Wilcock rules!

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
User avatar
Eccles
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:00 am
Location: Vermont

Wilcock rules!

Post by Eccles » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:50 pm

I just finished listening to a very current interview of David Willcock (divinecosmos.com) who had a fascinating monologue on Project Camelot.

"This is a blockbuster of a two hour phone conversation with David Wilcock, focusing on immediate current events but spanning time travel, the Freemasons, the Anunnaki, the Nazis, WW II, advanced technology, the Roswell crash, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, the war in Georgia, the coming US election, Benjamin Fulford's testimony, and what may or may not happen in the coming few weeks and months."

Apparently, the Russians moved into Georgia so fast that the CIA was caught with their collective pants down and left behind secret materials showing the US was trying to start another war, martial law, Fema camps, no elections, etc. Wilcock says that Russia will release the materials to embarass the Bush administration. ty, david

If you have two hours this weekend, access the following website with your Windows Media Player (just listen, it's 44Mb to download), pour yourself a drink, put up your feet and enjoy! Better than the junk Hollywood is throwing up (pun intended) this weekend.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/audio_interviews.html

Eccles

User avatar
lvx08
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by lvx08 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:29 pm

Hi Eccles
I listened to it yesterday. It's a great interview -DW is brilliant at tying things together (it's like Indiana Jones meets SG1 meets x-files with Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare thrown it). I am always amazed at how articulate he is. He can talk for hours on a subject without an "umm" or an "ahh". I was reminded that on this forum ZenMaster had posted a link to a site which worked out your 18 day cycles. A quick search didn't pull up anything.

Anyway I hope DW's film is as good as his interviews - an extremely powerful way of reaching the mainstream. BTW DW often mentions a film called the Last Mimzy. Well worth renting if you have never seen it.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:59 am

lvx08 wrote:I listened to it yesterday. It's a great interview -DW is brilliant at tying things together (it's like Indiana Jones meets SG1 meets x-files with Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare thrown it). I am always amazed at how articulate he is. He can talk for hours on a subject without an "umm" or an "ahh". I was reminded that on this forum ZenMaster had posted a link to a site which worked out your 18 day cycles. A quick search didn't pull up anything.
If you are interested, I coded a biorythm solution a couple of years ago in an hour (so it's not expecially pretty) that I included the 18-day cycle into (the other cycles are 23, 28, and 33 days).

Thanks for sharing the link Eccles!

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:22 pm

A hyper-intuitive's attempts to bring credence to widely disparate sci-fi, metaphysical, and conspiracy topics - and to tie them all together though the power of suggestion and free association. Interesting stuff. But is set up to feed the new-age escapism mentality. Indeed, there is nothing substantial about anything he says or writes about. Folks, what he's selling is a lot of hype and fluff. This interview is no different: "I'm working on a really, really important article right now and I think that the implications of what I'm putting together are quite a intriguing and valuable for many people to hear". Carrot and stick.

User avatar
lvx08
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by lvx08 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:11 pm

aluxon wrote:If you are interested, I coded a biorythm solution a couple of years ago in an hour (so it's not expecially pretty) that I included the 18-day cycle into (the other cycles are 23, 28, and 33 days).
thanks I would be interested to see this. Can you remind me of the significance of the 23, 28, and 33 days cycles.

User avatar
lvx08
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by lvx08 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:16 pm

zenmaster wrote:A hyper-intuitive's attempts to bring credence to widely disparate sci-fi, metaphysical, and conspiracy topics - and to tie them all together though the power of suggestion and free association. Interesting stuff. But is set up to feed the new-age escapism mentality. Indeed, there is nothing substantial about anything he says or writes about. Folks, what he's selling is a lot of hype and fluff. This interview is no different: "I'm working on a really, really important article right now and I think that the implications of what I'm putting together are quite a intriguing and valuable for many people to hear". Carrot and stick.
I can understand what you are saying but DW is one of the few voices that offers a positive, hopeful vision amongst many of the 2012/conspiracy theory commentators. And to reach that audience he has to speak their language. I do agree with you that the trouble with focussing on these concerns is that it distracts you from real spiritual work and takes you off to fantasy land.

Alluvion
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:37 pm

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Alluvion » Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:24 pm

those are the periods of the body/mind/spirit according to the biorhythm system.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:23 pm

lvx08 wrote:thanks I would be interested to see this. Can you remind me of the significance of the 23, 28, and 33 days cycles.
Spiritual = 18 day cycle
Physical = 23 day cycle
Emotional = 28 day cycle
Mental = 33 day cycle

These are the cycles that Ra mentions in the Law of One series. Others have mapped further cycles according to the pattern and attached meaning to them. I'm not sure how accurate the meanings of these extra cycles are or how important those cycles are. At least the physical/emotional/mental cycles are widely accepted in biorhythmic circles (Ra added the spiritual one).

