"Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment

[Angelo]

I'm not surprised by the reaction to what I've posted, and it seems I have a lot of work ahead of me in replying. I'll attempt to address those points I deem most central in the best way I can. I'll start with Ark's post first.


This was the spark that set the blaze: We are all organic portals.


In the same way it could be said that we are all atoms. But that kind of general statement does not carry any useful information. Information comes by classification. Also note that the ideas that "find voice" here are most definitely not "general world conceptualizations." - Ark


The 'ideas' that find voice here are indeed fragments of generalized world concepts. Ideas are like proteins in the mental environment, alone they represent only a fragment of an individuals perspective, together they actually form mental organs. Everyone has a world conception, or what has been termed a 'cosmology'. This cannot be proved false, for everyone on earth has some sort of idea amalgam which colors their overall perception. Everyone exists within a general interpretive position which is their world concept.

The 'world concept' as organ is made up of filaments and proteins - thoughts and ideas, which through the process of 'gnosis', or 'self-realization', preciptate organs of perception, imagination and conceptualization. These thought organs allow further conceptual frameworks to take shape as thoughts congeal into fields of thought 'forms' called concepts.

Most of humanity has a very poorly developed conceptual depth, thus, humanity suffers the inevitable myosis of underdeveloped organs of perception, and hence, shallow thinking.

Ark, your comment above hovers only about the surface of things. You see classifications when comprehensively designed world views are intended to penetrate to the interaction between what would otherwise seem like disparate, separate and classified fields of information. If I say that we are all organic portals, it is like stating that we all have lungs, or hearts. So yes, it is a very general statement, one that does however carry very pertinent and useful information, for under the general assumption in this forum the 'organic portal' is 'classified' as a very specific psychological condition, when in fact it is not a psychological condition at all, but a generalized human reality.


You did not define what a "portal" is. A door in a room is a portal. You did not define "etheric". Alcohol is an etheric substance. - Ark


In fact, I did 'define' both of these terms in my previous posts. Have you read them?


It is through this portal, each designed as a unique configuration, that we as entities, or souls, entered into physical being. - Angelo


Now, you say "we". A computer can also be taught to say 'we". But there is a difference between a computer and a dog, for instance. There are different kinds of "wes". The devil is in the details. - Ark


How can I consider such logic as this, this is pure sophistry. I'm sorry, but this is hardly sensible. When I refer to 'we' as entities I am referring to the sentient soul which indwells us all. That animating force which in the human constitution is 'individuated' and self propelled.


You did not define "soul". Without a definition, a processor in a computer can be considered it's "soul". But the problem of a soul is a different one. We are having in mind here different kinds of 'souls". - Ark


The soul is the animating force/energy within all life forms that is always in search of higher understanding and expression. It is the soul consciousness that divests itself into human or otherwise physical vehicles in order to collect experiences that evolve and transform its understanding and appreciation of existence. The soul is a fragment of the Universal Spirit which seeks self reflection through the higher order genetic membranes of the physical world.


This sentient component, through our astral linkage, literally holds open a portal to the spiritual world, making each and everyone of us an 'organic portal' and 'channel'.- Angelo


The point is that some channel life, while others channel death. Some want to "give", while others want to "take". The devil is in the details. - Ark


While I disagree with your general direction and mindset, I would say to the above that you are correct. I stated such in the quote you highlighted below which makes me wonder why you brought it up as a point of contention to begin with. Here is what I said:


The next assessment than is this. Into which 'spiritual' domain do we channel our frequency, and from which spiritual domain do we derive our core identity.

...

In the realm of spirit there are vast conglomerates of energy that can be considered self serving, and thus, the idea of the 'organic portal' as it pertains to psychopathy may indeed be derived from a partial knowledge of this spiritual landscape. - Angelo


I experience the type of responses I am receiving here quite often. The respondee replies point by point without having immersed themselves in the entire contextual field. Rather than exploring the entire post, or posts, with an eye to context and theme, small details are extracted out of context and diverted into channels that have little relevance to the overall discussion.


Psychopathy is one thing. It is a rather well described category. Organic portals is a hypothesis, of a different kind. There is no direct or simple relation between the two. - Ark


'There is no direct relation between the two'....Can I quote this when forum members use the terms interchangeably?


Organic portals, if they exist, may be very of very kind nature. People with souls (if they exist) may behave like psychopaths. You are mixing two different categories. The devil is in the details. - Ark


Am I? I tend to think not. I am clarifying what has become a state of confusion. And Ark, people with souls DO exist.


Organic portals is a hypothesis, based on another hypothesis, namely the one that such a thing as a "soul" exists, and that "some people" have souls. This leaves open the possibility that some don't. Then comes the question what is so particular about "souls" and this is a very difficult and open problem. - same as the problem of the existence of a "soul". - Ark


It may seem a very difficult 'problem', perhaps it is, though anyone claiming apparent difficulty would be wise to listen as they continue their trek upon the path of heart.


There is a belief, among certain african tribes, that the birth of a human being actually takes place in the mind of the father. That during the period of 'conception' the father has the very important role of developing and conceptualizing the portal identity through which life will emerge. In this way it was very important to the tribe that very specific qualities be emphasized so that the incoming life would be of benefit to the group dynamic as a whole. Also in this way, the more profound the conceptualization, or more accurately, the more incisive the fathers ability to conceptualize and develop insight, the more 'advanced', as a tribal member, the child would be. - Angelo


Well, there is a belief, among certain african tribes, that eating human flesh is beneficial. Many of them believe that old women can kill cattle by looking at them sideways, for example. For some reason you are quoting from some african tribes, skipping other african tribes. - Ark


I see.

Can you imagine that two tribes may be so different from one another that they actually exist within different experiential domains? Can you envision an investigator quoting a research finding about the dangers of genetically modified organisms, issued by some university, and then being condemned by the media for not having also quoted other research stating the opposite, that findings also show gmo's actually improve health?

It happens all the time. Its the establishments way of down playing findings they simply don't agree with for reasons they alone decide credible. Taken out of context the gmo debate can actually be made to seem like a rational and balanced debate, though 'in context' (dead butterflies, dead cows, intestinal diseases as epidemic, cancerous mice) it becomes quite apparent that there are some glaring inconsistencies in the establishment position.

I don't want to highlight every belief system streaming from every African tribe, this is an absolutely preposterous argument. I am presenting what I feel is a highly substantiated belief of conceptual potentials and visualization as a means of life direction. You are purposely dismantling the structure of my words and twisting them to fit your agenda.

The belief as stated above has many correlations with scientific findings of the naturalistic kind. I know that potentials are filled with an energetic substance that has come to be called intention. Physicists are already discussing the ability of intention to alter subatomic structures and hence reality. What position are you defending?


It is known already that the mitochondrial DNA is passed down through the mother, this line of constancy is what keeps the genetic line stable. The father on the other hand brings forth a genetic adaptability which is the seed of change and diversity. This seed brings change to an otherwise static system and exists not only as a physical form but also as an ethereal seed conception in the mind. This is a very important line of thought. - Angelo


There are no hard and fast rules. While there are statistical studies of influence of the genes, there are always exceptions. Moreover the relation, if any, of the genes to the "soul" is not clear, though it is hypothesized. You are just stating a different hypothesis. - Ark


The 'relation if any'?

What makes my 'so-called' hypothesis less acceptable than yours? In truth, I would argue that my premise is hardly a hypothesis at all. I know that the physiology reacts to causal implications, that the genetic code morphs and re-arranges itself according to perceptual orientation. Just as the genome reacts to electromagnetic fields, radioactive essences and so on, all highly substantial and verifiable by naturalistic science, so to does it react to the gravitational field emitted by the heart and mind, each of which have been measured and quantified.

Mitochondrial dna and its properties upon genetic unfoldment has in itself been very extensively studied, its a very highly interesting field of learning.

What position are you defending Ark?


It has been said among the Toltecs that women can indeed create life without the male energy, though the result of this system of energetic reproduction would bring forth only clones undifferentiated from one another. Here it is seen that the mother provides the matrix of constancy and fixation, or the fractal web, which allows the fathers departing seed to germinate the unfolding of this constancy, giving it motion and 'fluidity'. - Angelo


Toltecs: "They practiced human sacrifice and the use of the "tzompantli", the rack where the skulls of the dead were hung." For some reasons you quote one thing about Toltecs while skipping the other things. Why should we care about Toltecs? - Ark


'Americans' set up concentration camps and torture Arab peoples by raping them, beating them and torturing them for pleasure.

Do you see the problem here?

What Toltec lineage are you referring to and during which time period? It was not my intention to dig out the specifics of a people who developed a very powerful spiritual knowledge that was most definitely, without question, abused by some. There has always been a struggle against those who would wrestle control for their own devices, no different was it for the Toltecs, that mighty lineage that carries such profound insight into both the higher and lower realms. I do care about the Toltec world concept, it is an organ of great age and wisdom, tried by deception and insight, a valuable key to humanities past and future.


The father provides diversity, the mother constancy. - Angelo


What kind of diversity? What kind of constancy? What about people that are constant in their diversity and diverse in their constancy? - Ark


Fractal geometries are the precursor to a new understanding of human relationships and spiritual processes. When you view a fractal as composed by the aide of a computer program which adds infinite depth, infinite potential, one can follow the unfolding fractal inward or outward ad infinitum. If we recognize that the fractal itself is the 2 dimensional representation of the hologram which casts out the fractal of 3 dimensional space/time in all directions, we understand the holographic principle to a certain degree. The fractal, though changing its geometrical appearance, remains constant, it remains fixed as an extension of what came previous and what will come after. This is a simplified conceptual visualization of the matrix of 3 dimensional space/time. Constant yet changing in appearance. This constancy connects all times and places by a thread of continuation referred to as space.

The near-absence of genetic recombination in mitochondrial DNA makes it a useful source of information for scientists involved in population genetics and evolutionary biology. Because all the mitochondrial DNA is inherited as a single unit, or haplotype, the relationships between mitochondrial DNA from different individuals can be represented as a gene tree. Patterns in these gene trees can be used to infer the evolutionary history of populations. The classic example of this is in human evolutionary genetics, where the molecular clock can be used to provide a recent date for mitochondrial Eve. Another human example is the sequencing of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal bones. The relatively large evolutionary distance between the mitochondrial DNA sequences of Neanderthal's and living humans has been interpreted as evidence for lack of interbreeding between Neanderthal's and anatomically modern humans.

However, mitochondrial DNA only reflects the history of females in a population, and so may not give a representative picture of the history of the population as a whole. For example, if dispersal is primarily undertaken by males, this will not be picked up by mitochondrial studies. This can be partially overcome by the use of patrilineal genetic sequences, if they are available (in mammals the non-recombining region of the Y-chromosome provides such a source). More broadly, only studies that also include nuclear DNA can provide a comprehensive evolutionary history of a population.

Scheffler, I.E. (2001). "A century of mitochondrial research: achievements and perspectives"

Although male mitochondria does downshift from time to time it is an abnormality and is associated with mitochondrian diseases. We can view the constancy of populations over time through the female, through the womb, like a freeze frame of a fractal in motion. The motion itself, or time, the movement of the fractal, works through the mitochondria, through the womb. This motion is the male impulse to diversity which branches away from the mitochondria, spreads its seed, thus giving life to new forms and patterns. The mitochondria as a platform remains constant, the genetic envelope that it works within diversifies.

It is the gravity bodies and worlds in space, and their movement, which provides us with time. These gravity bodies are the result of an initial 'release' of potential - recall 'mind and potential' as I referenced it above. The mind of the universe gave birth to the dream, which finds fulfillment in the womb of emptiness. The African tribes belief in mind born children begins to take on some pretty stupendous parallels, when we consider the implications of intention and the formation of worlds in what has been referred to as the Universal Mind.

Time has for millennia been referred to as being male, here is a wiki quote:

Father Time is a mythical personification of time. He is usually depicted as an elderly bearded man, dressed in a robe, carrying an hourglass or other timekeeping device (representing time's constant movement). This image is culled from several sources, including the Holly King, the Celtic god of the dying year, and Chronos, the Greek god of time.

Because of their similarity in name as pertaining to parental figures, he is sometimes paired with Mother Nature as a married couple.

The matrix, or womb of space, provides the constancy upon which time moves. Put in another way - the space, or emptiness provides the backdrop in which the seeds of density - the planets, comets, etc, find motion, thus giving us time. Diversity is the impulse of change on the platform, or substrate, of changelessness.

