Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 05-10-2004

By Gregon

Plenty of interesting reads today. Why not ignore them though and go sit outside and admire the beauty of nature? Probably a lot better for your soul…


Quote of the Day:

You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know during the Persian Gulf war those intelligence reports would come out: “Iraq: incredible weapons, incredible weapons.” How do you know that? “Uh, well…we looked at the receipts.”

Bill Hicks (1993)

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

19 Comments

    1. Sorry
      Hi,

      Sorry, I didn’t know I was a dog. I do what I see fit to do on this site, I don’t “learn” what to do to “keep” people – you must have me confused with someone trying to build a multi-national empire. TDG is a public service – if you (or others) don’t like the site, you’re free to go elsewhere. I’m a great believer in free will and personal decision-making.

      Bill Hicks is funny, and in this case remarkably prescient – always a good combination for a quote. Really, do you take offense that easily? Good thing I didn’t go with one of Bill’s more ‘challenging’ quotes then…

      Bye.

      Peace and Respect
      Greg

      ——————————————-
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

      1. Whats political about the quote?
        It’s easy enough to see what association can be made out of it.

        On another note, yet related, I find it interesting to see that people that supposedly come here to find the truth hidden under the covers of the form and that of established ‘wisdom’ have such a hard time facing what is there without being urged into a reactive state.

        I see the same pattern when what is considered a personal value being touched, no matter what sphere of life that value pertains to.

        When a value that one holds dear is touched by a statement, even humor, the ruffled person, who becomes that value through psychological association, thus losing his essence or individuality via the phenomenon of identification, hence the abandonment of his own consciousness in exchange for the comforting umbrella of cultural value, feels personally aggressed and becomes political, and then goes on a crusade to have his value prevail. Worse, he will refuse to hear and request that nothing be said about such, making it taboo.

        That value can be anything, any belief will fit, whether religious, political, common wisdom, family, sex, money and power of the group so that we feel it through our association with the group.

        I would say that the reason why we do not see under the cover of the veil, especially the occult one, is simply because that mechanism makes it impossible to do so. That mechanism could also be called fear. The fear that we may discover that we are not what we think or what we wish and that all of our drives are not as personal as we would like to believe but rather the result of conditioning.

        Imagine that if we can’t cope with the realities behind this material world and the associated psychological conditioning, how are we supposed to be really capable of dealing with realities from the invisible besides folding back within our own psychology and become really pathetic by philosophizing about our speculations?

        That is a phenomenon that leads to another one, which we can call the ‘blaming factor’.

        So long as we can blame others or events or whatever to justify what we are and our perceived right to remain so, we see no reason to change.

        So long as we live by our values, we can’t espouse the greater principles of absolute reality.

        When we were said that we should die to be reborn anew, the death of the ego for the benefit of the rising of the real man, all of these were integral to what had to be left behind.

        It is impossible to see clearly if our mind is tinted with historical, racial and cultural conditioning.

        There is no such thing as the truth because truth is what we want it to be.

        We don’t want to know, we want to be right.

        1. Primate Psychology
          Hi Richard,

          I think I can summarise your post by referring to Robert Anton Wilson’s excellent works. Chimps, when disputing territory, throw s**t at each other. Man, being a “higher” primate, disputes mental territory as easily as physical territory and throws mental s**t at those who are seen as encroaching on their territory. The phrase “no-good s**t” may be the defining thought of the human primate. Sad, but true. Only by being aware of our primate psychology can we hope to transcend it. The old saw, “Magician, know thyself”, applies bigtime here.

          Regards, C

          1. Exorcise the primate
            That’s one way to put it indeed.

            In order to be aware of the primate in it(him)self, one already has to escape his animal reflective psychology. This supposes that there is some light in there and that you can become this light. You need to be able to leave your instincts behind and go against your ‘nature’.

            Most would not do that since they identify to their nature.

            It was said that man is meant to control nature.

