Jacobsrw

@Consept I agree, and reiterated a similar point yesterday. Ones view of another’s awakeness is completely a subjective approximation, can never be truly known, an endless battle that one haha. It’s more of a probabilistic matter. We can only estimate the probability of someone’s level of awakeness but never know for sure, that’s my bias however. Even though intuition is a higher form of deriving insight it is still limited to bias. It is expressed through the lens of a human and is tainted by individual character. The only thing that is not, is consciousness. Completely independent, all encompassing, and equally able to express finitism. Also agree with your perspective on speakers. They are a relative matter which are judged largely by ones level alignment to them. Notice that those who are deemed unawake are those we often do not align with?

Who else here is concerned about this Brian Rose/David Icke London Real movement? After watching one of the interviews between Brian Rose and David Icke, I got the sense a new cult may be manifesting. This banding together for free speech, finds me very concerned. At first, there appeared to be some meta-perspective taking and critical analysis employed, I was open to that. But then adamant belief in such proposition that the claims became no different than that of religious fundamentalist dogma. It’s like using a weapon to remove a weapon. Damage is likely to be caused. Although there are some valuable points shared between them, I see this going so far it’s going to spread like a plague. People getting so brain washed that they’re being mind controlled and indoctrinated that they then fight the very hand that feeds them. A possible all out civil war, in the following of a delusional Trump ideal. Even if what was said was true (which is highly improbable), fighting the government or at the very least resisting them, is not going to resolve it. Similar to Leo’s insight, Love is needed not contorted egoic reactions. What’s others thoughts on this?

@Zega I started watching this last night. Hard to judge her credibility. Clearly there are some degrees of corruption in the medical health systems, this is evident beyond conspiracy theories. Not so sure of severity and degree though. Appears a mix of both genuine concern and also inflated claims. There’s a lot of strong arming in government more than there is premeditated egregiousness. Really, it’s too short to make a conclusive opinion. Nonetheless, I’ll finish watching it and provide and updated comment.

@Meta-Man Haha yep, chimp seduction ? very true.

@TrynaBeTurquoise Haha sorry to disappoint but I forgot to mention the other two ingredients. Ginger and honey ? Of course, organic only.

@Husseinisdoingfine Haha quite possibly, although careful what you put forth here many in this thread adhere to his theoretical concepts

@Zanoni thank you for confirming. I didn’t get around to helping out.

@Meta-Man Okay so imagine this, each users attention is co-opted for the duration of a short clip which consists of a rapid change in sound and light, bright colours and text. Then, automatically a second clip is played subduing it’s recipient into further browsing. It’s different because it purely works off producing sensory excitation. Biggest technological distraction to be created. It’s successful because the ego loves distraction and people have the attention span of a fish. It only further perpetuates unconscious impulsive behaviour. But who am I to judge, I right now am using a phone...

@Meta-Man it’s basically a short video creation app where people upload comedy skits and have it reshared and liked much like Instagram and Facebook, however only consistent of videos in the feed. Story 1. Download it from the App Store. Step 2. Pour petrol on your phone and set it alight.

@Vipassana I’m great fun ? Except for the fact I barely go out. I understand your intention to simply mock me. I say thank you to you to you, if it so much as helps you sleep at night ?

Hahaha love this guy and he actually does his research, funny that.

@DivineSoda you are assuming validity in such a theory you purport. “Predictive programming” could be viewed in many ways not just as some sinister mechanist ideal. It’s not a binary one way possibility. Remember most humans operate from ego so as to co-opt any ideal that furthers its survival. A good sounding theory does just that, protecting and reinforcing ego to avoid taking responsibility and turning inward. Twisting and contorting reality to fit a desired narrative. It seems many on this forum feel complacent in doing such a thing. Don’t undermine an important possibility and probably a more plausible one: the biggest deception is not a conspiracy theory, but in the mind’s ability to concoct one. How do you know each sophisticated theory isn’t just some self-delusional story used to entertain the mind and maintain its preservation? You don’t. After all human life is just a story, and whatever benefits your survival you will revere. So be careful criticising those who are skeptical to given theories. As you may require applying that very same skepticism to your leniency of a given theory.

@LaucherJunge @LfcCharlie4 @Consept Why assume the government is aware of what it is doing? Half the political sphere is governed by prehistoric primitive frameworks in which have not yet been amended due to the historical underpinnings. I am far from convinced the government is a conscious indoctrination machine which is aware of the ramifications it creates. I am more convinced the government is a primitive system operating from homeostasis so as to avoid any change that threatens its survival. Politician have merely become pawns to this system, not governing operators of it. All these claims of mockery regarding those in government undermine one simple truth: those who govern a system become governed by the very system that what was first created for them to govern. I feel this is what has happened here. The far majority of politicians operate on auto polite so as to avoid the underlying turmoil that lies beneath them. Which of course, creates unconscious civilians that further perpetuate an unstable government. It’s a cyclical system not a one way bottom down approach. This seems more appropriate and probable than some sinister mechanistic agenda run by a select few of individuals out to subdue the globe, from which one could never ascertain full confirmation. After all, most individuals in politics are quite low on the scale of spiral dynamics, consumed but the very system they operate under. Donald Trump is one such great example of this, one who exemplifies a level of consciousness equivalent to a rock.