I attached a zip file with the executable compressed within it. It requires the .Net framework 2.0 from Microsoft to run. Don't laugh too hard when you see it. I was just fiddling with Microsoft's free development platform when I built it. I'm sure there is room for improvement. It does do the proper date calculations though and does mark critical, high, and low days.
lvx08 wrote:I can understand what you are saying but DW is one of the few voices that offers a positive, hopeful vision amongst many of the 2012/conspiracy theory commentators. And to reach that audience he has to speak their language. I do agree with you that the trouble with focussing on these concerns is that it distracts you from real spiritual work and takes you off to fantasy land.
I agree. I also agree with Eccles that it's a better fantasy land than what is typically portrayed on television. For me, a welcome break.
Attachments
Biorhythms.zip
(5.26 KiB) Downloaded 241 times

User avatar
lvx08
Centurio
Centurio
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by lvx08 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:51 pm

aluxon wrote:I attached a zip file with the executable compressed within it. It requires the .Net framework 2.0 from Microsoft to run. Don't laugh too hard when you see it. I was just fiddling with Microsoft's free development platform when I built it. I'm sure there is room for improvement. It does do the proper date calculations though and does mark critical, high, and low days.
thanks Aluxon. Unfortunately I can't open exe files.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:03 pm

lvx08 wrote:thanks Aluxon. Unfortunately I can't open exe files.
I assume then that you do not have access to a PC running Windows? Alas! If you do come across one, now you'll have an application that runs on it.

User avatar
Eccles
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:00 am
Location: Vermont

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Eccles » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:35 am

Yes, David has his faults (don't we all). I like his synthesis capabilities--saves me days of time researching something. I'll be waiting to see if and when Russia releases the files they apparently grabbed in Georgia.

Regarding internal cycles, I've been working on much larger cycles of The Mayan Calendar that will give you much food for thought...in a week or so.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:37 pm

Eccles wrote:I like his synthesis capabilities--saves me days of time researching something.
What has he synthesized?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by LoneBear » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:48 pm

zenmaster wrote:
Eccles wrote:I like his synthesis capabilities--saves me days of time researching something.
What has he synthesized?
Typically, rense.com

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:16 pm

LoneBear wrote:
zenmaster wrote:
Eccles wrote:I like his synthesis capabilities--saves me days of time researching something.
What has he synthesized?
Typically, rense.com
It seems that some people get enough satisfaction from the mere suggestions of vehicles of transcendence, or of escapist realities, that their needs are met and their ends are served - period. Indeed, the imparted feelings are what's important. It is as if there is a subconscious filter operating which keeps the man "behind the curtain", safely away from attention, while the numb mind attempts to promote a sense of "something more".

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Gopi » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:27 pm

Zenmaster wrote:It is as if there is a subconscious filter operating which keeps the man "behind the curtain", safely away from attention, while the numb mind attempts to promote a sense of "something more".
If it were up to you, what would you do to promote a sense of "something more" without the self-defensive numbness?
It is time.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:35 pm

Gopi wrote:
Zenmaster wrote:It is as if there is a subconscious filter operating which keeps the man "behind the curtain", safely away from attention, while the numb mind attempts to promote a sense of "something more".
If it were up to you, what would you do to promote a sense of "something more" without the self-defensive numbness?
Backing up a bit, why would one want a sense of something more? Because they (the suggestions) satisfy a need to have strongly identified (although mostly unconscious) values and beliefs externally validated. The ego's current POV is served. The only information that is shared is at a subconscious level (symbol and metaphor). You know, stargates, time travel, hyderdimensional physics, etc.

There is no research behind the info. What is offered is merely an ordering of unconscious information (via the intuitive faculty) from the personal mind and sub-collective mind. It is as if vague "answers" (the symbols and what not) are being offered without a clear "question" ever being asked. Again, the answers are freely associated with personal values, hopes, beliefs, etc. where the intuition suggests something compelling. However it is smoke and mirrors.

But my point was that imparting a mere sense of something is sort of like a carrot on a stick. Why promote such barrenness, considering it is always the end in itself?

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:16 am

zenmaster wrote:Backing up a bit, why would one want a sense of something more? Because they (the suggestions) satisfy a need to have strongly identified (although mostly unconscious) values and beliefs externally validated. The ego's current POV is served. The only information that is shared is at a subconscious level (symbol and metaphor). You know, stargates, time travel, hyderdimensional physics, etc.
I think most people want something more than what they currently have. This creates progress since this desire usually results in some action to produce the desired result. I'm not sure that people really want a sense of something more as opposed to just something more. Perhaps there is some confusion between a sense of something more and something more and people are treating them as equal when they're not.

So a group of people have unconscious values and beliefs about various sci-fi topics. A few people tap into those values and beliefs and are able to present those back to the group. The group feels good about this since it validates them subconsciously and then supports the feedback loop. This can form a tacit closed loop but probably won't promote progress. One reason being that it would break the closed loop.
zenmaster wrote:There is no research behind the info. What is offered is merely an ordering of unconscious information (via the intuitive faculty) from the personal mind and sub-collective mind. It is as if vague "answers" (the symbols and what not) are being offered without a clear "question" ever being asked. Again, the answers are freely associated with personal values, hopes, beliefs, etc. where the intuition suggests something compelling. However it is smoke and mirrors.
A clear question being a prerequisite for scientific research (i.e. a hypothesis). This is one thing I appreciate about the Ra material. Ra volunteered very little information and instead, waited for a specific question. I think it shows a better approach than the simpler acceptance of whatever the channel is "picking up".
zenmaster wrote:But my point was that imparting a mere sense of something is sort of like a carrot on a stick. Why promote such barrenness, considering it is always the end in itself?
It might not always be an end in itself. I came to accept that there might be UFOs through the Ra material though I was searching for philosophical/metaphysical information at the time. It was a more gradual thing and wouldn't have happened if I hadn't come across an illegal copy on the internet (didn't realize it was illegal at the time -- downloaded it and the site was gone within a week -- of course now, it is freely and legitimately available online). I don't think I will ever be a UFOologist but I don't think people who believe that Aliens exist are bonkers anymore :lol: . My focus remains much more philosophical/metaphysical which David doesn't seem to talk much about.

I see no reason why someone may come across David's material, become interested in some of it, and then go off and do something much more rather than be satisfied with just a sense of something more (i.e. just listen to podcasts). This may not be the likely scenario but is one I believe is quite possible.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:55 pm

aluxon wrote:I think most people want something more than what they currently have. This creates progress since this desire usually results in some action to produce the desired result. I'm not sure that people really want a sense of something more as opposed to just something more. Perhaps there is some confusion between a sense of something more and something more and people are treating them as equal when they're not.
Of course there is confusion - because when you "have" that "something more" it is no longer identifiable as "something more".

aluxon wrote:So a group of people have unconscious values and beliefs about various sci-fi topics. A few people tap into those values and beliefs and are able to present those back to the group. The group feels good about this since it validates them subconsciously and then supports the feedback loop. This can form a tacit closed loop but probably won't promote progress. One reason being that it would break the closed loop.
Seems like it.

aluxon wrote:A clear question being a prerequisite for scientific research (i.e. a hypothesis). This is one thing I appreciate about the Ra material. Ra volunteered very little information and instead, waited for a specific question. I think it shows a better approach than the simpler acceptance of whatever the channel is "picking up".
The Ra material is a focused, consistent philosophy. There was conscious effort and specific intention with that. The resulting information was not fanciful, sensationalist, conspiratorial, or the result of undirected, free-association. Instead it was carefully related in a disciplined manner.

aluxon wrote:It might not always be an end in itself.
The point is to take a look at the intent over the course of years - what is emphasized, what is presented as important, the weasel-wording used, the claims of discovery, the rumor mongering, the unaccountability. Whether or not a suggestion may have coincidentally resulted in an audience member having a "door opened", was not the point as it is not the primary intent with the material. The behavioral pattern is to take popular sci-fi/new-age culture as if it were a cloud, randomly find suggestive shapes in the cloud, and spew back out the unfiltered suggestions until feedback suggests that something was of interest. Rinse and repeat. Ah what progressiveness, what numinosity, oh look a shiny rock!

"Is there a miniature stargate in your own brain? ... Did our secret government come into possession of this technology?"