            I would say that this was misinterpreted into a concept of domination over the environment wherea it really meant that he had to dominate his own nature, not that of others.

            Dominating the environment and others is just another tool to insure that we don’t change but that others will have to in our place and adjust to fit our stillness.

            Either you are an animal or you are a ‘man’.

          2. Excellent excellent!
            Excellent posts Richard.
            Yes you are exactly right.
            We are all afraid, and I suppose that is as animal an instinct as any other.
            I have been reading A Species in Denial by Jeremy Griffiths which he describes as “…the naked-but dignifing-truth about humans”.
            While I am finding it a difficult read and don’t altogether agree with all of his propositions, it is at least something different on the human/animal front.
            He writes about what he calls the human condition and how to face the truth of this and end the despair a lot of people suffer in their lives.

            A friend and I have been arguing for years about genes and whether, as genes predispose one to certain behaviour,whether people can change at all.
            I believe they can; I believe in behaviour modification, but that you need to have the desire to make the changes in yourself.
            My friend believes that every action of our lives is set in stone.Your genes predispose your actions and thus you are doomed by them.

            This reminds me of The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom which I believe was removed from publication because of the threat of a fatwah from the Islamic community, although I saw it advertised on the net recently.

            I cannot think of a book which depressed me so much, that there is an evil gene and that no amount of behaviour modification will change that evil.

            You can see I am just grasping at straws here, I don’t know too much about it all, just what I have read, so would be extremely pleased with some input from you on your thoughts on the subject.

            Thanks,

            shadows

          3. Grasping at straws is better than dogma
            At least, when grasping at straws, a number of things happen of which:

            There is a willful effort to coordinate one’s own energy into words without necessarily following a train of thoughts and I find that helpful in breaking the mold.

            It helps getting closer, better acquainted with one’s own energy, if it is done outside of the confines of preformed thought patterns.

            I feel this is a greater process than that of parroting beliefs without any input from oneself that would otherwise help redirect, correct and refine the information vehiculed.

            ___________________________

            We tend to seek answers on what makes us this and what makes us that in mechanics that would be agreeable upon. Genetics is an example.

            Now, I am obviously not against seeking the understanding of the mechanical aspects of the body. What we don’t do though is step back and look at the psychological mechanisms. We don’t look freely at what makes us think one way or another.

            Whether we are conditioned by our genes or by our environments or by the electro-chemical reactions that happen in our nervous system is in a sense irrelevant if in any case we will blame those mechanisms to state that nothing could be done anyway since this is the way it works.

            I see this a bit like alcoholism. To realize that you are ill is the beginning of a cure. It does not change the fact that you are alcoholic and minimize the physiological and psychological impacts that this condition may create but what it does is change the way you view your experience and redirect the way that the suffering can be channeled to eventually explode the condition (in other words make a real decision and go against the conditioning through an act of will).

            It is also interesting to note that materialist conclusions forfeit by their very nature any concept of free will and even of freedom, which then instead becomes a concept of permissiveness that we rename freedom. In the end, our concepts of freedom are much more cultural than they are real. It would for instance be a contradiction to say that you will bring freedom to the world where in reality you are imposing them your cultural ideology on what freedom should be.

            Like alcoholics, we are most often in a state of denial. Things that surround us must either conform to what we want to believe in or we tend to deny their reality.

            This mechanism alone is anti-evolutionary and has more impact on our ability to see than any gene concept. It is also a mechanism that we will readily recognize in others but rarely in ourselves.

            It is a mechanism that is protected by pride and its attachment to ideologies by association to a group when social functions are implied.

            This is a base mechanism that sucks us back into our ignorance, forcing us to endlessly refuse anything that is not already accepted. It is also a mechanism that denies its own existence and is reinforced by the belief of being right and this is a right that will be imposed upon others if possible; if not, denial will kick in.

