wordfailure

malai5:

A fair hearing and unbiased view? This being a philosophy forum, perhaps you ought to be considering, for one thing, the postmodern suspicions we are forced to confront that all beliefs and cultural practices have ideological subtexts: We have no access to neutral ground outside the peculiar workings of our brains, which appear to the cognitive scientist to be "us". But we can question from within. It helps if we can recognize, at least provisionally, that it probably is in fact from within. The inherent logic of the information put forth is of little consequence unless you can clear some epistemological hurdles. What justification can you offer for your beliefs? You've been asked this question repeatedly. What is required is justification one step removed from the actual claims. In other words, what general rules for discerning truth have you worked out with which you can distinguish independant reality from the workings of mind? How can you determine the relative merits, for example, of universal consciousness claims and the various claims regarding the god of Abraham? I suspect that you have worked out no such rules, which is why you continue to hold up the "information" in their place.


This is not a valid argument for the legitimacy of any of the numerous, often conflicting unverifiable claims. By this argument we should believe every claim.


I see no evidence that the religious are in general less sincere in their beliefs than you or I. In any case, this is not justification or defense.




The area of Metaphysics is different in that the physical sciences require empirical evidence. This is a significant difference! But the specific methods to "sort the mystique from the real" is on point and would be of great interest to all.



Right, I've decided to give you the benefit of doubt on the sincerity and such, but it has no bearing on the claims or their justifiability.

You appear to be both presenting a hard-earned enterpretation of the nature of reality and claiming to be a passive receiver. You also appear to speak of the universal mind at some times, and as communicating with entities of the universal mind at others. Could you clarify these points and also explain the relationship of a universal mind to our definition of the universe as "everything that exists"? Is everything that exists conscious, in your view?

Amos

If consciousness does not cause knowledge it sure is a good beginning and even if we considder conventional data to be knowledge one must be conscious to understand how reason can arrive at that. I would say that consciousness is required to be omniscient and from this same consciousness we must learn to know what it is that we are really conscious of. The nice thing about this is that it makes learning possible with the only limit to our learning being our exposure to that which we seek to know more about.

I think John, this pretty much means that the sky is the limit for us humans who will continue to "do greater things," and that, or such, is the Gospel truth.

John Page

No answers to my two direct questions, then?

Amos

I thought I did. Knowlege is equal to richess as seen from oblivion but is also equal to poverty as seen from omniscience. If consciousness is omniscience knowledge is obtained in some other way because we are either omniscient or we are not. If not we must learn and must have learned what we know or must have learned that which we think we know.

John Page

Here are my questions again....

Amos

Consciousnes is the cause of knowledge and knowledge can lead to existence as in "the word became flesh." It would be wrong to think that knowledge exists as an entity of its own because there would need to be some form of consciousness to interpret the symbols in such a way that they become like "music in our ears." Yes, knowledge is much like the no-noice made by a falling tree if there is no consciousness to intercept the vibrations.

malai5

Dear John Page.

The answer to this, we will give on this level.
We put out the information:- Cause.
You understand or not:- Effect.
We source some information about you, personally:- Cause.
You choose to see the truth of it or not:- Effect.
We come from a universal standpoint:- Cause.
You can choose to see it from the 3D, or step outside your fixed position:- Effect.

In each one of these positions is a line, a direction which will give to you a different result.
It's up to you whether you wish to ''see''.
We feel you ask the wrong questions to get the answer you really need. And even if you ask the right questions, will you understand even if you get the answers you need. John, will you ''see'' even if the answer is right in front of you. You will, if you abandon a fixed position, for although the 3D world tries to solidify, fix points of reference, there is in fact a flow to understanding that does not brook inertia.

So John, if you want to paddle around in the shallow waters of doubt as to our truth of ''how'' we know, ''how'' we access, you may as well ask how do you know the water is wet. You will miss the ''bus'', the river will run past you as you focus on the ''bridge'' you try to build to prevent you getting your feet wet.

John, our claims are not only consistant with universal logic, they are made by the source of universal knowledge, our universal contacts, the entities we interact with. Hardly inconsistant we would have thought when it all comes from the ''horses mouth''.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear wordfailure.

M5 Our sincerity only means something to us as we strive for the truth, as relative as that may be. Truth is like a puzzle, a bit at a time. As you learn more, your ''truth'' expands with it. It's a bit like shifting the ''goal posts''. They are still goal posts, but just in a different position.
We are passive receivers, but we learn from what we receive. If there was inconsistency in what we receive, we would not believe it. However, the very latest material we have received, fits perfectly with some of the earliest of the same subject and takes it that bit further. We have often not remembered the earliest material, but when we go back and check, it just blows us away. It's spot on in context. We couldn't do that as our ''little'' selves.

We do connect with entities, be they our own higher selves, (which are entities in their own right) or other groups of entities. There is a very real difference in the ''feel'' of each different entity we encounter. They all have their own different personalities which come through in the way the information is delivered, tern of phrase, words used etc.

Everything that exists is part of consciousness. It has many forms and roles to play in that consciousness. Not all is consciousness as we would understand. The universal mind is the collective consciousness, the Grand Order of Design. However, the designer, the Gift Of Design is the overseer of that consciousness as well as being part of it.
We are all entities of the universal mind, but the entities we connect to are the ones able to give us the truth that is needed at this time on this earth, to bring the 3D world to a new understanding of what it is, what humans really are apart from their ''physical'' form and the bare bones information as to dimensional worlds and parallel hologramatic ''lives''.(end)

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

Malai:

Seems to me you dreamed something up and put "universal" in front of it. Claiming your knowledge comes from some source I don't have access to is only effective if you can show me what that source is.

Universally Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Maiai5:

Either you want people to accept your claims without having to experience the same things you have experienced, or you will cease making claims, and start giving us the information we need, in order to discover for ourselves the independently verifiable, non-contradictory evidence that supports your claims.

No rational person will accept arbitrary claims, and--so far--that is all you have made, and you have pretty much stated as much.

Keith.