flazak

I don't think this is very fair on her, I presume she has not undergone some kind of awakening herself and I would start working on causing her to awaken. It will take time and effort to do but I think you should try it out or else if something does go wrong you may find it difficult to forgive yourself.

Yes I see what you mean. What I mean is that a theory or paper cannot gain any traction if the conclusions are going against whatever dogma is prevalent at the time or the theory is controversial.

The sheep will always find strength in numbers, they can try to work together to access knowledge as they are much more ineffecient in terms of accessing the knowledge and understanding it. This is the only way to achieve parity with the wolves. Though the wolves are massively outnumbered they are able to intuitively use their knowledge and are very efficient at doing so and thus they are able to think quickly and innovatively in their efforts to stay one step ahead of the sheep

OK so I have some more theories I need to get out there I think that the mind/body is linked to such a degree that when the consciousness is made aware of and understands certain things about himself and the world intuitively (and those things are correct) then the DNA of that person is altered and that person is changed physically and mentally. Certain genes are switched on and others are switched off as you amass the 'correct' knowledge. This could be some kind of phenomenon that ensures the person with the knowledge is worthy and wise enough to be responsible with his power and not pervert the knowledge for his own gain. I was wondering how this applies to r/k theories, I believe the sheep can become a wolf and that transformation is triggered by knowing the right stuff and using that knowledge wisely. Unfortunately some people crave power or are bestowed with power and they don't want to give it up. I am sure this is all ancient information but it still applies today and it always will be relevant. Also science is hamstrung by the necessity for peer review so it cannot answer the big questions at the moment because many scientists have to think about their own interests. EDIT: peer review is absolutely necessary of course.

You are born, you download information from your mother and father, you then leave and go it alone. If you have been given good information you succeed, if you have been given bad information you fail and if you don't leave your mother you never grow up because you are forever dependant on someone else who has a finite existence and cannot support you forever. Awakening/Kundalini/Gnosis is not triggered if you don't grow up and instead you live in fear rather than relying on your own intuition. Being able to effectively use ones intuition requires an awakening process to have taken place which is part of growing up. You must always seek knowledge and find the truth. Your new mind will be quietened, the negative self-chatter gone, you are now steered by your ego which desires to help people that seek help and desires to help trigger an awakening whenever possible whilst making your world a better place to live in (your personal circumstances)

I am still awakening, I just wanted to post an update I am currently reading 'My Big TOE' by Tom Campbell, I am finding it excellent so far. I have an insight I wanted to share while it is fresh: The meaning of being is to find out the truth, the closer you get to the truth the better you feel and the easier it is to help others see the truth and then the better they feel. It is imperative to keep an open-mind and be skeptical at all times, it is important to be free and you must be allowed to speak freely without recrimination or censorship no matter what the subject, equally it is important that you must listen to others and be prepared to alter your belief-system when presented with the truth. We must forgive others who have acted within a belief-system that was not of their choosing, they acted in ignorance and self-preservation, it is important to help them see the truth but it is equally important that they are able to keep an open-mind at all times. This is where we all come in... It is difficult for a close minded person to be led onto one of Stefans videos and watch it all the way through whilst understanding it fully and realising in their gut that this is much closer to the truth than they are, however if Stefans words are repackaged and tailored for the audience (a close-friend or relative) then it becomes easier to to trigger their awakening because they trust you more than someone in a newspaper or a politician AND you have been able to change the message to better reflect their own personal situation and viewpoint. The more knowledge you amass and the closer to the truth you think, act and feel, the easier it will be to alter your own worldview and then the worldview of others, the truth, when realised, is irresistible and permanent. It is intuitive.

Only offer a job if your certain you will both benefit from it! You would need to get to know them first, they may have issues! It would be a big commitment and they would be your responsibility. I think the best thing to do is point them toward a charity that can help them, preferably one you already volunteer for or donate to.

I think Hitler was a new breed of dictator to people living in 30s Britain, same with Stalin. I think the establishment in the allied countries just didn't understand them or the threat they posed. If they did understand then they preferred to bury their heads in the sand rather than confront them but that brings me back to WW1 being in everyones mind and the horrors of that war. It was a shitty situation!! Theres no way you get elected by anyone if you are preaching the need to go to war AGAIN

I think we can solve the problems, but there would still be problems, just different ones I think it goes from: World Hunger --> World Obesity --> Technology eventually solves this? ---> Next unseen problem arises World War ------> Keeping the peace --> Someone gets pissed off with the peacekeeping --> War Terrorism -------> Police State --> Revolution I would say that its possible to replace big problems with lesser problems though ! If you ever solve all the problems and end up in utopia I believe this so called utopia reduces your consciousness and turns people into philosophical zombies and when under these conditions someone will eventually turn up to rock the boat!

Good idea! Maybe if the local charities offered some kind of token in return for a donation that allows the panhandler to eat a meal etc, this would be better? EDIT: Thats it then, vouchers. You give a charity the money to pay for a meal, shower or room etc and they give you a voucher then when you see someone begging you give them the voucher that entitles them to a free meal at Charity X. If you donate more to the charity you can give them a voucher that will give them a meal, a room and a shower !

Thanks for mentioning Neville Chamberlain, I need to learn more about what happened. Before I start to read more about him I want to say that he was only doing what he thought was right and he was trying to protect his country without bloodshed. A huge war lingered in the memory of all politicians in Britain (and France) and I believe he tried to do all he could to avoid it happening again, he thought he was doing the right thing but Hitler was a new breed of dictator... neither the politicians or the people realised how dangerous the beast was that they had unleashed during and after WW1. Also... Stalin.

IMHO they are all personality traits that stem from an instinct to protect their families or their interests at whatever cost. These traits are reflected in the mental and physical makeup of the person. In the absence of property rights I believe we would all act in our own interests which includes the protection of people we care about, it would lead to every man/group/culture/tribe for himself, chaotic springs to mind, but eventually the best group 'wins' In an absence of property rights maybe there would be a fight to establish new rights? Which ever group comes out on top determines the new rights? Perhaps thats what is meant, a fight for dominance to establish new property rights? I'm not sure

So, I guess in a nutshell; You're damned if you do and damned if you don't

We should just observe and let them come to us if they want to. or We should act or else they will destroy themselves before they come to us, what a shame that would be. ---- Which one? Its impossible to answer it, but the more data you have the higher the likelihood that the decision to act or not to act will be the correct one, at least for now Theres not enough data to know what things are like in an eon or two!

Well... this is what trips me up at the moment.. If the Prime Directive applied to Western Europe in 1500 then they would have found Sub-Saharan Africa (or the coast of it) and decided that the native peoples were too primitive and should have been left alone. The result is no slave trade and no slavery?! Isn't that good? Or was it necessary to experience the slave trade and its consequences in order to learn a lesson and not make the same mistake again. Probably the latter imo (we learn from our mistakes) so I guess the Prime Directive is a consequence of that mistake, if we left our planet tomorrow and encountered a primitive society we should leave them be and simply observe them. Only after a LOT of observation can we be in a better position to decide on whether or not we should introduce ourselves and our way of life because perhaps we would then have a better idea of the consequences later on. There are too many variables. Now I realise this is one example, but it is the one foremost in my mind at the moment. I am sure there are other times when it appears making contact and interfering in a civilisation does eventually yield more positive results. So perhaps the Prime Directive is only flawed because sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong, but it means well. Maybe the idea of the Prime Directive is to say 'HOLD ON, Think things through before you interfere!' and that breathing space allows a starship captain or whatever to make the right decision, or, at least, a decision that results in less pain and suffering! Yes I know they broke the prime directive many times but we can never know the consequences of interference can we? Good or bad? At least not without a lot of information first (which is why the Federation tended to observe cultures before making contact) I don't think its wrong but I can see its not right either. Its hard to see into the future but with more data we can take a better guess as to the consequences of interfering rather than observing. No idea! It depends on the outcome? If we found an alien planet tomorrow in our new warp ship and shared all our technology and ideas with them and one of the nations on that planet uses our technology to destroy another nation then we were wrong... I think? Surely anything that results in death and suffering is wrong?! Hmmm... all I know is that I would not want to be the one dying thanks to that new fangled tech!