|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: Conducting Research: Understanding Truth |
  |
|
Conducting Research: Understanding Truth
A prerequisite to any research is the ability to discern fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, proven from unproven. Anyone who regards themselves as part of a/the 'Truth' Movement ought really to be well studied in the 'Tools' and 'Processes' used to arrive at logical conclusions (to arrive at the truth of the matter). If you cannot do Research & Analysis, then you are at the mercy of whoever is feeding you information. 'Research' and the accompanying skill of 'Logical Analysis' should be studied well and practiced by those who wish to properly identify any misdirection or disinfo, as well as for your own researching requirements.
NB I am not claiming to have all the answers, nor that this article is free from error. I have identified an area of concern that is somewhat neglected and I am therefore sharing what I have in the hope people might gain from it, - ideally that people will take logical analysis and research a little more seriously (myself included). It is a huge subject and this is but an introduction.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with someone in an Anti-War organisation a couple of years ago. At one point she replied with "There are no such thing as facts, facts are just like statistics; You can prove anything with them!". I found it alarming that anyone could make such a remark and I have to wonder how these notions come about. When I consider this along with another common error of thinking which is the 'appeal to authority', whereby people delegate their thinking to those in charge, this tells me there is a blatant refusal to do any thinking.
To list one more fallacy: "You can't prove a negative" - If this were true then it would be impossible to prove there was no elephant in your Living Room yet perfectly possible to prove your Living Room is 'elephant-free'. Of course this is the exact same situation, simply restated. If people have a belief that 'negatives' cannot be proven, then sooner or later they will encounter what they see as a negative and abandon any attempt at thinking beyond the most simple of thoughts.
Anyway, that said - this suggests to me that there are people at all levels of understanding regarding the principles of logic and I am glad at last to have an opportunity to put something down on paper/computer.
Logic skills form the building blocks for research and are also essential in validating others' claims. To fully appreciate what is Truth, you should be capable of actively pursuing research of your own. It would appear they are no longer teaching logic skills in school and people must take it upon themselves to discover the methodology.
Listening to others is a great way to learn but if you rely entirely on other peoples' claims and interpretations of what is fact, without recourse to your own investigative abilities, then you will not understand the 'Truth' process. You will be far more inclined to make judgements based on your own beliefs, emotions and prejudices, rather than employing sound logic, you also run the risk of being played like a fiddle and having your access to vital information denied. Instead of saying "I believe ...", learn to say "I know this to be true because ...".
The ability to fact-find is a fundamental concern and a freedom everyone should have access to and enjoy. Engaging in research gets you thinking and makes the mind more active. To this end I include below various sources which should help take people through the necessary steps to enlightenment.
The following web site provides an explanation for common logic terms such as PREMISES/ ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCE & CONCLUSIONS (everyday terms). Along with several examples of common errors in logic, it makes a good starting point and is but a single page to read.
Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
"There's a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate."
See also:
Austhink: Tim Van Gelder's Critical Thinking On The Web
http://www.austhink.org/critical/
A directory of quality online resources for critical thinking.
Austhink is a critical thinking research, training and consulting group specializing in complex reasoning and argumentation. We focus on critical thinking, the kind of thinking needed to ensure judgments are correct or accurate.
The Nizkor Project: Fallacies
http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site.
The British Columbia Society for Skeptical Enquiry: Critical Thinking - Resources
http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/index.html
* Aims: To provide a reliable source of information to the public and media on claims of the paranormal
* To provide public education in areas of scientific method and paranormal claims
* To facilitate open-minded testing of paranormal claims
* To provide a forum for the exchange of views
--------------------------------
The following are equally relevant but beyond the scope of this Introductory. I can only offer a few pointers here. If you have acquainted yourself with the above principles of analysis, then perhaps you might want to add from the following to your 'research' list or maybe use a good teacher with honesty and integrity to help guide you on your journey.
- Suggested Areas for Further Study -&- Other Considerations
Intro
There are a great many aspects to research and analysis, as always I can only indicate some of it - this is why the ability to do your own research is critical, doing so empowers you to best find out exactly what you need to know, when you need to know it. The process gets easier the more research you attempt. I have a saying that 'If information comes looking for you - then odds are it has some agenda', it may be well intentioned but how are you ever going to know? It is rare you will find unadulterated truth (just look at the Mainstream Media), even your own mother can be mistaken - study the tools and principles you need, learn how to do your own research!
The scientific method of verification
This would be using any technical method to ascertain the status of a given object/ concept/ whatever. This might include things such as carbon dating, record checking, forensics, geology, some Sherlock Holmes type method etc - These typically require a certain amount of skill and equipment plus they have their own potential errors and inaccuracies. If you have knowledge in areas such as these then obviously you can use this to your benefit or you might want to add to your skill set.
Looking at the bigger picture
You need a clear list of goals and how you intend to achieve them - i.e. What is the truth/fact that you seek and what is this answer worth to you (what will you do with it)? How much of your time and effort are you prepared to invest in the search and is there maybe a better Truth more worthy of your investigative efforts.
Before getting bogged down in the minutiae of research, decide what it is you are trying to achieve (the bigger picture). Ask yourself how what you intend to do will help with this and how you expect to go about it - By doing this at the start you have a guideline for whether a given exercise/ pursuit is worth the effort, how things are going as you progress, plus you won't lose sight of your end objective or be so readily distracted.
Do you know which 'Arguments' are the most relevant to your quest for the truth? - You can waste an awful lot of time pursuing the wrong questions.
Do you have a path mapped out on how best to get there?
These are both questions of 'Time & Resource Management' and this is no less critical an issue.
We all have limited resources and must select carefully where to apply our efforts, in other words, we need as early as possible to select carefully where we intend spending our time and effort. Consider also that if there is a group, that you might better spend your time by researching something not being researched by several others. Further, when it comes to research, - don't sacrifice quality for speed.
Try to keep in mind that not all evidence/facts come packaged in a pretty box with a bow on it and even if they do, this is no guarantee by itself of validity. Documents can still be forged or used to deceive - don't believe everything you read. Similarly, if an archaeologist was only interested when he dug a complete and flawless piece of pottery out the ground, he would be dismissing the bulk of the evidence. What is required here is a method to deal with incomplete data. Such a method would permit the potential unlocking of a vast quantity of otherwise hidden information.
Further (IIRC), in the Intelligence Services they have their own way of assessing information and (et al) use a grading system whereby they mark evidence based on both its 'perceived reliability' (e.g. - where was it sourced?), together with a grade for the quality of accompanying evidence - this is not to say they have a perfect system, this is simply to illustrate different approaches. Another approach might be within the realms of Probability or Statistical Analysis; - there may be some easy to use tools available from this field.
Be Aware of: Mind control/ Behaviour Modification/ Propaganda
These things are very real, try to have a good understanding and awareness of them, that way when they occur (constantly), you will be best prepared to deal with them.
- These are all a reality and take many forms. Advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry, they would not be spending that much if it had no effect. Politicians and others use them to evoke a particular response from you; again they wouldn't be using it if it didn't work. Actually, it is almost fun to have a good grasp of logical reasoning when listening to politicians, as they invariably use empty rhetoric, appeal to emotions, etc and frequently fail to present any legitimate evidence.
You can probably recall at least a half dozen clichés (Hegelian dialectics?) that have been drummed into your head. Try picking these apart with an understanding of fallacious reasoning and discover just how much nonsense they really are. e.g. "We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here", "If it saves just one life then it's worth it", "Too many motorcyclists are dying therefore we must reduce the speed of their bikes" .... Understand it, learn to identify and avoid being trapped by it - Get control and remain in control of your own destiny.
WAKE UP AND WISE UP!
Whatever is only almost true is quite false, and among the most dangerous of errors, because being so near truth, it is the more likely to lead astray. - Henry Ward Beecher
If you would be a real seeker of truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. - Rene Descartes
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is built upon will warrant. - John Locke
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
truth (trot) pl. truths (trotz, trots)
n.
1 the quality or state of being true; specif., a) orig., loyalty; trustworthiness b) sincerity; genuineness; honesty c) the quality of being in accordance with experience, facts, or reality; conformity with fact d) reality; actual existence e) agreement with a standard, rule, etc.; correctness; accuracy
2 that which is true; statement, etc. that accords with fact or reality
3 an established or verified fact, principle, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortuntately, I have learned through experience that "truth" is more a matter of what one believes than what constitutes fact - as noted in this Oxford English Dictionary definition:
| Quote: | truth
noun ( pl. truths |tro?ðz; tro??s|)
the quality or state of being true : he had to accept the truth of her accusation.
• (also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality : tell me the truth | she found out the truth about him.
• a fact or belief that is accepted as true : the emergence of scientific truths | the fundamental truths about mankind.
ORIGIN Old English tr?ewth, tr?owth [faithfulness, constancy] (see true , -th 2 ) |
There are at least as many Old English words for "truth" as there are BELIEFS about what constitutes truth itself; this is one:
| Quote: | | treówÞe triéwþ, trýwþ, e; f. The word is used sometimes in plural with force of singular. I. truth, good faith, honour :-- Ð?r dydon þeáh Rómáne lytla triéwþa ðæt him ða w?ron láðe ðe hiera hláford beswican there, however, the Romans acted a little honourably (in hoc solo Romanis circa eum fortiter agentibus), in that those who had betrayed their lord were detestable to them, Ors. 5, 2; Swt. 218, 17. II. fidelity :-- Heora gemynd þurhwunaþ for heora trýwðe wið God, Ælfc. T. Grn. l, 12. III. a covenant, an assurance of good faith :-- Ðis ys ðære treówðe blód ðe Drihten eów behét hic est sanguisfoederis, quad pepigit Dominus vobiscum, Ex. 24, 8. In treówþe geþeóded freóndscipes spiritalis amicitiae foedere copulatus. Bd. 4, 29; S. 607, 9. Mid ?nigere treówðe qvolibet paclo, Hpt. Gl. 469, 34. Treówða foedera, pacta, 404, 9. Treófða foedera, 416, 47. Hié nánra treówþa him ne wéndon buton ðæt hié mid ealle forweorþan sceolde they expected no terms for themselves, but that they must entirely perish ; the Latin which this seems intended to translate is :-- Non secus ac si capta esset, turbata civitas fuit. Ors. 4, 5; Swt. 166, 13. Ic gemunde n. inra treówða ðe ic Abrahame behét recordatus sum pacti mei, Ex. 6, 5. Gif gé mine treówða gehealdaþ si eustodieritis pactum meum, 19, 5. [O. H. Ger. ga-triuwida confidentia ; missa-triuwida diffidentia, suspicio: Icel. tryggð faith, truce. '] v. ge-, un-treówþ. |
The Old and Middle English, Anglo & Saxon English, etc. are a never ending fascination for me, as they are almost entirely overlooked in discerning the 'truth' about history. For this reason, it is my opinion that most of history that we accept as 'truth' is really a fabricated version of events designed to influence contemporary beliefs about what we believe.
What is the context of your inquiry into the concept of truth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 425
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: Re: Conducting Research: Understanding Truth |
|
|
Greetings,
| Ta Seti wrote: | | To list one more fallacy: "You can't prove a negative" - If this were true then it would be impossible to prove there was no elephant in your Living Room yet perfectly possible to prove your Living Room is 'elephant-free'. Of course this is the exact same situation, simply restated. |
Also known as a negative averment. For example you could say:
| Quote: | | I have not been presented with any evidence or material facts that an elephant is in the room and believe that none exist. |
| Ta Seti wrote: | | The following web site provides an explanation for common logic terms such as PREMISES/ ASSUMPTIONS, INFERENCE & CONCLUSIONS (everyday terms). Along with several examples of common errors in logic, it makes a good starting point and is but a single page to read. |
Assumptions and presumptions are also use every day in courts to trip people up.
assumptions taken as fact though not necessarily proven
presumptions believed to be fact based on the existence of other known facts
| Ta Seti wrote: | Logic & Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
"There's a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate."
The scientific method of verification
This would be using any technical method to ascertain the status of a given object/ concept/ whatever. This might include things such as carbon dating, record checking, forensics, geology, some Sherlock Holmes type method etc - These typically require a certain amount of skill and equipment plus they have their own potential errors and inaccuracies. If you have knowledge in areas such as these then obviously you can use this to your benefit or you might want to add to your skill set.
Looking at the bigger picture
You need a clear list of goals and how you intend to achieve them - i.e. What is the truth/fact that you seek and what is this answer worth to you (what will you do with it)? How much of your time and effort are you prepared to invest in the search and is there maybe a better Truth more worthy of your investigative efforts. |
| Quote: | Most creations, most of everything you see around you, most, and we do say most being the majority, of everything that you perceive part of you reality was created by minds. Yours and everyone else’s, by the minds, without direction.
…reality that you perceive around you is the equivalent of a child’s painting. It is beautiful to you because you created it. But we assure you it is the most haphazard, disconnected, unconnected, application of energy that existence has ever perceived. And existence sees it for what it is. But you don’t. And you can’t. Because your mind is the connector. The subconscious portion of the mind connects to all of existence. So through the mind you can begin to perceive the reality of your existence.
Now we said the reality that surrounds you is a direct construct of a group of minds put together. These group of minds were not given direction. In other words the minds were able to construct haphazardly, as they chose. And in the haphazardness they created logic. And that’s the conundrum of logic. Logic is the most illogical aspect of existence.
Think of it from this perspective as an example. A group of minds, lets call it 6 billion for arguments sake, got together and created. Each one individually began creating…one began creating and another began creating, and another began creating at the same time, one in the creation, because they are not disconnected, they are not entirely separate, the one mind perceived the others creation and created on the basis of that others creation. And that other perceiving the ones creation, created on the basis of that others creation. And that others creation, both of them, perceiving the others creation, created on the basis of that others creation. And so it went. And so it still goes. All of these perceiving their own creations and observing others creations are creating on the basis of the others creations, their own creations. Which is why you have an existence which all individuals can perceive equally. Because your mind is creating based on your observations of the others minds creations. So your using that as the basis of your creation as they are using your creation as a basis of theirs. And because all minds together form have created the reality in which you exist, and all minds are interacting with all the others to create independently of all others but based on their observation of all others. Then what you have is a reality that is constantly growing, flowing, altering and shifting but that exists within the similar parameters, exists within the similar limitations, and exists specifically on the same basis of each other’s creations. So one’s creation forms the basis of another’s and the others creation forms the basis of the one. So though you both create differently, you both create from the same source. From the same basis. And as a result therefore, though there is a difference in your creations, it is still defined by the basis on which you create, which is the parameter of your limitations. Which is why everyone looks around and says earth is to walk on, water is to swim in. |
As to what is truth, I have to agree with Drew that it is based on our beliefs and further, our beliefs are a result of our perceptions and our choices.
_________________
Choose Freely
http://www.choosefreely.com/
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrewTerry
You state that:
| Quote: | | "Unfortuntately, I have learned through experience that "truth" is more a matter of what one believes than what constitutes fact - as noted in this Oxford English Dictionary definition: " |
However your example does not appear to support this. It places a greater emphasis on FACT (and Reality) than it does on BELIEF. It does this if you take the following:
a) Fact is mentioned before Belief
b) Fact is positioned before Belief (when in the same sentence)
c) The defining term 'Fact' occurs more frequently than the term 'Belief'
The best you could argue here is that the positioning and frequency bare no relevance, in which case it still doesn't support your main argument.
The OED indicates that the term 'Belief' would constitute an accepted truth in the context of (or in the 'sense' of) a scientific proof (or fundamental truths) - by this I would have to say it is refering to a situation where something is judged and accepted to be true on a wide basis, and probably through using the best science available. In such a case the belief being referred to would be an accepted-truth which has yet to be proven (such as evolutionary theory).
This is not quite the same as someone deciding to randomly believe 'X' and therefore 'X' instantly becomes a reality. If the latter were true and we were all entitled to our own truths, each equally valid, then the following frequently heard (and believed) explanations would all be true:
a) aeroplanes brought down the towers
b) fires brought down the towers
c) Controlled demolition/ explosives/ thermate brought down the towers
d) Nukes brought down the towers
e) Space weapons brought down the towers
I hope you would agree that at most, only one of these explanations can be true.
NB I'm referring to the common arguments - you might want to group a) plus b) together but I am not aware of people commonly doing this - I would also argue that a) plus b) is really an argument for a) however I don't wish to get bogged down in the details here.
Taking what you said again:
| Quote: | | "Unfortuntately, I have learned through experience that "truth" is more a matter of what one believes than what constitutes fact" |
I'm very glad you said that as it raises a major concern of mine and one I have already touched upon in this thread, as well as in a previous thread when I wrote that (under the new school teaching ethics:) "there are no moral absolutes, there is no right or wrong - only conditioned responses".
You say the way you acquired this information was through experience as opposed to any instruction or study and indeed I agree that if you base your perception primarily upon observation then you may well come to this conclusion.
Though I know retired people who think like this, it is my understanding that this way of thinking is both being pushed in the schools these days (and incrementally for the last 50 yrs), as well as being reinforced at every level of the machinery (MSM etc). Incidentally, I would like to know how they are teaching this, whether explicitly or implicitly, if anyone has an answer or a clue I would love to know the details.
I have to say that not only am I strongly in disagreement with this but that it is a falsehood. If you are asking why I went to the effort of writing this piece then you have one very firm reason right there. Whatever a person may choose to believe, their belief has no effect on the truth of a situation. No doubt you won't agree with that but nonetheless it is where I stand. I'm anticipating potentially metaphysical or faith based arguments but so be it.
Regarding word definitions, it is possible to discover a whole array of meanings for a particular word and that is without even going through the entire history/etymology. That wasn't however the intent of my original post and such a pursuit would likely take us off at a tangent. Most times when a word is used it is used in a particular context and the other meanings are not intended otherwise communication would be near impossible.
I would have hoped the nature of my enquiry was self-explanatory from the context and content of the post itself.
You ask:
| Quote: | | "What is the context of your inquiry into the concept of truth?" |
# My title refers to Truth (and establishing Fact) in the context of Research.
# In the post I make numerous references to 'Research', 'Logical Analysis', 'fact-finding', 'evidence' and a number of related terms.
# My opening gambit reads: "A prerequisite to any research is the ability to discern fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, proven from unproven.".
# I incorporate several links to LOGIC, FALLACIES, CRITICAL THINKING, in fact all my external links are to a Web Site specifically of this type.
# My objectives include 1/ Empowerment 2/ Redressing the balance of power.
I wish for people to be able to feed themselves and to then feed others because that is an important aspect of being able to regain our freedoms.
I can only suggest that - should you choose, that you invest a little more time to read and digest my post and follow the links (you replied a little over an hour after my post). The post is about conducting research, critical thinking and fact-finding, I would hope it speaks for itself. I have gone to lengths to not only provide some of the best links I have accumulated on the subject but to set out the reasons as to why this subject has such importance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Hiyas,
Thanks for bring up the 'negative averment' term, I had heard it once or twice but it escaped me at the time of writing. It would appear that there is perhaps some confusion out there (in the wibbly wobbly world), as the term is used in the context of a person not needing to prove their innocence (a 'negative' act) in a court of law.
I see from this legal aspect where another logical error might have arisen, which is where people state "It is up to the person stating a fact to prove it, otherwise IT AIN'T SO!". Clearly if this was the case, I could simply declare that I had eaten toast for breakfast, deliberately fail to provide sufficient (or any) evidence and thus be 'proven' innocent of having eaten toast.
Similarly (regarding not being able to prove a negative), I could declare there are no people on planet Earth, that there are no such things as cars or houses or even that nobody has ever driven a car into a house. You would have to take my word for all this because "It is impossible to prove a negative!" (plus - why would I listen to someone who didn't exist?). The fact that it is perfectly possible to test for all these conditions would be deemed an irrelevance.
Both of these ('burden of proof' & 'not needing to prove a negative') stem from the way adversarial pleading is defined. In such courts of law it is assumed (for the sake of expediency) that if something is not contested, then it goes down on the record as 'fact'. If evidence is not presented, then any such evidence is deemed not to exist (until perhaps a retrial, where new 'facts' may be created).
legally speaking:
"When a party affirms a negative in his pleadings, and without the establishment of which, by evidence, he cannot recover or defend himself, the burden of the proof lies upon him and he must prove the negative."
By this it can be seen that Negatives not only 'can' but on occasion MUST be proven to a standard acceptable in a court of law.
It is worth noting that although the courts do incorporate elements of logical analysis (... and even that has its limitations!), that any such logic falls under the greater umbrella of the adversarial approach. Under this approach, two sides battle it out and the one with the highest fee'd lawyer, biggest bribe or best Masonic gesticulation is declared the winner & teller-of-truth whilst the other is declared as being in the wrong or at fault. Like many things, the courts and legal method is a game. It has its own peculiar set of rules and bares only a passing resemblance to reality - the contesting parties are not there to establish the truth, they are there to win.
An important lesson to be learnt from this is that, for the purposes of truth seeking, the adversarial approach is probably not the best method, instead I would favour cooperation and a pooling of resources/info (I'm not saying this is the best method, merely that it is preferable).
Indeed you could state:
| Quote: | | "I have not been presented with any evidence or material facts that an elephant is in the room and believe that none exist." |
You could also go a lot further and demonstrate there is no elephant. For the purposes of simplification, if we limit our considerations to a full grown, standard type elephant ...
It could be demonstrated that:
# there is not enough available space to incorporate an elephant
# The floor would not take the weight of an elephant
# An elephant simply is not visible (nor audible)
# There is no way to get an elephant into the room
# The room is full of mice and therefore an elephant would have long since chosen to leave
# There is a lion in the room and the lion would have left had there been an elephant present
# The fact that there is enough room to swing a cat in such a small room proves the non-existence of an elephant
... or numerous other scientific methods could be employed to a similar end.
| Quote: | | "Assumptions and presumptions are also use every day in courts to trip people up." |
Absolutely, logic can be used as a weapon as well as a tool and this is why I say we need to be aware of it - typically, good logic conquers bad logic, the same as truth defeats a lie. All this though is highly dependent on the person's ability to use logic (or to be aware of the whole truth).
| Quote: | | Most creations, most of everything you see around you, most, and we do say most being the majority, of everything that you perceive part of you reality was created by minds. Yours and everyone else’s, by the minds, without direction. ... |
You detail (as above) what I would term as metaphysics and the fundamental nature of being. It is a great area of debate and it crossed my mind whether to give this a passing mention however in the interests of brevity, simplicity and focus, I decided to omit it from my initial post. Metaphysics is another plane of thinking and my feeble attempt to explain it would not have helped. The nature of my concern here on this mortal coil is that it takes the rules of logic to ascertain what happened in New York, early September 2001, it is the rules of logic that will help us comprehend the nature of the NWO and to remedy it.
It is a question of using the right tool for the job, logic can be used to observe the reality, it is scientific, it is repeatable and it can be used to effect change. I have mixed feelings about perception being reality, it seems to be saying to me that if you make a mistake in your interpretation of the world (i.e. if you get your sums wrong), that the world will automatically readjust to fall in line with your way of thinking.
I would thoroughly recommend Fintan on the subject of metaphysics along with the TreeIncarnation Audios and associated Forum threads where this is amply debated. Whereas others may go all 'spacey' about this and end up nowhere of any relevance, I've found that Fintan is able to cover this subject with great clarity whilst never losing sight of terra firma (wherever that may be). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not here to argue.
My apologies for my post - please disregard what I said.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 425
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings Ta Seti,
I first came across 'negative averment' whilst researching the whole Redemption process. The understanding I was following would emphasis the use of this method, particularly when defending oneself from outrageous claims made by governments and their representatives. It would then place the onus on the accuser to prove their claim rather than on the accused. But mind you, unless you know what to do each step of the way, you end up with more of a headache than what you had when you started.
Wibberly wobberly world it sure is.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | In such courts of law it is assumed (for the sake of expediency) that if something is not contested, then it goes down on the record as 'fact'. |
Yes, and the some of the Maxims of Commerce highlight why this is so
IN COMMERCE TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN
TRUTH IS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT
AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE
AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE
IN COMMERCE FOR ANY MATTER TO BE RESOLVED MUST BE EXPRESSED
HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT
And this is what we have when the living soul thinks that JOE BLOGGS and Joe Bloggs are one in the same. But they only become so when the first words out of the magistrates mouth are:
Are you JOE BLOGGS?
Now thinking that what he is asking is, are you Joe Bloggs, you say yes, and from that point on you are tied to any fictional claim that is attached to JOE BLOGGS.
Many believe this is nonsense, but I can tell you I have seen it for my own eyes. No matter how many times the magistrate asked my friend, are you MARK BLOGGS, my friend would respond that he was Mark(spelt capital M, lower case a r k) Bloggs (spelt capital B lower case l o g g s ) and that he was there by special appearance la da la...whatever he was using at the time. He was held in custody for a few days before coming back before the magistrate and asked the same question and he responded in a similar manner. In the end he was held for about a week in custody, all because he never gave them the green light by agreeing to be MARK BLOGGS. They were in a stalemate. The problem now is that, though many have found ways to stall issues, no one ( in Australia, at least to my knowledge) has been able to close a matter totally.
It is my understanding that what happens in a court situation is that attorneys by and large get people to plead not guilty, which immediately sets them into a dishonour because the full charge itself mixes up known facts, assumed facts and presumed facts. It gets people to argue, another dishonour, rather than conditionally accepting whatever claim comes their way, upon proof of claim that.....
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Like many things, the courts and legal method is a game. It has its own peculiar set of rules and bares only a passing resemblance to reality - the contesting parties are not there to establish the truth, they are there to win. |
Exactly, and not only do the general public NOT know the rules, that don't even know which game they need to look up the rules for.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | I would favour cooperation and a pooling of resources/info (I'm not saying this is the best method, merely that it is preferable). |
I'm not sure if this was the case, but it is my understanding that that was the basis of Common Law, and was where any injustices perceived or real, were sorted out by the people who felt aggrieved.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Quote: | | Most creations, most of everything you see around you, most, and we do say most being the majority, of everything that you perceive part of you reality was created by minds. Yours and everyone else’s, by the minds, without direction. ... |
You detail (as above) what I would term as metaphysics and the fundamental nature of being. It is a great area of debate and it crossed my mind whether to give this a passing mention however in the interests of brevity, simplicity and focus, I decided to omit it from my initial post. Metaphysics is another plane of thinking and my feeble attempt to explain it would not have helped. The nature of my concern here on this mortal coil is that it takes the rules of logic to ascertain what happened in New York, early September 2001, it is the rules of logic that will help us comprehend the nature of the NWO and to remedy it.
It is a question of using the right tool for the job, logic can be used to observe the reality, it is scientific, it is repeatable and it can be used to effect change. I have mixed feelings about perception being reality, it seems to be saying to me that if you make a mistake in your interpretation of the world (i.e. if you get your sums wrong), that the world will automatically readjust to fall in line with your way of thinking. |
Where you would suggest logic is a tool, I would look at it as an object created by a tool, in this case being the mind. And yes the mind is a very good tool for nutting out problems. And yes, once the 'evidence' comes forth that x + y could not possibly lead to z, then people will begin to see the same thing, ie. a result of our perceptions and choices, and people will responding accordingly.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | I would thoroughly recommend Fintan on the subject of metaphysics along with the TreeIncarnation Audios and associated Forum threads where this is amply debated. Whereas others may go all 'spacey' about this and end up nowhere of any relevance, I've found that Fintan is able to cover this subject with great clarity whilst never losing sight of terra firma (wherever that may be). |
I would agree that Fintan has grasped the use of his mind and used it in his search for understanding things unseen. For me, I have no difficulty with this whatsoever.
But I believe he could go further if he was less fearful of exploring without the need to be correct, logical or scientific.
_________________
Choose Freely
http://www.choosefreely.com/
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ozregeneration wrote: | And this is what we have when the living soul thinks that JOE BLOGGS and Joe Bloggs are one in the same. But they only become so when the first words out of the magistrates mouth are:
Are you JOE BLOGGS?
Now thinking that what he is asking is, are you Joe Bloggs, you say yes, and from that point on you are tied to any fictional claim that is attached to JOE BLOGGS.
Many believe this is nonsense, but I can tell you I have seen it for my own eyes. No matter how many times the magistrate asked my friend, are you MARK BLOGGS, my friend would respond that he was Mark(spelt capital M, lower case a r k) Bloggs (spelt capital B lower case l o g g s ) and that he was there by special appearance la da la...whatever he was using at the time. He was held in custody for a few days before coming back before the magistrate and asked the same question and he responded in a similar manner. In the end he was held for about a week in custody, all because he never gave them the green light by agreeing to be MARK BLOGGS. They were in a stalemate. The problem now is that, though many have found ways to stall issues, no one ( in Australia, at least to my knowledge) has been able to close a matter totally. |
This is absolutely true (and not because I believe it  ) and precisely what part of my post on the Wizard of Oz talks about in the TIN MAN section.
I hope Gary/Dilbert doesn't see this post - he thinks the ALL CAPS thing is bullshit (just like everything else that can't be found in the usual resources). Of course, they are not going to just give away the secrets - I don't know that even going to law school would teach you how to evade prosecution based on this alone.
People never notice that every tax form or court document spells their name in ALL CAPS - and when pointed out to them, they are too afraid to question it. I have questioned it, and they won't change it. They get very agitated just for questioning it!
Thanks for that, and everything else. Very interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hiyas DrewTerry,
| DrewTerry wrote: | | Of course, they are not going to just give away the secrets - I don't know that even going to law school would teach you how to evade prosecution based on this alone. |
I think you've about summed it up there. They have gone to great lengths already throughout millennia to hold on to the secrets which maintain their power; it is not beyond them to use every dirty trick in the book to maintain that status quo. As for schooling, I would say that students get taught only as much as is needed in order to assume their place within the pyramid (within 'the great work').
"Power is never relinquished willingly; it must be wrestled free if it is to be free."
Hiyas ozregeneration,
Here in England we are moving away from the 'innocent until proven guilty' historical aspect of justice in favour of something a little more fascistic. I read about someone being busted for growing some weed (approx 100 plants), the judge in his summing up/sentencing, assumed the person was going to sell the stuff despite having no evidence for this claim.
They have introduced laws to deprive someone of their property and possessions if it is merely suspected that they are the proceeds of crime. It doesn't matter that there is no evidence that would stand up in court and the person remains innocent of any crime, in fact the law is precisely for these situations of insufficient evidence. They have also 'reformed' most of the legal system, doing away with many of the checks and balances such as juries. Trials can now be repeated for the same offence until they get a conviction etc. Plenty more things have been criminalised.
| ozregeneration wrote: | | Now thinking that what he is asking is, are you Joe Bloggs, you say yes, and from that point on you are tied to any fictional claim that is attached to JOE BLOGGS. |
Yup, they are sneaky with their JOE BLOGGS tricks. I did hear on the MSM News that a person had interrupted the process of the court by refusing to accept he 'understood the charges' (apparently this is more semantics for 'accepting responsibility for the charges' or similar), I should follow up the details on that story some time as the MSM only gave the thinnest of details possible and it sounds rather amusing.
| ozregeneration wrote: | | He was held in custody for a few days before coming back before the magistrate and asked the same question and he responded in a similar manner. In the end he was held for about a week in custody, all because he never gave them the green light by agreeing to be MARK BLOGGS. |
When they can kidnap/imprison you for simply standing up for your rights in order to force a confession out of you, it becomes apparent there is little justice.
| ozregeneration wrote: | | But I believe [Fintan] could go further if he was less fearful of exploring without the need to be correct, logical or scientific. |
Perhaps, - it seems a choice between keeping your feet on the ground and letting yourself go. As there are already plenty of spacemen out there, pied pipering otherwise sane people down Desolation Row, I find it beneficial having Fintan as a counter balance to this. Not that I would ever want to stand in someone's way if they chose a different approach.
There is a great deal of trickery being use to mould people's minds into accepting the New Age (e.g. spiritualism). Constance Cumbey warns of this in her 1985 book 'Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism'. Cumbey draws a correlation between New Age & Nazism that has to be studied to be appreciated (and I've not read it). For those familiar with the major occult aspects of Nazism, this won't come as quite the surprise it may otherwise seem.
This is not to say there is nothing to be discovered 'out there', there are after all 'more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy' - as we have indeed been continually discovering. A problem here is that people when presented with any (suspected) mixture of part fact, part speculation and part falsehood are prone to reject the entire lot. The old ways involved finding a channel or a party/organisation to trust and then believing everything that was ever said without question, e.g. as per TV News presenters or your typical anti-war group. In the 'thinking age', this is something I hope to see progressing as there is potentially an infinite source of knowledge and information available and we should be able to access and make sense of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 425
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings Drew & Ta Seti,
| DrewTerry wrote: | | I hope Gary/Dilbert doesn't see this post - he thinks the ALL CAPS thing is bullshit (just like everything else that can't be found in the usual resources). Of course, they are not going to just give away the secrets - I don't know that even going to law school would teach you how to evade prosecution based on this alone. |
But it's not until you see these things play out in front of you that you can see the validity of the ALL CAPS trickery.
As the Redemption research came out of the US, this has been nutted out in more detail than anywhere else than I am aware of. The two people that I believe (I don't have first hand knowledge though) who have had successes are Sam Kennedy and Winston Shrout. I know Jerry bought one of Winston's packages but I don't know how far he got with it.
| DrewTerry wrote: | | People never notice that every tax form or court document spells their name in ALL CAPS - and when pointed out to them, they are too afraid to question it. I have questioned it, and they won't change it. They get very agitated just for questioning it! |
I believe that some computers are set so that they can only write in capitals so they probably couldn't do it even if they tried.
With all that I've studied on this subject, probably the only thing I know do religiously is sign my tax returns using a restricted signature and add my own qualifiers i.e This is true and correct blah...then I add to the best of my ability.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Here in England we are moving away from the 'innocent until proven guilty' historical aspect of justice in favour of something a little more fascistic. |
You may find that you actually moved away from it earlier than you thought. Many believe that the common law edict 'innocent until proven guilty' has been removed at the same time as money of substance was being removed (i.e. backed by silver/gold). To get a common law verdict it is now required of you to do it administratively via affidavits, etc, in the private arena, as opposed to the public (courts).
| Ta Seti wrote: | | It doesn't matter that there is no evidence that would stand up in court and the person remains innocent of any crime, in fact the law is precisely for these situations of insufficient evidence. |
The reason they get away with it is because they are making fictitious laws for fictions (i.e. ALL CAPS). That is why in the redemption way of thinking, you accept (either fully or conditionally) any charge they lay at you and use your set off account to settle the matter because every, every, law, regulation, code, act, etc has a monetary value attached to it. It is all commerce. Like I've said before there are people in the US & Canada who have nutted out the process but, though some have got close here in Skippyland and Kiwiland, no one to my knowledge have been able to perfect it to the same degree. Some believe it is because it is due to the way our governments have been formed. Sort of a mix between the British and US systems.
One of the biggest problems that people have is that what worked one week, may not work the next and as all governments do, when it looks like someone is taking a step to free themselves from the system, they move the goalposts. This is the type of thing that was doing my head in and chose to walk away from researching it about 6 months ago. Now I just focus on what I want.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | They have also 'reformed' most of the legal system, doing away with many of the checks and balances such as juries. |
There is a gentleman by the name of John Wilson who has been pushing this barrow here for some time. The thing that John doesn't see is that whilst some charges such as murder, etc do come under common law (which allow for juries), the majority are just commercial so their is no place for a jury.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Trials can now be repeated for the same offence until they get a conviction etc. Plenty more things have been criminalised. |
This is what they call double jeopardy I think. There had been talk of them changing the laws for this here in one of the states. I think it was New South Wales, but I think only for certain crimes. To tell you the truth I only have a passing interest in what governments get up to now days. While they play their games, I'll just choose what I want.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Yup, they are sneaky with their JOE BLOGGS tricks. I did hear on the MSM News that a person had interrupted the process of the court by refusing to accept he 'understood the charges' (apparently this is more semantics for 'accepting responsibility for the charges' or similar), I should follow up the details on that story some time as the MSM only gave the thinnest of details possible and it sounds rather amusing. |
When one says they understand they are also saying that they stand under, they accept, the charge. So you are saying that you are JOE BLOGGS and that you, the living soul (though you cannot be charged as the living soul) accept the charge as surety for the ALL CAPS.
Victoria Joy in her workshops likes to reiterate how goood they are. She says we just need to be gooder.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | When they can kidnap/imprison you for simply standing up for your rights in order to force a confession out of you, it becomes apparent there is little justice. |
Ain't democracy grand.  
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Perhaps, - it seems a choice between keeping your feet on the ground and letting yourself go. |
That's right, it's like everything we do, think, feel, believe, etc, it's all about choice.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | As there are already plenty of spacemen out there, pied pipering otherwise sane people down Desolation Row, I find it beneficial having Fintan as a counter balance to this. Not that I would ever want to stand in someone's way if they chose a different approach. |
 And nor could you stand in anyones way. As you've already agreed, it's all about choice.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | There is a great deal of trickery being use to mould people's minds into accepting the New Age (e.g. spiritualism). |
I'd be interested if you could expand on what exactly this 'trickery' was.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | This is not to say there is nothing to be discovered 'out there', there are after all 'more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy' - as we have indeed been continually discovering. A problem here is that people when presented with any (suspected) mixture of part fact, part speculation and part falsehood are prone to reject the entire lot. |
You find that too do you. I also find that if I present views from a perceived suspect source it too is rejected entirely.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | The old ways involved finding a channel or a party/organisation to trust and then believing everything that was ever said without question, e.g. as per TV News presenters or your typical anti-war group. In the 'thinking age', this is something I hope to see progressing as there is potentially an infinite source of knowledge and information available and we should be able to access and make sense of it. |
You call it the 'thinking age'. For me, this is the reason we are this mess in the first place as the mind has had far too much say in what we do. I believe that as we move away from the mind and move to a more intuitive knowing, that is when we begin to tap into an infinite source of knowledge. In fact you may find that Fintan would actually agree with me on this point.
The problem for Fintan is that he has to juggle the views he presents. On the one hand presenting rational, logical, scientifically based arguments to satisfy his majority audience. While on the other hand he is wishing to present more open minded, intuitive presentations as well, but ever mindful not to travel too far down this path. For thats when he starts sounding a bit kookoo kookoo. So ultimately what is holding him back is fear.
For me, I'm lucky, I don't have to please any audience. I can just write whatever I like and people will either accept it or reject it. I DON'T CARE. So I can tell you that I will be going to this workshop
http://www.thewonders.com/2007_workshop_schedule.htm
where they will be covering the following topics.
Sunday August 12
o Let's All Become Conscious
o Just What Is Illusion?
o The Complexity of Energy Through Consciousness
o Bringing Life Force Within
Monday August 13
o Moving Life Force With Consciousness
o Creating The Perspective Of Oneness
o Let's Start All Over Again
o The End Is The Beginning, The Beginning Is The End
Tuesday August 14
o Peeling Back The Layers
o Moving To Loving The Layers
o Meditations To Encompass Oneness
o The Given Of Consciousness.
Wednesday August 15
o Day off - you're on your own. No meals provided.
Segment 2
Thursday August 16
o Your Skin's Different Than Mine
o I'm Better Than You
o I Will Change The Universe
o My Religion, Your Duty
Friday August 17
o The Evils Of War
o Applying Judgment To Religions And Race
o Racism Equals Religion - Or Does It?
o Where Does Politics Fit In?
Saturday August 18
o The Greed Of Power
o Combining Power With Religion And Race
o Why Do We Create Dictatorships?
o Why Do Religions And Racism, Power And Politics Affect Consciousness?
Sunday August 19
o Day off - you're on your own. No meals provided.
Segment 3
Monday August 20
o The Illusion Of Command
o I Am Creatively Controlling
o Moving The Energy Of Consciousness Through Love - What An Illusion
o Have I Learned Anything?
Tuesday August 21
o Incorporating Control Into Command
o The Consciousness Of Control
o The Consciousness Of Command
o The Consciousness Of Creativity
Wednesday August 22
o Changing The Consciousness Through Love
o Moving The Group To Oneness
o Applying The Last Defining Statement
o The Consciousness Of Growth And Expansion
Thursday August 23
o Day off - you're on your own. No meals provided.
Friday August 24
o Definitions of Oneness, Defining The Statements
o Closing ceremonies - everyone gets their binders
_________________
Choose Freely
http://www.choosefreely.com/
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/
Last edited by Ozregeneration on Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:02 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you have ever noticed in the WSJ - C section (money) they print the federal forfeiture notices about 3 times per week. Look very closely at each of the listings and you are bound to find at least one every time they are published which states something to the effect of "unknown" regarding from whom they actually seized the funds.
The most amazing thing about this to me is I have found amounts in excess of $1 million dollars - unknown! Like they just 'found' the cash on the sidewalk!
As we know, they do all of this RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR NOSE if only we take the time to look. I still haven't figured out what to make of it, and of course, due to the intimidation factor have never questioned it.
I don't know what would happen but I imagine something similar to what happens when someone reports another person to the IRS for cheating on their taxes - they don't take 'anonymous' reports, and the person who reports the allegations ALSO gets audited, something they don't publicize (for obvious reasons).
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 425
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DrewTerry wrote: | | The most amazing thing about this to me is I have found amounts in excess of $1 million dollars - unknown! Like they just 'found' the cash on the sidewalk! |
Lucky bastards aren't they.
| DrewTerry wrote: | | I don't know what would happen but I imagine something similar to what happens when someone reports another person to the IRS for cheating on their taxes - they don't take 'anonymous' reports, and the person who reports the allegations ALSO gets audited, something they don't publicize (for obvious reasons). |
When I used to work for a large multinational in another life , I will always remember what this manager told us at one meeting.
| Quote: | | You will work the hours required to do the job. |
Well I now use this philosophy with my dealings with all government bodies.
| Quote: | | Give them what they want to hear, but only as much as will keep them out of your life. |
_________________
Choose Freely
http://www.choosefreely.com/
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ta Seti
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 53
Location: Brighton, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hiyas Ozregeneration/ DrewTerry & All
| Ozregeneration wrote: |
As the Redemption research came out of the US, this has been nutted out in more detail than anywhere else than I am aware of. |
I shall have to find a quick intro into what exactly Redemption Research is.
| Ozregeneration wrote: |
| Ta Seti wrote: | | This is not to say there is nothing to be discovered 'out there', there are after all 'more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy' - as we have indeed been continually discovering. A problem here is that people when presented with any (suspected) mixture of part fact, part speculation and part falsehood are prone to reject the entire lot. |
You find that too do you. I also find that if I present views from a perceived suspect source it too is rejected entirely. |
Even when I've obtained information from government web sites, the reaction has still been the same, i.e.: "You didn't get that from the Internet did you?" When I tell them yes, they are not the slightest bit interested in anything else and I may not even get a chance to explain that it came direct from the government themselves. I class this as an attribute of the 'Non-thinking, just reacting', Age. People all the time are getting their cues on how to respond from propaganda such as soaps or other tv twaddle - it's all very much hive-minded stuff and thus in such circumstances, such a reaction is made not only acceptable but the norm and even expected.
In essence, it doesn't matter where it came from - I could have pulled it out of my sock drawer, what matters is 'Is it true and accurate?'. In fact, if I had first printed it from the Internet, put it away and then told them I had retrieved it from my mahogany bureau - odds are they would be more impressed and inclined to accept it, alternatively I could have said I got it direct from the government without mentioning the Internet and again they would likely accept it without question.
| Ozregeneration wrote: |
| Ta Seti wrote: | | ... In the 'thinking age', this is something I hope to see progressing as there is potentially an infinite source of knowledge and information available and we should be able to access and make sense of it. |
You call it the 'thinking age'. For me, this is the reason we are this mess in the first place as the mind has had far too much say in what we do. I believe that as we move away from the mind and move to a more intuitive knowing, that is when we begin to tap into an infinite source of knowledge. In fact you may find that Fintan would actually agree with me on this point. |
Well, I'm calling it the 'thinking age' for now to emphasise a point.
I can't say I have noticed a surfeit of thinking, I'm not aware that such thing is even possible. What I have noticed is people reacting in a programmed fashion similar to a pavlovian response or by parroting/ mimicking something they picked up from watching the soaps or their favourite celebrities. I've also noticed an awful lot of purely emotional responses.
I've noticed when informing people about aspects of the NWO, eg the WTC or London Bombings, that they instantly decide you are wrong before you've even had a chance to state a single fact. Are these people reacting on instinct? Are they even thinking? - It is far easier to trick someone who works on an emotional and reactive level than one who gives a matter its due consideration.
Further, there is considerable external influence hoping to wrong foot our instincts, intuitions and perceptions. Such external prodding & poking and undue influence (call it 'propaganda' if you wish) is at an unprecedented level. Agreed, they would have us thinking incorrectly also and indeed they have gone to great lengths to ensure we do (dumbing down) however I see 'smarting up' as the solution here. I would be more inclined to accept someone's intuitive abilities if it was well complemented by critical thinking skills.
Religions and cults tend to advocate the abandonment of thinking. They have mechanisms to switch off certain faculties (e.g. - "don't judge", "don't question", "have faith", "don't get angry - just accept" or they will tell a person exactly what to think or feel), it has been said that New Ageism will incorporate religion even for those who regard themselves as atheist and I think I am lately beginning to recognise some of the methods they will employ. It is far easier to disguise religious elements within a culture than may perhaps at first be imagined. Simply that something does not take on the usual outward appearance of a religion does not mean it is a religion-free zone or free from religious techniques.
| Ozregeneration wrote: |
For me, I'm lucky, I don't have to please any audience. I can just write whatever I like and people will either accept it or reject it. I DON'T CARE. So I can tell you that I will be going to this workshop
http://www.thewonders.com/2007_Workshop.htm
|
You have most likely committed yourself to going, so I wish you all the best for a fun adventure. As you raised the issue though, I hope you welcome feedback and I do feel compelled to respond regarding your Wonders retreat and I wish I could be more optimistic about it all. Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can recognise that some of the practices are not without considerable risk and I feel it would be irresponsible of me to say nothing so please accept this in the vein it is intended.
Amongst other things they employ channelling and persuade you to do similar. They encourage you to adopt a mental state where they ask you to open your mind to the forces and allow anything that chooses, to enter without question. Put another way, you enter a state of passivity and give over near-total control of your mind to an outside influence, albeit spirit guide, channeler, guru, trickster, demonic possession or whatever.
This technique is also used similarly by religions and cults. Simply being aware of the dangers will not provide enough protection should someone still choose to go through with it. Personally speaking, I'm not happy either with the thoughts they place in a person’s head during this process, i.e. animalistic attributes. I see this exercise as being in line with the New Age agenda.
If anyone were insistent on trying this out, my advice would be to do it in a very small group of people close to you whom you can trust and with someone at least being there simply to monitor you, who also would have the ability to bring the proceedings to a very safe cessation. Actually, my advice would be seek advice from a professional if you can find one to speak on it.
| Ozregeneration wrote: |
| Ta Seti wrote: | | There is a great deal of trickery being use to mould people's minds into accepting the New Age (e.g. spiritualism). |
I'd be interested if you could expand on what exactly this 'trickery' was. |
Okay, it's gonna get 'Weird City' real quick so hold on to your hat.
This is from Constance Cumbey and a summary of some of the main objectives of the New Age/ NWO:
Constance Cumbey - Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism 1985
Basic Tenets:
1/ Installation of a New World Messiah, New World Gov't, New World Religion under Maitreya
2/ Universal Credit Card System implemented - cashless society
3/ World Food Authority will control ALL of the World's food supply
4/ Universal Tax
5/ Universal Draft
6/ Utterly rooting out people who believe the bible & worship god and will also completely stamp out Christianity from the face of this Earth
7/ The intent of bringing about a NWO, an order that writes god out of the picture and deifies Lucifer
You can see from this that a new and universal religion (or the old made new again), plays a major part in the New Age NWO.
NB The language of the New Age religion involves a lot of persuasive words such as love, light, peace but don't assume from this that 'Lucifer' is a reformed character, he is his old lying, cheating self and knows such words will lure in the unsuspecting.
| The New Age (Freemasonry Magazine) 1950 :: wrote: |
This article was originally published in "The New Age", the official publication of International Freemasonry, in September of 1950. It was authored by Masonic Scholar C. William Smith.
God's Plan In America
"God's plan is dedicated to the unification of all races, religions, and creeds. This plan, dedicated to the new order of things, is to make all things new: a new nation, a new race, a new civilization, and a new religion--a non-sectarian religion that has already been recognized and called the 'Religion of the Great Light'." |
The emphasis on 'light' is familiar to many from the phrase "1,000 points of light" as popularised by GHWB.
The word can also be found (multiple times) in 'The Great Invocation'. The Great Invocation is a World Prayer to bring about The Divine Plan.
Details of this prayer can be found via The Lucis Trust (formerly The LUCIFER Trust) which is a prominent part of the United Nations, e.g. it is their printing house and has Consultancy status, former address - 666 United Nations Plaza.
http://www.lucistrust.org/... The Great Invocation
The prayer ends with "Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth."
You will find contrary information on this (it is the work of 'Lucifer', so only to be expected). It appears to date back to 1945 and possibly is a translation of a much older prayer. It is said to be a powerful incantation to usher forth Lucifer, no less (The Divine Plan): The Great Invocation summons Lucifer the Light Bearer!
unfortunately, many within the Peace & Justice movements are only too happen to end their letters 'light and love', just as they are happy to call everyone comrade and tout communitarianism, socialism or communism.
| The Lucis Trust - The Great Invocation :: wrote: |
"Today, as we enter into a new age, humanity is collectively demonstrating a deepened understanding of the power of group prayer and invocation for the benefit of humanity and the planet as a whole.
The focused and dynamic use of the Great Invocation gives all people everywhere a potent means of contacting and distributing powerful spiritual energies, thereby contributing to the upliftment and transformation of planet Earth. Through its collective use we bring light and love and power to bear upon all aspects of our planetary life, irradiating and uplifting human consciousness -- contributing towards the transformation of the largely material focus of our world into one that is more truly spiritual."
|
It can be seen from the last line that the nature of the New Age is one where there is a shift away from material possessions and towards the more spiritual, this is already happening and the threat of ecological disasters is a big player in this. This will be a factor in reducing us to poverty and thus taking away the 'material' element. There is even something out there called eco-spiritual but I haven't had chance to research it other than I heard it is an official title. I can say that people all over are engaging in (eco-spiritual) rituals and this includes IIRC, the act of recycling litter and the emphasis on minimising air-miles. I strongly suspect this will carry over into abandoning our cars, our general impoverishment (abandoning material possessions) and the various manifestations of Agenda21 (another UN initiative).
http://freemasonrywatch.org/lucistrust.html
William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Lucis_Trust.htm
Lucis Trust is a powerful institution that enjoys "Consultative Status" with the United Nations, which permits it to have a close working relationship with the U.N., including a seat on the weekly sessions, but most importantly, influence with powerful business and national leaders throughout the world.
| The Lucis Trust - The Use and Significance of the Great Invocation :: wrote: |
With this fundamental attitude, the necessity for a widespread expression of these underlying facts will be apparent and an era of spiritual propaganda, engineered by disciples and carried forward by esotericists, will mature.
It might be said that invocation is of three kinds. There is the massed demand, unconsciously voiced, and the crying appeal, wrung from the hearts of men in all times of crisis such as the present. This invocative cry rises ceaselessly from all men living in the midst of disaster.
http://www.lucistrust.org/... The Use and Significance of the Great Invocation |
This tells us that they are using TRAGEDY and FEAR to drive people towards spiritualism as an escapism, so that they might harvest the emotional pain and suffering to hasten forward their Divine Plan.
Suggested Further Reading includes:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_lucytrust01.htm
A great many fascinating chapter titles on the Lucis Trust
AQUAAC - the Aquarian Age Community [sponsored by the UN]
AQUAAC - About the UN
AQUAAC - THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE WORK OF THE UNITED NATIONS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 425
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings Ta Seti,
Interesting discussion here. Just a quick reply before I go into more detail later on after following up all that you have posted.
Have you ever considered that just as the ‘alternative media’ have their CIA Fakes that similarly the ‘New Age’ (I don’t like that term myself as you are pointing out, it has a lot of baggage) have their CIA Fakes. And I’m sure you would agree that within the ‘alternative media’ there are bastions of truth. For if you didn’t believe that to be the case you wouldn’t be here at BFN. Well I would suggest that similarly within the ‘New Age’ group there are bastions of truth. I will go into more detail later today.
_________________
Choose Freely
http://www.choosefreely.com/
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ozregeneration
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 425
Location: Big Island Down Under
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings Ta Seti,
| Ta Seti wrote: | | I shall have to find a quick intro into what exactly Redemption Research is. |
This area has been explored at BFN in the following threads:
Honour/Dishonour/Redemption
Country or Company?
HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Even when I've obtained information from government web sites, the reaction has still been the same, i.e.: "You didn't get that from the Internet did you?" When I tell them yes, they are not the slightest bit interested in anything else and I may not even get a chance to explain that it came direct from the government themselves. I class this as an attribute of the 'Non-thinking, just reacting', Age. People all the time are getting their cues on how to respond from propaganda such as soaps or other tv twaddle - it's all very much hive-minded stuff and thus in such circumstances, such a reaction is made not only acceptable but the norm and even expected. |
Agree. It is much easier not to have to take responsibility for our actions.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | I can't say I have noticed a surfeit of thinking, I'm not aware that such thing is even possible. |
I guess I could have been specific here with my intention. What I meant to say was that the mind has been used at the expense of other aspects of our being. In particular our knowing, intuition, call it what you will.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | What I have noticed is people reacting in a programmed fashion similar to a pavlovian response or by parroting/ mimicking something they picked up from watching the soaps or their favourite celebrities. I've also noticed an awful lot of purely emotional responses. |
Agree. And that is the other way people are keep from their knowing (through choice I must add).
So we either have the mind occupied with puzzles to solve and answers to find or we have the emotions tweaked through fear and peoples unwillingness to choose for themselves.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | I would be more inclined to accept someone's intuitive abilities if it was well complemented by critical thinking skills. |
The mind is a tool, just as our emotions are a tool, intuition is a tool, our physical body is a tool. All these we use to perceive the world around us that in turn forms our beliefs. Then through our choices we then get another result requiring a choice to be made. So how we then perceive this will direct the path we take. And around and around it goes.
So I have no problem with people using their mind to aid the choices they make. But what I perceive is that people have used their minds at the expense of their intuition.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Religions and cults tend to advocate the abandonment of thinking. They have mechanisms to switch off certain faculties (e.g. - "don't judge", "don't question", "have faith", "don't get angry - just accept" or they will tell a person exactly what to think or feel) |
And this point is critical in where you are taking this perspective. Those nine words I highlighted are not only relevant to Religions and cults. Why not open the umbrella and include schools, governments, armed forces, employers, and so on and so forth. Don’t these too encourage people to hand over the responsibility of choosing over to them.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | it has been said that New Ageism will incorporate religion even for those who regard themselves as atheist and I think I am lately beginning to recognise some of the methods they will employ. It is far easier to disguise religious elements within a culture than may perhaps at first be imagined. Simply that something does not take on the usual outward appearance of a religion does not mean it is a religion-free zone or free from religious techniques. |
And afterall, what is a religion:
| Quote: | [Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- RE- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. LIGAMENT) + -iōn- -ION; cf. RELY ]
religion
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300. |
| Ta Seti wrote: | | You have most likely committed yourself to going, so I wish you all the best for a fun adventure. |
Thank you for the kind thoughts, and an adventure it surely will be.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | As you raised the issue though, I hope you welcome feedback and I do feel compelled to respond regarding your Wonders retreat |
Yes please.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | and I wish I could be more optimistic about it all. Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can recognise that some of the practices are not without considerable risk and I feel it would be irresponsible of me to say nothing so please accept this in the vein it is intended. |
Ok so you wish to tell me about your fears. Feel free.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | Amongst other things they employ channelling and persuade you to do similar. They encourage you to adopt a mental state where they ask you to open your mind to the forces and allow anything that chooses, to enter without question. Put another way, you enter a state of passivity and give over near-total control of your mind to an outside influence, albeit spirit guide, channeler, guru, trickster, demonic possession or whatever. |
Ok, whose they?
Look, I mentioned The Wonders, and as it is a workshop presented by Rene and Maggie on behalf of The Wonders that I will be attending, I will only be speaking about this.
The Wonders do NOT persuade anyone to employ channelling, not that it would be an issue in itself if they did, just that that is NOT what The Wonders suggest.
The Wonders give a perspective of our world. We/you/me are free to choose to either accept what they say or reject it.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | This technique is also used similarly by religions and cults. Simply being aware of the dangers will not provide enough protection should someone still choose to go through with it. Personally speaking, I'm not happy either with the thoughts they place in a person’s head during this process, i.e. animalistic attributes. I see this exercise as being in line with the New Age agenda. |
I posted the following and more in this post Choose
| Quote: | These Six Defining Statements of Existence are the foundation of all of The Wonders' teachings:
1. Existence Is But An Extension Of Yourself.
2. I Am Sufficient.
3. I Am Limitless, My Choices Reflect My Limitlessness.
4. That Which You Are Is That Which I Am, And That Which I Am Is That Which You Are.
5. That Which You Choose, You Do So Out Of Joy.
6. All That I Am Is Love, All That You Are Is Love. |
Now I would be interested if you could explain to me how any of the above 6 statements would be detrimental to anyone.
| Ta Seti wrote: | This is from Constance Cumbey and a summary of some of the main objectives of the New Age/ NWO:
Constance Cumbey - Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism 1985
Basic Tenets:
1/ Installation of a New World Messiah, New World Gov't, New World Religion under Maitreya
2/ Universal Credit Card System implemented - cashless society
3/ World Food Authority will control ALL of the World's food supply
4/ Universal Tax
5/ Universal Draft
6/ Utterly rooting out people who believe the bible & worship god and will also completely stamp out Christianity from the face of this Earth
7/ The intent of bringing about a NWO, an order that writes god out of the picture and deifies Lucifer
You can see from this that a new and universal religion (or the old made new again), plays a major part in the New Age NWO. |
So if I match these Basic Tenets to the 6 Defining Statements I’m supposed to see a match am I?
| Ta Seti wrote: | | NB The language of the New Age religion involves a lot of persuasive words such as love, light, peace but don't assume from this that 'Lucifer' is a reformed character, he is his old lying, cheating self and knows such words will lure in the unsuspecting. |
Yes, much better to speak of fear, hate and war.
| Quote: | | "God's plan is dedicated to the unification of all races, religions, and creeds. This plan, dedicated to the new order of things, is to make all things new: a new nation, a new race, a new civilization, and a new religion--a non-sectarian religion that has already been recognized and called the 'Religion of the Great Light'." |
Personally I don’t think God has any plans, but if there is harmony amongst people is that really a problem? And isn’t a new nation, a new civilization the type of things being expressed in Full Spectrum Liberty. As to the 'Religion of the Great Light', what can I say but refer to my posting prior to this one, Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:14 am.
| Ta Seti wrote: | | You will find contrary information on this (it is the work of 'Lucifer', so only to be expected). It appears to date back to 1945 and possibly is a translation of a much older prayer. It is said to be a powerful incantation to usher forth Lucifer, no less (The Divine Plan): The Great Invocation summons Lucifer the Light Bearer! |
So who is this Lucifer fellow and what bearing does he have on my life?
As to the rest of what you posted, refer to my previous posting to this one, Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:14 am.
Regards
Oz
_________________
Choose Freely
http://www.choosefreely.com/
http://www.choicesforyoursoul.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