            This mechanism also has some protective properties for if we were to instantaneously realize where we are wrong, the egotic edifice would very likely collapse and the ego would lose all impressions of will, unless there was sufficient force in it to support its own reality.

            I would make here a parallel to what we were told to the effect that you could not see god and survive. In a sense you could say that we could not see ourselves and survive as we are (or remain as we were).

            The realization that the condition is within our psychic patterns rewires the way existential suffering is used. It can be a great dynamo in the process of breaking away from our own shell. Otherwise, it only serves the experience of humanity and the progress of the race and its social mechanisms instead of serving the subject of the pain.

            If we are to suffer in this experience, might as well have it serve our own evolution. It does not appear to me that it has been the case in the past, especially in view of the state of the world and that of ‘human’ psychology.

            The ego does not want to change, regardless of all his affirmations to the contrary. He must be forced through a realization shock to change even so slightly at all. When we say that we changed, it is much more through the accumulation of the conditioning factors of the consciousness of failure. If not, we become conditioned in our reinforced impression of having been right and in our arrogance, which creates an umbrella of false force, which could be destroyed by a future failure, usually where we expect it the least.

            The only real force or power that the ego may have is that of being able to see through his illusions without breaking down. The condition for this to be possible is that there must be a certain amount of light within, otherwise even what the ego thinks are his forces but are really only the produce of a conditioning that made his life program possible and his actions predicable will fall like the rest of his illusions only leaving an empty heap behind.

            This is also why we seek the strength of the many by association because intuitively we know that we are really powerless and it is also why we seek to impose our cultural values because it secures or gives us a false feeling of security by suggesting that we are creating continuity and stability and permanence.

            The only thing that is permanent is consciousness and, this is something that we have arguably not achieved yet.

            We must firstly undo what we are not, namely our conditioning which is the result of forces external to our consciousness and define ourselves by ourselves which means create our own consciousness by our own consciousness. This can only be done outside of any conditioning or attitude.

            Attitudes will never replace reality.

          4. Fantastic stuff!
            Thanks Richard,
            I have to say that once I read your post 3 or 4 times and absorbed what you were saying I had to agree.
            It takes a brave person to go against the indoctrination and values placed upon him by his society.
            It also means that once you do you either become a prophet or a pariah.
            I have found through my own experience that most people live in complete denial, as per what Griffiths says in A Species in Denial.
            Someone told me once that it is easier to cope that way and she was right.
            For myself,I need the truth of what really is, and believe through my own life experiences that there is nothing you cannot change about yourself and your perceptions if you so desire.
            I do think though that there are basic truths that come with the territory.
            I wrote once before in this forum that there are some things you know are true, that you don’t imbibe with your mother’s milk, nor learn from anyone, nor see from life experience, they just are.
            These are that you treat everyone the way you wish to be treated and that the little we know of the universe is too miniscule to be all there is.

            Thanks Richard for taking the trouble, it is sometimes a little difficult for me to understand at first but I work on it.

            Regards,

            shadows

          5. Difficulty of understanding
            Hi again,

            I definitely agree that some things you know and are inherent to your consciousness. These things are those that you know, not those that you understand.

            This would lead to the principle that what is important is not what we understand or what we believe but what we know.

            Not what we are convinced of, since conviction is just another form of conditioning but simply what we ‘really’ know.

            Not what we think we know because we learned/read it from whoever said it but what is in total agreement with a certain aspect of reality which is not acquired but rather a part of a certain level of integrated reality or the little light that we have within.

            Things are hard to understand because we are used to think to understand and what is real cannot be thought with forms.

            What you know is not something that you can think; it is something that you could say.

            It could be said that there is nothing to understand but that everything is known.

            And like what you know, what is cannot be contested. It may be argued but arguments are outside the framework of this energy. Arguments are the battlements of the psychological consciousness trying to protect its profile against intrusions from reality thus creating a false reason that perpetuates ignorance.

