And Then There Was One: 9/11. the Last Holdout....
Posted by shadowmom at 20:07, 27 Jul 2007Not to worry, this is not about truth seekers or conspiracy theories. It’s not about the long list of anomalies and discrepancies in the official story of 9/11. It’s not even about the undeniable fact that the events of 9/11 gave George Bush and his handlers the keys to the neocon kingdom of empire. It really is not.
What it’s about is the strangest phenomenon I can recall in my entire adult life. It’s about what I perceive to be an extraordinary lapse in the logic of millions of otherwise sensible Americans. And it’s about something I cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how I try. Maybe someone out there can help me understand what’s going on.
In preface, let me also say that this is not about being uninformed. Granted, the corporate media have suppressed any discussion, debate or investigative reporting about the attacks on the United States that purportedly ‘changed everything.’ That reality aside, even the most fawn-like pundits on the airwaves understand that the ship of state is sinking, and that it is time to challenge the lies of this administration. But, it seems that lie after lie has become fair game for disclosure, or at least for some discussion at this point. As a result, each day, the American people in larger and larger numbers understand that they have been taken for a terrible and costly ride by the lies they were told by this President and his cohorts.
That is, every lie but one.
My full article, here:
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=648
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- shadowmom's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
29 March 2006
2 years 19 weeks
"You can fool some of the people all of the time." PT Barnum.
There is a gradual increase in the numbers who see this big lie. This is indicated by the declining Bush approval rating.
One problem is that there are around 50 different theories of which most or all are unacceptable as "the truth." We need a legitimate scientific investigation. That will take a lot of people putting aside their favorite theories, and will take all of us working together to figure out what really happened on 911.
This will happen: if not sooner, at least latter. Because "You can't fool all the people all the time." PT Barnum.
P. S. Thanks for such a well thought out article.
Caroline M
12 July 2007
4 weeks 1 day
The Zeitgeist vid cites many theories on the mass behaviour patterns of the Human species, the almost primeval need or desire to be in severe conflict with an enemy, any enemy will do, such phenomena is seen on a milder scale, although not always as it often escalates to violence, in the minds of the football supporter backing a particular team/tribe? and being excited and gratified by the confrontation of a rival team. When an enemy is spoonfed to the masses that's fine, it's easy, the fact that it has happened throughout history, i.e. the Nazi extreme political and hate campaigns of the 1930's and 40's the masses wound up by effective oratory and example, repeated over and over until it's embedded in the psyche of the people, those who listened came to believe, were taught to hate, they were as fledglings with their mouths wide open, waiting to be fed. Many religions are motivated by the same processes, and now the multi media is an information/ disinformation highway straight into the minds of their resident fledglings, and as Zeitgeist points out, conflict equals dollars
29 March 2006
2 years 19 weeks
Why don't we all agree that ET caused 911. Then we can hate an unknown enemy while all the world's people can cooperate and work together to make sure ET doesn't blow up any more buildings. I think President Reagan thought up that idea. I vaguely remember it. It is just as good as many of the other theories people are putting together.
Or ... we can can do the hard work and investigate the real cause. End the lies and work for the truth. This is not an easy task ahead of us, but one that must be done. The consequences of grabbing for the easy answers are dire.
Caroline M
1 May 2004
3 min 59 sec
September 10th and 11th. Red, White and Blue Flu, National Strike. Call in sick, take a vacation day. Maybe the car won't start? And most important, nobody buy gas! Fill up your car before hand, so you don't have to for these two days. Or take public transportation. The 10th and 11th of September. 2 days of work slowdowns, and stoppages. And no one buys gas! Its completely passive. We all seem to blog, and we all send messages to other people. So lets pass the note around the room.(But not at work)See what we can start.Sure beats signing another petition. Or calling and begging your congressperson to do something. Here's our chance as Americans to do something, by doing nothing. And for all our other mate's around the world. Don't buy gas on these 2 days. Let's be heard!
http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5066
29 March 2006
2 years 19 weeks
I'm in! We need a grass roots response.
While at it, why are we all waiting around for someone to reopen the 911 investigation. Why don't we all have a grass roots investigation? If the politicians won't get out of the way, just go around them.
Caroline M
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Consider the consequences of acknowledging that the official tales of 9/11 are screwy (with few beyond participants knowing what actually happened in detail, save that it definitely has "military involvement" written all over it), both in the population at large (already many do, but certainly not the majority) and officially, followed and backed up by undeniable and credible corroboration appearing in the mainstream media.
