From: "alt.theosophy group" <noreply@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:13:48 +0000
Subject: alt.theosophy - 8 new messages in 2 topics - digest
To: "alt.theosophy digest subscribers" <alt.theosophy@googlegroups.com>
alt.theosophy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy?hl=en
alt.theosophy@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Thrive Premiere, Metropolis, and some other signs of progress - 2 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/e66b6be82e640961?hl=en
* free kabbalah course - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/ccc05d0213ead4a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thrive Premiere, Metropolis, and some other signs of progress
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/e66b6be82e640961?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 13 2011 7:20 pm
From: Seetha LightInAll Hearts
Some items of possible interest/use:
The Thrive Premiere (The World is waking Up!!)
On November 11, 2011 THRIVE will be released worldwide on the Internet
and have its debut screening in San Francisco.
THRIVE is an unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what's
REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream --
uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of
our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and
activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented
and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future.
http://www.thrivemovement.com/
see a 3:39 min trailer at the above site.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Metropolis restored: An Ageless masterpiece
a 1927 German expressionist film...
In the year 2026, when the populace is divided between workers who must
live underground and the wealthy, who enjoy a futuristic city of
splendor, a man from the upper class abandons his privileged life to
join oppressed workers in a revolt. Perhaps the most famous &
influential of all silent films, German director Fritz Lang's
masterpiece has now been magnificently restored to include the original
1927 orchestral score.
It's available on netflix's online movies...
The moral of the story
"The Mediator between the head and hands must be the heart!"
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Metropolis/60026474?trkid=2361637
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
The Path to Real Prosperity
David Korten: A new jobs plan is thinking too small. What we need is a
new economy.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/the-path-to-real-prosperity
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
The World Teacher
"My Teaching is simple: Justice, Sharing & Love are divine aspects. To
manifest his divinity,
man must embrace these three...
"Many there are throughout the world who call Me, beg for My Return. I
answer their pleas.
Many more are hungry & perish needlessly, for want of the food which
lies rotting in the
storehouses of the world. Many need My help in other ways...
"In awe do men await Me. My friends, I am not God. As your Brother, your
Friend, your Teacher,
do I come. Forget this not..."
Maitreya, the World Teacher
www.TheEmergence.org
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Thousands of years ago, people from more advanced civilizations on
neighboring planets solved their most pressing problems, which were more
or less like the ones we now face. The ruling elite (oligarchy) on
Earth feels threatened by the space brothers, fearing that they will
encourage humanity to dismantle the greed based monopolies that hold us
in chains. Their days in power are coming to an end now.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
The major industrial and technological advances of the past ~100 years
make it possible for the first time in our recorded history to throw
corrupt politicians, war, poverty, & unbridled greed out the door
forever, and to build a truly civilized civilization, where respect for
all life becomes paramount. We the people have the power, but only
when we stand up.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CROP CIRCLES
Below are some links to some great shots of some recent Crop Circles.
Most, if not all of the ones that are geometrically perfect are
authentic creations of our space brothers. The crude ones are not
authentic.
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/april2011.html
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/may2011.html
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/june2011.html
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/earlyjuly2011.html
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/latejuly2011.html
http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2011/august2011.html
Below is an excerpt from some FAQs with Benjamin Creme about Crop Circles
My information about the crop circles is that they are created by what
is generally called UFO activity. The UFOs come in the main from Mars
and Venus, not from outside our solar system. All the planets of this
system are populated, though if you went to Mars or Venus you would see
no one at all -- they are all in higher etheric matter. The UFO
phenomenon is distinctly related to the Reappearance of the Christ and
the externalization of the work of the Hierarchy, and we owe them a
great debt. Their surveillance of this planet is total and energetically
of enormous benefit to the world. What the Space People are doing in the
crop circles in particular is recreating to a certain degree the grid
of our earth s magnetic field on the physical plane. Each of these crop
circles is a chakra, as it were, a vortex of magnetic energy, and they
are spreading out around the world, having started in England.
