Russ said:
Also, I have been meditating on how my immediate memory joins with matter in the outside world. Like a flashing cursor - when the cursor dissappears, where does the cursor go? How do I know that the cursor is flashing - how do I know that the cursor "was" there when it isn't? I don't know! What I do know, is that I am seeing an empty space, which is connected with the memory of a cursor, and I don't know what the memory of the cursor is, I call it a memory, but I don't know what it is.
Like, in whatever moment I am in, I can say that I don't know what happened before it - or even if there ever WAS a "before". All of the memories and matter and thoughts are just there, and if I am really honest, I have no idea what is going on at all. Whenever I think that something has changed, thats all there is, the memory that things were different.
Well you know what "they" say, it's who you are and what you SEE that matters.
But I've thought about that before too, the idea that we know nothing about our past except what is currently in our memory banks, or what is written on some piece of paper etc - we have no way of knowing if any of that data is legitimate. We don't know if it is really a "record" or something else. Our memories are subjective, they are often influenced/distorted/filtered/vague and so we have to infer the objective events/reality from this vague mess called a memory. Some are more clear and precise than others, but none are like a tape recorder, there's always some subjectivity. And in dreams we can see our memories of things in the "past" but often molded with other things, and so the memory becomes something else entirely, something it never was. For example I often dream about a house I lived in when I was a young child back in Russia, but somehow in the dream I would be surrounded by all Americans and so basically the current world is molded with the old world in the weirdest ways, creating all sorts of freaky realities. The place could be real but all the events happening in the place could be something absolutely made up - like I might be fighting in a war back in that house, etc. Or the opposite, the events are real but the place is fake. So I might dream that I'm living with my current family just as I always do, but the house we live in is totally different and the place is totally different, and we just accept this in the dream as "normal". I only realise that it was all "wrong" when I wake up.
Very often when the C's are asked about past events, their response indicates that the past is not "set", it is just as variable as the future. So I'd say that our memories are subjective recordings of the past we perceived, but if there are any other possible pasts that could've happened that all could lead to the same present moment, then I think they all happened and are all real, and there's a version of ourselves that perceived those instead of the one we now remember. When the C's were asked about the formation of the earth and the universe, here is their response:
Q: (L) Was all the land on the planet earth formed into one vast continent at some point in earth's history?
A: Multiple history reality possibilities.
Q: (L) In this reality that we experience, was all the land joined into one vast continent?
A: Incorrect conceptualization.
Q: (L) Well, I don't know how to ask it. (J) Move on. (L) What is the source of energy generated by stars?
A: Transfer points cause friction thus producing energy.
Q: (L) Transfer points of what; from what to what?
A: Dimensions.
Q: (L) Now, this is going to be a strange question, but if you can help us out, relate this to something it would be very helpful. There are a lot of theories going around about the age of the universe. Some of the latest says that it is anywhere from 8 to 25 billion years old. I know that you have said that time is an illusion, but, in view of the fact that scientists are struggling with this one... [Much laughter] which of the figures that they have pulled out of the air, in terms of the time illusion itself, is the most correct?
A: None.
Q: (F) Does that answer the question satisfactorily? That's like saying: "Oh, that's an interesting store, what's in there?"
(L) Well, if none of the figures science has come up with is correct, what is the correct definition of the age of the universe?
A: Quasi-quantum possibilities.
Q: (L) What does that mean? [Laughter.] (J) Anybody's guess?! (L) Well, I think they are going to tell us something here.
A: Discover.
It appears that maybe the C's would see all the pasts, and so asking a question about "THE past" is silly because there is no such thing just as there is no "THE future" or even "THE present". And since there were many possible pasts that all could've led to this exact same present, all of them would be equally valid in the mind of someone who can perceive them all. And since there wasn't anyone from our current 3rd density civilization around "billions of years ago", they cannot refer to THEIR linear recording of what they perceived as a reference point to satisfy our desire for a linear answer. So if we ask them about the present, the only way they can answer it is by looking at the present WE are seeing and using our 3rd density linear perspective as a reference point for that answer, or so it seems.
Another clue to this maybe is when Laura and the group tried channeling with their eyes closed and didn't get any results, and then the C's said they cannot see the board. Could it be that they rely on our static/fixed/linear 3rd-density observation of our current present to see it? Otherwise, if we're not looking, and nobody around is looking, they might be seeing ALL realities, and so the existance of the ouija board and its configuration might also be totally variable until WE observe it and "fix" that reality into something they can work with? I guess that sounds like "quantum physics" where you might have only probability until an observer "defines" the reality by observing it. So by observing the ouija board, maybe Laura was defining her reality for the C's so they could work with it... Hmmm..
And that seems to relate to quasi-quantum possibilities they referred to earlier.
