David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

Hello Ali Q. Thank you for a most respectful and intelligent reply. Language is indeed a most peculiar if not formidable means of communication. But alas, it is all we have to rely on for the moment.

Thank you for the chance to think deeper on the subject and to practice communication. While language is peculiar it has the side effect of improving our own understandings by formulating them.

As you may see I removed a lot of the issues and tried to focus on the ones I think would clarify our differences most easily. There's big messages going around and I'm not the only one talking to you. So brevity is good for you and me as long as we stick to the real points. But if I left something important out bring it back up and I will respond to it.

As a Euro-American I can more than appreciate and well understand your challenge my friend. No apologies required with this bit of shared understanding. All is well.

I am glad no apologies are needed because I offered none. I would offer them gladly and repeatedly to you if they somehow made you feel better. I did not get the feeling that they would. But the fact is I did not offer them. Please verify and see the possibility for us, every one of us, to read something that isn't actually said. I only clarified my position. The reason I think you experienced it as an apology was because you felt a strong change from what you believe I previously said to what you believe I said now. Meaning that I did find a better way to formulate my words. And that my first attempt did not come across right.

The reason I bother to mention this now is because it's exactly in line with our understanding that language is indeed a barrier. And our current problems.

With that out of the way NOW I apologize for not being clear enough the first time. You felt that in the best of world I would give them, even if you did not need them. But the best of worlds is cool right?

Lets call it ambiguity. And I want to empathize that because it is important for the rest of my response.

A problem I am having is that you state something as factual. While I don't believe it to be true. You don't give references to back up your claims. You say it would cause too much work for you. I concede that it's a bit of a chore. However you raised the issues. And it would be tremendously easier for you to find one single point to discuss that reflects your objections than it would be for me to read ALL of Davids work and ask my self at each line. "Is this what Quantum meant when he said .... ?"

This ambiguity means that I could easily read a passage that you strongly object to and not recognize it as such.

Basically I think I understand you on all points. I just experience them differently. If we are intent on discovering the source of our differences and really learn something then we need to understand the experience we talk about. I cannot get that experience from your descriptions of yours alone. I need the original passages where he really states these things.

Unless we short circuit this ambiguity by finding a clear example to discuss I must always value my own opinions over yours (Regardless of absolute truth) because ambiguity not only means that you and I see David's opinions different from how he sees it. It also means that my opinion of your opinion of Davids opinion is not likely to be any closer to the truth than my own opinion. The reference takes the ambiguity away.

This is why scientists and scholars use these references. Let us do the same, especially since part of the "accusation" (Strong word I know) is that David calls himself a scholar, yet is not.

On channeling and confusion
Even Carla's channels where we can probably say that the words are exactly as Ra meant them due to the minute control over the variables in the channeling (Move that bible 5 millimeters to the left to improve reception) David does not use this strict methodology and therefore his channels should be expected to be filtered though his understanding that grew over time.

You do not want to know the mess I would have been in if I had just accepted the verbal content of my own work literally. I had the intuition that some if not all of the messages would not be literally true to another human being from a very early age. I had trouble with integrating realities and was thus forced to psychologically live in multiple versions. However these problems are less than I would have had if I accepted myself as a clear channel. In spite of this the information was worth while. For example as a child I knew because I was told that I was a literal cut/past of the mind of an alien being into the body of a human being. I was eight years old and unable to understand complex theories at the time. So they were very practical. Much later, half way my teens I started to understand the deeper implications of reincarnation and I was told I was the reincarnation of this alien. Then when I started to uncover reincarnations on my own and interacted with one of those past lives and figured out I actually had two lines (Not in reality obviously thats billions, but I could only see the two and knew only what I saw) I was explained that I was part of a sympathetic link between two entities. Which later with the help of the Law of One evolved to my current understanding that my IAM presence is the IAM presence in all entities in existence. But also that my personal presence around this IAM is naturally attuned (like a pitch fork) to entities in past present and future. And I would experience those as my other lives. The fact that I perceive this alien as my own past life and that this was apparently a matter of choice simply means that I am attuned to it because at some level I chose to be.

IAM means "I AM" but also "I Am Many"... "I Ambiguify? into Many"

But this also means that if two person channel the same source. And no specific care is taken to eliminate the influence of the channels then the message is going to be distorted.

A scholar who professes a certain authority, while yet claiming to channel this same source (as the truer authority), all while suggesting he seemingly as a scholar knows more than the average individual on this certain study, but then all at once disagrees with the very study he is an authority on and which he channels no less, may hardly be named as a credible scholar in support of his scholarly pursuit, as much a critic of it.

I think this is your biggest point. David seems to disregard some areas that you think he should not. Basically authority would mean you should take his opinions as true. Clearly making the authority label a mismatch for you concerning David.

Lets just say I believe the man is good. He's not the final word on the subject. Though I would personally be hard pressed to find a handful of those that are closer. And while he is pretty consistent over time you have to learn and change opinions to remain relevant in a world where we are constantly growing towards higher levels of understanding. A literal interpretation of the bible today does not work anymore. The Law of One or better our understanding of it is also subject to growth. Basically while the text remains the same our interpretation of it has evolved over time and will continue to do so. This also means differences in interpretation can emerge. We see in our own writings that we cannot rely completely on what our eyes read or our fingers write. Communication is a messy process. Ambiguity just is.



As an example of ambiguity

I suggest that when Ra utilizes the term "Negative Greeting" that it was invoked more to mean a Negative energy sent from a higher plane and source to a lower plane such as ours, this by a higher more powerful entity(ies), and not to be misconstrued as by your next door neighbor. For heaven's sake. Yes, if we wish to be pedantic, one may indeed infer that a higher entity is manipulating your next door neighbor of a lower energy as a minion of his highnesse's higher STS energy, but I would suggest that this is a weenie higher entity engaged in something as frivolous as your dog that didn't poop in his yard that he wishes to have an argument over nonetheless,

I love your analogy. If I summarize you believe David believes that a negative greeting is sent by a powerful higher dimensional adversary who pushes pawns around on a chess board just to annoy him. And all these human pawns are really just pawns of a negative force.

But is that actually what he believes? Or is it what you believe he believes? If it turns out that he does not believe this himself then clearly your consequent objections to this belief do not apply to him. Language as we saw earlier is severely distorting. So your opinion is based more on your expectations than fact. If I were to follow you in the notion that he believes some high up in the food-chain negative entity is in fact active in creating negative outcomes by invoking negative greetings then I would agree that david believes this. However I tend to think (through my ambiguity) that he considers the negative greetings a logical result of a divided population. Not necessarily one you don't name when seen.

If we want to cut through the ambiguity we're going to have to use a clear example. How about this one?

He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

Yes he has.

Please reference this one, you are very clear so there must be a clear reason for you to say this. And that makes it interesting. To convince me you do not need an example where with some creative reading I might come to this conclusion. I just want to see where he unambiguously says it. If you want to convince me give me the chance to see something new.

I return now to my continuing vacation in the aqua colored waters and gulf sands of the beach where all is still.

Well, your life sucks doesn't it? I have a somewhat murky brownish greenish canal near here!

Enjoy your vacation!