Apart from some few isolated hoaxes (very crude attempts to replicate
the mysterious corn or crop circles), these circles are made by UFOs
manned by the Space Brothers. They have several levels of purpose.
Firstly, they are a continuous reminder to us of their presence in our
skies. More importantly, each circle is magnetized and occupies a
specific place in the lines of magnetic force in our Earth s magnetic
field. Each circle is a vortex, drawing energy in and radiating energy
to its surrounding area. Together (they are not haphazardly placed) they
form a grid or interrelated energy system of much benefit to us. Since
this grid is formed scientifically, it is most unlikely that any group
of observers, however well-meaning, would hit on the exact spot on which
to observe the creation of any future circles. The Space Brothers are
unlikely simply to oblige with a circle. They do not waste energy.
Q. Why are the vast majority of the crop circles found in England?
A. This is an oblique, subtle way of drawing attention to the fact that
Maitreya is in England.
Q. (1) Do any of the pictograms depict the bodily form of Martians or
Venusians to familiarize us with them in order to reduce our fear? (2)
Would you be permitted to tell us what they look like?
A. (1) No. (2) They look very much like ourselves. Man is universally
present in creation.
Q. (1) Do the Space Brothers travel in their vehicles in large groups or
individually...
A. (1) They work in large groups.
Q. Why do they produce circles and these geometric patterns?
A. To prove to our... scientists that the circles are not made by
freak winds.
FAQ on Crop Circles
http://www.share-international.org/archives/crop_circles/faq_cropcircles.htm
FAQ on UFOs
http://www.share-international.org/archives/UFOs/faq_UFOs.htm
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
YES! Magazine empowers people with the vision and tools to create a
healthy planet and vibrant communities.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Eckhart Tolle's Teachings and Tools to Support the Evolution of Human
Consciousness
Never Too Late for Awakening http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFhCi0ygOhU&NR
The Deepest Truth of Human Existence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uk_AO8Vgr0
Several talks http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eckhart+tolle
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Three diverse progressive news programs
http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
U2 & Pavarotti - Miss Sarajevo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeoB-xY_1iw
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 9:51 am
From: Collier
Seetha LightInAll Hearts wrote:
> Maitreya, the World Teacher
> www.TheEmergence.org
Emergence my ass! The Maitreya is the worst case of spirtual constipation for
the past 30 years. No Maitreya is coming. Their deceptive cult just wants your
money and will do anything to get it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: free kabbalah course
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/t/ccc05d0213ead4a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 5:12 am
From: "{:-])))"
Absorbed wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Absorbed wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>>>> We might actually be omniscient
>>>> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>>
>>> From an subjective POV, I'm experiencing the entirety of reality. From
>>> an objective POV, I'm only experiencing a small part of the external
>>> universe that is presented by my senses.
>>>
>>> While I'm upstairs on the computer, I cannot check the contents of the
>>> the fridge downstairs. If I were omniscient, I could do that. Are you
>>> saying that, unknown to me, I actually have the ability to check the
>>> contents of the fridge like a God?
>>
>> I don't know if you do
>> but you might.
>
>It seems you believe that at least some people have this ability,
I like to believe in possibilities.
> and I'd guess that that would include yourself.
My personal experience with remote viewing
has amounted to nothing. None. Thus, while I,
being an open minded skeptic, can't say the ability
is potentially one of mine, neither can I discount it.
Empiricism can take a body only so far.
>>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>>
>> Presumably, sure.
>>
>> There are plenty of anecdotes
>> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
>
>There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
>on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
Personal experience might be a way.
>> e.g., a mother knows her son has died
>> in a far away land.
>
>Maybe many mothers thought their sons were safe when they were actually
>dead, but those anecdotes aren't as notable. As Francis Bacon said, "The
>root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not
>when it misses."
False positive abound. Definitely.
