With respect to the last several posts....let me try it another way. I am enjoying this dialogue immensely and am happy to participate in Sirius' original thread, feeling it to be an important if not entertaining one to be sure. Lets forget about David Wilcock entirely as an exercise for a moment. He is unimportant. My intent as repeatedly stated is not to make this about DW per se, or to make this the DW hour (as difficult as this is given he is the author that has purported certain statements as regards the LOO). As difficult as it seems, can we surgically separate him as a person, and all the good he has admittedly accomplished by bringing some to the LOO, and not speak to this as the point. Otherwise no headway or conversation may be made to the point of the assertions made.
I will now will hypnotize all the readers of this post and ask them to forget about DW. Forget..forget...forget....s-h-h-h....forget:
1. Lets assume hypothetically that another participant innocuously made any of the 7 pointed assertions a certain author asserts in my post #39. Period.
2. Lets assume this person claims authoritative knowledge specifically with respect to "TLOO" (btw: I've always liked your twist and creative play with word 3D). TLOO....I like it tloo.
3. Lets assume this person in fact speaks on some level to the general public about the TLOO.
4. Lets assume that this person is in fact as such partly if not largely responsible for secondarily (by 3rd party) relaying general information about the LOO to those that have either never heard of it, or will ever read it, or that in fact have only read the LOO in a general, if not only a nominally cursory manner (we all know your out there).
Taking this certain person out of it entirely, what may we speak to as regards these assertions in light of the LOO? Thats all. Thats it. Its as simple as that. Who cares if this certain person likes potatoes verses tomatoes, reads Kant, Nitzche, Hegel, Spinoza, Goethe, or claims intimate first hand knowledge with respect to reticulans, greys, pleiadeans, arcturians, Mandarins, Arizonians, or prefers blue jeans over dress slacks.
My singular albeit wayward intent is that the LOO may in fact be the best esoteric literature ever delivered. Admittedly, this is my bias. I assume as dedicated students we all share this bias on some level? Lets assume Ishkabibil made any or all of these 7 assertions, and that he is a wayshower, writer, and speaker of sorts as regards the LOO. God help me if there is such an author as ishkabibil..then we'll be speaking to him as a subject verses what he wrote.
I ask philosophically if there is a degree of responsibility that students of any subject at least minimally assume, serious, dedicated, or only generally interested, to keep the material from being impugned? If the LOO is mixed with many such assertions as have been uttered or written, while in the same breath by the same speaker (ishkabibil...ishkabibil...ishkabibil...remember, your still hypnotized) that claims authoritative knowledge to it, and if utilized as even a small backdrop to support such theories, then the LOO is somewhat diluted at best. I dare say I am more than correct in assuming that a goodly number of the folk that are familiar with the LOO are familiar only by 3rd party knwledge, have not read it for themselves, and therefore take in information that has been predigested by another, much like the evening news. Its lazy, its real, but its a true fact, and we all do this on many levels. Given our busy schedules, we're all Congressman and Senators who require Lobbyists to feed us, rather than taking the time to read the entire bill for ourselves. Lets put aside all responsibility and just trust? Heck, CEO's do it, as do our Representatives. Look at Ken Lays's defense to the Enron debacle of a few years ago. Is it any different to the missing bailout monies from our own Federal Reserve? Its a fact that we do this. Its easier to trust. Look where that has gotten us? There needs always be a 2nd voice that simply questions at least the lobbyist's platform if not the legislators or Ceo's? I may love, and yet simultaneously lovingly reject or question at once. I can do the former at 100% without abolishing the requirement of the latter at zero%. To the converse, I can reject 100%, yet with 100% of love in the rejection. Its called discernment as per the LOO manner. Blurring the distinction between the two is often the unbalance of any thought or subject. Zelousness. If not careful, it stifles conversation radically as much as it does the critical thought process.
I use these as examples only and do not advocate anything but to simply be well read and aware of our stated purpose...the tloo...I mean "The LOO" as source. (God..please lets not now talk about the Fed, CEO's, or our dear Legislators...remember only the assertions to a certain hypothetical ishkabibil...ishkabibil...ishkabibil). For the record, I am not that voice. I'm just an old politically antiquated uninformed outta touch blogging internet kinda dude (that's humor yosarrian, meant only as a joke. My killer looking internet blogging wonder of a girlfriend at just 30+ would have a conniption if she read you considered me an old curmudgeon at 40+. Not to worry though, I've locked my computer, protected your identity,and promise to continue to do so. Us bro's have to stick togetha dude).