I suggest _this_ is a major factor here, as any such acknowledgment will firmly destroy a large number of deeply held basic beliefs about America while bringing its stature in the world to an absolute all-time low. In other words, I can easily imagine powerful folks in government and the media who had nothing whatsoever to do with this but, strongly suspecting that 9/11 was not even close to being what it seemed to be, would rather not weaken the U.S. by focusing on this.
Another considerable factor is that we're dealing with murder here -- who would talk, knowing that doing so would likely lead to their own murder? This applies to many, both within government and media. (Others can be safely called "conspiracy theorists.")
I believe it's _possible_ that individual pieces of whatever actually happened shall emerge (in the official media), in which case the whole edifice shall come tumbling down, but I wouldn't bet on it happening soon.
Ugly words like "blackmail" enter into such a possibility (this gets very political, of course, involving unknown clutches of members of the military and government) but consider, again, the extreme danger to anyone who has, perhaps, saved actual evidence. They would have to be _very_ careful about what they did with this, who they told, and so on, like some film noire set in post-WWII Berlin or Vienna.
The days leading up to the next election are likely to be very interesting....
Bill I.
13 April 2007
1 year 33 weeks
I'm not an American, I'm a Brit, and I can lay accusations about the style of government in the UK today as Americans lay at the White House. Further, I don't accept conspiracy theory as able to disclose anything. Large organisations leak like sieves and always have. Conspiracies are quickly known, not just suspected.
As such, I accept that 9/11 was just what it appeared. Yet without the need for conspiracy theory, it is evident the US was not prepared, and equally evident that Bush quickly manipulated things towards a 'plan' he never believed would come about.
None of this is conspiracy. It's common sense. What is hard to understand is the public's apparent acquiescence about what is going on. But even this is relatively easy to work out. Both in the US and the UK a simple question speaks out. Would any alternaitve government today be any different?
Yes, there'd be differences is style, in hype, in PR, but the simple fact is, western governments lost power years ago. The only power is in the hands of multi-nationals, who control economies.
I'm waiting for the day when there ARE conspiracies once more - conspiracies from the people, chattering amongst themselves that they CAN do something about it. And this doesn't mean not buying gas/petrol for a couple of days, but changing lifestyle, permanently, to the point that the multi-nationals collapse and return the economy to smaller, more manageable enterprises, allowing government to govern once more.
Then, and only then, can we look to the dangerous idiots in power in the UK and US, and present an alternative. Until then, politics as we know it has been suspended, folks.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
"Large organisations leak like sieves and always have."
At the core of this event is no large organization whatsoever, whether you believe the official version or some other; further, even very minor yet quite glaring pieces of the official version have been completely ignored by news organizations. This is not completely odd, all things considered, yet consider how the Watergate Conspiracy came to light and what anyone might believe, today, had two persistent reporters not persisted then.
"Conspiracies are quickly known, not just suspected."
This a kind of blanket statement or belief that is untrue, particularly when dealing with the U.S. government, famous for such activity for decades. It applies quite well, for example, to a great deal of Cold War CIA activity only revealed relatively recently. (Note that a number of aged Cold War warriors "re-enlisted" in the Bush administration.)
One reality that is very different now, in 2007, is the existence of the Internet and related technologies. Two people took photos (one a still, the other video) the morning of 9/11, showing a plane above the restricted White House airspace. The existence of this plane then and there has been officially denied, yet the photos can be found on the Internet and the plane has been identified as one of four "Flying Pentagons."
This is one small example of a great many wherein no news organization has even bothered to exert the slightest effort to investigate, part of a larger and very disturbing pattern.
The climate of fear that sprung up after 9/11 includes a great deal of stamping "top secret" on all manner of information, part of this overall pattern.
This is not common in less 'charged' situations and is a factor worth considering when pondering why we've had a situation in which what, under ordinary circumstances, would have been a "hot story" no newspaper or television network would think of passing up is ignored, without even cub reporters sent out to make very basic investigations, even if only to dispel rumors.
"..the simple fact is, western governments lost power years ago. The only power is in the hands of multi-nationals, who control economies."
This is simplistic in some ways, ignoring a very complex array of forces and personalities that include governments and citizens, as well as multi-national corporations and their many employees and other forces of considerable strength well beyond anyone's conscious "control."
This is a very complicated dance, in other words, one that has been happening for a very long time but one that is reaching a climax after amazing acceleration over the last century or so.
"I'm waiting for the day when there ARE conspiracies once more - conspiracies from the people, chattering amongst themselves that they CAN do something about it. And this doesn't mean not buying gas/petrol for a couple of days, but changing lifestyle, permanently, to the point that the multi-nationals collapse and return the economy to smaller, more manageable enterprises, allowing government to govern once more."