            You have a good sensibility because of your ability to see that you know, not because you can or cannot understand. Understanding is the realm of the lower mental, not that of the ‘higher self’. Understanding is the result of conditioned mechanisms applied to acquired memory using words or concepts for comparative and repertory purposes that bear, like all human values, relative emotional weights. That is the intellect.

            As much as the intellect has some purpose to condition our interaction with our experimental environment, as much has it no ability to deal with what is outside of its experience.

            Btw, it is no trouble at all, it is an opportunity for me to attempt at refining these things.

          6. Grateful and thank you both!
            Dear Richard and Shadow, I have truly enjoyed the previous posts. This is why I come to TDG, it’s a wonderful moment when one realizes that there are others who are on this “road less traveled” blazing the trail, thank goodness for the internet as I would have never “met” such fine minds and bright spirits. I am humbly honored and deeply grateful. Sincerely, Pam —————————–Truth is stranger than fiction.

          7. knowing
            I always think that small children know what is…..they see what is really there and not what we tell them is there.
            Not until they get to about 5 years old and have learned to “behave”.
            Which really means to think the way adults want them to think.
            I believe that scientists a hundred years ago believed that small children represented the early stages of man’s development and thus were little savages.
            Savages of course thought with the right brain and thus were intuitive and not logical.
            And supposedly when logic kicked in,the world changed dramatically.
            Is this true?
            I personally have trouble with the exactness of this theory,believing as I do that our brain did not evolve but came ready made.
            I do think that children know the answers though.
            Hope I am not too far off track here,but it is a fascinating subject for me, and it is rare to find someone who can and will expain.

            Regards,

            shadows

          8. Children know the answer?
            I don’t know that children know the answer. Children are more automated and seem to follow a pattern totally based on intuition though. The intellect not being formed yet, they have no tool to discern what comes to them. On the other hand, they do not distort information either.

            If they don’t have a ‘spirit’ ’till about the age of 7, they are more tele-guided so to speak and tend to generally react on the immediate need for comfort. (Used to be and still is in most countries in development the immediate need for survival.)

            The very young child thus would not have an ego yet since the ego would be the contact point in the ‘ray’ of the spirit that intersects the ‘volume’ of the soul.

            In that view, one could say that a very young child is totally ‘Astral’ in its consciousness, which of course would make him totally ‘contemplative’ in nature. This would be why these young ones would not be to apply any judgment and would be totally absorbent to the ideas and conditionings to which they are exposed.

            Then, as they grow older, they have to contend with that colorization that is the result of very early child education which way too often is the product of a total lack of direction but, instead, that of a total system of conditioning.

            It becomes the track that will be used to judge, evaluate and deal with the environment, the seed by which the intellect will develop a particular basic mechanism that will dictate the way it will apprehend information. It is not a capacity to know by oneself through the proper development of lucidity, which requires the development for the capacity for not being influenced. Instead, the child is set on the track of learning how to influence others, starting with psychological blackmail. We must realize that this is the basic mechanism that stems both from the survival instinct of the children and from that acquired through and from the mothers’ maternal instinct.

            So, do I consider that young children know all or know better? No. Do I consider that young children are more sensible to other aspects of reality? Yes.

            What you imply, saying that the kids have learned to ‘behave’ in other words have been given particular boundaries that make particular thought forms acceptable or not, I agree with. If instead of giving such hard coded boundaries we strived to convey the ability to think and see by oneself, we would make our kids freer and they might retain some of their original connections with the invisible.

            It is the parent’s responsibility to start the education of the child even when he is still in the cradle. Unfortunately, since our parents only knew what their own parents told them, and that passed down the line since times immemorial, they would not have known better.

            Education at that age is the direction and initial impulsion given to the young absorbing psyche. We allow these children to abuse their survival reflexes and that eventually lead to virtual vampirism and manipulative attitudes when they grow older. This does not go away. Instead, they should have been given a direction that emphasizes the control over self over the control over others. They will of course use the same manipulative attitudes in the upbringing of their own kids one day in the hope to insure ties and obligations to the family cell and themselves by extension. Unfortunately, this is at the expense of total freedom of the mind.

          9. Hi Richard
            Richard, I lost this thread and have been searching for it.
            Oh, you are a dear man to reply the way you do, and it warms my heart.
            You call children astral….stunning.
            You say that chldren are more sensible to other aspects of reality…
            yes yes yes.
            The behaviours you mention,virtual vampirism and manipulation by children not allowed to use their survival reflexes I have seen with my own eyes.
            I have 2 deeply spiritual grandchildren as i have mentioned here before, and they have been allowed to some extent to be who they are, apart from school.
            What do you think of small children who tell you stories of who they were before they were born, and others who have invisible friends.
            Other realities I suppose, but I am a bit iffy on reincarnation, so wonder about the little ones who can tell you things at the age of two about stuff they could not possibly know.
            I also think that TV at too early an age is not good for children,they need to be their contemplative selves for a few years.
            Thank you for your reply.I value your words.

            shadows

          10. Childrens are ‘Astral’
            Hi there Shadows,

            You wrote:
            “What do you think of small children who tell you stories of who they were before they were born, and others who have invisible friends.”

            When I say that children are totally ‘Astral’, I am directly referring to the ‘little friend’. Because the spirit of that man has not yet established itself within the child, a telepathic connection between the incarnated entity and an entity of service from the Astral is kept going. This link is created to maintain reflexes and attitudes that are useful for the kid’s survival. It is also the induction of this energy that creates the damaging attitudes that will follow that kid until he reaches a more mature age.

            The function of this ‘Astral’ mechanism is not for the benefit of the evolution of the individual entity but, rather, it is for the benefit of the progress and the survival of the race through basic mechanisms such as the family and the emotional/karmic ties that are the glue of the family cell. This is used to create a continuity in the cultural process, keeping then the individual psychologically prisoner of his family and an active vector in the perpetuation of his race. This in turn maintains the controlled experimental petri dish environment that supports the soul in its refinement through experience.

            The stories of other lives or previous lives could very well be the stories as told by these entities through the psychic channel of the kid.

            You also said:
            “I also think that TV at too early an age is not good for children, they need to be their contemplative selves for a few years.”

            Is not watching TV a contemplative and passive act?

            Watching TV would be fine were the kids properly coached by their parents in understanding what they see. I still somewhat agree with you though since we have no control on the impact that the images can have on the little ones and that the real quality of TV today is to not be real, being the reflection of the general level of unconsciousness.

            Where I find that the problem is even more serious is with the parents themselves.

            Children are not allowed to learn to think for themselves. They are trained to follow the tracks laid by the beliefs that are those of the parents who themselves very rarely (if ever) really think for themselves or should I say ‘by themselves’. But can we really blame the parents who had to bear the same kind of direction from their own who got theirs from their own and so on?

            Children as they grow older usually don’t remember the state of mentality that they had at that age. What they remember is more the shapeless impressions that were left by things that happened around them or things they saw, people’s activities and so on. They don’t have actual memory of ‘thoughts’. At best, they usually may remember dreams and mental images, perhaps sounds and things that were said around them.

            What the children say is not so much what they say themselves than what is being said through them. They are really a ‘soul incarnated’ from the moment that they start breathing and that is the source of their contemplative state. As a matter of fact, I would say that the experience of the young child on this planet (under 7 years of age) is the closest thing to the consciousness of being dead that we may have experienced while in this life.

            Once the spirit takes its seat in the channel, the ego is created through its interaction with the soul. It is then that begins the internal dialogue, which is perceived as the thought process because of the interferences that remain through the original ‘Astral’ channel and that expresses itself with the ‘I’.

            We should learn to help children retain their sensibility. This is very difficult if we have lost our own though. If children were coached in recognizing their thoughts for what they are, they would not rely on them on such an absolute way as if it was the absolute expression of their reality and might even be able to realize the ‘schizophrenic’ nature of the human psyche, meaning that he might be able to realize that he is both here and there although he can only be conscious of being there through the knowledge that his thoughts are in reality the result of a telepathic communication network. Once adult, they would not always believe (hopefully they would never believe) what they think and would know to ‘really’ question themselves. This is the only way out of our experimental consciousness and into our evolution that I can see as I write this.

            The realization of the true nature of our psyche needs to be uncovered and for this, every stone of our garden must be upturned. Interestingly, the one stone that we never care to upturn is the relationship between the thought process, our personality that is a creation meant to keep us on track and our essential nature.

          11. new perspective
            Hi Richard,
            I have been digesting your last post, and find it very interesting as usual.That is a totally new perspective for me,that a child’s thoughts are the result of a telepathic communication network.
            If this is the case,and they are being directed, as it were,where do you think the idea of reincarnation comes from?
            Do you believe in reincarnation?

            I think that the earlier that children begin watching TV the less likely they are to be in touch with their souls.
            When you say that you should not believe what you think, how must children fare who watch TV from a very young age and don’t even know how to think.I get furious when I see children plonked in front of the TV to be amused, and I get furious with our culture for putting on TV the absolute garbage they do.
            TV takes away a child’s chldhood, that precious time when they slowly become focused on the world and where they are in it.I know children who cannot tell the difference between their life and a sitcom.

            When you say our personality is a creation meant to keep us on track,how do mean that?
            I have always felt that we are victims of our personalities, that we can do things to change our behaviour,but our personalities are ours forever.

            Interesting stuff….sorry if I don’t seem quite up with you, Richard,I am slow, but usually get there in the end.

            salutations,

            shadows

          12. To not seem does not mean to not be
            Hi again Shadows,

            “That is a totally new perspective for me, that a child’s thoughts are the result of a telepathic communication network”

            What is implied here is that if it is the case for a child, it is also the case for the adult except for the addition of the ‘spirit’ part, which creates the ego that is the center of the impression of oneself.

            The ego then projects its lack of reality into a personality which is a temporary construction that serves several purposes of which, mainly, the feeling of false security held together with the belief mechanism and the impression of being someone through the characterization of the persona which is a conditioning applied through the thought and emotional filters of the soul’s experimentation.

            All this stemming from the fact that the ego has not yet integrated the energy of the spirit which still has to integrate the energy of the soul for the eventual creation of an integrated man. This allows the continuation of interferences induced through the ego, which is more a channel than it is a person but which is totally necessary for the evolution of those that are meant to evolve in that direction.

            The integration of all those energies will severe access to any energy not directly under the control of the individualized consciousness, transforming the subjective thought form into a subjective communication. Man then becomes the center of his consciousness rather than being subjected to experimental suggestions and conditioning. Man becomes the creator of his consciousness and not the subject of an experiment.

            Our need to believe in anything is directly related to the unreality of our consciousness, which needs some anchor to feel secure. The ego intuitively knows that it is subject to be the center of the consciousness of the incarnated entity so it seeks to see itself as conscious. Being that important connection that is used to control the incarnated entity, what some call the battle for the souls ends up being fought through the ego and its susceptibility to being totally gullible.

            “where do you think the idea of reincarnation comes from”

            Reincarnation is the forced return of the energy of the soul in the experimental confine of this planet’s astral energy. It is the phenomenon that allows, by extension, the dead (or the memory) to perpetuate the tuning of the memory of the soul according to a plan, which is part of the will of the ‘Astral entity’. It is also the only mean for the dead to evolve because of the separation that happens between the soul and the spirit while not in the material experience.

            This is made possible because of the separation that exists between the soul and its creator-spirit that needed a vehicle capable of absorbing a certain amount of energy and that was necessary for the eventual development of the intellect, this memory processing system that is today considered to be the intelligence of man.

            While in the world of the dead, the soul, which is contemplative in nature, cannot live from experience but is rather forced to perpetuate the state of its memory. In order to refine its state, it must go back to the material experience. Since the only nature of the ‘Astral” world is memorial in essence, the Luciferian plane-entity needs the connection to the material plane to further perfect its overall nature. It organizes the level of the civilizations and the relative cultural movements that create the world dynamics and that serve the purpose of its own evolution. Once the soul has reincarnated, the spirit component eventually reconnects thus creating the ego and the experimental machinery is put into gear again, with the purpose to fulfill the life plan of the reincarnated entity until the link is severed again at the moment of death which forces every component to go back to its original world. The body goes back to dust, the soul goes back to its contemplative world and the spirit remains in its realm.

            The idea of reincarnation simply comes from the unconscious memory of the fact as well as from what was taught to man, either telepathically, intuitively (which somehow are very similar) and, sometimes, from direct teaching in schools and indoctrination centers that exist on that plane.

            “I think that the earlier that children begin watching TV the less likely they are to be in touch with their souls”

            The way I see this, they are souls therefore, they don’t need so much to be in contact with it.

            On the other hand, TV acts like thoughts to them. It is like the dream like state of death and looks like the memorial replay of a consciousness. This is useful to the Astral-entity to indoctrinate the young minds to the fast changing values that are needed to maintain the fabric of the collective tissue in the way that is currently needed to insure the direction taken by a certain part of humanity.

            “When you say that you should not believe what you think, how must children fare who watch TV from a very young age and don’t even know how to think. I get furious when I see children plonked in front of the TV to be amused, and I get furious with our culture for putting on TV the absolute garbage they do”

            I understand and agree with you.

            “TV takes away a child’s childhood, that precious time when they slowly become focused on the world and where they are in it. I know children who cannot tell the difference between their life and a sitcom”

            Is it really just the TV though? What could be done in a family to circumvent that problem? How can parents that can’t create their own thoughts direct their kids in their firs steps, which are crucial in forging the initial mold that will force steer what will be the future adult? No matter where we look, there is a roadblock. Whether it is institutional disinformation and manipulation, whether they are the already digested parental misguided values and in their ignorance of themselves, whether it is the influences that will begin when the kid first steps out of the house and whether it is the thought process which will totally direct the destiny of the individual, it seems that there is no issue.

            It has been said that man can’t help himself. The only issue I can see is through the eventual direct intervention of the spirit of man within man.

            “When you say our personality is a creation meant to keep us on track, how do mean that?
            I have always felt that we are victims of our personalities, that we can do things to change our behaviour, but our personalities are ours forever.”

            Our personality is a creation that gives us a false impression of being. It creates the illusion of free will. We are not the creators of our personalities, they are made through directed psychological interpretations of the experiences that we are dumped into. Our personality magnetize thus the focus of our consciousness and is validated through the interactions of the thought process and the need to associate and identify to something. If man’s consciousness was ‘real’, there would be no need for heroes, for models, no need to paraphrasing since we would say what ‘we’ have to say. Rather, we take on the stance of the soul, a creature of memory with no creative power, so we identify to either our intellectual evaluation of that memory and that of humanity by parroting what we have read in books.

            We are victims of our ignorance and that of humanity. Our personalities are only reasonances of our interpretation of the world. We are victims of our personalities in the sense that they are a snapshot of our conditioning. We change our behaviors when we are shown no other recourse. Our personalities are not ours so much as we belong to them. They are temporary constructs since they are replaced with a clean slate at the time of reincarnation so that the new life plan can be put into place in accordance with the current experimental parameters offered by the new-born’s environment. That is why there is not direct psychological memory of past lives.

            On another note, guess this thread is becoming thin because of the way it indents the texts. Perhaps, if you wish to pursue this conversation, we could get a new thread started?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal