16 Reply by Sowelu (edited by Sowelu 2005-11-19 07:16:46)

  • Registered: 2005-06-26

Re: LKJ--Podcast

montalk wrote:

What's so hard about acknowledging that AWARENESS PLUS POSITIVITY is feasible, logical, and desirable? Why is it that everytime I bring up option 3, the rebuttal cites only the flaws of option 1? Is option 3 invisible or something? Did you forget the way to Shell Beach?

I've wondered this same thing myself, many times. I suspect it has to do with unresolved/unaddressed fears clouding the awareness of those who encounter the idea. Can't even think about it properly, let alone truly address it or practice it. A new level of black and white thinking, it feels like. "If you're aware then you can't possibly maintain positivity" and "If you're positive, you can't possibly be aware. And you're either with us or against us on this."

I can feel the box from which these attitudes spring, if I try to "put on" where they're coming from. And as with any box encasing the minds and hearts of human beings, fear is the glue, the nails and the walls. There's a bunch of anger in there, too, naturally, which also goes unaddressed, assumed to be "righteous" and of the "it goes without saying" variety. "Of course we're angry about our status. Who wouldn't be? Everyone should be! But that doesn't mean we have to spew from anger all the time. We have minds, we use them, instead."

But this repressed anger, I'll venture, is the wall that holds firm against feeling the vulnerability of the fears underneath it. And without facing and clearing the fears fueling this righteousness, it doesn't go away and they're locked into doom and gloom with no upside or positive potential as far as the eye can see. They're aware, but from a skewed place. And the only avenue to address that skewed status is inward, and that's not an option.

Every time I see this in anyone (including myself at times, in retrospect) I'm reminded of the idea of "blue-blockers" sun glasses. They cover the eyes entirely, and everywhere the person looks, they see what looks like a complete picture, except it's missing an entire aspect of the spectrum of color/light. Doesn't look like anything's missing, and it's protective! So it must be better! But when wearing them, a person is literally incapable of seeing anything within that portion of the spectrum.

The trouble with most of us is when we're wearing metaphoric protective lenses of this type, we often don't realize it. Even if it's pointed out to us, we can't believe it because we can't see it, because we're wearing the filter that prevents us from seeing it.

Maybe not the best analogy, but it hits me frequently so I tried to put it to words. LOL!

"The most important decision you have to make is whether you live in a hostile or friendly universe."
~ Albert Einstein

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. ~Marcel Proust

The evolution of humanity is an evolution of the heart. The path is through the heart.

17 Reply by lyra (edited by lyra 2005-11-19 08:49:00)

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

Re: LKJ--Podcast

You know...I clicked on the link, but I couldn't bring myself to go through with listening to it. 

After I realized I was linking to the Signs of the Times page...a place I never visit anymore, haven't been there in a couple of years.....and after seeing the picture of some of the members of the group, and knowing what I know about the group and its direction and who they are and the way they act, I just couldn't do it. 

I was "overcome with ickiness", you could say.

If you're someone who's had a falling out with Laura, Ark, and/or the group, and have experienced a split, where you've gone one way and they've gone another, then please keep in mind that following along with them, even from a distance - listening to Laura's interviews, reading their articles and any updates on their website, etc. - maintains "ties" to them, and their frequency you could say.  You're continually maintaining a connection of some sort.

This is the reason I couldn't go through with listening to the podcast.  I don't want a connection to her, or them.   I don't want to hear her voice, I don't want her thoughts / vibe / frequency bouncing around in my brain.  It's a beautiful day outside, bright blue sky, bright shiny sun, and I've already cuddled with my kitty under the blankets, drank my yummy tea while walking in the woods enjoying nature on a cold morning, and I'm about to settle in with a good book, and frankly, to mar that with a LKJ interview would be simply...wrong!   For lack of a better word!   It flies in the face of the day that I've thus far created for myself.    I'm aware of ALL the 9/11 conspiracies.  Don't need to hear HER yappin' about it, and all her icky frequency vibes that go along with her.

I choose to make a life for myself where I'm knowledgable about what's happening, but where I'm simultaneously focused on what's good, positive and beautiful, looking for solutions, and writing articles that will inspire people.   I attempt to maintain "balance."  She, and her group, choose to focus obsessively on everything that's wrong and ugly with the world, with a doomsday mindset, collapsing inward like a black hole.

NO THANKS!   

Now, back to my beautiful day!  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

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: LKJ--Podcast

I concur with Lyra.  Yet, it's hard sometimes not to be drawn back to the "other group" -- whichever group that may be --

I'm no longer involved with 2 groups (not Laura's group though, never involved) that I was once very much a part of.  And for a long time I would revisit their websites -- then I was drawn to the "anti" websites -- but found that I would immediately get all sorts of noise in my head after visiting.  It was a form of indulgence/gossip and frankly not a good thing.

I appreciate Lyra's last post.  It reminded me to stay true to my decisions to leave and not get into the ego trip of proving them wrong or slanted.  Suffice to say -- just not for me.

Christine B.

19 Reply by Jen

  • Jen
  • Guest

Re: LKJ--Podcast

Sowelu wrote:

But this repressed anger, I'll venture, is the wall that holds firm against feeling the vulnerability of the fears underneath it. And without facing and clearing the fears fueling this righteousness, it doesn't go away and they're locked into doom and gloom with no upside or positive potential as far as the eye can see. They're aware, but from a skewed place. And the only avenue to address that skewed status is inward, and that's not an option.

This is precisely what I have concluded--that anger is just one manifestation of fear, and an armor against one's vulnerability. And yes, unless we make that inward journey and clear away the fears,  we stay locked into that place.

Liked your analogy with the blue-blockers glasses cool

  • Registered: 2005-11-18

Re: LKJ--Podcast

montalk wrote:

Because if you are cut off for too long from that which nourishes the soul, it suffocates. Anger, bitterness, and cynicism takes its toll over time.

I'd agree that it would take its toll over time, but I don't think anyone said that one must be angry or bitter all the time. I think the point is to look reality in the face without flinching all the time. If you can do that and stay positive, by all means do so. However, in my experience, it is empathy that tends to be what pushes me to continue searching and not fall asleep, and that empathy is what often results in a "negative" feeling/emotion. Sure I do it for myself in part, but for me that's not enough to prompt me to stay awake the entire time. Therefore at times, a shock, a sudden realisation of the horrors of this reality that results in mass suffering and deception, that is what snaps me back out of complacency and apathy and urges me to continue what I started. I am simply not yet at the point where I can continue the search for truth without the fuel of negative emotions that act as reminders of where I am and what I'm doing, because prolonged positivity often makes me forget or put it on the "back burner" and results in me being distracted by other activities.

That is simply my personal experience, it does not have to apply to everyone. And if right now I said to myself that I can be positive and aware, it would be a lie. I'm sure there are those who can, but it is not yet me.

You merely echoed what I already said, that positivity without awareness risks tranquilization and delusion. Yet I also recognize that awareness marred by too much negativity leads to spiritual atrophy and hyperdimensional vulnerability. Therefore my idea of being careful is to avoid both risks by choosing a third option: being both aware and positive.

Is there a possibility in your understanding that positivity and awareness can also risk delusion? In my view, saying the word "awareness" does not mean that once you're aware, you're always aware. From my experience, awareness can lessen if constant effort is not put in to maintain and raise it, like a flower that's not watered tends to shrivel up and die. So my question would be, under what circumstances does awareness decrease, and why? And how to avoid this? The problem with drifting awareness is you don't realise it's happening until a shock knocks you back into reality. So you may think you're "positive and aware", but can you be sure? I think that's the problem, you don't know that you've been sleeping until something wakes you up, and that something is usually a powerful enough shock. Can you stay positive and aware? Yup. But can you stay positive, fall asleep, and continue to think you're awake and aware? Also yup, and I think this is what predominately happens.

But you may be different, or I may be wrong.

21 Reply by Jen

  • Jen
  • Guest

Re: LKJ--Podcast

I personaly don't see positivity as being particularly sleep-inducing, but for that matter, I don't see the world as being as "objective" as LKJ and her followers believe it is. I still find it hard to believe that Ark is a physicist, he seems never to have heard of the observer effect...

  • morningsun76
  • morningsun76
  • the answer has been with you the whole time
  • Offline
  • From: In two worlds
  • Registered: 2004-09-10

Re: LKJ--Podcast

There's at least two meanings to the term "awareness:" the first is "knowledgeable and educated," the second meaning "alert and conscious, awake in the present moment."

IncrementalWay wrote:

In my view, saying the word "awareness" does not mean that once you're aware, you're always aware. From my experience, awareness can lessen if constant effort is not put in to maintain and raise it, like a flower that's not watered tends to shrivel up and die. So my question would be, under what circumstances does awareness decrease, and why? And how to avoid this?

Here you're talking about the "momentary" self-awareness which indeed can be difficult to maintain.  To keep oneself in that state for long periods of time takes a lot of practice and commitment.  I know I'm not there yet, but I try my best to keep it in mind so as not to be "startled awake" but something I wasn't ready for.

However, when montalk talks about positivity plus awareness, I believe his point is that one should make all efforts to educate themselves and become knowledgable about important things in life.  By doing so we build for ourselves powerful protection from all sorts of potential harms.

23 Reply by impatiens (edited by impatiens 2005-11-20 12:42:40)

  • impatiens
  • Guest

Re: LKJ--Podcast

kestrel wrote:

How long have we heard about love conquering all?  Well is it?   Let's be realistic, we've had since at least the 60s to get things straightened out.

Only since the 60s? lol Yeah, I noticed that you said "at least..."  But, methinks that we've been at this since time began. And that we have to keep doing it over and again, until we get it right.

kestrel wrote:

Problem is how are you going to wake up the masses, by being positive?

Well, being positive's been effective and successful many times before...

Positive vibrations. Imagine.

But two songs by two popular, prolific, late, great, song writers, Marley and Lennon. Just think of the impact their music has on millions of people. Their music helps others wake up via positive, inspirational, motivational, and often political lyrics/messages. There are a zillion other examples of individuals who inspire and motivate masses of people via positive works and deeds. And there are likely a zillion other "songs" yet to be sung...

kestrel wrote:

I think the real issue is EGO.

I agree. Though I've not got much to say about it except that I'm still working on healing the cracks in my own little cosmic eggo.

kestrel wrote:

I don't know about you guys, you can have your protons and electrons, I'm happy living as a Neutron!:cool:

So Kestrel, do you ever do the "Neutron dance?"  cool

And similar to what Jen said about positivity. Positivity for me can be calming, soothing, sometimes even sleep inducing (not always a bad thing btw). It can also be energizing, motivating, inspiring; and I definitely need regular doses of it in order to maintain clarity, creativity, balance, health, humour, happiness, sanity...

As for the LKJ podcast which was the thread starter, the Laura n Ark shuffle just doesn't grab me. Aint my kinda "music". Different strokes, and all that jazz...

24 Reply by quantumsurfer (edited by quantumsurfer 2005-11-19 19:22:23)

  • Registered: 2005-11-19

Re: LKJ--Podcast

Being an ex member of the Laura and Ark group I agree with most of the sentiments already written. I also feel a presense of thier rant like attack style in some of the replies to this post and thread. roll

I could be wrong it just seems very familiar, and I can tell you from experience it is an ugly nature that permeates thier style of  bashing you over the head until you comply and show them your own examples of having fallen in lock step with the group.

I think that it is important to create positive, if you are thinking nothing outside paranoia, mis/distrust (agents are we all of the darkside luke), fear, etc...then that is what is being "put out there" into the conscious collective and is the exact opposite of what I believe the responsibility of a responsible vessal of knowledge is supposed to be. I mean how can you combat the darkness of human nature if your wallowing in just the dirt, and refusing to swallow anything but mudpies?

I do agree awareness of what is out there to counteract through the power of what we can create within the collective conscious is most important as well, but as already stated it requires a balance. Not a lopsided approach in either direction.

BTW not only a great post, but insightful as well kudos to Jen!

Yikes I followed the link you provided and saw this:

"In our latest podcast, (left to right) editors Henry See, Scott Ogrin, and Joe Quinn interview Laura Knight-Jadczyk about her new book 911: The Ultimate Truth,"

For those unaware, the editors who interviewed Laura moved to France with her and were living in the same farmhouse with her and Ark. Now I have heard that Laura has moved (evicted is the story reported actually), so I am not sure if they still share same residence, point is how objective is such an interview when all parties are sharing in spreading the exact same message?

This isn't generally the purpose of objective journalism or interviewing is it?

Are these editors and interviewers titled as such by means of a documented professional educational system acredited in journalism, writing, or broadcasting, or are these titles given to a person that was given the the title to/for appearances of sounding professional and authentic by the group they are not only presiding over but a member of?

Interesting thoughts

QSurfer  tongue

25 Reply by montalk (edited by montalk 2005-11-19 21:42:33)

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

Re: LKJ--Podcast

Sowelu wrote:

The trouble with most of us is when we're wearing metaphoric protective lenses of this type, we often don't realize it. Even if it's pointed out to us, we can't believe it because we can't see it, because we're wearing the filter that prevents us from seeing it.

Thanks, that is a great metaphor, I'll keep it in mind. Yup, we all know about the trouble with rose-colored glasses, but the BlueBlocker glasses are not all that different. I tried them once and they definitely increase contrast as advertised, making anything green jump out at you. What an appropriate symbol for the "negativity plus awareness" approach: increases contrast at the expense of color diversity and causes imbalanced emphasis upon a narrow bandwidth of perception.

IncrementalWay wrote:

I think the point is to look reality in the face without flinching all the time. If you can do that and stay positive, by all means do so. However, in my experience, it is empathy that tends to be what pushes me to continue searching and not fall asleep, and that empathy is what often results in a "negative" feeling/emotion.

It's okay, here is my suggestion then: reflect upon what it means to have compassion without sorrow. Or, ponder the difference between uplifting those who suffer versus commiserating with them.

Empathy is but soul-perception of another's pain - how you respond to that perception is your choice. You can respond unflinchingly in a conscious way through a higher sense of love and understanding, or you can do so mechanically by placing the "cart" before the "horse" and defaulting to pity. As the C's said, pity those who pity.

I'm reminded of how compassionate medical personnel do their work. What does an experienced surgeon feel when he or she operates? Naive positivity that nothing is wrong? Of course not. Squeamish disgust or sorrow? Not that either. Awareness of the facts coupled with a sober sense of optimism? Absolutely. In fact, the latter lends to a steady hand.

Once you perceive another's pain and feel the impulse to rectify the imbalance, remember there are two ways to level things out: either sink to their level, or help them rise to yours.

IncrementalWay wrote:

Is there a possibility in your understanding that positivity and awareness can also risk delusion?

Nothing is without risk, and what is optimal does not have to be perfect. One must do a comprehensive risk analysis of different methods to find which is optimal. Negativity plus awareness has more risks than positivity plus awareness, period.

In my view, saying the word "awareness" does not mean that once you're aware, you're always aware.

That is obvious. The word "awareness" instead denotes what should be striven for and asymptotically approached, whether on the side of posivity or negativity. I favor the positive approach because it takes into account a wider array of factors (not only 3D but also 4D risks and principles) and therefore has a better chance overall.

IncrementalWay wrote:

From my experience, awareness can lessen if constant effort is not put in to maintain and raise it, like a flower that's not watered tends to shrivel up and die. So my question would be, under what circumstances does awareness decrease, and why? And how to avoid this?

Awareness may have its fluctuations but wisdom and knowledge is accumulative.

When awareness drops, you will get friendly reminders or rude awakenings depending on the severity of decline. To answer your question, what I do is strive to be positive yet aware, and when I fall behind and receive my obligatory shock, I learn the lesson to be more alert, get back on my feet and continue onwards, now a bit wiser than I was before.

One thing I can tell you is that recovery from erring on the side of negativity takes a lot longer than when erring on the side of positivity. The latter may come with a slap to the face and kick in the ass, from which the resilient soul can rebound. But the first comes with an inner decay and spiritual occlusion that is much more difficult to rectify. It's the difference between a young sapling getting stepped on, and that same plant being sprayed with RoundUp.

Also take into account that positivity can come about two ways, either through the denial of awareness (ignoring of a problem) or the expansion of awareness (recognition of the greater context). The first will inevitably bring about a much needed shock, but only as a last resort. Which does not - contrary to your logic - imply that shocks are therefore the central ingredient to progress. That would be like saying that since accidents teach you to be more careful when you drive, the only way to drive better is to have more accidents.

And last but not least, you can learn from the mistakes of others -- another example of shocks not necessarily being the prime motivator for growth.

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

montalk's Website

26 Reply by quantumsurfer (edited by quantumsurfer 2005-11-19 22:31:43)

  • Registered: 2005-11-19

Re: LKJ--Podcast

montalk wrote:
Sowelu wrote:

The trouble with most of us is when we're wearing metaphoric protective lenses of this type, we often don't realize it. Even if it's pointed out to us, we can't believe it because we can't see it, because we're wearing the filter that prevents us from seeing it.

Thanks, that is a great metaphor, I'll keep it in mind. Yup, we all know about the trouble with rose-colored glasses, but the BlueBlocker glasses are not all that different. I tried them once and they definitely increase contrast as advertised, making anything green jump out at you. What an appropriate symbol for the "negativity plus awareness" approach: increases contrast at the expense of color diversity and causes imbalanced emphasis upon a narrow bandwidth of perception.

IncrementalWay wrote:

I think the point is to look reality in the face without flinching all the time. If you can do that and stay positive, by all means do so. However, in my experience, it is empathy that tends to be what pushes me to continue searching and not fall asleep, and that empathy is what often results in a "negative" feeling/emotion.

It's okay, here is my suggestion then: reflect upon what it means to have compassion without sorrow. Or, ponder the difference between uplifting those who suffer versus commiserating with them.

Empathy is but soul-perception of another's pain - how you respond to that perception is your choice. You can respond unflinchingly in a conscious way through a higher sense of love and understanding, or you can do so mechanically by placing the "cart" before the "horse" and defaulting to pity. As the C's said, pity those who pity.

I'm reminded of how compassionate medical personnel do their work. What does an experienced surgeon feel when he or she operates? Naive positivity that nothing is wrong? Of course not. Squeamish disgust or sorrow? Not that either. Awareness of the facts coupled with a sober sense of optimism? Absolutely. In fact, the latter lends to a steady hand.

Once you perceive another's pain and feel the impulse to rectify the imbalance, remember there are two ways to level things out: either sink to their level, or help them rise to yours.

IncrementalWay wrote:

Is there a possibility in your understanding that positivity and awareness can also risk delusion?

Nothing is without risk, and what is optimal does not have to be perfect. One must do a comprehensive risk analysis of different methods to find which is optimal. Negativity plus awareness has more risks than positivity plus awareness, period.

In my view, saying the word "awareness" does not mean that once you're aware, you're always aware.

That is obvious. The word "awareness" instead denotes what should be striven for and asymptotically approached, whether on the side of posivity or negativity. I favor the positive approach because it takes into account a wider array of factors (not only 3D but also 4D risks and principles) and therefore has a better chance overall.

IncrementalWay wrote:

From my experience, awareness can lessen if constant effort is not put in to maintain and raise it, like a flower that's not watered tends to shrivel up and die. So my question would be, under what circumstances does awareness decrease, and why? And how to avoid this?

Awareness may have its fluctuations but wisdom and knowledge is accumulative.

When awareness drops, you will get friendly reminders or rude awakenings depending on the severity of decline. To answer your question, what I do is strive to be positive yet aware, and when I fall behind and receive my obligatory shock, I learn the lesson to be more alert, get back on my feet and continue onwards, now a bit wiser than I was before.

One thing I can tell you is that recovery from erring on the side of negativity takes a lot longer than when erring on the side of positivity. The latter may come with a slap to the face and kick in the ass, from which the resilient soul can rebound. But the first comes with an inner decay and spiritual occlusion that is much more difficult to rectify. It's the difference between a young sapling getting stepped on, and that same plant being sprayed with RoundUp.

Also take into account that positivity can come about two ways, either through the denial of awareness (ignoring of a problem) or the expansion of awareness (recognition of the greater context). The first will inevitably bring about a much needed shock, but only as a last resort. Which does not - contrary to your logic - imply that shocks are therefore the central ingredient to progress. That would be like saying that since accidents teach you to be more careful when you drive, the only way to drive better is to have more accidents.

And last but not least, you can learn from the mistakes of others -- another example of shocks not necessarily being the prime motivator for growth.

OMG *Swoons* I think Im in love, now all I have to do is inform My hubby, hmmm wonder how he will take the news?!:lol:

Ok... on a more serious note, I cannot think I could have stated this any better. And more importantly spelled out this simply and coherently this has helped me more in this one post than the last whole week chewing on this very thing. TY so much for your wonderful ability to not only understand but communicate your understanding.

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

Re: LKJ--Podcast

Haha, thanks! hmm

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

montalk's Website

  • Registered: 2005-11-16

Re: LKJ--Podcast

Minor point, I'm being quoted for saying things I didn't write, not sure why this happened?  See Montalk post: montalk
2005-11-19 00:29:27.  I wasn't the one who posted "Why do you drown?" nor "Is it contempt for positivity or simply recognition that positivity can often be the result of "self calming" and illusion, and can often result in same if we're not careful?"  Again, just a minor point.

As far as Alex Jones being negative and spreading fear, I'm not in the position to defend Alex but to me it seems like he's trying to shine the light on evil.  Now if this imparts negativity and if those listening to Alex allow themselves to become negative how is that Alex's fault.  In fact, if there was no negative news to report would Alex's "empire" exist?  Now if you are implying that Alex and others are profiting off of negative events, I would agree with you on that.  It's a business like any other.  A market exists and people take advantage.  At the same time, in order for him to continue requires capital so how does this make him the bad guy?  You're certainly not forced to listen to him but ultimately you're the one who may lose out.   Now on the other hand, if he just spews out fallacious information just to frighten people that's a different story, but I see no evidence of this.  Are we to believe that all the people he interviews are also soulness, evil and negative.   If you're not aware, Alex reportedly also has done some "positive" things like help rebuild the church at Waco, help to repeal the Patriot Act II from his district...  Perhaps your bias prevents you from seeing the positive?  Ultimately, isn't it up to the individual to decide how external events will spiritually and to some extent physically affect them?

Perhaps I'm mistunderstanding your point but it almost sounds to me as if your implying that if you listen to Alex and others just by the fact that most of what they are reporting has negative connotations that you will become negative as well.  I believe this to be highly inaccurate.  There are many people in life who have to deal with negativity on a daily basis yet they remain positive.  I believe it's a question of choice and resolve. 

Montalk wrote:You leave it to those who don't know any better.

That's a fairly pretentious thing to say.  Since I don't know you, exactly what are your credentials to indicate that you know "BETTER".  Am I communicating with GOD here?

Montalk wrote: Leave it to Alex Jones and Jeff Rense to appeal to those motivated by fear, hatred, frustration, anger. Supply and demand; from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Once the newbies get sick -- figuratively, physically, emotionally, and spiritually sick -- of "stage 1", then they will be looking for the next level which is awareness without the foam-mouthed yelling and ranting. Who will fill that demand? Only those who have the potential, and who have chosen to maximize their potential. If you are capable of higher, but exhaust yourself catering towards the over-saturated "stage 1" sphere of service, then you are squandering your potential.

FWIW, I became physically ill long before I even new about Alex or Jeff.  In fact, I on my own was able to figure out the actual biological reason behind my illness prior to learning about all the "negative" things that are ongoing in this world.  I realize that most New Agers will try to explain this as a result of some kind of dirtying of the collective conscious through negativity. Sorry, but I don't buy this.  If you're exposed to toxic substances, if you get hit with a bullet, if you get cancer or other degenerative diseases these are all real manifistations and not some working of hyperdimensional beings or nebulous negative forces per se.  Now are there negative forces at play influencing people... absolutely!  People however still have the free will to make choices.  However, we are still bound by "laws of nature".  I have yet to see people come back from the dead, doesn't mean that it can't happen or won't happen but I can only go with what I know to be true at this point.

If you don't believe me then explain to me how my Chi Kung practitioner's wife ended up dying from cancer?  He likes to believe that it was a disturbance in the energy.  Well I thought that was the whole point to practicing Chi Kung, so why did she die?  Perhaps it was related to energy and chakras, but the fact is she's dead and more than likely there was a logical scientific reason behind her death however you want to call it.

However, by going to Alex or Jeff's sites I am able to get a better understanding of the world around me.  What's the alternative, the PSYOPs that mainstream media is spewing out?


Montalk Wrote: But if combined with awareness, discernment, and wisdom, then you'll have a sword to go with that shield

How does one become aware if your not willing to listen to what people say based on your bias of believing the person is disseminating fear and hate.  For example, a guy is seen going around shooting people at random.  Another man shows up and broadcasts the description of the man and what he is doing.  According to you, the man reporting the incident is a fear monger because just because a man is going around murdering people doesn't mean that he will kill further.  However, wouldn't you want to know?

Yet I also recognize that awareness marred by too much negativity leads to spiritual atrophy and hyperdimensional vulnerability. Therefore my idea of being careful is to avoid both risks by choosing a third option: being both aware and positive.

This seems like more specious reasoning to me.  You seem to be separating awareness and negativity.  How does one become aware of "negative" circumstances by avoiding negativity.  Your argument is non sequitur at best and therefore option 3 doesn't seem to be a viable alternative.  Based on your scenario you would only be "aware" of the positive things that are ongoing and therefore your perspective will be greatly skewed.

Furthermore, you use subjective terms which offer no real meaning.  When you say "...too much negativity..." how much is too much?  You might as well be saying, people shouldn't be bad and be done with the whole thing.  How realistic is that?

Many people didn't want to deal with the negativity of what was happening in a particular country in Europe during the 40s and these people all wound up dead or in concentration camps.  Until you realize that negativity is part of life and that it's your job to figure out how to deal with it, then you will be no better off than those that you judge.

Montalk Wrote: What's so hard about acknowledging that AWARENESS PLUS POSITIVITY is feasible, logical, and desirable? Why is it that everytime I bring up option 3, the rebuttal cites only the flaws of option 1? Is option 3 invisible or something? Did you forget the way to Shell Beach?

What's so hard to believe?  Intuitively people realise that this is a "pipe dream".  Though it might be desirable it's neither logical or feasible.  People are generally smarter and more in tune to the truth than what we have been lead to believe.  The powers that be (TPTB) want to dumb us down and make us believe that we are incapable of solving our own problems and understanding the world that we live in.  That's why there are so many self help books and TV programs.  Perhaps this may be true for the majority of people but I suspect that TPTB are having a hell of a time converting everyone into a zombie!

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the Shell Beach reference, please elaborate.

Montalk wrote:Transdimensional Nexus Point End Game

Please elaborate on this, how is it that you know this to be true?  If in fact this is true, this would imply an ending as in "End Game".  That being the case what's the point in anything, afterall it's going to end anyways.  All things being equal the good will be separated from the bad and everthing gets sorted out.  So you might as well shut down this forum there's really no point in discussing anything further, right?

It seems to me that there is an ongoing movement to dehumanize people by having us believe in things that are contrary to our intuition.  We are being led to believe that no one is responsible for their own actions because it's really the matrix at work or some other nebulous reason.  Don't get me wrong I believe that there are evil and good forces but at the same time once you explain away events to forces that you speculate exist, then you end up empowering such forces.

Are we to believe that any communication that people have recieved from "others" whether this be from aliens... Casseopians, Raelians, Dracoians etc... is to be the gospel.  Who's to say that these sources don't operate on deception and disinformation?  How are we defining our reality... on what someone or something tells us or on what our intuition tells us?

Think about it!  It's why we were all given a "heart" AND a brain.

"None is so blind as he who will not see, and none is so deaf as he who will not listen."
  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: LKJ--Podcast

Kestrel -- perhaps I'm missing something big time here but seems to me that basically you and Montalk agree.  About the only thing I can see that differs is that you became ill at some point prior to even reading all the negative stuff and that because of your own personal experience as well as that of knowing that your Chi Kung teacher's wife died -- you disagree that ALL illness comes from negative thoughts/emotions etc.  I'm not sure Montalk said it did though.

I mentioned this once before but Ken Wilbur (google him in case you don't know who he is, please) watched his beloved wife die of cancer over a 5 year period.  She was an experienced meditator ... and very "spiritually evolved" person and still she died.  This was a quandry to her too!!  So -- yes, I agree -- we have DNA, live in the physical world and some illnesses don't come from unseen negative sources.

Still I think you are not opening up to really reading what Montalk has said on this site and on this thread.  And that in fact, between the two of you there is far more agreement than disagreement.

So, your post to me seems unnecessarily snarly ...  perhaps you are missing the core understanding that you and Montalk seem to agree on because of certain buttons that have been pushed by the thread.

Just a thought.

Using both my heart and brain,
Christine B.

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

Re: LKJ--Podcast

kestrel wrote:

Minor point, I'm being quoted for saying things I didn't write, not sure why this happened?

That was IncrementalWay. Minor mistake, got you two mixed up.

kestrel wrote:

As far as Alex Jones being negative and spreading fear, I'm not in the position to defend Alex but to me it seems like he's trying to shine the light on evil.

I never implied that Alex Jones is a fearmonger, just that he does a good job of providing stage 1 material, the "shock you the hell awake" stage. Of course he shines a light on evil, did I ever say differently?

kestrel wrote:

At the same time, in order for him to continue requires capital so how does this make him the bad guy?

I never implied that Alex Jones was a bad guy either, just that he does a good job of providing stage 1 material, the "shock you the hell awake" stage. Of course he needs capital, did I ever say differently?

kestrel wrote:

Now on the other hand, if he just spews out fallacious information just to frighten people that's a different story, but I see no evidence of this.

I see no evidence of this either, just that he does a good job of providing stage 1 material, the "shock you the hell awake" stage, in case you didn't notice this the first several times I said it. He is not in the business of going beyond his niche, though, as he has enough on his hands reporting on the police state. That's why when he has David Icke on, he has to throw in the "I'm a Christian and we agree on a lot of things but I don't know about that reptilian stuff." But just because he has a niche that fulfills a purpose, that doesn't mean there aren't higher stages for those who want to go beyond the "Bush, Rumsfeld, Iraq, Israel, Virus, Cheney, Biometrics" material. That stuff need not be forgotten or ignored, but rather kept in mind as one goes onwards to pursue new levels of knowledge.

kestrel wrote:

Are we to believe that all the people he interviews are also soulness, evil and negative.

roll No comment.

kestrel wrote:

If you're not aware, Alex reportedly also has done some "positive" things like help rebuild the church at Waco, help to repeal the Patriot Act II from his district...  Perhaps your bias prevents you from seeing the positive?

I'm not sure you understand what "positive" and "negative" mean in our discussion or perhaps are confusing one definition with another. But to address your point, first I do not think Alex is a bad guy, and second your logic above is kinda not-so-good because we know that Hitler took good care of his dogs and was responsible for building a car for the masses and a huge autobahn to go with it, all of which are "positive" acts but says nothing about everything else he was responsible for.

kestrel wrote:

Ultimately, isn't it up to the individual to decide how external events will spiritually and to some extent physically affect them?

Yes, which is what I have been saying all along, that given what we experience and perceive, it is up to us to choose between mechanically entering into confluence with negativity or consciously transmuting that impulse through higher-context awareness and understanding. Also, to your statement I would add that it's up to the individual to find novel sources of information and not get stuck in a rut with the same-old-same-old.

kestrel wrote:

Perhaps I'm mistunderstanding your point but it almost sounds to me as if your implying that if you listen to Alex and others just by the fact that most of what they are reporting has negative connotations that you will become negative as well.

Depends on whether the saturation of exposure overrides your ability to keep balance through self-observation and remembrance of the higher metaphysical context. The typical reader is addicted to the emotional rush of anger and frustration coupled with a sense of righteous indignation that comes with losing yourself in an article rather than surgically extracting its information in an understanding and emotionally balanced way. Of course, it is the aim of activism to hit with the hardest emotional impact, which on the one hand does motivate people out of slumber but on the other hand feeds their addiction. It's a double edged sword wielded in a haphazard manner.

kestrel wrote:

Montalk wrote:You leave it to those who don't know any better.

That's a fairly pretentious thing to say.  Since I don't know you, exactly what are your credentials to indicate that you know "BETTER".  Am I communicating with GOD here?

Bet your blood was rushing when you wrote that one.

kestrel wrote:

I realize that most New Agers will try to explain this as a result of some kind of dirtying of the collective conscious through negativity. [...] People however still have the free will to make choices.  However, we are still bound by "laws of nature"

Well, since we are both physical and metaphysical, we are bound to the laws of physics and metaphysics, right? Therefore illness can be brought on by one, the other, or most likely both. And one can override the other sometimes. So when I say that prolonged negativity can make one more vulnerable to illness, that does not exclude physical factors from also causing illness. Negativity will lower your spiritual immune system, plain and simple. And often injuries, blockages, or infections in the astral or etheric body will cascade down to the physical.

kestrel wrote:

However, by going to Alex or Jeff's sites I am able to get a better understanding of the world around me.  What's the alternative, the PSYOPs that mainstream media is spewing out?

Good for you if it helps you understand the world better.

Perhaps your irritation comes from perceiving me as trying to pull you away from something you still value. That would explain why you went to ridiculous lengths to nitpick and try to contradict, even against reason, everything I said. That is not my intent to pull you away, I'm just sharing my opinions and straightening out crooked logic.

As for me, I read "Trance Formation of America" when I was fifteen, followed the rumors of death camps and cattle cars when I was seventeen and eighteen, read all the conspiracy literature and publications I could find, and pretty much accepted my fate as a future prisoner of war to be gassed with the rest. Since then, my perspective has expanded and awareness of the metaphysical and hyperdimensional side of reality has brought me beyond stage 1, beyond the binary "either angry fringe or mainstream propaganda."

I still go to infowars and rense from time to time to check on anything truly new and worth reading, but these are growing fewer and far between. Another couple soldiers died in Iraq? Uh huh. Another granny tasered by cops? Uh huh. What, some tyrannical legislation is just about to be passed? Uh huh. Whoa, there is flesh eating bacteria going around? Uh huh, what else is new?

kestrel wrote:

How does one become aware if your not willing to listen to what people say based on your bias of believing the person is disseminating fear and hate. For example, a guy is seen going around shooting people at random.  Another man shows up and broadcasts the description of the man and what he is doing.  According to you, the man reporting the incident is a fear monger because just because a man is going around murdering people doesn't mean that he will kill further.  However, wouldn't you want to know?

You call that knowledge?

You seem to be separating awareness and negativity.  How does one become aware of "negative" circumstances by avoiding negativity.

By extracting its useful lesson and framing it in a higher metaphysical context. Otherwise you're like Don Quixote getting all worked up over windmills.

kestrel wrote:

Based on your scenario you would only be "aware" of the positive things that are ongoing and therefore your perspective will be greatly skewed.

I separate awareness from negativity, I separate awareness from positivity. Therefore being positive
and aware is not the same as reading only the news stories of what latest animal was born at some zoo. I am aware of the cattle cars, of cancer, of murder, human mutilations, bird flu, yet am aware of what it takes to beat these and I'm positively optimistic about my ability to apply what I know in order to do so.

kestrel wrote:

Furthermore, you use subjective terms which offer no real meaning.

From your subjective vantage point, perhaps.

kestrel wrote:

When you say "...too much negativity..." how much is too much?  You might as well be saying, people shouldn't be bad and be done with the whole thing.  How realistic is that?

Come on, just think for a second. Too much negativity is that which no longer does you any good. Like too much food, too many vitamins, too much water, too much sleep, too much anything. Just because the line varies from person to person, meaning it's not absolute, does not mean it is subjective. You are confusing subjectivity with relativity and 'regauging' the latter to your subjective zero line. Typical mistake, but that's okay.

kestrel wrote:

Many people didn't want to deal with the negativity of what was happening in a particular country in Europe during the 40s and these people all wound up dead or in concentration camps.  Until you realize that negativity is part of life and that it's your job to figure out how to deal with it, then you will be no better off than those that you judge.

Denial is not really "positive AWARENESS" is it? And figuring out how to deal with it may require balancing your own emotional reactions as well.

kestrel wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the Shell Beach reference, please elaborate.

It's from the movie Dark City, check it out sometime, it's a great metaphor for our times.

kestrel wrote:

Montalk wrote:Transdimensional Nexus Point End Game

Please elaborate on this, how is it that you know this to be true?  If in fact this is true, this would imply an ending as in "End Game".  That being the case what's the point in anything, afterall it's going to end anyways.

It's one of those things you have to see, recognize, and remember for yourself. End game means the final playing out of a game, the culmination of a grand plan, the converging of many cycles. But it does not mean "absolute end of everything" just as "graduation" doesn't mean the end of school (since there is college after high school, and grad school after your bachelors).

kestrel wrote:

All things being equal the good will be separated from the bad and everthing gets sorted out.  So you might as well shut down this forum there's really no point in discussing anything further, right?

Funny logic you have there. It's like saying "we're all going to die anyway, so might as well die right now or never have been born".

kestrel wrote:

It seems to me that there is an ongoing movement to dehumanize people by having us believe in things that are contrary to our intuition.  We are being led to believe that no one is responsible for their own actions because it's really the matrix at work or some other nebulous reason.  Don't get me wrong I believe that there are evil and good forces but at the same time once you explain away events to forces that you speculate exist, then you end up empowering such forces.

Ah, you are too quick to dismiss as pure speculation what others know from experience to be fact. Of course you want the proof that they have, but some things can only be proven through experience. And while we are responsible for our own actions and choices, we cannot ignore the actions and choice of others, can we? If certain hyperdimensional entities choose and act to interfere with you, it is your responsibility to counteract, but there is no denying an attempt was made. Unless you advocate denial of their existence which is also not empowering.

kestrel wrote:

Are we to believe that any communication that people have recieved from "others" whether this be from aliens... Casseopians, Raelians, Dracoians etc... is to be the gospel.  Who's to say that these sources don't operate on deception and disinformation?  How are we defining our reality... on what someone or something tells us or on what our intuition tells us?

And what if your intuition, experience, observation, and critical thinking confirm something one of these supposedly dubious sources says? Then you will have to concur with the source, but that does not make it "gospel" which implies demanding blind belief without analysis. I agree, heart AND mind together is the key.

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

montalk's Website