I suggest this is one probable direction of a great many, but that the overall pattern is towards globalization and something else you might not have considered as you create bogeymen out of the big bad multi-national corporations and their equally big bad government allies.
If you treat globalization (and the Internet, too -- particularly its near-term direction with such technologies as WiMax about to emerge in a big way) symbolically, you can begin to perceive this "something else."
This has been called many things over the years and new terms are always being coined. This is the limit that acceleration in technology and population increase (and other trends) approach. Its flavor varies depending on the beliefs of those who imagine it, from apocalyptic (by a great many religionists) to "the singularity" (by the technologists) and even to "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius" or "The Birth of the New Age" by others, years ago, no matter that few take them at all seriously now.
Even so, there is a certain reality to all of these references.
In my own circles, some call this coming event "The Big Show."
My own personal variation focuses on changes in consciousness, a wholesale incorporation of what has been deemed "intuitive" into the predominant (and quite symbolically male, since Mesopotamian times) mode of intellect.
Analysis alone cannot do justice to this, as that involves only part of mind and mostly the conscious egoic mind at that.
This event involves deeper regions of self long denied expression within official societal beliefs; its full manifestation may take as long as another fifty or seventy years but, even so, an individual can partake of it now, simply by exploring those regions of self beyond the machinations of the tiny and restricted ego.
Seen in this light, 9/11 becomes part of the downfall of ego-boundedness and the symbolically masculine pattern it is a great part of.
Regards
Bill I.
http://www.realitytest.com
29 March 2006
2 years 19 weeks
Interesting point Anthony abou the fact that "western governments lost power years ago. The only power is in the hands of multi-nationals, who control economies."
One of consequences of knowing exactly what happen with 911 could be a world wide economic collapse. The multinationals do not want that.
I also liked the comment you made about conspiracies from the people. This is exactly what we need to do, and while not using gas for two days is insuffient, it is a start in the right direction. I would like to see the people have the power again.
Caroline M
13 April 2007
1 year 33 weeks
Hi Caroline M,
Thanks for that. Yes, not using gas for two days is a start, but we have to be careful that this doesn't satisfy most of those taking part that this is enough. Campaigns like this have been done in Europe before, and it seemed to be the start of somethin good ... but ... is satisfied them. They went back to old routines, and felt justified in doing so, having 'made a stand.'
I don't know whether it would work in the US, but I'm convinced one answer in the UK is to subvert political parties and encourage independent politicians, untainted by the handshake of big business. If you're interested, I write about it here:
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/...
Hi Bill,
I think we've debated the merits of big business before, and I don't see the need to do so again. As for conspiracy theory, let us just say they ARE right, which I do not believe. What is the implication for society?
The subject is viewed, by the majority, as rubbish. Hence, the existence of conspiracy theorists actually play into the hands of those supposedly doing the conspiring. Great, it's out in the open, and not believed because they're thought of as mad. Either way, you cannot win.
As for consciousness, etc, yes I think it is correct that we are living in a masculine, ego consciousness. I'd explain it as a form of living called 'linear' - a process that began in the early city-states and confirmed by monotheism as being a process of advancement.
The previous form of consciousness exists in eastern philosophies, and is known as 'cyclic', with everything going in cycles back to a beginning and continuance. Anthropological studies suggest this was practiced by all tribal societies, and it manifested in a distinct 'feminine' psychology, remembered today with Mother Earth.
Will there be some resurgence of cyclic consciousness? In one way I hope not, for it would mean a slowing down - maybe even an end - to advancement. However, on this subject, you might find my post 'Climate Change and Phenomena' interesting, linked to on the latest Weekend Roundup.
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Anthony writes:
"I think we've debated the merits of big business before, and I don't see the need to do so again."
Dear Anthony:
I'm not sure we have but I'm not particularly interested in doing so at the moment, anyway, lacking the time.
Short version: I'm no defender of large corporations at all but they can be viewed impartially as a present reality, one which is essential to our existence. No instant alternative is available and chaos would result were they to vanish tonight. The overwhelming majority of employees are simply ordinary human beings doing their best to survive in our present mass reality, no matter that some picture the entire matrix of government and business as 'evil.' It is what it is, the result of millennia of human creativity.
I believe the underlying belief structures behind corporate entities (and all modern institutions) are changing such that they shall be rendered obsolete relatively swiftly in terms of historical time, but even though these changes are already in process it will still take some time for them to play out.