If all of us are able to remain true to a higher ground, and act as a benefit to those that are not altogether informed, or have yet to squeeze it into their busy calenders, but instead rely on synthesizers, aka lobbyists, then offering another truth is as great of a service as is the service offered by the lobbyist/synthesizer. If we as intended students of the LOO are acting from the intended vibration of love, who are furthermore resolved to be so in accordance with the principles of STO, we needn't then be so overly concerned as to being so sensitive to the smaller points of respectful differing opinion, as they may serve the higher purpose as cause for it. It's the reason we're here?
I enjoy the forum. I'm sitting in the wonderful sun of a Southern Florida beach house on the porch overlooking the Gulf, feeling as blessed that life is as good as it is and as blessed to participate and as blessed for what you Steve and all the others involved have created. A voice for the LOO. Lets not stifle it inadvertently for heavens sake. Lets not be so overly concerned about being so politically correct if the vibration and energy of love are as often repeated that we remain respectful. This reminds me very much of the posts where "Biased Views On STS" defenses were so sensitive so much so as to more seemingly only allow a singular opinion verses a challenging one. In that case " tloo " I asked very much same questions as here with regards to the inadvertent blurring of the LOO. It is therefore IMHO more than well that we ask these questions, not just of ourselves, or for ourselves, but for others as much.
Back to the questions then, intended to be about the LOO only: Ishkabibil, Tom, Dick, or Harry notwithstanding, what do we think of the assertions made in light of the LOO and what the LOO states? And if anyone speaks to Tom, Dick, Harry, or Ishkabibil, then clearly your one of those not willing to play like your hypnotized for either sport or insight, or perhaps for those less fortunate than those that are so fortunate as to be harvestable...which might suggest questions about being harvestable.
...you just have tloo love and laugh out loud as tloo the conundrum of being in 3D.
Assertions only as an exercise (see post #39).
L/L from the beach, where theres more of it....
Q
I will now will hypnotize all the readers of this post and ask them to forget about DW. Forget..forget...forget....s-h-h-h....forget:
1. Lets assume hypothetically that another participant innocuously made any of the 7 pointed assertions a certain author asserts in my post #39. Period.
2. Lets assume this person claims authoritative knowledge specifically with respect to "TLOO" (btw: I've always liked your twist and creative play with word 3D). TLOO....I like it tloo.
3. Lets assume this person in fact speaks on some level to the general public about the TLOO.
4. Lets assume that this person is in fact as such partly if not largely responsible for secondarily (by 3rd party) relaying general information about the LOO to those that have either never heard of it, or will ever read it, or that in fact have only read the LOO in a general, if not only a nominally cursory manner (we all know your out there).
Taking this certain person out of it entirely, what may we speak to as regards these assertions in light of the LOO? Thats all. Thats it. Its as simple as that. Who cares if this certain person likes potatoes verses tomatoes, reads Kant, Nitzche, Hegel, Spinoza, Goethe, or claims intimate first hand knowledge with respect to reticulans, greys, pleiadeans, arcturians, Mandarins, Arizonians, or prefers blue jeans over dress slacks.
My singular albeit wayward intent is that the LOO may in fact be the best esoteric literature ever delivered. Admittedly, this is my bias. I assume as dedicated students we all share this bias on some level? Lets assume Ishkabibil made any or all of these 7 assertions, and that he is a wayshower, writer, and speaker of sorts as regards the LOO. God help me if there is such an author as ishkabibil..then we'll be speaking to him as a subject verses what he wrote.
I ask philosophically if there is a degree of responsibility that students of any subject at least minimally assume, serious, dedicated, or only generally interested, to keep the material from being impugned? If the LOO is mixed with many such assertions as have been uttered or written, while in the same breath by the same speaker (ishkabibil...ishkabibil...ishkabibil...remember, your still hypnotized) that claims authoritative knowledge to it, and if utilized as even a small backdrop to support such theories, then the LOO is somewhat diluted at best. I dare say I am more than correct in assuming that a goodly number of the folk that are familiar with the LOO are familiar only by 3rd party knwledge, have not read it for themselves, and therefore take in information that has been predigested by another, much like the evening news. Its lazy, its real, but its a true fact, and we all do this on many levels. Given our busy schedules, we're all Congressman and Senators who require Lobbyists to feed us, rather than taking the time to read the entire bill for ourselves. Lets put aside all responsibility and just trust? Heck, CEO's do it, as do our Representatives. Look at Ken Lays's defense to the Enron debacle of a few years ago. Is it any different to the missing bailout monies from our own Federal Reserve? Its a fact that we do this. Its easier to trust. Look where that has gotten us? There needs always be a 2nd voice that simply questions at least the lobbyist's platform if not the legislators or Ceo's? I may love, and yet simultaneously lovingly reject or question at once. I can do the former at 100% without abolishing the requirement of the latter at zero%. To the converse, I can reject 100%, yet with 100% of love in the rejection. Its called discernment as per the LOO manner. Blurring the distinction between the two is often the unbalance of any thought or subject. Zelousness. If not careful, it stifles conversation radically as much as it does the critical thought process.