@LfcCharlie4 I can appreciate what you have mentioned. However, you have oversimplified my argument and made many assumptions as a result. Icke, is assumed awakened, I don’t at all believe he is, nor do many others in this work. As I stated earlier, this we will likely continue be divided on. You also assume his theory is the most fitting, judging by your narrative here. This is not only an assumption but very a limited perspectival approach in understanding a very multi-dimensional nuanced issue. Many theories have been erected along with Icke, many of which are incongruent to his. What privileges him authority on the matter? Nothing but the bias of collective groups in allegiance to him. Also you assume that he has sufficiently provided explanation for the current political climate. I do not agree. He has not accounted for many surrounding factors: eg. individuated citizen behaviour, geographical climate, psychological predispositions, contextual variations of resources, unconscious politics, uncontrolled historical governmental frameworks, gradualism and naturalism; all of which further enmesh and influence government practice. His arguments all nest around a single statement “the government is a mind controlling cult”. This is not comprehensive argument for such an issue. You also assume I haven’t studied him. I am not basing my views of his present fanatics off one video. I’m basing it on interlinking information that supports his argument. Thus, I still do not agree with his overall contention, it’s overly simplistic thinking. Also he has not substantiated many of his claims. Rewatch his pandemic videos and this is evident. 1. Isolation of the “COVID-19” bacterium, he claimed this had not been done, research papers prove otherwise. 2. Testimonial stories about wired government officials. 3. No specific information on the constituents of this “cult”, apart from ambiguous suggestions. And many other unsubstantiated claims. Please do further research into his credibility in this area, rather than judging it based on a history of conspiracy theory work.

@LfcCharlie4 It doesn’t matter who speaks about a given theory, it’s how they do it and the manner in which it is articulated. It’s not about convincing people of a theory. A doctor scholar, politician, journalist whoever, it’s besides the point. How are you conducting your speech is the question, little do it very well in a public context. Something may be going on but very few have competently or adequately addressed this. The biggest deception in the proliferation of all these theories is that they create the biggest illusion of all. To avoid turning inward and taking responsibility. It’s easy to blame a government that’s independent of you, but to admit you play an active role in corruption is a bitter pill to swallow. No “conspiracy” theorist in my view, has in the slightest met the level of comprehensiveness required to address global concerns. Corruption is interdependent, not isolated. These theorists use carefully constructed theories to export responsibility to an external entity in any effort to absolve themselves of any influential inclusion. The biggest deception here is not the government. It’s ego. Not one ego here or there, each individual ego in collectivity. That I have not heard one theorist willingly admit. Again, you are missing the point @LfcCharlie4 its not what he said it’s how he said it. He’s claims were ambiguous, inflammatory, insensitive, and also many unsubstantiated. I agreed with few, but many were just developed from previous approximated opinions. People want any excuse but to explore the “I” they experience. They thoroughly enjoy the “they”, “this” or “that” but not the essence from which it all arises. Practical action may need to be taken regarding government inquiries, I still do not see Ickes efforts as valid in its effectiveness, clearly that is evident. If anything the government has only contracted. Even if there is a corrupted government (which to some degree there will always be) it must be dealt with from the inside out, not the other way around.

@roopepa Hahahaha such an accurate description, I’m dead ? The biggest ego distraction ever created is what we are witnessing.

@Consept This is a very complex matter. It’s not as simple as regulating harmful and unharmful content. It’s completely relative and contingent upon the varying contexts and their subsequent circumstances. We require context sensitivity. There can be very little generalisability here because every situation is different and cannot be fully predicted. Also decentralising a platforms rights to ban is dangerous, as it only further perpetuates a dictatorship enforcement. Platforms should have the right to censor information but should be transparent in doing so. There could be basic regulations for adherences a platform must abide to, but as for specific censoring, it should be left to the platform itself. Since those whom created it, operate it, run it and assess its traffic are those who provided the very opportunity to use it. One is not obligated to use these platforms, it’s not a right it’s a privilege. Ungrateful groups of people are currently banding together as if it’s their god given right to use these platforms. It isn’t, these platforms are independent of the systems in which freedom of speech rest within. Each platform has it own rules and regulation just as each ecosystem has its own climatic laws.

@TheAlchemist exactly my thoughts too. I spoke of this with a friends as a necessary inflection point for humanity in which the ego will have no choice but to face its illusions. People are avoiding turning inward because the whole narrative of an ego is to as you said, project any direction but where it currently exists. What’s even more coincidental...is people will have to face themselves one way or another. Whether a conspiracy theory is true or it isn’t, does not dissolve the fact exploring oneself is the only way to transcend it. The ego will use anything at its will to obscure seeing itself as the sole creator of suffering.

@Parththakkar12 Yes a statement can never be true because what is used to convey it is by design limited, that being, language. Consciousness is best spoken through silence, nothing more. I feel you are confusing compartments of consciousness for consciousness itself. Intuition is a compartment, insight is a compartment, intelligence is a compartment and so on. You cannot ascribe features to something such as consciousness because it supercedes them all, while equally containing them. Again, you can have that perspective of Teal and Ralph, I personally do not resonate with them. However, it’s helpful to notice not everyone agrees with them and that such a disagreeance does not amount to delusion in doing so. This is completely a relative subjective matter. I feel we are explaining the same thing but in slightly different ways. My bias is that awakening is not a complex hierarchical system indicative of stages, but rather it is a revelation that occurs upon the ego’s dissolution. I am open to what you are saying being possible, yet I feel there is too much fragmentary terms being used to explained the bare simplicity of consciousness itself. Lets leave it there, we share similar views but most importantly we acknowledge the importance of consciousness. That is such an imperative to this work ?

@Parththakkar12 I don’t agree that intuition is synonymous with Oneness. Intuition to me is a higher state of being from which the ego operates but not a universal law, that’s my bias however. I feel you may be missing the point. Who dictates who’s intuition is deluded and who’s is not? If both assert their alignment to truth both could be deluded as each other or one could be misinterpreting what the other is not. To me, it’s all bias. Consciousness is the only universal continuum. Nothing wrong with intuition perse, you just can’t establish an absolute statement of Truth from that level of function as it is completely skewed and relative to ones finite human self. What you feel to be intuition may not be what another feels it to be. Your judgment otherwise is your own opinion. I don’t resonate with your formulation. There is no such thing as an “awakened ego”. There is ego and there is consciousness. An ego can operate at higher levels of consciousness but the ego does not awaken, it dissolves into consciousness upon awakening. I feel you have this back to front. A spiritual teacher — if speaking truth — is not speaking from ego but from consciousness. Ego is just a lens through which is used to express consciousness, it is not an awakened form of consciousness. There is no such thing as an awakened form. A form cannot awaken because it is limited. Consciousness is not limited. Please explore this deeper and you may understand my point.

@Parththakkar12 I’m not sure we are understanding each other here. How do you judge intuition between one person and another? For example, if 10 people informed by their intuition agree with you and 10 do not who judges which one is trustable? No one can. Intuition is not judgable in that regard. And by that very merit you cannot announce your intuition over another’s because that would be biased. Therefore, your views are based on your own intuition and may not equate to an overarching truth. Intuition is not synonymous with Truth, it is just more accurate than logic. I feel this may be more tricky than you are assuming it to be. Well supposedly ego is fundamentally illusory. So there would be no such thing as an awakened ego. If one is awakened they would operate through the lens of consciousness not an ego. Their decisions would be informed by pure awareness not the ego through which expresses it. There are definitely more developed egos, than others, but ego is a limited lens of consciousness, therefore it’s views are fundamentally untruthful.

@Parththakkar12 I don’t know but it’s possible that either do you, that’s the catch.. I partly agree with you assessment of intuition. However, that does not at all negate the possibility that your estimations could be operating from bias or ego opposed to intuition. Unless you are awake you cannot know for sure. In all due respect, the way you are constructing this dialogue appears to me it is coming from a position of defensiveness rather than direct knowing. Knowing does not require defending, if one knows something to be true they would not fight with others to prove its validity. It would be radiated via their existence. We fear not knowing because it threatens the foundations of ego. We attach to forms of relative knowing because it protects it.

@Parththakkar12 You are resting your whole argument on the assumption of another’s intuition being true. You cant validate how conscious one is nor can you validate the authenticity of one's intuition. This you will never know. This a complete approximated opinion predicated on your own subjective bias. Just the statement “they know what they are talking about” or “they are conscious” is a reflection of your own bias based on the belief you hold about them. Thats a complete straw man. Radical ideas are shared on this forum all the time, far more radical than what was espoused here or mainstream society for that matter. It’s not how radical or indifferent an idea is that validates it. It’s the relevance it has to the essence of direct experience, beyond the ego-you experiencing it.

@Monde You see though, “nothing” is infinite because it has no measurable qualities, therefore it can not be limited to a set of finite characteristics. Infinity means not bound by limitation. Which a void or nothing precisely is. Nothing equals “no-thing”.

@TrynaBeTurquoise olive and lemon, it’s very tasty and I’m happy to share ?