"As for conspiracy theory, let us just say they ARE right, which I do not believe. What is the implication for society? The subject is viewed, by the majority, as rubbish. Hence, the existence of conspiracy theorists actually play into the hands of those supposedly doing the conspiring. Great, it's out in the open, and not believed because they're thought of as mad. Either way, you cannot win."
You neglect the simple reality that the official government explanation is itself a "conspiracy theory," one that has not been rigorously backed up with evidence.
All I've said is that there is something very screwy about this official explanation. This is readily apparent to any intelligent observer willing to take a few hours and review what is freely available to anyone with Internet access.
Anyone who believes governments in general, the U.S. government in particular, and specifically the present U.S. government are always truthful is either from another planet or completely daft. This applies very much to anything it has said about this very charged event.
As for the implications or consequences, did you read my first response to shadowmom?
"As for consciousness, etc, yes I think it is correct that we are living in a masculine, ego consciousness. I'd explain it as a form of living called 'linear' - a process that began in the early city-states and confirmed by monotheism as being a process of advancement....The previous form of consciousness exists in eastern philosophies, and is known as 'cyclic', with everything going in cycles back to a beginning and continuance...."
I understand this somewhat differently, as you might expect, but then there are as many ways to view the history and future(s) of humanity as there are people.
Aside from my basic beliefs about this -- expressed below -- I also believe that certain major "wildcards" also apply; these are explored somewhat on my own website -- http://www.realitytest.com .
These include both the natural ability to transcend linear time -- by individuals or entire societies -- and what in some places are deemed "probable realities." (Note that I provide a very simple and effective way for anyone to access their own probable realities and verify their existence. This is from Jane Robert's Seth, a greatly undervalued teacher who focused on the nature of reality. Seth's "Preliminary Probable Self Exercise" is number 2. found at http://www.realitytest.com/doors.htm .)
Regarding great cycles of history and so on, I believe that humanity began to collectively restrict its basic and natural awareness in many places -- not just in the West -- thousands of years ago, but this can be seen as a kind of deliberate experiment.
These restrictions ultimately resulted in the sort of everyday consciousness both you and I tend to experience now.
Features include beliefs that our selves end at the boundaries of our skin, that we are completely separate from everyone and everything, that our conscious intellects are in some way superior to all of our other faculties, that our senses are restricted to the famous five (related to that is the idea that physical reality is all of reality) and so on.
This can be connected with a symbolically masculine consciousness, all else deemed "feminine," the myths of millennia buttressing or reinforcing this pattern. (Such myths exist in Eastern societies, too, even if they have been a bit more "Catholic" in terms of their beliefs, practices, and mythologies).
What we have already entered is an entirely new era, however, not a return to a "pre-symbolically masculine" era.
There is no reason to completely discard the fruit of the above experiment (called in some places "The 6,000-year Ego Experiment").
This new era involves a blending of the symbolically masculine and feminine, a merging of intuition and intellect. Although certain Eastern traditions have pointed in this direction, no large civilization has ever fully incorporated such a mixture within our official probable past. (Exceptions can be found but those are best left to Enignmi Freak who is quite an enthusiast).
It's almost pointless to write about this _from an egoic perspective_, although I confess to enjoying the challenge of doing so.
The "feminine," the "intuitive" regions of self must of course include what has been called the "soul" in our societies, no matter that the concept has long been very distorted (and no matter that some particular souls or larger entities are quite masculine in many senses of the word); to properly discuss these patterns, then, really requires allowing or enabling your own soul to speak through you ("speak" can of course refer to that which flows through your fingertips as you type on your computer keyboard).
Regards
Bill I.
13 April 2007
1 year 33 weeks
Hi Bill,
I agree that just wiping out large corporations would be disaster for society, but the process should start - with a realisation that smaller enterprises are better. The tech would become simpler, but still do its job. Companies would again feel the need to take notice of the consumer, instead of treating him with disdain.
A government 'conspiracy' , in one sense, usually tries to hide their failings rather than anything malign. On a more general level, of course governments conspire against everyone. This is called politics. It doesn't need fancy tags.
Now I know we've discussed Seth before. On a more general area, I've written a great deal on there being a consciousness above the senses, connected to a higher spirituality, which I would class as bonding. You can find many of my posts in this area in the White Zone of the following:
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/...
As for a blending of intuition and intellect, I couldn't agree more. We lived in an inutuitive world until the creation of masculine hierarchies. We then lived in a religious world. It changed again about 400 years ago with the Scientific Revolution, when we entered a material, intellectual world. We need to merge them by giving intuition and religion a form of equality with science. Basically, end the seee-saw of history and find a compromise.