Closed minded skeptics will use this approach
in an attempt to disprove what doesn't fit
their own particular paradigms.
>To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
>tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
>ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
>such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
>that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
To have had an experience beyond all doubt
does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
There is a report of a controlled experiment
wherein a remote viewer was able to actually read
a number on a card placed such that it could only be read
from a position in which it could not be read
except from an OOBE.
Nobody else in the experiment could do it
even though others were experienced in the practice.
And the one who did manage to read it struggled
over a period of several trials prior to success.
Once a four minute mile has been run
it might only take time before others can do it,
if that makes any sense to you.
Belief can be an interesting thing.
Experience is another.
>> Intuition, telepathy, etc., has been known
>> by many people, beyond any doubt, to occur.
>
>I could equally say that about lots of things: UFOs have been known by
>many people, beyond any doubt, to exist. Just because some people are
>convinced that what they believe is true doesn't actually make it true.
Likewise the other way round.
Each and every experience is once in a lifetime.
Repeating something to some degree is possible
at times. Repeating it exactly is a matter of degree.
>> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
>
>To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
>determine their validity.
If that is your definition.
I always thought that to be skeptical
simply meant to entertain an open mind.
But I guess that would be called
open-minded skepticism.
To have doubt
does not entail having no doubt
that something is possible or impossible.
> It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
>believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
>evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
>and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
While I have not experienced
many things, e.g. remote viewing,
I have experienced telepathy beyond doubt.
To convince you I have is beyond my ability.
If you open your mind, perhaps it would be
possible for you to experience things.
Could be a prerequisite.
Call it a hunch.
>> Not knowing
>> has been said to be a way.
>
>It's certainly a way to protect your treasured beliefs from questioning.
>You could just hint that what you believe might be true, and then leave
>it at that.
I believe I have experienced
an ability to move a piece of wood
which was balanced in a fire. A thought
occurred to me, as if out of nowhere,
that I could do such a thing. I moved it up
and down. It was as natural and easy as
moving my own arm or hand or finger.
Nothing to it really.
It was very strange.
That was all there was to it.
So I shrugged my shoulders
and went to bed.
- go figure
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 5:20 am
From: "{:-])))"
Tom wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>> > {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Their subjective universe ends. The objective universe continues. We are
>> >> >trapped in our own subjective universe. We cannot become omniscient.
>>
>> >> I'd call that an assertion.
>>
>> >> We might actually be omniscient
>> >> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>
>> >I'd call that asinine.
>>
>> A good a word as any.
>>
>> > If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
>> >not omniscient.
>>
>> There is some truth in that.
>
>Which is why saying that you "might actually be omniscient" is
>asinine.
When the star known as the Sun
is obscured, occulted, by a cloud, to think
it does not continue to shine is a funny thought.
>> It was written, "We cannot become omniscient."
>> I could have said in response, "That's an assertion.
>> We might become omniscient, and potentially are."
>
>Again, that's asinine. You might as well claim you can "potentially"
>count to infinity.
I might call that a horse of a different colour.
Suppose, just for the sake of discussion,
that there is a library, a record of sorts,
in which all of what has ever happened,
every single dinosaur bone, all of reality,
is buried in the books, so to speak.
Suppose you could access that library,
a sort of Universe Wide Web. Suppose you
were hooked up to it, such that in an instant
you could know anything you chose.
I'd call that a form of omniscience.
It's beginning to unfold.
But wait!
There's more!
- operators are standing
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 5:25 am
From: Bassos
Op 14-9-2011 14:12, {:-]))) schreef:
> Absorbed wrote:
> To have had an experience beyond all doubt
> does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
This is interesting.
My personal experience with remote viewing is kinda good.
BUT;
The first card a friend of mine held up and asked about was guessed
correctly, 1 try 1 win.
Repeating that feat turned out to not work.
I can do guess which hand holds a red die instead of a blue die.