Must have missed the baby in the bathwater.

aluxon wrote:I came to accept that there might be UFOs through the Ra material though I was searching for philosophical/metaphysical information at the time. It was a more gradual thing and wouldn't have happened if I hadn't come across an illegal copy on the internet (didn't realize it was illegal at the time -- downloaded it and the site was gone within a week -- of course now, it is freely and legitimately available online). I don't think I will ever be a UFOologist but I don't think people who believe that Aliens exist are bonkers anymore :lol: . My focus remains much more philosophical/metaphysical which David doesn't seem to talk much about.
It used to be a presentation of personally channeled pop-subculture ascension mythos. Now he's teamed up with folks like Burisch and Hoagland regurgating time-travel mythos.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:08 am

zenmaster wrote:The Ra material is a focused, consistent philosophy. There was conscious effort and specific intention with that. The resulting information was not fanciful, sensationalist, conspiratorial, or the result of undirected, free-association. Instead it was carefully related in a disciplined manner.

And that was a result of a research scientist/professor (Don Elkins) approaching it like a research project (which it was to him).
zenmaster wrote:The point is to take a look at the intent over the course of years - what is emphasized, what is presented as important, the weasel-wording used, the claims of discovery, the rumor mongering, the unaccountability.
OK. I confess to not really following David's work at all. He seems to be working on a movie (perhaps for some time now) and the material he is pulling up seems like material for at least one or two movies. He covers an extremely wide variety of topics very quickly though never in that much depth (at least in the 2 hour podcast). Isn't there more in-depth material (or links to other sites) on his site to backup some of his material?
zenmaster wrote:Whether or not a suggestion may have coincidentally resulted in an audience member having a "door opened", was not the point as it is not the primary intent with the material.
Hmmm. I guess I tend to assume that that is precisely what people are aiming for. My bias must be showing through.
zenmaster wrote:"Is there a miniature stargate in your own brain? ... Did our secret government come into possession of this technology?"
Both statements (ok, questions) would be difficult to verify. David does make predictions or I think he used to. Has anyone ever compiled a list of them to analyze his complete track record?

People make many predictions all the time; just watch the evening news (mostly ecomonic predictions). In many cases, people refer to them as businss plans. People who are consistently correct can make a lot of money.
zenmaster wrote:Must have missed the baby in the bathwater.
I guess I wasn't expecting a scientific treatise from David. I may even be viewing him through "rose-coloured" glasses. Either way, he represents a world that I do not belong to and am unlikely to join anytime soon.
zenmaster wrote:It used to be a presentation of personally channeled pop-subculture ascension mythos. Now he's teamed up with folks like Burisch and Hoagland regurgating time-travel mythos.
Thank-you for sharing your perspective and clarifying it for me. I thnk I am understanding it better now. I also thank-you for your sharing of other links.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:07 pm

aluxon wrote:
zenmaster wrote:Whether or not a suggestion may have coincidentally resulted in an audience member having a "door opened", was not the point as it is not the primary intent with the material.
Hmmm. I guess I tend to assume that that is precisely what people are aiming for. My bias must be showing through.
[/size]So it is fine to spread disinfo as long as, in the end, influential thought is spread to further an agenda. And one can be proud of such tactics?
aluxon wrote:
zenmaster wrote:"Is there a miniature stargate in your own brain? ... Did our secret government come into possession of this technology?"
Both statements (ok, questions) would be difficult to verify.
That's the general idea.

aluxon wrote:
zenmaster wrote:Must have missed the baby in the bathwater.
I guess I wasn't expecting a scientific treatise from David. I may even be viewing him through "rose-coloured" glasses. Either way, he represents a world that I do not belong to and am unlikely to join anytime soon.
[/size] Right, he's incapable of a treatise-style presentation. However, a treatise is not necessary in order to deliver simply an honest presentation. For example, consider we know the boundaries of what we, ourselves, know. Yet no accountability or apology is ever forthcoming to the suggestions that always cross that boundary. The behavior is dishonest and ungrounded. Further, the fanciful material is purposely expressed in a leading manner which exposes agenda bias. The people that disregard these methods subscribe to a consequentialist morality.

For example, many have an agenda for "disclosure" at any cost. They spread disinfo regarding stories of secret govt. meetings on the subject, attended by high-profile UN members. As long as the result furthers their agenda, that is, an increased suspicion of govt and inciting demand UFO disclosure, the ends justify the means. They apparently disregard that the agency and the result are a single expression of intent, not distinct and not lost.

aluxon wrote:Thank-you for sharing your perspective and clarifying it for me. I thnk I am understanding it better now. I also thank-you for your sharing of other links.
No problem.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:53 pm

zenmaster wrote:So it is fine to spread disinfo as long as, in the end, influential thought is spread to further an agenda. And one can be proud of such tactics?
I would say that it is fine to spread information that one holds as true even if not verifiable. If it turns out that the information is disinformation, I would hope for a level of honesty that would offer a sincere apology (and discontinuation of course). Everyone makes mistakes. If someone is spreading disinformation deliberately, then I don't think anyone should be proud of that. The ends and means are the same. The real question in my mind is whether David is being an honest journalist (i.e. reporting on what he is able to find out or is told by others) or otherwise.
zenaster wrote:Right, he's incapable of a treatise-style presentation. However, a treatise is not necessary in order to deliver simply an honest presentation. For example, consider we know the boundaries of what we, ourselves, know. Yet no accountability or apology is ever forthcoming to the suggestions that always cross that boundary. The behavior is dishonest and ungrounded. Further, the fanciful material is purposely expressed in a leading manner which exposes agenda bias. The people that disregard these methods subscribe to a consequentialist morality.
There is no such thing as an unbiased journalist. All media has a bias as well. Even so, a reputable journalist and/or media outlet will place themselves accountable for the things published or produced. This can take the form of public apology and the withdrawl of stories (and more) when it is clear or not so clear that they have erred and whether or not anyone else has discovered the error (first).

I concede that I listened to the presentation with a very open and accepting mind (no analytics or critical assessment). Now I am thinking that I should go back with a more critical/analytical edge and review other things that he has published over a period of time.
zenmaster wrote:For example, many have an agenda for "disclosure" at any cost. They spread disinfo regarding stories of secret govt. meetings on the subject, attended by high-profile UN members. As long as the result furthers their agenda, that is, an increased suspicion of govt and inciting demand UFO disclosure, the ends justify the means. They apparently disregard that the agency and the result are a single expression of intent, not distinct and not lost.
The ends and means are inseparable. The ends never justify the means. I have met people who have explicitly told me that the ends justify the means. I thank them for letting me know who not to associate with.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:16 pm

aluxon wrote:I would say that it is fine to spread information that one holds as true even if not verifiable.
The National Inquirer is equally fine, right? Let's take a look at what is meant by "holds as true". There are really never any absolutes in this regard due to the subjective nature of experience. Perception is always "right" from one's own limited and faulty perspective, always "wrong" from another's, for example. In the same manner, many people have extreme difficulty separating what they want to be true from what is the actual case or even the likely case. Or difficulty in separating what they want to occur, or what they feel should "rightfully" occur, from what has actually occurred.

The ego has a vested interest in maintaining and promoting its own worldview almost always at the expense of self honesty. So, given that in practice "holds as true" can not be easily distinguished from what one merely "desires to be true", there is plenty of room for dishonest claims and for promotion of a particular ideology. What is exploited, in his niche meme of fantasy exploration, is a willingness to consume and spread those thoughts or sentiments that reinforce existing prejudices.

You mentioned that the material is not a treatise. Yet conveniently enough, to assuage doubt, it is constantly claimed that everything is well documented and well researched over many years. If the apprehensions are really that important to be brought to light, why no philosophical treatment forthcoming? The answer is that it is by design a program of inscrutable, circular logic, hand-waving, smoke and mirrors, and feel-good mythos. Basically, pieces of other's work are twisted and hacked to support a particular hopeful view of social change that is sought. And, in order to successfully sell the material as ego entertainment, all attempts to inspect must be deflected: supporting information must be exaggerated, nonsupporting info must be diminished or left out entirely, accomplishments must be hyped, the most tenuous of connections must be made, inferences of conspiracy must be injected, etc.

"2012. Is it tragedy or transcension?"

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Arcelius » Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:23 am

zenmaster wrote:
aluxon wrote:I would say that it is fine to spread information that one holds as true even if not verifiable.
The National Inquirer is equally fine, right? Let's take a look at what is meant by "holds as true". There are really never any absolutes in this regard due to the subjective nature of experience.
It may not be laudable to spread your version of the "truth" depending on what that is. At the same time, I am not going to go out to squash all other versions of the "truth" except for my own. Neither will I internalize things just because someone else holds them as true. If what someone is spreading reasonates within another regardless of what is being spread, it is an opportunity (whether taken or not) to examine wthin one's self why that is so. I would not want to remove such opportunities.
zenmaster wrote:The ego has a vested interest in maintaining and promoting its own worldview almost always at the expense of self honesty. So, given that in practice "holds as true" can not be easily distinguished from what one merely "desires to be true", there is plenty of room for dishonest claims and for promotion of a particular ideology. What is exploited, in his niche meme of fantasy exploration, is a willingness to consume and spread those thoughts or sentiments that reinforce existing prejudices.
It would be up to each individual to figure that out (i.e. what their prejudices are and remove them and/or the subtle difference between a desire to be true and holds as true). I don't know of a better way than what you are saying. If you do then please share.
zenmaster wrote:You mentioned that the material is not a treatise. Yet conveniently enough, to assuage doubt, it is constantly claimed that everything is well documented and well researched over many years. If the apprehensions are really that important to be brought to light, why no philosophical treatment forthcoming?

"2012. Is it tragedy or transcension?"
So, there is no documentation on his site to validate anything he is saying? No links to other sites where pieces of what he says are backed up? I do remember him saying a number of times in that podcast that this is well researched and documented though I have not personally scoured his site for this documentation/research (such as it may be). 2012? If the Universe has a sense of humour, I would think that the Winter Solstice of 2012 would be a complete non-event (i.e. neither tragedy nor transcension). Any "real" event would be offset by a few months or something just to thwart some people. Or maybe that's just my sense of humour.

User avatar
zenmaster
Cellarius
Cellarius
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:47 am

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by zenmaster » Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:40 am

aluxon wrote:It would be up to each individual to figure that out (i.e. what their prejudices are and remove them and/or the subtle difference between a desire to be true and holds as true). I don't know of a better way than what you are saying. If you do then please share.
Consider again that we are always capable of knowing where we don't know something. What does one do when there is lack of knowledge but one still feels compelled to introduce a suggestion, make a connection, or an assertion anyway? If one ignores these limits, perhaps feeling impatient, or feeling that the means justify the ends, or feeling like an "instrument", or feeling self-righteous, then this knowledge is effectively overextended. There are consequences to this dishonest practice, regardless of whether or not someone resonates with some or all of the resulting material. What is ignored or downplayed are the severe consequences of such dishonesty.

aluxon wrote:
zenmaster wrote:You mentioned that the material is not a treatise. Yet conveniently enough, to assuage doubt, it is constantly claimed that everything is well documented and well researched over many years. If the apprehensions are really that important to be brought to light, why no philosophical treatment forthcoming?
So, there is no documentation on his site to validate anything he is saying?
[/size] The material offered, itself, has no legitimate standing other than to serve as gut-feeling interpretations of what may have been scientifically demonstrated elsewhere. Normally, the intuition is initially used to guide one to an idea. The idea is then tested, a rationale developed to support the test methods, and the method's rationale is communicated. This important stage is skipped in the spirit of whimsy and flights of fancy. Basically, if everything can be conveniently made into a relativist's dream, or hyper-intuitivist's playground, then there are a few benefits: much less actual thought involved (free-association is an automatic function of the mind) and therefore less real work to do, plus no accountability because, after all, one can effectively disown that which is a "dream".

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: Wilcock rules!

Post by Gopi » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:09 pm

The idea behind this is that people must be able to think for themselves. And to offer those who are ready to do that a way to do it better, instead of falling prey to the collective fear.

As for the people who go on the "flights of fancy", well, let them fly! It will not affect the thinkers, and it will only serve as a curiosity. That was the way it worked for me, regarding Wilcock's works. Of course, I don't know if he understood what the Ether was, but I found my way to a lot of things, the Ra material, the Reciprocal System of Theory (there's hardcore thinking for you) and Keely's works. What was important was not if he knew what he was talking about, but that he put things on the same page to work as a nodal point, and also put his energy into it. That had an effect. Now if that is his path, then fine. You and I may think it is a stagnation... but it is free will, after all.

What I think you are reacting against is basically stagnation. People can stagnate in flights of fancy, as easily as they can stagnate in displacement activities, or "exploring mathematics" (highly logical, but generally doesn't end) or even in plain ol' discussions, where a lot of processing goes on, with little action. You may see this in green vMeme discussions, the more explicitly the problem gets defined and discussed, the better everyone feels, though no result pops out, and no solution is concluded upon. But each has its place, there have been things that I have learned from the stagnated ones, as much as I have learned from the growing ones. People might make their pre-incarnative choices in such a way as to dedicate themselves exclusively in a certain elective course for an entire lifetime.

Another thing is, that if one has to go on a rampage against stagnation, there is enough raw material for one to stagnate in rampaging itself. Appears wiser to accord it its place, choose what one wants to do, and MOVE.
It is time.

Post Reply