Of course, it will never happen to the satisfaction of all, but it would be a start. However, if the world is really going to change, the answer is, I'm sure, space. As I see it, the world we live in today is just marking time because we've chickened out of reaching out for the next frontier of the human - our insatiable curiosity.
...
I'm fanatical about moderation
Anthony North
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Anthony writes: "...if the world is really going to change, the answer is, I'm sure, space. As I see it, the world we live in today is just marking time because we've chickened out of reaching out for the next frontier..."
Dear Anthony:
I was long a fan of Captains Kirk, Picard, and Janeway and their collective mission (how much energy did those replicators consume? I'd love to own one, but not if this were to boost my electric bill into orbit).
At the same time, I've long been of the opinion that missions to inner space would be far more fruitful (and much less costly).
"I'm fanatical about moderation"
Hmm. You and I both are amongst the vast army of would-be pundits, our global expression enabled by present communications technology and its low cost.
Naturally, I view this as a marvelous opportunity, no matter that few of us are likely to become rich and famous, and an activity that can be quite fun as well, above and beyond enabling each of us to voluntarily practice our writing to a degree that would likely absolutely astound our high school English teachers, were they to see our output now.
I have been on-line since well before the rise of the public Internet, first discovering the joys and tribulations of on-line interaction in what was called "cyberspace" on the defunct private Delphi network in the early 80s, followed by years of interaction on mailing lists, before the consolidation of providers and before advertising appeared next to posts (and even before anyone had thought of spam, if you can imagine that).
I'm a tuckered out old fellow, then, by the standards of our accelerated electronic existence, metaphorically toothless while holding a very large ear trumpet to my ear as I hobble about. "Could you say that again, please, sonny?" I might mumble, as I try to remember who I am and what day it is.
One fact of cyberlife reared its ugly head years ago in my experience, and that is a tendency for nearly everyone to believe that they are right, everyone who might disagree with them wrong; great energy has been expended over the years in this unceasing battle of personal belief.
A similar set of operating beliefs deal with one's high opinion of one's own beliefs and the way they might express these -- better than anyone else, of course.
After my first shocked exposure to this, I very gradually adapted to its reality, at times donning thick armor and even engaging in a bit of swordplay, at other times learning to simply walk away from combat, but I also realized that a bit of criticism is very useful when it comes to our would-be punditry, even mine.
Learning how to deal with this effectively can be a great and stimulating challenge. Everyone has their own concepts, however, of when this is useful and when it is not, when it has crossed some kind of line.
When you say you are "fanatical about moderation" I wonder what this means -- isn't "fanatical" a bit extreme? Does this mean you cannot tolerate the slightest objection to your views?
I inhabit a number of so called "Web 2.0" sites and participate in quite a few discussions on diverse topics. Moderation is practiced somewhat differently in every one of these places -- what is considered moderate in one place may be considered extreme in another and vice versa. This is no different from the varying policies and styles of old time mailing list administrators and moderators.
(It's also true that I always, inevitably, encounter someone with whom I share perspectives, opinions, and beliefs, but who is so much more effective at expressing these than me, so much more learned in terms of references, correspondences, and so on, that I eventually bow to their abilities -- if somewhat begrudgingly at first -- doing my best to appreciate them and their abilities. Thus does the Internet also offer us the opportunity to be humbled.)
I suggest that the very best moderation is not at all fanatical, instead allowing for a degree of contention and criticism sufficient to enable a healthy stimulation and a broadening of belief for those open to that. Ideally, this contributes to the creation of an environment of trust and good fellowship, but that is not always possible to maintain in all situations. I prefer civility, too, but once in great while enjoy a ringside seat at a battle in which civility goes out the window.
Of course this can go too far, but then no one is seriously injured by any of this, beyond wounded vanity or bruised hubris.
This is just my own opinion, of course.
Regards
Bill I.
13 April 2007
1 year 33 weeks
Hi Bill,
I do believe you're an old cynic. By the way, re Star Trek. You missed out Sisko. I suspect you were reading Ms Roberts at the time.
By reference to 'I'm fanatical about moderation', this is a contradiction on purpose. Maybe we're fellow old cynics.
No, seriously, I, too, would rather explore inner space. But inner space is forever a reflection of what we do 'outside'. Our past has been one of curiosity. If there's something to explore, we do it. Until we ended up in this present world which has made you as you are.
Break the circuit, I think, and get on with humanity's natural pre-occupation, which is space, the 'last froniter' (where have I heard that before). But look at it in another way.
Evolution suggests that we only have what we need. If we refer to Teilhard de Chardin or Henri Bergson, we can place this principle on the planet. It only has what it needs.
Does this suggest a joint effort is required to lift off into space proper - an enterprise involving the whole world? Maybe this is what is needed to finally attempt to bring us together (Not, I might add, in a cultural or governmental way, but a means to allow our diversity within a form of cooperation).
As I said earlier, inner space is forever a reflection of what we do outside. So by going out into the universe in a physical way, could we find its reflection within ourselves?
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
22 November 2004
2 hours 49 min
I favour moderation, but I firmly believe it has to be used in moderation. It is the best policy most of the time. But there are exceptional times, when you have to be extreme.
As for inner and outer space - we, as humans have not really learned that much about inner space in the last, oh let's say, 10,000 years. All the talk on TDG and other related communities shows that all our ideas about inner space are pretty old. Sure they have long been influences by exploration, by discovering new environments.
The people stuck in the same little cave will never learn much. Not about the rest of the universe, and not about themselves, their "inner space".
That is why I believe we have to find a more radically different environment. And go there, experience that.
There are two (2) of those environments we can reach now. Near space, the solar system. We have to go there, with more than robots. And also the deep oceans. And I mean deep, not a few hundred meters.
Seeing how different these places are will tell us more about our inner space. It will show us that what we think is a normal environment is not the only way thing can work.
We don't need to find other intelligent life for that. And we don't have to know what we are looking for, quite the opposite. Finding what we do not expect is the whole point of going.
----
A good farmer is a man outstanding in his field
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Earthling writes: "As for inner and outer space - we, as humans have not really learned that much about inner space in the last, oh let's say, 10,000 years. All the talk on TDG and other related communities shows that all our ideas about inner space are pretty old. Sure they have long been influences by exploration, by discovering new environments."
Dear Earthling:
Whether the ideas are old or not, actual explorations are always new experiences.
"The people stuck in the same little cave will never learn much. Not about the rest of the universe, and not about themselves, their "inner space"."
I'm afraid I don't agree with this at all; it's completely contrary to my own experience.
"That is why I believe we have to find a more radically different environment. And go there, experience that.
There are two (2) of those environments we can reach now. Near space, the solar system. We have to go there, with more than robots. And also the deep oceans. And I mean deep, not a few hundred meters."
These would be fine adventures but would require extensive resources. Only the young and very fit would likely be able to participate.
In 1999, I visited another physical system, although I had no prior conscious intent of doing so and was quite surprised by the experience.
The story is a long one, and quite complex; I lack the time to fully tell it here and now but will post a few words about it.
The entry required the combination of two different groups engaged in what we called at the time "energy exercises."
The first group of six were practicing for the first time in person something we called "portaling," initially created for an on-line conference environment.
Portaling was loosely based on the autotyped item about "key portals" found towards the bottom of this page. The idea was to imaginatively create a portal to other realities even when lacking a Main Coordination Point.
The other group (of which the portalers were a subset) was larger.
The portalers did their thing twice outside, then a third and final time in the livingroom in the home of our host and hostess.
The whole group then met in the livingroom that evening and chose to imaginatively create a whirlpool (a psychic Charybdis) as an exercise.
The very short version of this is that while imaginatively swimming around the whirlpool, faster and faster, I reached the bottom and shot out of it (mentally or psychically; inwardly -- the experience was very vivid) only to pass through the portal that we had earlier created. Our efforts hadn't seemed successful at the time, earlier that afternoon...
I found myself high over the mountains of Georgia, but this was not the same Georgia of the livingroom.
The aftereffects extended well into the next day.
I dreamt that night, after this experience, of receiving an email from a particular lady with the subject line "Emergency!"
In the dream, I struggled, unsuccessfully, to open the email and read it, waking up and remembering this.
After flying back to Boston and taking the subway from the airport to the train station, I boarded a train only to find this very same lady on the train. I was telling my tale to her as the train pulled out of North Station when a conductor appeared at one end of the car and loudly proclaimed: "We have an emergency!"
Again, this is a very shortened version leaving out many details (most crucially of the passage itself as well as details of the "other" Georgia) and also much of the complex background, including the success of the early on-line portaling experiments. It suggests, however, that inner explorations -- requiring only an investment in time and energy -- can lead to other places, other realities.
Bill I.
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Anthony writes: "As I said earlier, inner space is forever a reflection of what we do outside. So by going out into the universe in a physical way, could we find its reflection within ourselves?"
Dear Anthony:
I believe, to the contrary, that what we observe with our physical senses -- what is "outside" -- is symbolic (or reflective) of inner realities.
This applies to both personal and mass realities; for example, the Internet symbolizes inner connections and a heightened awareness of them.
So far as I know, the only way to appreciate this is by learning a technique or techniques for quieting the physical senses and conscious mind and then going a bit further inward.
I don't claim to be a master of such techniques, although I have spent years experimenting with them and have enough experience to know that I have barely scratched the surface of an utterly vast inner environment.
Bill
22 November 2004
2 hours 49 min
for example, the Internet symbolizes inner connections and a heightened awareness of them.
Bill
So does that mean that we are only talking to ourselves? Or reflections of ourselves?
I think that would make our own selves much too important. There is the rest of the world. It is not just our own selves.
The rest of the world is really big.
----
You can observe a lot, just by watching. (Yogi Berra)
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Me: "for example, the Internet symbolizes inner connections and a heightened awareness of them."
Earthling: "So does that mean that we are only talking to ourselves? Or reflections of ourselves?"
Dear Earthling:
Picture the entire (and continually expanding) Internet, with greater bandwidth arriving almost every day (for example: "YouTube alone uses as much bandwidth today as the entire Internet did in 2000." WSJ 7/24/07).
Millions interact on it and use it; their number higher all of the time.
Imagine this is as symbolic of an inner communications network ("The Innernet" as some call it), a large non-material or "psychic" tissue or web connecting millions or even billions of humans.
Sure, there is a certain "human" frequency, such that this connects our species, inwardly, but that doesn't mean that others of different frequencies aren't also connected or that they cannot be accessed. Within inner realities, All is connected.
"I think that would make our own selves much too important. There is the rest of the world. It is not just our own selves."
Huh? Maybe the operative word you're using here is "think."
Inner realities require experiencing -- you can think about them afterwards.
Possibly we are on such different "wavelengths" that I won't be able to convey my POV to you in words; I don't know.
Bill I.
22 November 2004
2 hours 49 min
Read my other respoinse, the timing got crossed.
I maintain that there is a physical world, outside our minds.
And outside the conversations between people.
Go outside in bad weather, you will know it.
----
You can observe a lot, just by watching. (Yogi Berra)
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Earthling writes: "I maintain that there is a physical world, outside our minds. And outside the conversations between people. Go outside in bad weather, you will know it."
Dear Earthling:
You are apparently misreading my posts -- of course there is a physical world! At what point have I suggested otherwise?
I choose to live by the ocean partly because I so enjoy the physical world -- summer sunsets here are often far more beautiful than any painting, with clouds, sky, ocean, rocky shore and all else forming an indescribable whole, and not just visually, either; there are sounds and fragrances.
We enjoy more than the physical senses, however, if we choose to be aware of this. Even in this gorgeous physical location there are other energies, including those from other times, quite pronounced on a summer's night.
When I said I visited another world I was referring to another physical world, even though the way I visited it was through "mental" means.
This other world had a very different feeling to it, had no human cities or dwellings I could see from my vantage point, was very, very green from vegetation -- it was a world in which Nature was a much more predominant force than in our present world (or at least in the version of Georgia I could see and sense).
What I left out in the brief description of my passage to this other world was the great many other worlds that flew by until I remembered to focus on a single thought, this aligning me with the world I visited, again, another physical world, not simply something conjured in my imagination.
My point is that it isn't at all necessary to live in ocean depths or "outer" space to engage much more of our selves or even to visit other worlds.
The "technology" for doing this already exists and has, for eons; using it requires one to explore the nature of their own mind, their own soul, their own fuller and deeper existence. It requires no rocket ships, no diving equipment, none of that.
Regards
Bill I.
22 November 2004
2 hours 49 min
Perhaps what you say is true. But with all respect, I don't believe you have been anywhere, except in the depths of your mind. Which is not a negative thing, on the contrary it is good.
I still say we have to go, wherever we can. And it is not a waste of resources to go. Finding out more about the mind is a good side benefit.
See Bill, when you say that a special few like yourself, can achieve this, and then you say that the rest of humanity should not physically go anywhere, it makes you look selfish.
You go in the ways you prefer, I go in the ways I prefer.
You like to live by the ocean, so do I. It is a wonderful thing, to see nature. I also like to go on the ocean when I can. Quite a different experience, that I haven't had enough of lately. But I will again, purely because I desire it.
You would not prevent people from going on the ocean, would you? So why prevent people from going to the depths of the ocean or into outer space?
Who are you, or me, to say how people should imit themselves?
----
You can observe a lot, just by watching. (Yogi Berra)
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Earthling writes: "Perhaps what you say is true. But with all respect, I don't believe you have been anywhere, except in the depths of your mind. Which is not a negative thing, on the contrary it is good."
Dear Earthling:
There's no way I can think of to prove to you that I actually visited another physical reality, even though I gained access to it "mentally."
We'll have to let this go, even while I suggest that a much greater reality -- including an unknown number of other physical realities -- is found in the "depths of your mind;"
I'd even say that the physical reality we both reside in is found there, we are just rarely conscious of this, assuming it is somewhere else.
"I still say we have to go, wherever we can. And it is not a waste of resources to go. Finding out more about the mind is a good side benefit."
I haven't said folks can't choose to explore where they wish, even if that is off-planet or deep in the ocean; they are free to do as they will.
"See Bill, when you say that a special few like yourself, can achieve this, and then you say that the rest of humanity should not physically go anywhere, it makes you look selfish."
1. I never said anything about a "special few" or that I believed I belonged to such a group. The techniques I used could be used by anyone.
2. I never said "the rest of humanity should not physically go anywhere." That's what you read into my posts. As said, anyone can go wherever they wish to go.
"You go in the ways you prefer, I go in the ways I prefer."
Certainly!
"You like to live by the ocean, so do I. It is a wonderful thing, to see nature. I also like to go on the ocean when I can. Quite a different experience, that I haven't had enough of lately. But I will again, purely because I desire it."
"You would not prevent people from going on the ocean, would you? So why prevent people from going to the depths of the ocean or into outer space?"
Once again, I never said any such thing; read my posts again -- I merely suggested that inner journeys are less costly, while implying they were available to anyone, whether they had the funds to engage in more costly journeys or not.
"Who are you, or me, to say how people should limit themselves?"
Why do you believe I said any such thing???
Bill
22 November 2004
2 hours 49 min
You did say that the outer space and deep ocean exploration will consume significant recources, and that the actual experience will only be availible to a few.
The only reason you can say that is because it is true.
I over-interpreted this as you saying that we, as a society, should not go. It appears you are not saying that.
Fair enough.
I still say that society as a whole should support further exploration. Including real space travel, including deep ocean exploartion, and many other things.
Personal preferences, where anyone wants to go or doesn't want to go, that of course should be up to the individual.
I do firmly believe that the course of action I propose is very necessary. Your personal view may vary of course.
----
You can observe a lot, just by watching. (Yogi Berra)
22 November 2004
2 hours 49 min
I don't know it this clear in our discussion here.
Certainly, introspection is necessary. And I have no problem with people exploring inner space. It can lead to amazing insights. But I still maintain that doing only this will limit us.
However, my main point is that exploring outer space is even more necessary. And the resources spent on that are actually pretty small, compared to the waste we engage in with just frivolous stuff.
----
You can observe a lot, just by watching. (Yogi Berra)
13 April 2007
1 year 33 weeks
Good morning everyone,
Do we live in the 'inner' or 'outer'? In the essay linked below, I ask: 'Is objective reality simply a bare canvas to be filled by our subjective thoughts?'
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/...
The implication is that we exist equally in both - if we want to. But what is 'inner' reality? To me, our mind is vast, and forms a more communal base, the actual form of memory being like an inner 'map' of outside existence. In other words, we have an 'inner' reflection of 'outside' in our minds. I write deeper about it here:
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/...
I conclude thus:
'Hence, in existing in his inner mind, the experiencer of the OBE could equally interact with the ‘outside’ ... He has, in effect, exited into the real world through the back door of the mind.'
...
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer
Anthony North
18 July 2005
1 year 2 weeks
Sorry for butting in on your discussion, but as a foreigner I am rather perplexed.
America and all the world knows what Bush and his cohorts have been up to and are up to in the time ahead.
With the lies, the freaud and the evil this man has orchestrated why has he not been put on trial?
Any John Doe would have been fried in the "Texan chair" a long time ago for comitting just a fraction of these atrocities.
Where is the American legal system? Is there one?
16 August 2006
6 weeks 5 days
Dear Harald:
Look up "impeachment" and "impeachable offense" and review the legal processes associated with these words (and with sitting presidents and vice presidents) if you wish to understand.
I don't know where you live but suspect that similar laws exist wherever that may be; in short, an American president is not in the same legal situation as your John Doe, particularly when it comes to murder (conducting warfare -- no matter that warfare is a highly organized form of murder -- is not defined at all like the various categories of murder). Accomplishing what you suggest is not nearly as simple or easy as you imagine. Who would arrest the man? Who would try him? What are his offenses? Who would prove these and how?
Regards
Bill I.