(as in the six sided dice thingies)
Even when i was getting messed with by holding both dice in one hand or
no dice at all, i got that down, but that is merely two options, so
easily separatable in the mind.
Good training though.
The point here is that repeatability seems to work against accuracy when
it comes to remote viewing/telepathy.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 6:37 am
From: Tom
On Sep 14, 5:20 am, "{:-])))" <turtlecross...@apolka.net> wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
> >> > If you don't know you're omniscient, you're
> >> >not omniscient.
>
> >> There is some truth in that.
>
> >Which is why saying that you "might actually be omniscient" is
> >asinine.
>
> When the star known as the Sun
> is obscured, occulted, by a cloud, to think
> it does not continue to shine is a funny thought.
To think that the sun shines where it does not is also a funny
thought.
If you're omniscient, you know everything. If you don't know you're
omniscient, you don't know everything and therefore you're not
omniscient. Only by deciding that omniscient means something other
than omniscient can you disagree.
> >> It was written, "We cannot become omniscient."
> >> I could have said in response, "That's an assertion.
> >> We might become omniscient, and potentially are."
>
> >Again, that's asinine. You might as well claim you can "potentially"
> >count to infinity.
>
> I might call that a horse of a different colour.
You might. I call it asinine.
> Suppose, just for the sake of discussion,
> that there is a library, a record of sorts,
> in which all of what has ever happened,
> every single dinosaur bone, all of reality,
> is buried in the books, so to speak.
>
> Suppose you could access that library,
> a sort of Universe Wide Web. Suppose you
> were hooked up to it, such that in an instant
> you could know anything you chose.
>
> I'd call that a form of omniscience.
But you're not hooked up to it. You only dream it exists and then
dream that you can be hooked up to it and then you dream that you
*will* be hooked up to it. You can dream anything you like, no matter
how asinine.
But suppose this "Library of Everything That Is, Was, and Will Be"
*does* exist and you *are* somehow hooked up to it and able to access
it at will. You're still only accessing a part of it because your
brain is far too small to be able to process all of the information it
contains at once. All the information in the universe may be
available to you, but you can't know it all. You're still not
omniscient. So let's suppose you dispense with the small-brained user
idea of yourself and actually become the Library. Well, then you're
not you any more. Then there's just the library and there is no you.
So *you* are still not omniscient.
This goes on and on. You can alter the meaning of every word so that
whatever nonsense you spout makes apparent sense in some wildly
eccentric linguistic contortion, but so what? When you actually think
you're hooked up to this library and can instantly have any knowledge
you want, let me know and we'll test your claim. Until then you're
just braying, asininely.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 7:28 am
From: Bassos
Op 14-9-2011 15:37, Tom schreef:
>
> But suppose this "Library of Everything That Is, Was, and Will Be"
> *does* exist and you *are* somehow hooked up to it and able to access
> it at will. You're still only accessing a part of it because your
> brain is far too small to be able to process all of the information it
> contains at once. All the information in the universe may be
> available to you, but you can't know it all. You're still not
> omniscient. So let's suppose you dispense with the small-brained user
> idea of yourself and actually become the Library. Well, then you're
> not you any more. Then there's just the library and there is no you.
> So *you* are still not omniscient.
This is part of why i <3 tom.
"ofcourse past lives are real, they are just not *YOUR* past lives"
(apologies if i misrepresented your take on past lives by a misquote)
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 14 2011 9:08 am
From: Absorbed
On 14/09/11 13:12, {:-]))) wrote:
> Absorbed wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>> Absorbed wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We might actually be omniscient
>>>>> but clouds have obscured this fact.
>>>>
>>>> From an subjective POV, I'm experiencing the entirety of reality. From
>>>> an objective POV, I'm only experiencing a small part of the external
>>>> universe that is presented by my senses.
>>>>
>>>> While I'm upstairs on the computer, I cannot check the contents of the
>>>> the fridge downstairs. If I were omniscient, I could do that. Are you
>>>> saying that, unknown to me, I actually have the ability to check the
>>>> contents of the fridge like a God?
>>>
>>> I don't know if you do
>>> but you might.
>>
>> It seems you believe that at least some people have this ability,
>
> I like to believe in possibilities.
That are many things that are possible that we consider so unlikely that
we practically consider them impossible.
It is possible that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, but given what we know
about the movement and rotation of the planets and the consistency of
the laws of physics, and not forgetting past experience as well, you'd
be an idiot to bet against the Sun rising tomorrow.
So while it's possible, for all intents and purposes practically
everyone dismisses that possibility.
>>>> I could, if I knew how, perceive wars
>>>> in the Middle East and famines in Africa?
>>>
>>> Presumably, sure.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of anecdotes
>>> suggesting such clear visions are possible,
>>
>> There also plenty of anecdotes for the existence of UFOs, ghosts, and so
>> on. Anecdotes aren't a reliable way to determine truth.
>
> Personal experience might be a way.
It might. But it might not when you consider how creating an entire
worldview around one sole experience is likely to mislead you,
especially if that experience contradicts the majority of your experiences.
>>> e.g., a mother knows her son has died
>>> in a far away land.
>>
>> Maybe many mothers thought their sons were safe when they were actually
>> dead, but those anecdotes aren't as notable. As Francis Bacon said, "The
>> root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not
>> when it misses."
>
> False positive abound. Definitely.
> Closed minded skeptics will use this approach
> in an attempt to disprove what doesn't fit
> their own particular paradigms.
The quote suggests that one must look at all the evidence, not just the
evidence that supports your hypothesis. I think that would challenge
their own particular paradigm rather than confirm it, making one
open-minded.
I'd say someone who is closed-minded would take a few anecdotal reports
of mothers predicting their sons' far-away deaths, look at no further
evidence, and then conclude that some sort of supernatural mumbo-jumbo
is involved.
>> To determine whether a mother truly has such a power, a strict series of
>> tests must be done. If the results strongly confirm that they have that
>> ability, while also firmly disproving all other possible explanations
>> such as coincidence, then one might have a reasonable basis to believe
>> that a mother can somehow intuitively know when her son has died.
>
> To have had an experience beyond all doubt
> does not require that it be repeatable to make it true.
True. But if it's not repeatable, then the best you can say is it's
impossible to know with absolute certainty whether someone actually did
successfully "remotely view" something. That doesn't make it
unreasonable to dismiss it, however, given the number of different
supernatural anecdotes, and how the vast majority of people who attempt
to remotely view something fail.
Those who have blind faith in a belief will use this approach so that
their belief cannot be questioned. Because the experience is a one-off,
it isn't conducive to scientific testing.
> There is a report of a controlled experiment
> wherein a remote viewer was able to actually read
> a number on a card placed such that it could only be read
> from a position in which it could not be read
> except from an OOBE.
There are reports suggesting lots of supernatural phenomena are true.
There are also reports suggesting they're false as well.
Got a link to the experiment you're referring to?
>>> Skeptics might close their minds in doubt.
>>
>> To be skeptical is to demand that all beliefs are thoroughly tested to
>> determine their validity.
>
> If that is your definition.
> I always thought that to be skeptical
> simply meant to entertain an open mind.
> But I guess that would be called
> open-minded skepticism.
>
> To have doubt
> does not entail having no doubt
> that something is possible or impossible.
>
>> It doesn't mean that one will necessarily
>> believe in nothing, but that one's beliefs should be supported by
>> evidence. This is the sort of evidence that believers in UFOs, ghosts,
>> and supernatural intuition or telepathy cannot provide.
>
> While I have not experienced
> many things, e.g. remote viewing,
> I have experienced telepathy beyond doubt.
I thought you like to believe in possibilities? What about the
possibility that you've convinced yourself that you have experienced
telepathy beyond doubt when you actually haven't?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "alt.theosophy"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
alt.theosophy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.theosophy/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment