|
This blind and senseless survival program can now be safely deleted for the human species has not only survived ... it is now beginning to
flourish’. Would you mind explaining, Richard, your usage of the word ‘psychic’ in this context.
|
|
|
We have also discussed the ‘vibes’, which some people may have and whether it is possible
for another to sense them. I presume you consider these to fall within the realm of psychic powers? While not 100% convinced, my view is
that these do not exist, other than in the form of subtle body language
|
|
|
My husband recently returned from a weeklong retreat given by an American, who is an Eastern
type spiritual teacher. One of the main premises of this man’s teaching is that he ‘transmits’ Being-force that then ‘templates’
on those who receive the transmission and catalyzes the recipient’s own realization of Being. Anyone have any ideas of the how we
humans actually produce the astoundingly real when you have them spiritual phenomena? * Do you see this web as an actual structure, or an
imaginary, albeit real structure?.
|
|
|
While we’re on this topic – I
recently read where you (Richard) regard having an ‘I’ as socially reprehensible – as in blameworthy. I’m curious as to just what
constitutes being ‘socially reprehensible’ for you ... a mere thought or ‘temptation’ – or more concrete action. You have even gone
to the point of using the term ‘guilty at conception’. I wonder what guilt could possibly consist of if not in action? To take this to the
extreme – would an aborted foetus be ‘guilty’? Or possibly ‘socially reprehensible’? Is one guilty just because they have the
potential to do harm?
I’m never quite sure how to take the
word, ‘actually’ when you use it – whether it’s sometimes the normal usage – or whether it’s always the ‘actualism’ usage. For
example, I am tempted to say that even when one is empathetic and works to resolve another’s suffering – then one actually cared about
their suffering – about the other person – again admittedly, via one’s own suffering, yet there is caring taking place – but it’s
not actual caring (in the ‘actualism’ usage).
|
|
|
Exactly what is the ‘collective psyche’ ...
|
|
|
Nothing you have ever said shows how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people at a
longer distance where there can be no sensory clues.
Experientially going deeper into those affective feelings don’t show how they
can act at a distance. It just shows how they are acting out in a person’s head, not at a distance.
|
|
|
And you can eliminate malice and sorrow all you want, but it does not change the fact
that life is interconnected.
|
|
|
Sorry I’m
not hip to your lingo ... I was not referring to ‘Psychic Vibes’ or vibes as ‘feelings’, sorry.
So, if no
‘vibes’ exist in the actual world, then how can they be ‘factually unpleasant’ to you?
|
|
|
I’m aware that it [telepathy] is not a sympathetic subject here, but I still would
very much care to talk about it. I had a few experiences with telepathy, and I just can’t deny them and what happened. There was
one time when I’ve dreamt about something very, very precise that actually happened in the future, and few other incidents, that
just can’t be random, like synchronous me-calling-to-a-friend that haven’t been in touch with for some time, and
he-calling-to-me. I’m a very critical person when it comes to these issues and spirituality. So how does Actual Freedom explains
these phenomenon? It says that thought originates in the brain, and that everyone creates them, so how can telepathy be explained?
I’m struggling to glue the telepathy experienced and the Actual Freedom view of things that says thoughts are created within us,
and so thought processes can’t be interconnected in between humanity.
|
|
|
This really explains a lot. It makes it clear that you deal strictly with the
meaning of the words someone types out and do not get involved in the ‘guessing games’ that may occur in trying to figure out intention. What
can be perceived or made out to be ‘willful and malicious ignorance’ (on your part) of a person’s intent, or further, an inability to
understand the difference between speaker meaning and word meaning (on your part) is actually a practical decision to only concern yourself with
word meaning, since at least that can typically be ‘nailed down’ in a factual manner, unlike speaker intent.
|
|
|
Anyway, I think Richard’s reference to psychic currents, the psychic web, etc in this context was
directed at answering my inquiry... not necessarily directly related to what is occurring with you and your understanding then or now to whom [No.
3] was referring. I am still trying to put all of the pieces in place, as I do not
personally believe in a ‘psychic web’ in precisely the same manner as Richard presents it ( the paranormal
aspects being suspect for me), although I cannot completely rule such a thing out entirely. Having said that, I do think that Richard’s reports
stem from his experience, whether correctly or incorrectly evaluated on his part.
|
|
|
How can it be verified independently that these vibes and psychic currents are not
transmitted via physical means? Most people are familiar with picking up on someone’s vibe due to bodily cues but how can we distinguish between vibes that are detected due to bodily cues
and those that are not? Also, what is the relative importance with the actualism method of ‘not
expressing’ an emotion as opposed to feeling happy and harmless, thus putting out happy and harmless vibes?
|
|
|
Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.
And not for lack of testing either. The burden of proof, therefore, is upon you. But hey, if you’d rather take the easy path and assume your own feelings originate from others
and not yourself, ultimately it’s your business. This fellow traveller is just advising differently in my experience is all.
Back to your email, I got the feeling we weren’t talking about the same thing here. I was referring to ‘extra sensory perception’, not just vibes.
My understanding of vibes is that they are only ever transmitted face to face. When not face to face, I own my own feelings rather than project them onto others ...
|
|
|
I’ve felt for a few months now that something is brewing; some sort of
change is afoot. The rational part of me figured it might be merely a projection of ‘my’ own personal change of
heart/ mind ... but another
part of me senses that it’s bigger than that, as if a threshold is about to be crossed ... and it isn’t just personal any more.
There was a counter-strike in the upper levels of the Psyche. The head was taken
out of the network, probably the feminine being that Richard was talking about, a sort of ‘machine’ the way is open for the consciousness mutation to be implemented on a global
level. I’d estimate a few years, probably decades to take root there are a number of people interested, maybe vitally interested, that are in
a position to enable radical change on an exponential basis.
|