In the physical body time is referred to as metabolism, the rate of exchange and movement of cell division, cell communication and cell death. Metabolism can both speed up and slow down according to various factors and exists within particular parameters known as homeostasis. When the metabolism, or body time slows down or speeds up too dramatically the constancy of homeostasis is broken and the space/time arrangement of the body begins to disintegrate. The fractal loses coherence. Here is an excerpt on the mitochondria and metabolism:

....The second patient, Nabilia, a 22-year-old Jordanian woman, was already somewhat of a minor medical celebrity when she joined us at Penn, having been diagnosed at the American University of Beirut as the second patient with "Luft disease." This condition, described almost 10 years earlier by two distinguished Swedish scientists, Rolf Luft, an endocrinologist, and Lars Ernster, a biochemist, was then the only biochemically defined mitochondrial disease, sort of the flagship of a fledgling group of disorders soon to be ascribed to mitochondrial dysfunction.

I remember Nabilia sitting contentedly for hours in the cold room of the Clinical Research Center, her nightgown drenched with perspiration despite the cold, her bright face flushed as if she had just run several miles. She had the same condition of seemingly uncontrolled excessive metabolism previously described by Luft in a young Swedish woman. Both women had normal thyroid function (abnormalities of the thyroid being a reason for excessive metabolic activity). Their problem resided in the mitochondria of their skeletal muscles.

The muscle biopsies from both Abraham and Nabilia showed abundant "ragged red fibers" when treated with a special staining technique. As documented by W. King Engel (who also came up with the picturesque descriptive term), what makes these fibers appear both red and ragged is a massive proliferation of mitochondria, a sort of SOS message saying "red alert: critical energy shortage; more mitochondria needed." In this sense, ragged red fibers (or RRF, in our pervasively acronymic medical language) are a telltale sign of mitochondrial disease.

Having thus established that our two patients had mitochondrial myopathies, I remember asking Dr. Rowland, "How come that at Penn, which has one of the best mitochondrial centers in the world, patients like these are not studied in more detail?" To which Dr. Rowland, in his typical matter-of-fact way, answered, "Right; why don't you do it?"

Cell nucleus and Mitochondrion.

So started my initiation into the difficult art of isolating functional intact mitochondria, first from rat muscle, then from human biopsies. I still remember the excitement of witnessing the changing slope of tracings from oxygen electrodes attached to my first decently isolated human mitochondria.

I was hooked on mitochondria, these fascinating intracellular organelles (miniature "organs"), which started off as independent, free-floating, bacteria-like organisms many millions of years ago, and then took up permanent residence in nucleated cells like the ones that make up all human tissues. To these cells, which were not capable of utilizing oxygen for metabolism, mitochondria brought a gift as precious as the fire that Prometheus gave humankind in the Greek myth: oxidative metabolism.

Because they started off as independent organisms, mitochondria have their own DNA (mtDNA), a small, circular molecule that was ignored by clinical scientists until 1988, when the first mutations in this type of DNA were discovered by the late Anita Harding and her colleagues at Queen Square in London, and by Doug Wallace and co-workers at Emory University in Atlanta.

To make things even more interesting, the rules by which mitochondrial DNA mutations are transmitted differ from the "classical" rules of Mendelian genetics. First, mtDNA (and most mtDNA mutations) are transmitted by a maternal form of inheritance, because only women pass on their mtDNA to the next generation; men do not. Second, because there are hundreds or thousands of mitochondria (and mtDNA) in each cell, the relative proportion of mutant mtDNAs transmitted from mother to child becomes an important factor in determining the type and severity of the disease associated with that particular mutation.

http://www.mdausa.org/publications/Quest/q55mitochondria.html

In the mitochondria we have the microcosm of the marriage between female/male - space/time. View the mitochondria diagrams and you will find a self contained 'organ' that regulates both the constancy of the metabolism and the diversity that is built upon it.


Seeing as the Star Wars theme is acceptable around here I'll provide an interesting wiki quote about what we're talking about (bolds are mine):

The word "midi-chlorian" appears to be a blend of "mitochondrion" and "chloroplast", two organelles found in real cells and thought to have evolved from bacteria as endosymbionts inside other cells, as purported in the endosymbiotic theory. Creator George Lucas has indeed stated that the midi-chlorians are based on the endosymbiotic theory, and it appears that in the story of Anakin Skywalker, he wanted to create a more modern "virgin birth"(mind born - Angelo) in the Star Wars saga that was as much based in science as in philosophy and religion, with the mythic "givers of life" being microscopic life-forms, rather than 'gods'.

Midi-chlorians (also spelled "midi-clorians" or "midichlorians") are mysterious organisms in the fictional Star Wars universe, first seen in the prequel trilogy. They are microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of all living things and communicate with the Force. Midi-chlorians comprise a collective consciousness and intelligence, forming links between everything living and the Force. They are symbionts with all other living things; that is, without them, life could not exist. The Jedi have learned how to listen to and coordinate the midi-chlorians. If they quiet their minds, they can hear the midi-chlorians speaking to them, telling them the will of the Force. In order to be a Jedi or a Sith, one must have a high concentration of midi-chlorians in one's cells. This idea is very similar to 17th-century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz's theory of monads, immortal microscopic organisms residing inside all living cells, bridging a gap between the physical and spiritual realities.

In this context, the questions asked previously take on a much different characteristic. For I see quite clearly that it is not the genetic code that is so fixed as to determine human processes, but that human understanding is the causal motive force that is in reality orchestrating the genetic code. - Angelo


Trees without undrstanding have genetic codes too. Their code is being orchestrated? By who or what? By the wind? - Ark


Is this what you consider logical discussion?

Trees do indeed have 'understanding'. They have an in-built intelligence that relates their environment to their internal apparatus in a language all their own.

Here is a quote:

It is important to note that all plants, fungi, and animals use this same pathway. They acquired it very anciently by taking in a respiring bacterium as an endosymbiont (an organism living mutualistically within another organism). These endosymbionts are now called mitochondria. Based on recent DNA analysis, the eukaryotic organisms that later became plants added the photosynthetic pathway by acquiring a photosynthetic bacterium as an endosymbiont, now called chloroplasts. Thus plants have both photosynthesis in chloroplasts and respiration in mitochondria, so plants are really more than animals.

http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plant_Biology/Why_Plants.html

Trees are also connected to the 'Force' through their genetic structures. They are intimately connected to the nervous impulse of the planet as it traverses through space. In fact tree's are neuron's for the planet and transmit information through ecosystem and atmospheric systems to maintain a symbiotic homeostasis, through oxygen production and moisture holding capacity, among other things. That's pretty intelligent if you ask me. Tree's can literally see light that we cannot and can detect pheromones that we cannot. That's without getting into all that 'weird' stuff about tree spirits.


And even more heretical, that the traditional roles of male and female are actually based to a large extent upon energetic facts and not on an illusory struggle between male and female.


Why should there be any struggle between male and female? There can be harmony as well. - Ark


Exactly.

Imagery has been considered a healing tool in virtually all of the world's cultures and is an integral part of many religions. Navajo Indians, for example, practice an elaborate form of imagery that encourages a person to "see" himself as healthy. Ancient Egyptians and Greeks, including Aristotle and Hippocrates believed that images release spirits in the brain that arouse the heart and other parts of the body. They also thought that a strong image of a disease is enough to cause its symptoms.

Affirmations and visualizations are used by athletes everyday. It has been suggested by experts such as Dale Carnegie, Robert Schuller and Steven Covey to elicit peak performance in individuals. Athletes use visualization to enhance their performance, sometimes without realizing it. A golfer may form a mental map of the fairway, imagining precisely where he will place the ball on each shot;....

http://holisticonline.com/guided-imagery.htm

The above example has been scientifically verified, especially in regards to athletes, in that visualization techniques do indeed shape potentials. Now the question of universal applications and the ethical and moral implications of what is best 'imaged' is best saved for another time. - Angelo


Sometimes visualization helps, often it does not. There are studies showing the opposite of what you are claiming that you do not quote. Visualization does not help change the external reality particularly when the visualization is orthogonal to the objective facts. Imagery may help to motivate us to do something. But there is not much mystery about that. Imagine as much as you want that the Earth stops moving tomorrow, use all the available "scientifically verified methods", and I assure you that you will fail. Get 100 of your friends to imagine with you and I can still assure you that you will fail. - Ark


Your position here is very typical. I agree with your assertion on the surface, though you omit the subtle components of the discussion. What you have said in no way refutes any of the research into the field of human potentials. There is much I do not agree with myself in terms of the definition of findings, but one thing is for sure, the human creative element as it impacts the external world as a causal force is only in its infancy, in a seed stage if you will. Just as naturalistic science was in the seed stage during the renaissance, a form of investigation we somehow feel existed as a human component from the beginning! This is a process.


Humans have always unknowingly affected the Universe by every act and thought they articulate or even consider. Realistic, comprehensively responsible, omni-system-considerate, unselfish thinking on the part of humans does absolutely affect human destiny. Buckminster Fuller


You also skipped over commenting on my last sentence which I'll highlight:


Now the question of universal applications and the ethical and moral implications of what is best 'imaged' is best saved for another time. -Angelo


It is the degree to which we align ourselves to the Universal Need, here referred to as 'service to others', that determines the strength of our visions and causal force.


With this line of reasoning I would suggest that psychopathy is not so much a genetic pre-determined process but an evolving and changing social dynamic which can spread like a disease through the minds eye of humanity. - Angelo


Social dynamics is one thing. Genetic features is another thing. Both have their place. Here you mix apples and oranges. - Ark


When your making a meal its good to blend flavors or else all goes bland. You seem to be very enmeshed in the science of specialization, though simultaneously disregard the more comprehensive aspect of integrated solutions. 'Social dynamics' have a great deal to do with genetic preponderances, that's why genetic research and genetic profiling as well as bloodlines, interbreeding and hybridization is so important to the on-going plan to conform humanity into a collective homogenous state.

As we can all attest, knowledge specialization has increased over the years, as it must the more we learn about any subject. There are ever-increasing subdisciplines within engineering, economics and finance, law, medicine, and of course education. Specialization reminds us that we live in a world which is complex. As the webs of specialized disciplines and subdisciplines become more and more intricate, we are challenged by the task of being able to not only organize this information but to re-examine and improve the way we teach people how to organize information into knowledge. It is a worthy task because, quite frankly, the future of our country, of our civilization - perhaps the future of our species - depends upon it. - Michael Jaffe

Here is an interesting article in regards to specialization:


http://www.govtech.net/magazine/visions/nov99vision/mcluhan/mcluhan.php


I feel very strongly that we are all borderline psychopathic, in that the culture that greets us everyday is a constant weight and threat to our more innate spiritual assertiveness. - Angelo


Some of us are probably borderline psychopathic. Some others are probably not. The devil, as always, is in the details. - Ark


You see, I sense an underlying ill intent in your post Ark. An anger. Can you see your little devils?


Much Love,

Angelo

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

If I say that we are all organic portals, it is like stating that we all have lungs, or hearts. So yes, it is a very general statement, one that does however carry very pertinent and useful information, for under the general assumption in this forum the 'organic portal' is 'classified' as a very specific psychological condition, when in fact it is not a psychological condition at all, but a generalized human reality.

I don't think organic portal is classified as a very specific psychological condition on this forum (but I don't speak for the forum, it's just from what I've observed), because I think it's very difficult to classify organic portal coherently, but we can have some idea from observation - but again, the term "organic portal" is just a semantic, the point is, what does it describe? Please allow me to elaborate. I think ALL humans may very well be organic portals, but it is possible that some organic portals have certain aspects to themselves that others simply do not - not because they have them but do not utilize them, but because they simply do not have them at all. In which case, should those who have those still be called organic portals? Well, it doesn't matter, it's just a name, we can call them frogs for all it matters. If someone has only 1 leg or one arm we still call him human. If someone is brain-damaged or autistic or some other severe disability or alteration from the 'norm', we still call him human. So although you CAN call all humans "organic portals", just like the term "human" itself is stretched to incorporate many different "kinds" of humans, the term "organic portal" is just a semantic that can be stretched if one wishes to do so with no coherent limitation as to how far it can go.

As an example, scientists are currently arguing over what they should call a "planet", and how large an object has to be or what properties it has to have or not have to still be called a "planet". My point: Who cares? The point is that although we're all made of the same stuff, and share a TON of things in common, some of us are different from others in many ways. Yes, the term human incorporates all those differences. So yes, a psychopath is called a human, and someone with empathy is called a human too. However, although psychopaths and non-psychopaths can share much in common, there is one fundemental difference - psychopaths are genetically different and so have no chance of ever developing empathy, only imitating and faking it. But they're still called human, so apparently the lack of empathy in an individual is not enough of a reason for humanity, right now, to create a different "classification" for them.

However, terms like human and oranic portal are semantics, and just words, nothing more. So although psycopaths are human too according to the official definition, that definition has been created and defined by people - and if people want to, they can change it and no longer include psychopaths in the definition. Again, just as they can include or not include certain space objects in the definition of "planet", etc - at WILL. However, what remains important in my opinion is to SEE and acknowledge various differences between "humans", and sometimes those differences can be profound enough to allow for a different monicker to be used, like "organic portals". Yes, we're all organic portals just as we're all human, but for the sake of clarity, there is evidence that some humans, in a very specific way, are different than others. We, as a group, decided that they should have a different name - to clarify the situation and accentuate the difference.

For example I can decide to call all people with only 1 arm, "onearmers". Yes, we ALL have one arm, but SOME of us have another one, and I chose to acknowledge that difference by coming up with a different name for those who only have 1. So although we may all share the trait of having 1 arm, some have MORE than that. Is the number of arms someone has an important enough trait to warrant a different monicker? That is entirely subjective - but what IS relevant is the fact that some people DO have only 1 arm, and others have 2 and to acknowledge that reality, regardless of whether a different name is used or not. Same thing here, whether you call them organic portals or not is upto you, but what we're trying to do is recognize what makes certain humans different from others, and how. Psychopaths lack empathy and genetic capability to ever have it - I feel that is important enough to warrant the name "psychopath" and to stress that although it looks and acts like everyone else, it does so for different reasons than those who do have empathy. Organic portals may lack a "soul", or so the C's say. We're not really sure just what a soul is (or at least I'm not), so in that sense it's very hard to actually know who or even what is an OP and who or what not, and I don't pretend to nor attempt to do so. It's a working hypothesis at the moment. But to state with any certainty that we're all OP's means that you're convinced that if there is such a thing as a soul, none of us have it. What I'm saying is, IF there is such a thing as a soul, and IF some people have it while others do not, I'll call those who do NOT have it, organic portals. And to be clear, I'm not speaking of a psychological condition, even if the lack of a soul may result in a different psychological condition, but I'm speaking specifically about the lack of the soul, which in my hypothesis would certainly cause an alteration in the psychological condition as well, but it wouldn't constitute it!

Similarly I can say, IF there is such thing as empathy and IF it can be goverened genetically, then I'll call those who lack this genetic property "psychopaths". You can say psychopathy is just a psychological condition or a behavior pattern, but you'd have to alter my definition before you can say that! Although a genetic lack of empathy will result in a different psychological condition and different world perspective, the term psychopath refers to the root cause of this psychological condition, NOT the condition itself. Similarly, the term organic portal describes the root cause. Now, whether genetic empathy exists or not is important in and of itself, but I can still define psychopath before I know if it exists or not. It defines a concept, even if only a theoretical one, osit. I can call metal flying machines "airplanes" before they're invented, just to give a name to a theoretical concept, etc.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Now, you say "we". A computer can also be taught to say 'we". But there is a difference between a computer and a dog, for instance. There are different kinds of "wes". The devil is in the details. - Ark


How can I consider such logic as this, this is pure sophistry. I'm sorry, but this is hardly sensible. When I refer to 'we' as entities I am referring to the sentient soul which indwells us all.

A brain indwells us all too, THAT is known. But a soul? Again, I think a "soul" may dwell within us all, to a certain degree. There may be different kinds of souls, different kinds of consciousnesses. Does the same soul dwell in a bag of potato chips as in a human? Or do all humans have the same kind of "soul"? Or maybe some have one kind, others have another? Maybe there are different levels of advancement for a soul? Maybe some have group souls, etc? When we speak of Organic Portals, we're not necessarily saying that Organic Portals have to be devoid entirely of a soul, they may simply have a different kind of soul. Right now, I personally have no way to measure soul or soul potential. I do have a way to observe human behavior over a period of time and make working hypothesis about why a certain behavior may be different. Those working hypothesis may incorporate other research and other data from various sources, the C's being one such a source of data - all things to consider.

You did not define "soul". Without a definition, a processor in a computer can be considered it's "soul". But the problem of a soul is a different one. We are having in mind here different kinds of 'souls". - Ark

The soul is the animating force/energy within all life forms that is always in search of higher understanding and expression.

Ok, so your hypothesis is that all life forms share something inside of them that is not only responsible for animating them, but it has force and it has energy. Additionally, it is always in search of higher understandings and expression. But is this necessarily true? What if some life forms do not have this inside, what if what is inside of them is searching for lower understandings and expression? What if there exist lifeforms that are animated by purely physical and mechanical/chemical means, with no energy/force inside them other than what you see, like a robot? What is a "life form" anyway, how do you separate a soulless machine from a souled life form? Who says DNA, cells, and other molecular structures are not just complex machines? And if so, is it possible that some of these molecular machines (as we are) have this higher-understanding-seeking force inside, and others do not?
Your statement implies that you are convinced that it is impossible - but that conviction comes from knowing this, or simply believing it?

It is the soul consciousness that divests itself into human or otherwise physical vehicles in order to collect experiences that evolve and transform its understanding and appreciation of existence. The soul is a fragment of the Universal Spirit which seeks self reflection through the higher order genetic membranes of the physical world.

What if the soul is not a fragment, but the entire thing? The C's said 2 infinite things are precisely the same thing. The RA channeling said that in infinity there is no fragmentation, no "manyness", because manyness or fragmentation is a concept of finity, and does not exist in infinity, which they say is the real nature of the universe. Frankly, it makes sense to me. Just a thought though, I'm not going to declare that this IS how it is period, just a possibility that makes logical sense at the moment. But even if this is true, it doesn't mean we should ignore the details which we perceive now, even if those details are in the long run just an illusion.

This sentient component, through our astral linkage, literally holds open a portal to the spiritual world, making each and everyone of us an 'organic portal' and 'channel'.

What if some of us are not channels and have no linkage to the spiritual world? Or do you simply assume we all do? Or more to the point, what IS "spiritual", who says our world is not spiritual? Our perception of physicality is already scientifically established to be an illusion - that our world only looks physical because of the way our molecular structure and our minds interact with it and perceive it. So maybe we ARE already in a "spiritual reality" we just call it "physical" due to our own limitations, not limitations of our world. In which case I go back to, what if some people have the potential to access a higher awareness due to having something in them that others may lack, and therefore have no such potential? Do you not consider that possibility?

I experience the type of responses I am receiving here quite often. The respondee replies point by point without having immersed themselves in the entire contextual field. Rather than exploring the entire post, or posts, with an eye to context and theme, small details are extracted out of context and diverted into channels that have little relevance to the overall discussion.

Is it possible that you simply do not see the relevance? Do you know that "the devil is in the details" - which means, any and all details may potentially drastically alter the meaning of the whole. They are only called details because they may seem insignificant, but if one of those details is suddenly understood to be of utmost significance, then it no longer is called a "detail" and now becomes a major aspect of the whole. Although I agree that context and the bigger picture are important, I also know that what that bigger picture is depends on the details.

Psychopathy is one thing. It is a rather well described category. Organic portals is a hypothesis, of a different kind. There is no direct or simple relation between the two. - Ark


'There is no direct relation between the two'....Can I quote this when forum members use the terms interchangeably?

Again as I stated in my previous post, it's just a term that can be defined any which way you want. But what's important is the concept, the dynamic, the actual reality. I can say that we're humans, not oranges, and show you what an orange is. You can say "no, we're all oranges, because we're all living things made of atoms and energy!". You said we're all organic portals because we all have an astral link to the spiritual world through this "soul" that we all have. In SOME sense this may be true, we all may share some sort of consciousness or soul at some level, and all have some link to some "spiritual" (whatever that may be) world at some level. But the devil is in the details, there may be profound difference there too that you are not noting because of a very vague and generalized conceptualization. We're all "one" they say, we're all God and thus are infinitely connected to source. But this does not mean there are not fundemental differences at other levels and realities that classify us differently. The Cassiopaeans themselves say that they communicate with densities 1 through 5 and assist all who ask, on any of those densities, in their development. This suggests the possibility that all densities, from your own couch to an organge or your dog, to yourself and something higher too all have some sort of contact with 6th density and other potential realities. But the manner in which this is done, can be very different! So while at SOME level your statement may be correct, do not overlook potential fundemental differences as well!!

An analogy may be, we all move. A piece of paper on the street moves too as it is blown by the wind, and a human moves by running. But there is a fundemental difference there in what sort of motion this is, what initializes it, and how and why it is done. The devil IS in the details!

 

[Angelo]

I can only add, after reading this most recent post, that I am quite dismayed to see such an intellect knotted up in nebulous nonsense that I waded through years ago and discarded because it simply did not explain the reality out there in any meaningful or helpful way.

It is only when you realize that the old stuff has lost its content and that it can never give you a real insight into reality because you are living it and have worked with it as a working hypothesis, that you come, as I have written elsewhere, to the point where you know that with all you know, all you have studied, all you have given your life to, in the end, you know absolutely nothing. It is only from this point of total bankruptcy - if you survive it - that you can actually really ASK the question. And then it must be a burning question, it must be asked with your whole being, and you must work very hard and put a great deal of energy into the question for it to increase its signal potential so as to rise above the cloud of noise that surrounds our reality. IF you can do that, there is a possibility that you just might begin to get real answers. But you will find that the universe won't just hand it to you, it will make you work for it. Your life itself will become the living dialogue with the cosmos.- Laura

So the assumption is that this process has skipped me by. This bankruptcy, the sincere question, the arduous search, the living dialogue.

What you may or may not have discarded I don't feel has a great deal of relevance to the findings which have brought me to post. Your opinion of my insight is yours alone, and though I understand that you hold great favor here, for obvious reasons, I ask you to reassess your assumptions while immersed in that truly undisturbed dialogue with your spiritual core.

On a more practical level, I would suggest a complete cessation of reading any esoteric material whatsoever and begin reading about what really happens on this planet. You are here, that's where you fit or you would be elsewhere. So best get about the business of learning what is really going on here instead of speculating about nebulous passed down, second-hand pipe dreams, or tattered survivals of sometimes useful folk wisdom or even ancient knowledge. There is no way to interpret that sort of thing without a sound knowledge base founded on facts of this reality. - Laura

You're assuming that I am somehow disenfranchised from the current of reality? I can only assure you that I am quite acquainted with reality, with the nitty gritty street smitty.

'Esotericism' means so many things to so many people, though in truth real soul oriented insight, the subtle experiences of holographic co-relations provide a much more vivid and lucid backdrop through which this world can be viewed and understood than a mere examination of cold facts. What is hidden now will become known at a later date. What at one time was mere fiction and magic becomes science.

Start with reading criminal cases... you know, the ones that gather all the data, all the testimonies, all the different points of view of everyone involved or observing. And know that for every criminal that gets caught, there are hundreds exactly like him that do NOT get caught. And for all of those individuals of the "criminal type," there are corresponding non-criminal individuals that make up society. You will notice that, as you read criminal cases, a certain "caricaturization" that helps you to learn pattern recognition devlops in your mind. Once you have learned to recognize the caricature in the criminal, you can recognize the pattern on ever increasingly subtle and non-criminal levels. Read Anna Salter, Martha Stout, Hervey Cleckley, Lobaczewski, Robert Hare, Guggenbuhl-Craig, and so on. Do some real research into the REAL world for a change. - Laura

Your presumption is absolutely astounding. I'm shaking my brain as we speak.

In utter honesty, I'll read what I deem suits my current needs. The book study of psychopathy and criminality are mere shadows of what can be observed by one ready to see, by one ready to engage life without supposition and presumption. Can you walk the line of the observer, that neutral core and peer into the depths of experience to extract the essence? Can you see past the emotional tendency which distorts your lens?

If you haven't already, try raising children and having them around you 24 hours a day and all their friends... get to know the parents of the friends of your children, observe, ask questions; contemplate the REAL world. And then, try to come up with a hypothesis that doesn't sound so silly and fails to explain the facts that real people have to deal with everyday.

That's my prescription. I hope you will take it in the spirit it is offered. - Laura

I appreciate the attempt, but I must decline the 'drug' being proffered. What I do and what I deal with is very much in contemplation of the everyday man and women, what you have designated 'reality'. The bridge is built, but who can walk it. This reality shift, this perceptual rift will only grow, do you know where you stand?

The old wisdom becomes renewed in a new interpretation, not lost. Like the rocks on which a new edifice is built.


The game changers are here, and even the revolutionaries are screaming for their blood.

~

A film for Laura....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3251077391435895140&q=clinton+chronicles&pl=true

~

 

[ark]

Your position here is very typical. I agree with your assertion on the surface, though you omit the subtle components of the discussion. What you have said in no way refutes any of the research into the field of human potentials. There is much I do not agree with myself in terms of the definition of findings, but one thing is for sure, the human creative element as it impacts the external world as a causal force is only in its infancy, in a seed stage if you will. Just as naturalistic science was in the seed stage during the renaissance, a form of investigation we somehow feel existed as a human component from the beginning! This is a process.

You see, it may well be just the converse. Namely, that the "human creative element" is in its decline. We see more and more destruction of the external world. That is how "human creative potential" is being applied today on a mass scale.

As for "imagination" - as I wrote before, it may help to motivate us, to affect our nervous system, and through it, our bodies "to do" something. Other effects of "imagination" (Uri Geller, for instance, or shamans) are whimsical, and we do not really know what is behind these effects. Stressing these effects as "important" is misleading. Some people will tend to believe that "imagining" things can replace "doing things". This can be rather dangerous.

I have no problems with the studies of athletes. Sure imagining achieving something may help, because it may tune us, motivate us, prepare our state, both in psychic and in material realms. But imagination (except of rare cases that may happen once in a while, while some other times the effects may be negative rather than positive ones) has no direct effect on the outside world.

Sure it is a interesting field to study, and it is a part of my scientific interests (see Physics and the Mysterious).

In utter honesty, I'll read what I deem suits my current needs.

Well, that defines your position. You do not need interactions with other participants of ourforum to learn.

...what I deem suits my current needs.

Why not? Free will.

But then do not be surprised when someone else will reply exactly the same way to you! "As we sow so shall we reap."

 

[Guest]

Hmmmm and again:

Angelo has replied to the topic '"Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment' to which you are subscribed.

Even-though Eso explained what happened with his post I cannot find this one either. Is that a coincident?

In my case the post window was just too small so I used the submit/edit sequence to access the larger edit window. I realize even that wasn't big enough so I deleted the post and went to word to write it, because one needs to keep track of the total text here when in such a discussion as this one. I am sure Angelo is also taking careful consideration of his replies. Stick around, this should get interesting.

 

[Joe]

Sometimes, what can intially appear as a great intellect gone awry, is in fact a person who has spent a considerable amount of time perfecting opinions and/or a world view that has the self as the main reference point and final arbiter of "what is". The writing style of such a person is often verbose and convoluted and lacks a clarity that one would think should be a hallmark of a great intellect.

Having hit upon a version of "truth" that they find palatable, this truth then becomes the touchstone for interpreting the veracity or otherwise of all new data. Such people can often seem authoritative and knowledgeable, when in reality this is simply an effect of them having rehersed countless times to themselves, in the seculsion of their own heads or on a forum consisting only of clappers, what they know as "truth". Having repeated their script and indeed built on it in elaborate yet inconsequential ways to the point of making it appear that they have developed a complex and valid thesis, they then go trolling for others that they can hopefully convince and thereby strengthen their entrenched beliefs.

The convoluted and difficult language is also probably a result of this self-referencing. Essentially it is a form of language that has developed in isolation in the person's own head and has rarely been tempered by the input or the needs of others. Yet to the person in question, it is the "truth" that they have confirmed to themselves over and over again. When interacting with others, the "logic" that is followed is: If others can see the "truth" then they will also understand what is being said, if they don't, then it is evidence that they don't know and can't understand the "truth". It is an airtight and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Unsurprisingly, such people quickly find themselves in confrontation with others who remain open-minded about what the truth is. We have seen this several times before in our interactions with individuals of this type. The usual result is that rather than allow their views and beliefs to be modified by others, they fight to convert others to their view, and if no quarter is given, they retreat before any damage is done to their dearly held beliefs.

As to what causes such a dynamic in certain individuals: given that they are characterised by significant arrogance and self-importance and what appears to be a retreat into a subjective world, it is possible that at least in some cases, the dynamic has its origin in some form of emotional trauma.

 

[Fifth Way]

There may be different kinds of souls, different kinds of consciousnesses. Does the same soul dwell in a bag of potato chips as in a human?

Angelo gave his definition:

The soul is the animating force/energy within all life forms that is always in search of higher understanding and expression. It is the soul consciousness that divests itself into human or otherwise physical vehicles in order to collect experiences that evolve and transform its understanding and appreciation of existence. The soul is a fragment of the Universal Spirit which seeks self reflection through the higher order genetic membranes of the physical world.

But is this necessarily true?

We may never "know" - but we can keep (re)searching

Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
For other senses of this word, see soul (disambiguation).
The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is a self aware ethereal substance particular to a unique living being. In these traditions the soul is thought to incorporate the inner essence in each living being, and to be the true basis for sentience. In distinction to spirit which may or may not be eternal, souls are usually (but not always as explained below) considered to be immortal and to pre-exist their incarnation in flesh. The concept of the soul has strong links with notions of an afterlife, but opinions may vary wildly, even within a given religion, as to what happens to the soul after death. Many within these religions and philosophies see the soul as immaterial, while others consider it possibly material.
Note: This article uses the word "soul" in the common form, and deals largely with varied concepts from which the concept originates, and to which it relates. The use of the word soul often does not explicitly correspond to usage associated with any particular view or belief, including usage in Western and Eastern religious texts, and in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, or Plotinus.

[Moderator:The rest of the long quotation skipped to save the bandwidth. Interested readers may like to consult the original]

Is it possible that you simply do not see the relevance? Do you know that "the devil is in the details" - which means, any and all details may potentially drastically alter the meaning of the whole. They are only called details because they may seem insignificant, but if one of those details is suddenly understood to be of utmost significance, then it no longer is called a "detail" and now becomes a major aspect of the whole. Although I agree that context and the bigger picture are important, I also know that what that bigger picture is depends on the details.

Unfortunatly the constant focus on these little devils often prevents the one who focuses of grasping the bigger idea behind all the details (specially if this bigger idea has not been formulated to perfection as we all working on unveiling it in the first place). That strikes me sometimes as counterproductive.

Some people will tend to believe that "imagining" things can replace "doing things". This can be rather dangerous.

Of course.
But I don't think this is what Angelo is taking about?

Well, that defines your position. You do not need interactions with other participants of our forum to learn.

Again, I think this may be stretching it abit.

Having hit upon a version of "truth" that they find palatable, this truth then becomes the touchstone for interpreting the veracity or otherwise of all new data. Such people can often seem authoritative and knowledgeable, when in reality this is simply an effect of them having rehersed countless times to themselves, in the seculsion of their own heads or on a forum consisting only of clappers, what they know as "truth". Having repeated their script and indeed built on it in elaborate yet inconsequential ways to the point of making it appear that they have developed a complex and valid thesis, they then go trolling for others that they can hopefully convince and thereby strengthen their entrenched beliefs.

Joe: Are you referring to Angelo or to Ark?

Unsurprisingly, such people quickly find themselves in confrontation with others who remain open-minded about what the truth is.

I'm sorry to be a little slow here, but again: Who are you referring to as "such people" and who are you referring to as apparently "open-minded about what the truth is"? To me it is not that clear.

We have seen this several times before in our interactions with individuals of this type.

It really seams as I still haven't learned that one yet - but are you throwing Angelo in the John/Durand/Dimitri box?
Wouldn't it be better to address things instead of suggest them?

 

[ark]

Unfortunatly the constant focus on these little devils often prevents the one who focuses of grasping the bigger idea behind all the details (specially if this bigger idea has not been formulated to perfection as we all working on unveiling it in the first place). That strikes me sometimes as counterproductive.

You see, you can't rationally focus on grasping the bigger idea not paying attention to the relevant details. Every rational discussion must take into accounts these details, otherwise it is a wild speculation. There are other forums, where such wild speculations are welcomed. But this Forum has its own, specific, "modus operandi". Only by paying attention to these relevant details we can distinguish between the "truth direction" and the "deception direction". Of course it is important to be able to see which details are "relevant" and which are not. To be able to do it, one needs knowledge and experience. We need to be open minded, but we need to be critical. This is not only NOT counterproductive. This is the requirement for productivity in a creative way. It is all too easy to add to chaos and to entropy. We are making effort here to steer in an opposite direction - towards the truth.

Truth is a "bigger idea". Knowledge rather than ignorance - is a bigger idea. Soul, whether it exists or not, and in which sense - that is a bigger idea. This may be and should be a subject of a discussion. But there are infinitely many possible directions. Philosophers do not agree. Teologians do not agree. Scientists do not agree. What to do then? To vote? Certainly not. We need a compass, we need a direction. We need some guidance. We propose here, on our sites and on this Forum, to take as this guidance the idea of the "marriage between Science and the Mysterious". Which essentially means that scientific methods, scientific approach and methodology is apllied to the phenomena that are still outside science. This approach requires, as I have pointed it out, open but critical minds. This approach requires paying attention to those details that are relevant, and neglecting details that are irrelevant. Ane which details are relevant and which are not? There is no general rule. The devil (both the relevant and irrelevant one), as always, is in the details. :)

 

[Fifth Way]

..."marriage between Science and the Mysterious"

This is exactly why I am here!

And I not only appreciate your entire post above but also understand it.
And I didn't say it is always counterproductive, but that it strikes me sometimes as counterproductive.

I just feel that sometimes people seem to get carried away with dismantling the details while somebody tries to introduce something new and new means it may not be thought all the way trough or be completely figured out at that stage. And in that case the dismantling of the details may bring the whole thought-process to an early halt.

But I do understand what you mean in general and I agree.

 

[Unbeliever]

All a question of basic communications.

The success of which depends less on the one who speaks than on the one who listens.

Unfortunately, we do not listen. We would rather rationalize to protect our own filtered 'understanding'. This of course fails the potential realization that there is nothing to be understood but rather that all is to be known, witout exception.

Btw, I am not siding with anyone while saying this.

 

[vinny]

I just feel that sometimes people seem to get carried away with dismantling the details while somebody tries to introduce something new and new means it may not be thought all the way trough or be completely figured out at that stage. And in that case the dismantling of the details may bring the whole thought-process to an early halt.

and IMO, this is a really tricky one!

Firstly you have to allow new ideas - otherwise the whole search for objective truth will grind to a halt.
Secondly any new idea must be open to complete scrutiny and dissection - otherwise the whole search for objective truth will become overwhelmed by a huge influx of possibly baseless new ideas, and will 'lose its way'.

A difficulty with this is, that a contributor of a new idea will generally be emotionally attached to this idea ("its MY idea!") and will certainly not appreciate what looks to him (in his emotionally-identifying state) like a personal attack on his ideas, his intellect, nay, on his worth as a person, even questioning whether he is sane at all!

I guess many people who are not used to the scientific method (even those who are!) are not really prepared to have their closely-held ideas and beliefs shot down in flames, or even scrutinised too closely, and are maybe not used to questioning themselves. Heck, no one likes to be criticised.

I think that those who genuinely are 'soul questing' for the truth (don't know how else to put it!) will have the strength of will and motivation to see this 'dismantling' as an essential part of the process. It IS an essential part of the process - until you've personally experienced the internal 'heat' of having your most cherished belief-structures completely disintegrate under external and internal scrutiny, and come to the realisation of how 'wrong' it is possible to be whilst completely convinced of one's 'rightness', then you can't really begin to see anything objectively. It is scary just how much we buffer ourselves against the truth.

And all this difficulty, simply for those who ARE looking for the truth. And yet there is another aspect, which is defending against the continual effort to BLOCK the search for truth, by cointelpro agents and entropy in general.

All a question of basic communications.
The success of which depends less on the one who speaks than on the one who listens.

Well, partly. I think it is also worth saying that it depends on the one who speaks, to the extent that it depends on their NOT anticipating a particular response.

Unfortunately, we do not listen. We would rather rationalize to protect our own filtered 'understanding'.

Exactly.

 

[Laura]

Part One

I'm not surprised by the reaction to what I've posted, and it seems I have a lot of work ahead of me in replying. I'll attempt to address those points I deem most central in the best way I can. I'll start with Ark's post first.

You are "not surprised." That means you expected a certain reaction. That means you began with a hidden agenda. You say you "have a lot of work ahead of you." Again, this bespeaks an agenda.

This was the spark that set the blaze: We are all organic portals.

No, that is not the "spark that set the blaze." In fact, there is no blaze. It is simply an exercise of what we call the "scratch test." Further, I have said numerous times that "for all intents and purposes, we are all Organic Portals until we choose to be otherwise." There is a crucial difference to what I have said and what you are saying, however, as we shall see further on.

In the same way it could be said that we are all atoms. But that kind of general statement does not carry any useful information. Information comes by classification. Also note that the ideas that "find voice" here are most definitely not "general world conceptualizations."

The 'ideas' that find voice here are indeed fragments of generalized world concepts. Ideas are like proteins in the mental environment, alone they represent only a fragment of an individuals perspective, together they actually form mental organs. Everyone has a world conception, or what has been termed a 'cosmology'. This cannot be proved false, for everyone on earth has some sort of idea amalgam which colors their overall perception. Everyone exists within a general interpretive position which is their world concept.

The above is irrelevant word salad and conveys no real information of any use to anyone, and serves only to "give an impression." The fact is, many people have programs that color their perceptions; their perceptions are entirely mechanical. Your proposal above, that "ideas are like proteins" that form "mental organs," is thus not very useful in understanding anything.
If the ideas that control a person's perception are imposed on them from external sources - which your warm and fuzzy representation does not even address - from parents, society, religion, and possibly even hyperdimensional "forces" and/or denizens, how then will you classify them? Are they still those lovely proteins forming "mental organs"?
Even in biological terms, you have missed some major steps of the process. Proteins don't form organs. Proteins form tissues. There are many different types of tissue, even cancer. It's a long way from a protein to an organ and the main factors that bring an organ into being are omitted from your metaphor.
Moving along now...

The 'world concept' as organ is made up of filaments and proteins - thoughts and ideas, which through the process of 'gnosis', or 'self-realization', preciptate organs of perception, imagination and conceptualization. These thought organs allow further conceptual frameworks to take shape as thoughts congeal into fields of thought 'forms' called concepts.

More ridiculous word salad.
A world concept is not an organ. Most world concepts are programs. Filaments and proteins are not even a very good metaphor for "thoughts and ideas." Most people do not think, nor do they really have ideas.

I want to appeal to your analytical mind. Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradictions between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of belief, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success of failure. They have give us covetousness, greed, and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal.
'But how can they do this, don Juan?' I asked, somehow angered further by what he was saying. 'Do they whisper all that in our ears while we are asleep?'
'No, they don't do it that way. That's idiotic!' don Juan said, smiling. 'They are infinitely more efficient and organized than that. In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous maneuver - stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous maneuver from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now.
'I know that even though you have never suffered hunger... you have food anxiety, which is none other than the anxiety of the predator who fears that any moment now its maneuver is going to be uncovered and food is going to be denied. Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. And they ensure, in this manner, a degree of security to act as a buffer against their fear. ...
What I'm saying is that what we have against us is not a simple predator. It is very smart, and organized. It follows a methodical system to render us useless. Man, the magical being that he is destined to be, is no longer magical. He's an average piece of meat. There are no more dreams for man but the dreams of an animal who is being raised to become a piece of meat: trite, conventional, imbecilic. [Castaneda, 1998]

"Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels-all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.

"To establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens-popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire-all this happens.

"But no one will ever believe you if you tell him he can do nothing. This is the most offensive and the most unpleasant thing you can tell people. It is particularly unpleasant and offensive because it is the truth, and nobody wants to know the truth.

And again:

I want to appeal to your analytical mind. Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradictions between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behavior. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of belief, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success of failure. They have give us covetousness, greed, and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal.

Now, let me add that I can verify the above after 30 years work as a hypnotherapist. What you are saying is nonsense.

Most of humanity has a very poorly developed conceptual depth, thus, humanity suffers the inevitable myosis of underdeveloped organs of perception, and hence, shallow thinking.

This doesn't even come close to describing the problem.

Ark, your comment above hovers only about the surface of things. You see classifications when comprehensively designed world views are intended to penetrate to the interaction between what would otherwise seem like disparate, separate and classified fields of information.

You misunderstood. The "scratch test," remember?

If I say that we are all organic portals, it is like stating that we all have lungs, or hearts. So yes, it is a very general statement, one that does however carry very pertinent and useful information, for under the general assumption in this forum the 'organic portal' is 'classified' as a very specific psychological condition, when in fact it is not a psychological condition at all, but a generalized human reality.

Here you are trying to co-opt the term and convert it to a use for which it was never intended. This is known as "conversive thinking."
Definition: Conversive thinking: using terms but giving them opposing or twisted meanings. Examples: peacefulness = appeasement; freedom = license; initiative = arbitrariness; traditional = backward; rally = mob; efficiency = small-mindedness. Example: the words "peacefulness" and "appeasement" denote the same thing: a striving to establish peace, but have entirely different connotations which indicate the speaker's attitude toward this striving toward peace.
If you have read the various discussions on the subject, here on this forum, you will note that the term "Organic Portal" was created for the express purpose of describing a particular life form on this planet.
Indeed, the living physical forms on this planet are all organic. In a certain sense, they could all be said to be "portals" as well. And, as I have said, "for all intents and purposes, we are all Organic Portals until we choose to be otherwise" seems to be supported by observation, experience, and even the ideas of other significant esoteric systems, including the ideas of Castaneda, Gurdjieff, Esoteric Christianity, and traces in other traditions. But you are attempting to take this term and use it for your own "interpretation" which amounts to "conversive thinking."

It is through this portal, each designed as a unique configuration, that we as entities, or souls, entered into physical being.

Here, you are "almost" right in the terms we are discussing it here. However, your term "designed" introduces a subtle, but significant twist.
And do keep in mind that we are discussing a particular phenomenon here. The ideas you are bringing to the discussion have been thoroughly investigated and considered by most of the participants of this discussion, and long ago discarded as being inadequate to explain the phenomena in question.

Now, you say "we". A computer can also be taught to say 'we". But there is a difference between a computer and a dog, for instance. There are different kinds of "wes". The devil is in the details. -

How can I consider such logic as this, this is pure sophistry. I'm sorry, but this is hardly sensible. When I refer to 'we' as entities I am referring to the sentient soul which indwells us all. That animating force which in the human constitution is 'individuated' and self propelled.

A prime example of missing the point. Ark's point was exactly that we are not accepting as a given that entities - we - ALL have sentient souls nor that the animating force which in the human is "individuate" and "self-propelled." That is nonsense propagated by "the predator."

What I'm saying is that what we have against us is not a simple predator. It is very smart, and organized. It follows a methodical system to render us useless. Man, the magical being that he is destined to be, is no longer magical. He's an average piece of meat. There are no more dreams for man but the dreams of an animal who is being raised to become a piece of meat: trite, conventional, imbecilic. [Castaneda, 1998]

"Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words, thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says, does, thinks, feels-all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens.

You did not define "soul". Without a definition, a processor in a computer can be considered it's "soul". But the problem of a soul is a different one. We are having in mind here different kinds of 'souls". -

The soul is the animating force/energy within all life forms that is always in search of higher understanding and expression. It is the soul consciousness that divests itself into human or otherwise physical vehicles in order to collect experiences that evolve and transform its understanding and appreciation of existence. The soul is a fragment of the Universal Spirit which seeks self reflection through the higher order genetic membranes of the physical world.

Perhaps you missed the part of the discussion where we pretty much decided that this old saw that has been passed around for a very long time needs to be seriously questioned? In fact, most of our work is very closely aligned with that of G. I. Gurdjieff, B. Mouravieff, Castaneda, the work of Ibn al-'Arabi, and the C's. Why? Because we have gone through, examined, studied and even tested many of the things you are bringing up now. They didn't work then, they still don't work, been there, done that, want to move on and figure out what's really going on. If you want to discuss such ideas, perhaps you would do better to find a group that is still at that stage of belief in fairy tales?

On one occasion, at one of these meetings, someone asked about the possibility of reincarnation, and whether it was possible to believe in cases of communication with the dead.

"Many things are possible," said G. "But it is necessary to understand that man's being, both in life and after death, if it does exist after death, may be very different in quality.
"The 'man-machine' with whom everything depends upon external influences, with whom everything happens, who is now one, the next moment another, and the next moment a third, has no future of any kind; he is buried and that is all. Dust returns to dust. This applies to him.
"In order to be able to speak of any kind of future life there must be a certain crystallization, a certain fusion of man's inner qualities, a certain independence of external influences. If there is anything in a man able to resist external influences, then this very thing itself may also be able to resist the death of the physical body.
But think for yourselves what there is to withstand physican a man who faints or forgets everything when he cuts his finger? If there is anything in a man, it may survive; if there is nothing, then there is nothing to survive. But even if something survives, its future can be very varied.
In certain cases of fuller crystallization what people call 'reincarnation' may be possible after death, and, in other cases, what people call 'existence on the other side.' In both cases it is the continuation of life in the 'astral body,' or with the help of the 'astral body.' You know what the expression 'astral body' means.
But the systems with which you are acquainted and which use this expression state that all men have an 'astral body.' This is quite wrong. What may be called the 'astral body' is obtained by means of fusion, that is, by means of terribly hard inner work and struggle. Man is not born with it. And only very few men acquire an 'astral body.' If it is formed it may continue to live after the death of the physical body, and it may be born again in another physical body. This is 'reincarnation.' If it is not re-born, then, in the course of time, it also dies; it is not immortal but it can live long after the death of the physical body.

Regarding the above, there is more recent evidence that this view is objectively accurate. You might want to read the book "Division of Consciousness". The idea that the "astral body" also dies, after 40 days, is very ancient.

"Fusion, inner unity, is obtained by means of 'friction,' by the struggle between 'yes' and 'no' in man. If a man lives without inner struggle, if everything happens in him without opposition, if he goes wherever he is drawn or wherever the wind blows, he will remain such as he is. But if a struggle begins in him, and particularly if there is a definite line in this struggle, then, gradually, permanent traits begin to form themselves, he begins to 'crystallize.'

"But crystallization is possible on a right foundation and it is possible on a wrong foundation. 'Friction,' the struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' can easily take place on a wrong foundation. For instance, a fanatical belief in some or other idea, or the 'fear of sin,' can evoke a terribly intense struggle between 'yes' and 'no,' and a man may crystallize on these foundations. But this would be a wrong, incomplete crystallization. Such a man will not possess the possibility of further development. In order to make further development possible he must be melted down again, and this can be accomplished only through terrible suffering.

"Crystallization is possible on any foundation. Take for example a brigand, a really good, genuine brigand. I knew such brigands in the Caucasus. He will stand with a rifle behind a stone by the roadside for eight hours without stirring. Could you do this? All the time, mind you, a struggle is going on in him. He is thirsty and hot, and flies are biting him; but he stands still. Another is a monk; he is afraid of the devil; all night long he beats his head on the floor and prays. Thus crystallization is achieved. In such ways people can generate in themselves an enormous inner strength; they can endure torture; they can get what they want. This means that there is now in them something solid, something permanent. Such people can become immortal. But what is the good of it? A man of this kind becomes an 'immortal thing,' although a certain amount of consciousness is sometimes preserved in him. But even this, it must be remembered, occurs very rarely."

This sentient component, through our astral linkage, literally holds open a portal to the spiritual world, making each and everyone of us an 'organic portal' and 'channel'.

In a sense, certainly.

The point is that some channel life, while others channel death. Some want to "give", while others want to "take". The devil is in the details.

While I disagree with your general direction and mindset, I would say to the above that you are correct. I stated such in the quote you highlighted below which makes me wonder why you brought it up as a point of contention to begin with. Here is what I said:

The next assessment than is this. Into which 'spiritual' domain do we channel our frequency, and from which spiritual domain do we derive our core identity.
In the realm of spirit there are vast conglomerates of energy that can be considered self serving, and thus, the idea of the 'organic portal' as it pertains to psychopathy may indeed be derived from a partial knowledge of this spiritual landscape.

I experience the type of responses I am receiving here quite often. The respondee replies point by point without having immersed themselves in the entire contextual field. Rather than exploring the entire post, or posts, with an eye to context and theme, small details are extracted out of context and diverted into channels that have little relevance to the overall discussion.

Note that the issue here is your further elucidations,

"When I refer to 'we' as entities I am referring to the sentient soul which indwells us all. That animating force which in the human constitution is 'individuated' and self propelled.

We are again and again saying that "sentient soul" and an "animating force which, in the human constitution is individuated and self propelled is the point at issue.

Psychopathy is one thing. It is a rather well described category. Organic portals is a hypothesis, of a different kind. There is no direct or simple relation between the two.

'There is no direct relation between the two'....Can I quote this when forum members use the terms interchangeably?

You are missing the point. Let me repeat it: Psychopathy is a rather well-described category. Organic Portals is not a well described category. Organic Portals, as we are using the term, is a hypothesis that we are discussing. We have concluded, thus far, that there are several types of so-called psychopaths, including the "failed Organic Portal," AND a type that is, as you might like to say, "individuated and self-propelled." And further, since we are only developing the terminology, creating the dictionary, as it were, there will naturally be occasions when individuals involved in the discussion confuse the categories, or use terms loosely or incorrectly.

Organic portals, if they exist, may be very of very kind nature. People with souls (if they exist) may behave like psychopaths. You are mixing two different categories. The devil is in the details. -

Am I? I tend to think not. I am clarifying what has become a state of confusion.

No, you are not. You are trying to reintroduce, in a subversive and manipulative way, an idea that we have long ago discarded; an idea that we are convinced, with very good evidence, is part of the Predator's Control System. That suggests strongly to us that either you have not done the research, or that you are an agent of said Predators.
You could, of course, be simply a well-meaning guy just out to try and force other people to accept your core idea by being ingratiating, using word salad, alternating with being subtly insulting. Dunno. That's why the "scratch test."

And Ark, people with souls DO exist.

Nobody ever said they didn't. We are just saying that it seems like about half the people on this planet do NOT have "individuated and self-propelled" souls, that they are machines, and little more than that. Food for the Moon.

Organic portals is a hypothesis, based on another hypothesis, namely the one that such a thing as a "soul" exists, and that "some people" have souls. This leaves open the possibility that some don't. Then comes the question what is so particular about "souls" and this is a very difficult and open problem. - same as the problem of the existence of a "soul". -

It may seem a very difficult 'problem', perhaps it is, though anyone claiming apparent difficulty would be wise to listen as they continue their trek upon the path of heart.

Perhaps you have not read the multiple thousands of pages of material on our websites that document the research, the extent of listening that we and our many group members have done, to ideas such as those you are attempting to propagate? If you had, you might be embarassed to come along at this late date and try to reinvent the wheel, so to say. As I said above, been there, done that.
As for the "path of the heart," that's another extremely misunderstood and misused phrase that has been subjected to "conversive thinking" and redefining by psychopathic systems of the predators of this world.
It must be noted that in Sufi terms, the "eyes of the heart" does not refer to emotion or "love" in any sense that Western minds have tended to interpret it. In fact, the term "heart" in Eastern mysticism refers more to the consciousness of the soul - awareness - than to the many corruptions of this term that pass in New Age teachings as "the way of the heart.
In Ira Friedlander's book "The Whirling Dervishes", he writes:

Everything in the world is invisible except that which we make semi-visible. By the introduction of awareness, all things can become visible. The aim of the dervish is to open the eyes of the heart and see infinity in eternity. His goal is to loosen himself from the earth's glue which binds him and become one with God, to become a channel for His Light. [Friedlander, 1975]

And then, there is this from Mouravieff's Gnosis, volume 1:

Among the lower centres, the emotional centre is worst off. In our civilization - as we have already observed - it generally receives neither rational education nor systematic training. Its formation and development are now left to chance, since religious education today has been largely intellectualized and rationalized. All sorts of considerations dictated by worldly wisdom and mundane vanity; the habitual practice of lying - especially to ourselves - and hypocrisy, from which no one is totally exempt, imprint dangerous distortions on the emotional centre.

Frequently struck by a feeling of inferiority and by the need for compensation, its usual motivation; accustomed as it is to judge and to criticize everybody and everything; surrendering itself to a strangely voluptuous enjoyment of negative emotions; this centre becomes unrecognizable. It degenerates to the point where it becomes the instrument of destruction of our being, which it accelerates on its way towards ageing and death.

The two higher centres work much faster than the lower centres. Of the latter -as we have already said -the slowest is the intellectual centre; the motor centre is slightly faster, but the fastest of all should have been the emotional centre if it were not in that deranged state of which we have just spoken. It generally works in slow motion, at the same pace as the motor centre.

The higher emotional centre is to be found at the level of the heart, and the higher intellectual centre at the level of the head. Their functions are different. In the Tradition they are sometimes called the eyes of the Soul. Thus, St Isaac The Syrian said: 'While the two eyes of the body see things in an identical way, the eyes of the Soul see differently: one contemplates the truth in images and symbols, the other face to face.

In other words, messages received through the higher emotional centre can be translated into pictures or language, but they always take the form of images or symbols.... As for communications received through the higher intellectual centre, they are of such a transcendent nature that there is no way in which they can be translated into human language.

We do not register the messages of the higher centres, which are ceaselessly working in us at full capacity. This is not only because our lower centres are under-developed, but also because they are not equilibrated. We must therefore apply ourselves to stimulate the growth of the Personality within us, and to equilibrate and regulate the work of our three centres.

The "way of the heart" is the way of developing the emotional center properly in concert with the other two lower centers so that the "magnetic center" is formed which then acts as a bridge to the higher emotional and intellectual centers. This is the true "way of the heart." Unfortunately, it has come to mean "love and light" in New Age parlance.
As it happens, the subject of Organic Portals is very closely concerned with the "way of the heart" in its true and original meaning: if your centers are being drained by Organic Portals that do not HAVE the higher centers, even in potential, there is no possibility of ever achieving the development of the Magnetic Center or "crystallization," as Gurdjieff called it.

There is a belief, among certain african tribes, that the birth of a human being actually takes place in the mind of the father. That during the period of 'conception' the father has the very important role of developing and conceptualizing the portal identity through which life will emerge. In this way it was very important to the tribe that very specific qualities be emphasized so that the incoming life would be of benefit to the group dynamic as a whole. Also in this way, the more profound the conceptualization, or more accurately, the more incisive the fathers ability to conceptualize and develop insight, the more 'advanced', as a tribal member, the child would be. -

Well, there is a belief, among certain african tribes, that eating human flesh is beneficial. Many of them believe that old women can kill cattle by looking at them sideways, for example. For some reason you are quoting from some african tribes, skipping other african tribes.

I see.
Can you imagine that two tribes may be so different from one another that they actually exist within different experiential domains?

Absolutely. That's what we are talking about here: Souled Humans with the potential for developing a Magnetic Center and "seating" the higher centers, and Organic Portals which are animated by soul pools similar to creatures of the animal and plant kingdoms, and who do not have the higher centers that belong to individuated and self-propelled souled beings. Two different realities!

Can you envision an investigator quoting a research finding about the dangers of genetically modified organisms, issued by some university, and then being condemned by the media for not having also quoted other research stating the opposite, that findings also show gmo's actually improve health?

Certainly. But most often it is the other way around: the benefits are touted and the dangers are ignored. That seems to be your own approach.

It happens all the time. Its the establishments way of down playing findings they simply don't agree with for reasons they alone decide credible.

Exactly. And you have demonstrated the technique admirably. Ark is merely bringing the necessary balance back by pointing out the dangers while you are touting the benefits.

Taken out of context the gmo debate can actually be made to seem like a rational and balanced debate, though 'in context' (dead butterflies, dead cows, intestinal diseases as epidemic, cancerous mice) it becomes quite apparent that there are some glaring inconsistencies in the establishment position.

Exactly. Taken out of context as you are doing it, the Organic Portal discussion (notice, I exclude the term debate even though it is obvious you want to debate, not discuss) as you are framing it can actually be made to seem like a rational and balanced "debate." But, as we are trying to point out here, there are some glaring inconsistencies in the "establishment position" of the New Age, airy fairy types that your represent. As I said above, been there, done that.

I don't want to highlight every belief system streaming from every African tribe, this is an absolutely preposterous argument.

Any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the "moral" criteria used are just an "ad hoc" invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found. (cf. Lobaczewski)

I am presenting what I feel is a highly substantiated belief of conceptual potentials and visualization as a means of life direction. You are purposely dismantling the structure of my words and twisting them to fit your agenda.

Any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the "moral" criteria used are just an "ad hoc" invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found. (cf. Lobaczewski)

And no, no one is "purposely dismantling the structure of your words and twisting them." In fact, we are pointing out that you have co-opted a discussion and attempted to turn it into a debate. A debate always implies the assumption that one side or the other will "win." We aren't here to "win." We are here to work with a hypothesis that has already excluded some of the beliefs that you are attempting to reinsert.

The belief as stated above has many correlations with scientific findings of the naturalistic kind. I know that potentials are filled with an energetic substance that has come to be called intention. Physicists are already discussing the ability of intention to alter subatomic structures and hence reality. What position are you defending?

If you had read the thousands of pages of material on our websites you would have been able to come to this debate on a more or less equal footing. So, allow me to address your question of "intent." On the website somewhere or other, and in my book, The Secret History of the World, you will find the following:

...in my search for "spiritual truths," I have encountered the term "Ascension" repeatedly in the course of this Quest. And finally, like many of you, I have come many definitions of the word, as well as varied purported techniques to accomplish this allegedly desirable objective.

In seeking a concise definition and philosophy behind it, I decided to search the Internet for clues. I typed the word "ascension" along with the word "spiritual" into a popular search engine. It returned 115,000 pages for my edification. This led me to ask: Why, at this present moment in history, is so much attention being focused on this subject?

Well, we all know the answer to that question. It is because of the frightening state of the World in which we live.

One might think that the Laws of Probability would mandate that, without any intelligent input, 50% of the time the events in our world would lead to benefits for mankind. In a strictly mechanical way, life in our world ought to have manifested a sort of "equilibrium." Factoring in intelligent decisions to do good might bring this average up to about 70%. That would mean that humanity would have advanced over the millennia to a state of existence where good and positive things happen in our lives more often than "negative" or "bad" things. In this way, many of the problems of humanity would have been effectively solved. War and conflict would be a rarity, perhaps 70 percent of the earth's population would have decent medical care, a comfortable roof over their heads, and sufficient nutritious food so that death by disease or starvation would be almost unheard of. In other words, human society would have "evolved" in some way, on all levels.

The facts are, however, quite different.

More than 840,000,000 people on the Earth suffer from hunger. That's about three times the population of the entire USA. This is chronic, persistent hunger, which kills 24,000 people every day, or over 8 million human beings each year. Three out of four who die from starvation are younger than five years old. How can "evolved" human beings accept that fact as "normal?"

According to the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, during the past 100 years there have been approximately 2 billion deaths (including civilians) resulting from war, tyrannical governments, and man-made famine. When these figures are broken down into deaths caused by Communism vs. Capitalism, they are almost equal, with the figures slightly higher for Capitalism which may surprise some people who believe that the Capitalistic system is the "right" one. "By their fruits you shall know them."

Turning to mortality statistics that are not related to war and famine, we find that it is a bit difficult to get an actual number because the statistics are nearly always expressed in terms of percentages rather than in hard population numbers. One gets the feeling that the actual count is so frightening that this approach is used for the express purpose of avoiding having to face the facts. One thing we do know is that deaths from cardiovascular diseases and stroke are the leading cause of death in 31 of the 35 Western Hemisphere countries that report disease related mortality statistics. The highest of these mortality rates are found in the English-speaking Caribbean, USA, Canada, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Mortality rates from these causes are increasing in the Central American and Latin Caribbean regions as they come more and more under the sway of Western capitalism. Again, "By their fruits you shall know them."

What we are talking about above are the "quiet" statistics, from our present reality. They are quiet because nobody ever makes a big deal about them. The headlines of our newspapers do not trumpet them on the front page where they rightly belong. Even now it is easy to forget that there were 65 million deaths from WW II alone and that deaths from disease and starvation continue as a quiet, steady, drumbeat of increasing mortality behind the blaring headlines of school shootings, sensational murder trials, and little Cuban boys who become the center of international custody disputes.

I don't think that one single person on this planet will disagree that they want a better life for themselves and their children; and most of them will add that they do not presently have the capacity to make it a reality. Except for a very small minority of very sick people, I don't think anybody really likes to see misery and suffering, disease and death and despair, in any context. And again we must ask: if these things are so detestable to human beings at large, if so many people are working and thinking and praying to improve the conditions of our world, why isn't it happening?

Seekers of Spiritual Verity - a large number of whom could be considered "Intelligentsia" - are always aware of these things, and they are asking, "What is the origin of all the misery and suffering? Does it just happen? Do people and only people cause others to suffer? Is it that God is good, but allows bad things to happen?"

"Don't forget the power of prayer," we are told by our religious leaders, or "positive thinking," as the New Age gurus tell us. The only problem is, prayers and positive thinking do not seem to have improved the world very much on the occasions when it is certain that nearly every human being was praying for a certain outcome.

Jesus promised: "If any two of you shall agree and ask... it shall be done." (Matt 18:19) That's a promise. What do you want or need? Just ask!

But it doesn't work and we see it!

Over sixty million people died because God didn't do what everybody thought he should do. C.S. Lewis struggled with this issue in the latter part of his life. He saw clearly that, before World War II, practically every human being on the planet was praying-to Jesus, God the Father, the Virgin Mary, Allah, Buddha and whoever else you can name or mention, so all the bases were covered-that this terrible thing would not happen. The memory of the previous "Great War" was still fresh in the mind of mankind. They remembered the horrible carnage and vowed, never again!

In the end, after the mightiest cry of prayer in human memory, rising from the earth, almost one-third of the world was uninhabitable and sixty-five million human beings were dead. Are we to think that this was God's answer to prayer? It certainly doesn't give us much hope for the "power of positive thinking."

Think about it.

Throughout history we find one group praying to their god to protect them from the depredations of another group. The other group is praying just as fervently that their depredations will be successful. When one group succeeds in killing another, is that proof that its god is supreme? What then happens if the members of the successful group are then reincarnated into the group that was defeated? This is not a rhetorical question since a very interesting book was written about the great numbers of Jews who died in the holocaust now being reincarnated as Christians. There has also been some suggestion that many Nazis are now being reincarnated as Jews. What then, does such an idea do to the concept of "my god is the only right one?"
[...]
The questions about how our beliefs may shape our reality are among the most significant in all of consciousness research. And so it is that many seekers step outside of the "standard religions" and begin to seek the "truth" of the ways and means of Ascension.

As noted, "Ascension" is discussed widely in books, articles, on the Internet, in classes and workshops, and other media. The general trend of ideas expressed includes the search for the "one thing that will transform your life." Various "techniques" are advertised which promise to provide stress relief and even the "key to the highest levels of human consciousness." The shopper in the market of ascension "tools" is told that they can now make a choice to "swiftly and easily free the nervous system from stress, enjoy maximum creativity, clarity and health, experience inner peace, fulfillment and joy," and of course, change one's self-limiting beliefs.

Another perspective on "ascension" tells us that ascension is "the way to integrate all portions of your self in a conscious way." The seeker is told that he or she is a "multi-dimensional being who seeded portions of itself into the physical reality" and that fully "remembering who you are" is the act of integration and the "removal of the veil of time, identities and separateness in yourself." What, precisely, the result will be-other than being "healthy, wealthy and wise"-is not clear.

As we read further in the available literature, we discover other ideas. One "expert" on the subject tells us that this thing called "ascensions" was only achieved in the past upon dying, and that now people can do it and take their physical body with them. He suggests that spirituality is so advanced in the present age that souls can graduate more quickly. It is as though he is suggesting a "grading curve" has been instituted so that the requirements are lessened. Either that, or he hasn't been paying much attention to what is going on "out there."

The evidence of "advanced spirituality" in our world is severely lacking in spite of the New Age claims that "light workers" can "help bring forth the ascension for the masses before physical death, before totally wearing out the physical body in resistance to evolution. Much more energy can be expended on the positive and much less wasted on the negative."

Again, we note that objective reality does not support such a claim. If anything, since the inception of the New Age "movement," if it can be so called, things have gotten a lot worse.

This leads to another point: it seems that we must accept the objective fact that attempts to change the world spiritually, or to regulate large scale events, simply do not work. Yes, there does seem to be evidence that individuals or small groups of individuals can make small changes or produce effects with a limited range of influence. But for some reason, the world as it is, seems to operate based on rules or laws that we do not understand. The fundamental nature of the physical world seems to be antithetical to this "spiritualization."

One recent work that attempts to provide a scientific explanation for this ability to influence the world, Conscious Acts of Creation, tells us:

This book marks a sharp dividing line between old ways of scientific thought and old experimental protocols, wherein human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind and spirit cannot significantly affect physical reality, and a new paradigm wherein they can robustly do so!

The book, written by three mainstream scientists, goes on to tell us that:

...utilizing a unique experimental protocol on both inanimate and animate systems, that the human quality of focused intention can be made to act as a true thermodynamic potential and strongly influence experimental measurements for a variety of specific target experiments.

After almost 400 pages of math and speculation and descriptions of experiments we are told:

Under some conditions, it is indeed possible to attach an aspect of human consciousness, a specific intention, to a simple electrical device and have that device, when activated, robustly influence an experiment conducted in its vicinity in complete accord with the attached intention. Thus, if they do it right, humans can influence their environment via specific, sustained intentions. [...] Some new field appears to be involved in the information passage that occurs between conditioned locales that are widely separated from each other in physical space. Even with transmitters and receivers located inside electrically grounded Faraday cages, highly correlated patterns of information appeared in the remotely located locales.[...] Although we don't fully understand them, we now have some new tools with which to probe the deeper structures of the universe and a new adventure is underway for humanity.

It is important to note that the "intenders" of the experiments were long-time practitioners of Siddha Yoga and could thus be considered metaphysically "in tune" to some considerable extent. The question is: What did they accomplish? Based on the descriptions, it sounds pretty earth shaking, right? Well, as noted, after almost 400 pages we find that the most significant result seems to have been changing the pH of a small sample of water.

Yup. That's it.

Nevertheless, this is important for the simple reason that they managed to scientifically demonstrate a principle, even if the overall result was that it was - most often - an iffy proposition and there didn't seem to be a lot of control. Most results were "statistical" and this has always been a problem with the "create your own reality" idea. When all the data is examined, what we generally find is that it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. What the real rules are, nobody seems to know.

While we all might like to think we can transform our world by praying and/or thinking positively, we must remember that there is a great deal of evidence that real transformations of the planet have repeatedly been cataclysmic. A philosophy, which ignores this fact, is courting disaster.

And so we have a clue that the problem may not be as easily solved as the many promoters of the different "methods or techniques of Ascension" would have us believe.

Notice that the above referenced volume is a book of about 900 pages in which I lay out the evidence of over 30 years of research into this question.

Like I said, been there, done that.

 

[Laura]

Part Two

It is known already that the mitochondrial DNA is passed down through the mother, this line of constancy is what keeps the genetic line stable. The father on the other hand brings forth a genetic adaptability which is the seed of change and diversity. This seed brings change to an otherwise static system and exists not only as a physical form but also as an ethereal seed conception in the mind. This is a very important line of thought.

There are no hard and fast rules. While there are statistical studies of influence of the genes, there are always exceptions. Moreover the relation, if any, of the genes to the "soul" is not clear, though it is hypothesized. You are just stating a different hypothesis.

The 'relation if any'?

What makes my 'so-called' hypothesis less acceptable than yours?

See above, been there, done that, did the research.

In truth, I would argue that my premise is hardly a hypothesis at all. I know that the physiology reacts to causal implications,

Cite your evidence and source.

..that the genetic code morphs and re-arranges itself according to perceptual orientation.

Cite your evidence and source.

Just as the genome reacts to electromagnetic fields, radioactive essences and so on, all highly substantial and verifiable by naturalistic science,

Cite your evidence and source.

.... so to does it react to the gravitational field emitted by the heart and mind, each of which have been measured and quantified.

Cite your evidence and source.

Mitochondrial dna and its properties upon genetic unfoldment has in itself been very extensively studied, its a very highly interesting field of learning.

Indeed it is. We have quoted and cited many papers on the subject both on our websites and in our publications.

What position are you defending Ark?

Ark is not defending any position. He is pointing out the lack of balance in your approach.

It has been said among the Toltecs that women can indeed create life without the male energy, though the result of this system of energetic reproduction would bring forth only clones undifferentiated from one another. Here it is seen that the mother provides the matrix of constancy and fixation, or the fractal web, which allows the fathers departing seed to germinate the unfolding of this constancy, giving it motion and 'fluidity'.

Toltecs: "They practiced human sacrifice and the use of the "tzompantli", the rack where the skulls of the dead were hung." For some reasons you quote one thing about Toltecs while skipping the other things. Why should we care about Toltecs?

'Americans' set up concentration camps and torture Arab peoples by raping them, beating them and torturing them for pleasure.

Do you see the problem here?

Do you?

As it happens, the American system, which has given birth to the practice of concentration camps and torture is corrupt to the core. It is corrupt due to lack of knowledge and awareness of many things, not the least of which is psychology and the true nature of the world we live in. It is ruled by superstition and ignorance.

What Toltec lineage are you referring to and during which time period? It was not my intention to dig out the specifics of a people who developed a very powerful spiritual knowledge that was most definitely, without question, abused by some.

Cite your evidence and source, please.

There has always been a struggle against those who would wrestle control for their own devices, no different was it for the Toltecs, that mighty lineage that carries such profound insight into both the higher and lower realms. I do care about the Toltec world concept, it is an organ of great age and wisdom, tried by deception and insight, a valuable key to humanities past and future.

Cite your evidence and source.

We are certainly admirers of the works of Castaneda because, for the most part, they are in line with other systems that demonstrate a certain congruence. The point is that you are quoting a belief, not even a reasonable hypothesis. You make bold and sweeping assertions; you claim knowledge and hint at great secrets that you possess... and then, you come out with something like that, and sorry... we just can't take you seriously.

The father provides diversity, the mother constancy.

What kind of diversity? What kind of constancy? What about people that are constant in their diversity and diverse in their constancy?

Fractal geometries are the precursor to a new understanding of human relationships and spiritual processes. When you view a fractal as composed by the aide of a computer program which adds infinite depth, infinite potential, one can follow the unfolding fractal inward or outward ad infinitum. If we recognize that the fractal itself is the 2 dimensional representation of the hologram which casts out the fractal of 3 dimensional space/time in all directions, we understand the holographic principle to a certain degree. The fractal, though changing its geometrical appearance, remains constant, it remains fixed as an extension of what came previous and what will come after. This is a simplified conceptual visualization of the matrix of 3 dimensional space/time. Constant yet changing in appearance. This constancy connects all times and places by a thread of continuation referred to as space.

Can you cite the source of the above quote? Is this your own interpretation of the data?
(snipped Scheffler, I.E. quote)

Although male mitochondria does downshift from time to time it is an abnormality and is associated with mitochondrian diseases. We can view the constancy of populations over time through the female, through the womb, like a freeze frame of a fractal in motion. The motion itself, or time, the movement of the fractal, works through the mitochondria, through the womb. This motion is the male impulse to diversity which branches away from the mitochondria, spreads its seed, thus giving life to new forms and patterns. The mitochondria as a platform remains constant, the genetic envelope that it works within diversifies.

It is the gravity bodies and worlds in space, and their movement, which provides us with time. These gravity bodies are the result of an initial 'release' of potential - recall 'mind and potential' as I referenced it above. The mind of the universe gave birth to the dream, which finds fulfillment in the womb of emptiness. The African tribes belief in mind born children begins to take on some pretty stupendous parallels, when we consider the implications of intention and the formation of worlds in what has been referred to as the Universal Mind.

Is the above your own interpretation of the data?

Time has for millennia been referred to as being male, here is a wiki quote:

Father Time is a mythical personification of time. He is usually depicted as an elderly bearded man, dressed in a robe, carrying an hourglass or other timekeeping device (representing time's constant movement). This image is culled from several sources, including the Holly King, the Celtic god of the dying year, and Chronos, the Greek god of time.

Because of their similarity in name as pertaining to parental figures, he is sometimes paired with Mother Nature as a married couple.

So, what does that have to do with anything?

The matrix, or womb of space, provides the constancy upon which time moves. Put in another way - the space, or emptiness provides the backdrop in which the seeds of density - the planets, comets, etc, find motion, thus giving us time. Diversity is the impulse of change on the platform, or substrate, of changelessness.

In the physical body time is referred to as metabolism, the rate of exchange and movement of cell division, cell communication and cell death. Metabolism can both speed up and slow down according to various factors and exists within particular parameters known as homeostasis. When the metabolism, or body time slows down or speeds up too dramatically the constancy of homeostasis is broken and the space/time arrangement of the body begins to disintegrate. The fractal loses coherence. Here is an excerpt on the mitochondria and metabolism:

Again, what does that have to do with the main issues under discussion here? It's a lot of word salad with very little content.
(snip long quote about mitochondrial problems)

In the mitochondria we have the microcosm of the marriage between female/male - space/time. View the mitochondria diagrams and you will find a self contained 'organ' that regulates both the constancy of the metabolism and the diversity that is built upon it.

Again, so what? That is only part of the story.

Seeing as the Star Wars theme is acceptable around here I'll provide an interesting wiki quote about what we're talking about (bolds are mine):

Yes, sometimes they are popular when they creatively express an observation or experience. But we don't generally use such ideas to create concepts nor do we examine that material as holy writ and seek to derive meaning from it.

In this context, the questions asked previously take on a much different characteristic.

Not really. After all the word salad, nothing has taken on a different characteristic except that we are now more sure than ever that this forum is not for you, Angelo. You need to find a warm and fuzzy New Age type home, or hang out with some of the Techno-Magick crowd since most of what you are saying will be right at home with Vinnie, Dimitris, Jay, Jeff and the rest of the gang.

For I see quite clearly that it is not the genetic code that is so fixed as to determine human processes, but that human understanding is the causal motive force that is in reality orchestrating the genetic code.

You got THAT out of all that nonsense you spouted? Amazing! Talk about magick!

Trees without undrstanding have genetic codes too. Their code is being orchestrated? By who or what? By the wind?

Is this what you consider logical discussion?

Somehow, it is not a surprise that the essential nature of that question is lost on you.

Trees do indeed have 'understanding'. They have an in-built intelligence that relates their environment to their internal apparatus in a language all their own.
Here is a quote:

It is important to note that all plants, fungi, and animals use this same pathway. They acquired it very anciently by taking in a respiring bacterium as an endosymbiont (an organism living mutualistically within another organism). These endosymbionts are now called mitochondria. Based on recent DNA analysis, the eukaryotic organisms that later became plants added the photosynthetic pathway by acquiring a photosynthetic bacterium as an endosymbiont, now called chloroplasts. Thus plants have both photosynthesis in chloroplasts and respiration in mitochondria, so plants are really more than animals.

http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plant_B ... lants.html

Trees are also connected to the 'Force' through their genetic structures. They are intimately connected to the nervous impulse of the planet as it traverses through space. In fact tree's are neuron's for the planet and transmit information through ecosystem and atmospheric systems to maintain a symbiotic homeostasis, through oxygen production and moisture holding capacity, among other things. That's pretty intelligent if you ask me. Tree's can literally see light that we cannot and can detect pheromones that we cannot. That's without getting into all that 'weird' stuff about tree spirits.

Exactly. And Organic Portals are animated by soul pools similar to trees or other natural manifestations. And just like trees, or critters, their expression is quite limited because they do not have individuated, self-propelled "souls."

And even more heretical, that the traditional roles of male and female are actually based to a large extent upon energetic facts and not on an illusory struggle between male and female.

Why should there be any struggle between male and female? There can be harmony as well.

Exactly.

Finally, a point of agreement. From our point of view, the "interaction," (preferred to "struggle") is between on and off, yes and no, to be or not to be, all contained within Infinite Potential to Be. That this has often been depicted as a struggle between "male and female" is somewhat unfortunate. However, the great Sufi Shaykh, Ibn al-Arabi uses this imagery, though he takes great care to express Creation as a love affair... between the Lover and the Beloved.

Imagery has been considered a healing tool in virtually all of the world's cultures and is an integral part of many religions. Navajo Indians, for example, practice an elaborate form of imagery that encourages a person to "see" himself as healthy. Ancient Egyptians and Greeks, including Aristotle and Hippocrates believed that images release spirits in the brain that arouse the heart and other parts of the body. They also thought that a strong image of a disease is enough to cause its symptoms.

It's actually not quite that simple. You might enjoy reading Frances Yates' book on Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition for a good generally history of the development of the idea that images were "influential" and Pico Della Mirandola's development of these ideas into a "hermetic tradition" that may not have existed prior to that time.

Affirmations and visualizations are used by athletes everyday. It has been suggested by experts such as Dale Carnegie, Robert Schuller and Steven Covey to elicit peak performance in individuals. Athletes use visualization to enhance their performance, sometimes without realizing it. A golfer may form a mental map of the fairway, imagining precisely where he will place the ball on each shot;....

http://holisticonline.com/guided-imagery.htm

The above example has been scientifically verified, especially in regards to athletes, in that visualization techniques do indeed shape potentials. Now the question of universal applications and the ethical and moral implications of what is best 'imaged' is best saved for another time. -

Sometimes visualization helps, often it does not. There are studies showing the opposite of what you are claiming that you do not quote.

Visualization does not help change the external reality particularly when the visualization is orthogonal to the objective facts. Imagery may help to motivate us to do something. But there is not much mystery about that. Imagine as much as you want that the Earth stops moving tomorrow, use all the available "scientifically verified methods", and I assure you that you will fail. Get 100 of your friends to imagine with you and I can still assure you that you will fail. -

Your position here is very typical. I agree with your assertion on the surface, though you omit the subtle components of the discussion.

While you are giving far too much weight to the "visualization" shtick. It's helpful in some respects, in some circumstances, under certain conditions. But in general, it tends to encourage reliance on "faith" when the fact is "faith without works is dead."

What you have said in no way refutes any of the research into the field of human potentials. There is much I do not agree with myself in terms of the definition of findings, but one thing is for sure, the human creative element as it impacts the external world as a causal force is only in its infancy, in a seed stage if you will. Just as naturalistic science was in the seed stage during the renaissance, a form of investigation we somehow feel existed as a human component from the beginning! This is a process.

Of course. And we agree that it is an interesting field. We have been studying it for over 30 years ourselves... That's why we are familiar with both the literature and the problems. We have also done many experiments and we have communicated our experiences and thoughts about same in the thousands of pages on our website.

Humans have always unknowingly affected the Universe by every act and thought they articulate or even consider. Realistic, comprehensively responsible, omni-system-considerate, unselfish thinking on the part of humans does absolutely affect human destiny. Buckminster Fuller

Notice in the above quote "realistic, comprehensively responsible... " That ain't just visualizing and thinking wishfully...

You also skipped over commenting on my last sentence which I'll highlight:

Now the question of universal applications and the ethical and moral implications of what is best 'imaged' is best saved for another time.

It is the degree to which we align ourselves to the Universal Need, here referred to as 'service to others', that determines the strength of our visions and causal force.

That's where the twist comes in. You use the term "universal need." Who determines that need?

We prefer the more direct approach: aligning oneself with the Objective Reality which best expresses what the Cosmos is doing at any given moment. Here's a little exchange with the C's on that subject that has been examined and tested and has a high probability of being "the way it is":

Q: ... (L) Okay, now Eddie says: 'Laura brought up several comments about Love that confused me. I do not understand how could giving love when not being asked could harm instead of improve.' Can you remark on this?
A: "Giving" love is not giving, in such a case.
Q: So, if you give love when you have not been asked, you are NOT giving?
A: You are taking, as usual.
Q: When you say you are 'taking,' what are you taking?
A: Energy, a la STS.
Q: How does it come that you are taking energy from someone by giving them love when not asked?
A: Because an STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.
Q: I don't understand how that means you are taking energy?
A: Because the act is then one of self-gratification. If one "gives" where there is no request, therefore no need, this is a free will violation! And besides, what other motivation could there possibly be in such a scenario?!? Think carefully and objectively about this.
Q: My thought would be that, in such a scenario, that if one gives love to someone who has not asked or requested, that it seems to be a desire to change the other, i.e. a desire to control.
A: You got it!!
Q: Now he says further: 'Yes, everything is lessons and if a person has chosen a specific path they should be allowed to go and learn their way. But, let's say this is happening to someone you really love. And let's say that the person may be in a period of his life that his/her thoughts are probably taking her/him to commit, let's say, a murder. Don't you think that if you send this person love, even unconsciously, that it may provide the necessary energy (influence) to stop that murder?' Comment please.
A: No, no, no!!! In fact, if anything, such an energy transference even could enhance the effect.
Q: In what way?
A: Imbalanced waves could be drawn upon by the receiver.
Q: I think that this word he used is a clue: 'Don't you think that if you send the person love, it could provide the person the necessary energy' and in parentheses he has the word 'influence' which implies control of the other person's behavior, to 'stop that murder.' So, it seems that there is a desire to control the actions of another person.
A: Yes.
Q: But, his intent is entirely benevolent because he wants to stop a murder which is the saving of a life, as well as prevent the loved one from going to prison. So, it SEEMS to be benevolent in intent. Does this not make a difference?
A: Have we forgotten about Karma?
Q: Well, both Sylvia and I mentioned the fact that one cannot always judge these situations because we don't know. We cannot know. For all we know the potential murder victim is an Adolf Hitler type or the potential parent of one, or something like that, and then the murder would save many lives with the sacrifice of two lives, or that this murder is supposed to happen because of some karmic interaction that is essential between the murderer and victim, and that we simply cannot KNOW these things and judge them.
A: Yes.
Q: Any other comment about that?
A: No.
Q: He says: 'I believe that if we do not send love energy to the world that the egocentric STS energy will be dominating.
A: Why would one choose to send this? What is the motivation?
Q: To change it to your idea of what it is supposed to be. To control it to follow your judgment of how things ought to be.
A: Exactly. The students are not expected to be the architects of the school.
Q: So, when you seek to impose or exert influence of any kind, you are, in effect, trying to play God and taking it upon yourself to decide that there is something wrong with the universe that it is up to you to fix, which amounts to judgment.
A: Yes, you see, one can advise, that is okay, but do not attempt to alter the lesson.
Q: He also says: 'I believe that an enlightened being is emanating love where ever that person is, and this is even without being asked. It just happens because that is what they are - love.' Comment, please.
A: An enlightened being is not love. And a refrigerator is not a highway.
Q: What?! Talk about your mixed metaphors! I don't get that one!
A: Why not?
Q: They are completely unrelated!
A: Exactly!!!
Q: What IS an enlightened being?
A: An enlightened being.
Q: What is the criteria for being an enlightened being?
A: Being enlightened!
Q: When one is enlightened, what is the profile?
A: This is going nowhere because you are doing the proverbial round hole, square peg routine.
Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.
A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good. Just smart.
Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?
A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.
Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?
A: An intelligent being who only gives.
Q: Well, since we have dealt with the idea of not giving love to those who don't ask, what do they give and to whom do they give it?
A: All; to those who ask.

With this line of reasoning I would suggest that psychopathy is not so much a genetic pre-determined process but an evolving and changing social dynamic which can spread like a disease through the minds eye of humanity.

Social dynamics is one thing. Genetic features is another thing. Both have their place. Here you mix apples and oranges.

The evidence suggests both types of psychopathy. I have addressed the spreading of psychopathic behavior among normal people by the "infection" of genetic psychopaths in an article on the site entitled "Official Culture: A Natural State of Psychopathy." You might want to check it out.

When your making a meal its good to blend flavors or else all goes bland. You seem to be very enmeshed in the science of specialization, though simultaneously disregard the more comprehensive aspect of integrated solutions. 'Social dynamics' have a great deal to do with genetic preponderances, that's why genetic research and genetic profiling as well as bloodlines, interbreeding and hybridization is so important to the on-going plan to conform humanity into a collective homogenous state.

Indeed, it is good to have different "flavors," such as scientific facts, observation, experiment, and creative hypotheses followed by more observation and experiments. You seem to be very enmeshed in the specialized stance of believing things without sufficient observation, experiment and collecting of the all-important data. Ark is attempting to bring balance to this trend you have started.

As we can all attest, knowledge specialization has increased over the years, as it must the more we learn about any subject. There are ever-increasing subdisciplines within engineering, economics and finance, law, medicine, and of course education. Specialization reminds us that we live in a world which is complex. As the webs of specialized disciplines and subdisciplines become more and more intricate, we are challenged by the task of being able to not only organize this information but to re-examine and improve the way we teach people how to organize information into knowledge. It is a worthy task because, quite frankly, the future of our country, of our civilization - perhaps the future of our species - depends upon it. - Michael Jaffe

You are again employing not so subtle paramoralisms here.

I feel very strongly that we are all borderline psychopathic, in that the culture that greets us everyday is a constant weight and threat to our more innate spiritual assertiveness.

Some of us are probably borderline psychopathic. Some others are probably not. The devil, as always, is in the details.

You see, I sense an underlying ill intent in your post Ark. An anger. Can you see your little devils?

As an educator with over 30 years experience, it's not likely that Ark is "angry." He has dealt with some very brilliant students who have tried in myriads of ways to pull the wool over his eyes. In that respect, you are an amateur. But I notice again the paramoralistic implication, the not-so-subtle insult that is the general response of certain characteropaths. As you said, and you must have been referring to yourself: "I feel very strongly that we are all borderline psychopathic..."

 

[Renaissance]

All a question of basic communications.

I agree. In basic communication we must speak the same language. Angelo speaks one language - his subjective one. And Laura and Ark speak another language which has been created for group communication, for real communication. Effort must be made to learn how to communicate and which means questioning the value of your own words and being open. While it does seem a matter of basic communication, it can still be quite complex and often difficult.

The success of which depends less on the one who speaks than on the one who listens.

I don't agree. I think both the speaker and the listener must have and make efforts toward a goal of communication in order for it to be successful. If the speaker only sends nonsense there can be no communication. If the listener only accepts nonsense there can be no communication.

Unfortunately, we do not listen. We would rather rationalize to protect our own filtered 'understanding'. This of course fails the potential realization that there is nothing to be understood but rather that all is to be known, witout exception.

Btw, I am not siding with anyone while saying this.

The general theme of your post seems to indicate that you support Angelo (perhaps not neccessariliy his points, but that he deserves to be 'listened to') and all this is mostly a miscommunication. Of course I could be misinterpreting this and you could be supporting Laura and Ark. You may think it is Angelo who isn't open to listening. It's difficult to determine your thoughts though, since you say you don't side with anyone. But if you don't 'side' with anyone, and the point of your post isn't directed toward anyone - what is the purpose of your 'communication'?