was kind of like a disclaimer, saying that despite how much he enjoyed Stuart's work, he acknowledges that it isn't perfect nor is 100% the end all be all of truth.

- When a source is faulty, it can be for several reasons:   1)  Because the source is making speculations that are based on incomplete information, which can inadvertantly lead to misinformation being spread around;   or, 2)  Because they purposely contain disinformation.   When they purposely contain disinformation then it's doing what was intended:  Trying to subvert the awareness of the reader.

"Matrix V" is an example of a source containing purposeful disinformation, while the Montalk site would be an example of a source that might be making speculations based on incomplete information.

Hope that helps! 

Thanks Lyra that is a big help.

Only one other point...the article says " When faulty, some sources make speculations based on incomplete information, and this leads to misinformation."

So as you say "the Montalk site would be an example of a source that might be making speculations based on incomplete information."

So from this Montalk would be saying that due to the nature of the material discussed - in addition to the fact that there are so many unknowns - the Montalk site, from a certain perspective at least, could be considered to contain a degree of misinformation?  (Albeit unintentionally and without malice...)

Racsouran, yeah - I think that maybe well what that paragraph is saying...

Yeah sorry, maybe I should have emphasised on the could be considered to contain a degree of misinformation.

I also should have used the word inadvertantly - just as you did - because that is what I actually meant.

I got where you were coming from though Lyra...thanks

Hey it made sense to me What I meant is that no source is perfect and that discernment should always be used by the reader. But depending on the intent of the writer, there can unavoidable imperfections and intentional imperfections. There are some who always aim to improve their material and correct errors and inaccuracies, and some who seek to disinform and incorporate increasingly slick and clever logical twists and fallacies in order to deceive. So both of these are imperfect and always to some degree inaccurate, but whereas the first type seek to communicate ideas clearly and accurately, the second type seeks to hide the truth cunningly. Because the second type employs clever tricks, you have a far higher chance of getting led astray by swallowing disinformation than accepting misinformation.

That's correct, I have purposely avoided turning my site into a spoonfeeding nursery and demand no faith from readers. In the past people have erroneously made me out to be a "teacher" and then knocked me down for not fulfilling their expectations. Haha, if anything I am a "pointer" -- I say "See that idea over there that I'm pointing to? Why don't you go there and have a look. See those books? Give them a read and you may find some great insights. See that paradox? Well if you look at it from this angle here, it disappears."

The point of my articles is to connect, clarify, and reveal  to readers what they have already experienced and observed for themselves, or will experience and observe for themselves. The goal is to have a lightbulb turning on in their minds, a type of "Aha! Yes, that explains what I've always wondered about and suspected! This makes sense!" -- to provide ideas that open their perception, reveal hidden connections, and resolve paradoxes. All I ask is that people take what makes sense and leave what does not.

My motto is "Something's right til proven wrong, or something better comes along" meaning that it's better to go with a working hypothesis and modify as needed, than to either accept something blindly and defend it rigidly or else be so skeptical and agnostic as to never commit yourself to any hypothesis and thus suffer the weakness of indecisiveness. In other words, be stubborn to lies and fickle to truth.

Some websites and materials focus heavily on trivia, history, facts and statistics, authoritative documents, credentials, and so on -- these are useful and have their place as reference sources. But once you have the pieces, how to put them together? There you need inspiration, insight -- and reading inspirational and insightful material helps make connections, see?

The best analogy I can think of would be books about foreign countries versus guidebooks for travelers to foreign countries. The first you can read sitting at home, and it gives you surface knowledge about what it's like to live there. The second only tells you some interesting places to visit, some short history, maybe some maps to use -- and then it's up to YOU to go there and discover it for yourself. I intend my site to be a guidebook...nothing authoritative, nothing that substitutes for personal discovery and experience, but something that offers assistance where it can be used.

Of course my site contains misinformation, but never do I intend to disinform and I'm always looking for errors to fix and holes to fill and shortcomings to transcend. I'm just a fellow truthseeker like everyone else at Noble Realms. That's one reason I prefer referring people to other websites and books that I value and respect, and especially why I have put a lot of time into the NR files area so that people can read what I have read and make up their own minds.

Thanks montalk.  I think my main problem in understanding was uncertainty how you were applying the term "disinformation" to your site.

I understand totally where you are coming from now.

Cool, glad we all got this straightened out As for writing style, that's always a tough call because conciseness saves time but increases obscurity, spelling things out makes for way longer articles, and keeping it both short and easy to read sacrifices content. How nice it would be if we communicated telepathically, haha.

Well we can can't we!   We just haven't necessarily got clear enough about those that are our thoughts and those that belong to others.

I've found that if I keep silence most of the time (i.e. not speaking as is my habit) - I become more aware of the general tone (if not the specifics) of my thoughts. 

Then when I notice a thought (or feeling) that doesn't belong with the general feeling-tone of my background thinking, I question if its mine. 

Last year, I went through some kind of self-awareness-of-thoughts-school.  I found that over several weeks, I became aware of people's unresolved issues.  Each time I went to someone's house where there had been a lot of 'brooding' and/or denial about their personal issues I picked up on them and (because I was unaware that they weren't mine at the time) acted them out.  Usually at my husband.  God love him

It was only in retrospect that I/we realised that it wasn't my/our 'stuff' at all (not in any way connected with our personal issues) but that I had 'channelled' this unresolved/unspoken energy.

Since then, I have become much more aware of that kind of thing and more often make a point of consciously affirming not to take anyone else's stuff on board - before I meet up with others.  I do it when I'm healing/reading tarot, but it never occurred to me to do this just every day!

Wow - sorry Marcus/everyone, that was going to be a brief answer to Montalk's post! Instead it became a long narrative on telepathy (of sorts) and detracted from the original topic.  Hope you forgive me - maybe you'll figure it was worth sharing anyway.