I use these as examples only and do not advocate anything but to simply be well read and aware of our stated purpose...the tloo...I mean "The LOO" as source. (God..please lets not now talk about the Fed, CEO's, or our dear Legislators...remember only the assertions to a certain hypothetical ishkabibil...ishkabibil...ishkabibil). For the record, I am not that voice. I'm just an old politically antiquated uninformed outta touch blogging internet kinda dude (that's humor yosarrian, meant only as a joke. My killer looking internet blogging wonder of a girlfriend at just 30+ would have a conniption if she read you considered me an old curmudgeon at 40+. Not to worry though, I've locked my computer, protected your identity,and promise to continue to do so. Us bro's have to stick togetha dude).
Bring4th_Steve in post 48 Wrote:We don't need to analyze anyone any further or to judge others as to whether the information we take in from day to day is credible and truthful, or fake and imagined. If we are asking ourselves to find truth, we will encounter experiences that lead us down that path. If others are looking for lies and fear-based information, that too will align and begin to resonate with them. The information we perceive serves as triggers and path marks, guideposts and suggestions in helping us to see what resonates with our own selves. Are we not here to know ourselves so that the Creator can know itself in a way that only you can uniquely perceive?Your point is well taken Steve. Allow me this short commercial break (this while still hypnotized to ishkabibil as point) to offer the deepest appreciation to all the hard work and creative processes you and all the creators and moderators of this wonderful forum have contributed. It has required dedication, time, energy, and effort. Let us always be respectful to all of you for this. We all salute you. Thank you. Returning to your post above: In light of my comments above yours, I wonder if this is in any way of service to those that are, shall we say, less informed? This position only makes perfect sense if I am only taking care of me. You say: "Are we not here to know ourselves so that the Creator can know itself in a way that only you can uniquely perceive?". Are we not here also to take care of each other? Are we not here to also understand each other? In doing both I would offer that this is how we know ourselves so that the Creator may know Itself. One can not know/love oneself without knowing/loving the other, unless we speak to the left hand path. Even this supposition might be iffy for the left hand path on further thought. I reckon we're all in it together then.This serves as mirrors to ourselves for ourselves. Isn't this exactly what Ra does? Even if by nothing else than communicating , and on what the vast general public of any thought process, be it the Catholic Church, the Muslims, the Atheist, or the Democrat, etc, might at least consider to be on an altogether different position? We're all in it together.
If all of us are able to remain true to a higher ground, and act as a benefit to those that are not altogether informed, or have yet to squeeze it into their busy calenders, but instead rely on synthesizers, aka lobbyists, then offering another truth is as great of a service as is the service offered by the lobbyist/synthesizer. If we as intended students of the LOO are acting from the intended vibration of love, who are furthermore resolved to be so in accordance with the principles of STO, we needn't then be so overly concerned as to being so sensitive to the smaller points of respectful differing opinion, as they may serve the higher purpose as cause for it. It's the reason we're here?
I enjoy the forum. I'm sitting in the wonderful sun of a Southern Florida beach house on the porch overlooking the Gulf, feeling as blessed that life is as good as it is and as blessed to participate and as blessed for what you Steve and all the others involved have created. A voice for the LOO. Lets not stifle it inadvertently for heavens sake. Lets not be so overly concerned about being so politically correct if the vibration and energy of love are as often repeated that we remain respectful. This reminds me very much of the posts where "Biased Views On STS" defenses were so sensitive so much so as to more seemingly only allow a singular opinion verses a challenging one. In that case " tloo " I asked very much same questions as here with regards to the inadvertent blurring of the LOO. It is therefore IMHO more than well that we ask these questions, not just of ourselves, or for ourselves, but for others as much.
Back to the questions then, intended to be about the LOO only: Ishkabibil, Tom, Dick, or Harry notwithstanding, what do we think of the assertions made in light of the LOO and what the LOO states? And if anyone speaks to Tom, Dick, Harry, or Ishkabibil, then clearly your one of those not willing to play like your hypnotized for either sport or insight, or perhaps for those less fortunate than those that are so fortunate as to be harvestable...which might suggest questions about being harvestable.
...you just have tloo love and laugh out loud as tloo the conundrum of being in 3D.
Assertions only as an exercise (see post #39).
L/L from the beach, where theres more of it....
Q