The current state of "relationship with one's soul" is highlighted in these times

[Chester]

[Understand, this is an opinion piece]

I was fortunate to experience a series of five soul challenging experiences that arose in 2019 and which spilled over into early 2020.

The most beneficial result was that I had no choice but to examine more closely the nature of being (including how that touches the science of being) whereby, as a result, I have fully settled on incorporating into my set of operational assumptions that I am a soul.

As a soul, I also assume (with considerable evidence to support this assumption) that I, as a soul, am having an experience as a physical being in a physical based reality.

It seems quite obvious that the experience as a physical being in a physical based reality is parameterized by the beginning and inevitable end of this physical body vehicle.

By being fully honest with myself, I have faced the fact that my assumption that I am a soul is all and only that, an assumption. An assumption is, for me, no different than a belief. A belief is something one assumes to be true. So to say I believe in my soul is fair.

What is believing in something?... What is "the taking on of an assumption" effectively mimic? By taking on a belief, one thinks, speaks, and acts from a place whereby that assumption is considered true. It is my opinion that one is benefited from distinguishing that which is true from that which one believes as this places one in better position to remain open minded with regards to beliefs. This places one in a better position to alter their beliefs, even throw one or two out along the way.

Yet still, a belief (with consideration towards the strength of that belief) does impact one's thoughts, words and actions as well as informs one's operational radar as to what grabs their attention. One's entire reality experience is critically linked to one's beliefs.

In looking at the world of today, the reactions of humans to the machinations and manipulations of various actors (physical and, perhaps, non-physical in the way we understand physics today), demonstrate to me that a vast majority of Earth born human beings, even if they espouse otherwise, do not hold with much confidence within their operational set of assumptions, that they are a soul.

Again and bolded - The current batch of Earth born human beings, even if they espouse otherwise, do not hold with much confidence within their operational set of assumptions, that they are a soul.

This is [in my opinion] the primary culprit behind the lack of sovereignty you see among the individuals that make up the majority of the world. This is [in my opinion] the primary culprit behind the lack of courage you see among the individuals that make up the majority of the world.

And this is [in my opinion] why nefarious forces control the mainstream narratives... because the masses of humanity maintain their vulnerability because they do not believe they are a soul. If they did, they would not fear the obvious limitation of physical death. This fear - the fear of death... and more significantly, the degree to which mass fear of death dominates most of the current Earth born physically living population is the #1 enemy of living a true, free life on lovely planet Earth at this time.

[Ioneo]

If you want to experience instead of just believing you are soul try meditation.

[waves]

[Understand, this is an opinion piece]

I was fortunate to experience a series of five soul challenging experiences that arose in 2019 and which spilled over into early 2020.

The most beneficial result was that I had no choice but to examine more closely the nature of being (including how that touches the science of being) whereby, as a result, I have fully settled on incorporating into my set of operational assumptions that I am a soul.

As a soul, I also assume (with considerable evidence to support this assumption) that I, as a soul, am having an experience as a physical being in a physical based reality.

It seems quite obvious that the experience as a physical being in a physical based reality is parameterized by the beginning and inevitable end of this physical body vehicle.

By being fully honest with myself, I have faced the fact that my assumption that I am a soul is all and only that, an assumption. An assumption is, for me, no different than a belief. A belief is something one assumes to be true. So to say I believe in my soul is fair.

What is believing in something?... What is "the taking on of an assumption" effectively mimic? By taking on a belief, one thinks, speaks, and acts from a place whereby that assumption is considered true. It is my opinion that one is benefited from distinguishing that which is true from that which one believes as this places one in better position to remain open minded with regards to beliefs. This places one in a better position to alter their beliefs, even throw one or two out along the way.

Yet still, a belief (with consideration towards the strength of that belief) does impact one's thoughts, words and actions as well as informs one's operational radar as to what grabs their attention. One's entire reality experience is critically linked to one's beliefs.

In looking at the world of today, the reactions of humans to the machinations and manipulations of various actors (physical and, perhaps, non-physical in the way we understand physics today), demonstrate to me that a vast majority of Earth born human beings, even if they espouse otherwise, do not hold with much confidence within their operational set of assumptions, that they are a soul.

Again and bolded - The current batch of Earth born human beings, even if they espouse otherwise, do not hold with much confidence within their operational set of assumptions, that they are a soul.

This is [in my opinion] the primary culprit behind the lack of sovereignty you see among the individuals that make up the majority of the world. This is [in my opinion] the primary culprit behind the lack of courage you see among the individuals that make up the majority of the world.

And this is [in my opinion] why nefarious forces control the mainstream narratives... because the masses of humanity maintain their vulnerability because they do not believe they are a soul. If they did, they would not fear the obvious limitation of physical death. This fear - the fear of death... and more significantly, the degree to which mass fear of death dominates most of the current Earth born physically living population is the #1 enemy of living a true, free life on lovely planet Earth at this time.

Very timely post, thank you. I just got hit with something similar I couldn't argue with this past week.

I would love to hear your response to this theory by Matt of Quantum of Conscience that proposes just what you're saying and more but adds a few twists.

It was not pleasant to find it very convincing. It makes all the historical/disparate puzzle pieces of relentless conscienceless evil side by side with the relentless most loving, selfless humans finally all fit together, but in very disconcerting way for all our already battered and guilt tripped hearts and souls in a very unfair world.

You two might literally be on the right track, and it's time to discard any remaining warm and fuzzy reasons for living and really take the deep, deep ramifications of our VR view and the complete revision of the nature of soul into consideration.

I've come to really like this guy and the way he thinks.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grM0EqkGa0A

[RogeRio]

I thought three times and took ten breaths before venturing out to comment this thread. I absolutely do not intend to answer questions, but just offer some clues that I think myself are good for approaching the answers.



I have faced the fact that my assumption that I am a soul is all and only that, an assumption. An assumption is, for me, no different than a belief.

Let me half-disagree, because Belief may be blinded and Hypothesis may be clever. Both can seems as the same, but the Assumption has predispose to clarify, like a scientific hypothesis approach. All small and large scientific discoveries start with hypotheses, don't forget!



The current batch of Earth born human beings, even if they espouse otherwise, do not hold with much confidence within their operational set of assumptions, that they are a soul.from the (cosmic) soul-consciousness point of view, Earth is a dormitory planet, full of natural energies to restore and grow what a soul-consciousness want to evolve itself. When you sleep well and wake up feeling good, your day is much better, but otherwise, if you wake up with indisposition, it is certain that you will not have such a pleasant day in every way.

beyond a dormitory, the planet is also an hospital to the souls, so it's not difficult to meet someone who lives like an indisposed soul around here.

just as certain people when unwell are unrecognizable, the soul can be unrecognizable, and maybe that's why " their operational set " are not working fine.
---

I'd post here concepts (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108360-Consciousness-and-Energy&p=1310686&viewfull=1#post1310686) to satisfy the evolutionary hypothesis of Soul-Consciousness, quoted bellow:


Soul and Conscienciousness can be considered the same Being in two stages of evolution. (starting and ending, for reference). That way, the Soul after being choose to be an "individual being", goes through an entire evolutionary process to grow from a naive state (soul) to a utterly free individual aware about who I'm, what I'm, where I came from and where I'm going to. All this awareness (or not) works in present (life) times, in a very cohesive and coherent way.

(note - when this cohesive and coherent way breaks, distort or deviates, the Soul suffers the consequences)

Then, the difference between a newborn Soul and a utterly Free Conscienciousness It's a long learning and growing process, inside the universe where the Soul borns (born here it's a metaphor .. ok?)
On this world, a soul-consciousness can have direct contact with Mineral, Vegetal and Animal, where all of these planes of existence can supply with energies (throught substances) the health of a soul (I'm assuming it can does), which is reflected in the health and disposition of the physical body, also psych and mental health state.

On other hand, living on these " three planes of existence " there are others souls not exactly to rest neither recovering health, but like a new born baby that sleep a lot, which the life cycle is similar to a recovering elder patient. I'm assuming they are Natives.

this hypothesis leads us to consider that there may be native and non-native humans living together here, which some love and respect the native mother, and others who don't respect anyone, neither themselves, because they are very Sick and Crazy!
---

so as not to leave these hypothesis totally open, I add that, to take care of all these Natives and Non-Natives, it's very important that they take care of each other, even helping to isolate those who do harm everyone, and also do not allow ones disturb the others.

I hope these hypotheses can help to track what's could going on .. as well expand and warm up the subject of Soul started.

[Chester]

If you want to experience instead of just believing you are soul try meditation.

This is a brilliant statement and for the following reasons.

I could say to anyone the following:

"I am a soul experiencing a life via the avatar of my physical body vehicle in a seemingly "real," albeit physical world." There's no usage of the word, belief. It is stated as fact. It is stated in full honesty that, for me, this is true.

And then someone else could say, "prove it." And I could share hundreds of anecdotal experiences which I could take and pass a polygraph as to their veracity whereby I could then posit that the plethora of these experiences make a strong case that I am a "non-material nexus of consciousness, self realized and self reflecting" at a more fundamental level of my being.

Yet that same someone else could conclude that a.) are a soul, unequivocally... that they have not experienced that which proves well enough to themselves they are a soul and b.) that they chose not to believe they are a soul (operate as if it is true even though they could not say it is true), and then we get to c.) which is the choice to remain open minded about the matter or d.) decide, firmly, that they are not or could not be - case closed.

Meditation is one method whereby one can achieve "direct apprehension." Some who achieve direct apprehension actually move through "soul" with little recognition of such and rest in non-dual awareness (pure consciousness)... some eventually reach what is known as, "The Absolute." Those who "know" have achieved these experiences and are almost always forever altered.

It is not for those this thread was created.

It is to those who are at b.)... those who have taken the risk to believe... to operate as if the assumption might be true or "is true." To those who treasure that belief; to those who pay attention to the "meaningful data" (experience that cannot be explained as random chance experience) as you recognize its arising in your personal life. Keep making decisions based more from the point of view of your presumptive soul. Remain vigilantly aware of the results especially as these results seem to manifest through the lives of your loved ones, close friends, those you pass on the street and even those you have yet to meet... as recognition of the ripple effect can be profound.

It is to those who are at c.)... Don't give into d.) - Keep that mind open... even experiment with b.) 'belief' and watch what happens. The key is that open mind. Ask for experiences that might take you closer to the edge of belief whereby, one day, you spill into knowing.

It is to those at d.) - ask yourself, is there any meaning in your life? Is there any true, real meaningful experiences arising in your life experience? If so, ask yourself from where within your being is the touch-point between what you see as meaningful and the boundary where 'you' begin?

And if there be no meaning... a physical life is all and only an experience whereby the only thing that matters (if it does at all) is keeping the physical body vehicle alive and preserving or expanding your options with regards to the lower ego gratifications and the entertainment you need to justify continuing, hopefully you will be honest with yourself about having that primary operational point of view (founded by your primary metaphysical assumption).

In this post I laid out four "positions" one might take on the matter... a.), b.), c.) and d.) but the borders between them are quite seamless though there are plenty of reports where folks move from one to another in single, profound leaps. For many, there can be gradual shifts in point of view and the underlying assumptions associated with that point of view.

And the most important thing to understand is that you can choose to move from d.) to c.), from d.) to b.) and from c.) to b.).

In rare cases one can go straight from d.) to a.). Less rare but still rare is from c.) to a.) but these moves are usually the result of profound experiences. But by choosing to open the mind or outright believe, you increase your chances of having that samadhi" type experience.

The main point is that you cannot be harmed if you at least take on the belief and operate as if "you are a soul" is true and, from my studies (and experience), belief accelerates reaching knowing.

One piece of additional advice... be very careful striving to believe with the goal to know via a paradigmatic framework such as a religion or thought system. There can be no separation between you and truth. There should be no distraction between the two either unless you enjoy complicating arrival.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



[Understand, this is an opinion piece]


Very timely post, thank you. I just got hit with something similar I couldn't argue with this past week.

I would love to hear your response to this theory by Matt of Quantum of Conscience that proposes just what you're saying and more but adds a few twists.

I will do so by no later than the end of today Thank You.

[Chester]

@ waves

At around 35:00 Matt gets into "structure." He sites sources he trusts for this information. I hope he informs who these sources are.

As to the information, though I use different terms, I can see parallels in the information Matt is conveying as to what is depicted in my own "structural map."

More to come, but I did wish to respond as soon as I could, out of respect, waves.

Thank you for sharing this find... I know I have come across Matt McKinley in the past (the voice sounds so familiar but I can't nail it).

[Chester]

For three or so years now, I have, at times, put some work into developing a map of sorts which identifies potential regions which a conscious agent might reside. Understand, when I say "reside" I am referring to the "point of view" a conscious agent is anchored within at any particular moment of its experiential operation.

Let me give you an example: Let's say I feel the need to eat food and the thought to do so arises. It is arising within my consciousness, yes? And it can be inferred that the thought arises in consideration of an "I" that is individuated. This previous statement infers there could be an "I" that has no property of individuation. Let's set that aside for a moment.

So "who" is the "I" that feels the need to eat and "who" will be perceived to benefit from eating? I will answer this for myself, only as I strive to hold to an operational protocol that honors the right for others to answer these types of philosophical questions for themselves. The "I" that I perceive is benefiting is the physical body vehicle and the immaterial, yet individuated "being" that I perceive is inhabiting this physical body vehicle. So I just identified two regions of what I assume are aspects of my whole being. And thus, in this example, I perceive that I am benefiting both, my physical body and the immaterial being that is perceiving a need for food.

The above example is meant to point out the factor I find critical when making decisions which is: from which region of my being am I considering when I am making a decision. And I do so understanding I may need to consider more than one region of being when I make a decision.

And so the current version of my map is v3.0. I have identified 6 regions which I call "Zones."

One more critically important factor of my mapping system involves the property of individuation, thus also, the lack thereof. What I am suggesting is one or more regions to consider when one explores the question, "who am I?"

The map currently contains 5 Zones and a Zone 0 (as in Zero) - six regions or "Zones" that I have identified.

I plan to release the map in the near future.

Understand, I only created this map to assist me in exploring potential answers to my own personal set of "most important questions."

Matt McKinley's representations (obtained from sources in which he has high confidence) has the essential elements found within my map though I strive for using non-loaded terms in the map proper, terms like "spirit," "soul," "God," etc. (As mentioned, I use Zones)

[Mike]

nice thread Sam.

i agree with everything you're saying.

orientating oneself towards something higher, be it God, your soul, your higher self, or whatever, serves to create a sound and healthy base from which to operate. it offers us solid ground.

it offers us something absolute from which to draw instruction

this new plague of moral relativism, and this sort of 'anything goes' and 'do what you like' attitude is tearing at the very fabric of our judeo/christian ethics.

the concept of the soul is a vital orientating pillar for all of us, whether we realize it or not. having it there in our awareness, with everything it implies, gives us the freedom to live freely and without excessive fear.

without that orientating pillar, our values and morals and ideals begin to crumble.

Jordan Peterson often says something i like, and it's that he isn't sure if God exists as a real thing, but he acts as though He does. i think the same applies for the soul. it's best to act as though it exists.

[Chester]

Jordan Peterson often says something i like, and it's that he isn't sure if God exists as a real thing, but he acts as though He does. i think the same applies for the soul. it's best to act as though it exists.

Thanks for the whole post, Mike... but most thanks for this last segment I quoted as that is precisely [and so concisely] the gist of what I wanted to convey.

[RogeRio]

So "who" is the "I" that feels the need to eat and "who" will be perceived to benefit from eating? I will answer this for myself, only as I strive to hold to an operational protocol that honors the right for others to answer these types of philosophical questions for themselves. The "I" that I perceive is benefiting is the physical body vehicle and the immaterial, yet individuated "being" that I perceive is inhabiting this physical body vehicle. So I just identified two regions of what I assume are aspects of my whole being. And thus, in this example, I perceive that I am benefiting both, my physical body and the immaterial being that is perceiving a need for food.

I challenged the issue of " Food Chain " about five-six years, feeling that the answer was under my eyes, but not sure what I was seeing, until I realize one thing where the context of Food Chain is inserted whitin.

first, I would like to say you are challenging awareness about a very important pillar of this place we live, so Go Ahead, please.

second, I don't want anyway interfere in your own capability to achieve it by yourself, because this is very valuable.

third, just to know where it leads without explaining anything that you don't already know, (lol), the subject has to do with the tree of paradise and the forbidden fruit that Eva Bitten, so it envolves the original sin myth, paradigm. No Kidding !

I already posted something about it here on the forum, but not focused on the Food Chain. My intention in this post is to let you know that I can talk about this subject in a very simple and direct way. But remember that need to know something else where that context is inserted, otherwise, I guess will not understand it very well ..

[Mike]

Sam I think you're nearing an argument for what religious people call "faith". Unfortunately the current way that word is used is a bit distorted; it demands blind allegiances and beliefs and not a whole lot of thought. I think a much more authentic and healthy attitude towards faith is what you described so well in your original post.

Authentic faith allows for some questioning and intellectual wiggle room, and also an acknowledgment that one may be wrong about where they're directing their faith. Trust might be a more suitable word actually.

It's also an intellectual pursuit in a way, because you can test it by observing the lives of those who have faith and trust in a soul versus those who don't. Or you can compare a time in your own life where you may not have believed strongly in such a thing as a soul against a time when you did, and make judgements accordingly.

Maybe at the end of the day, something like faith is just an exercise in acting as if God exists, or a soul exists...and orientating oneself from that perspective.

I just heard a great quote and it made me think of your thread immediately. It goes like this: he who believes in nothing will believe anything.

[RogeRio]

who believes in nothing will believe anything.

I take the liberty to question this deeply, because seems to induce a self-sugestion to broken mind of distracted, maybe weak in conviction.

disbelief is a pragmatic (mental) tool near by a state of spirit, só this "quote" aim either distracted a neophyte as discredit who took the red pill.

disbelief is the only safe way out of veil of illusion, because anything one belief can be a illusion (of Ego), i.e., a self-trap.

So, I should repeat and reinforce what I said earlier


Belief may be blinded and Hypothesis may be clever and quote from Protagoras (Plato) -- there are more danger at acquiring knowledge than meats or drinks

every impulse of criticism and questioning is based on disbelief, so I ask to reevaluate the consequences of assuming that " by believing in nothing, one will believe in everything. "

I would say it's a good "suggestion" to induce a mind drift, allowing the will be relatively more susceptible to any "future biased influences".

[Chester]

It seems to me that if one operates as an individualized being within a framework of apparent form, the acts (and resultant actions) of belief are impossible to avoid... well at least at this physical level of my being.

I will give a simple example.

I have agreed to meet my friend, Joe Blow, for lunch at 1:00 pm. Joe Blow is notorious for being late. What do I choose to believe? That Joe Blow will be late again and so I show up intentionally late? This is a simple example, but an example nevertheless that we, at least in physical life, cannot avoid taking the risk to assume something (to assume something is the same as "to believe" that something is true when it possibly might not be).

In the above case, I probably would get there at 1:00 and bring a nice book to read in case I have to wait for Joe Blow. I would also make sure I don't set an appointment time for after my lunch under the assumption that Joe Blow will be prompt. We cannot avoid operating whereby we avoid ever having to make assumptions (believe something).

But what about metaphysical truths? Are there such? Perhaps. But could those that some consider to be metaphysical truths be unprovable or at least not universally convincing? My opinion is, Yes. "I believe" Yes is the correct answer.

I may hold a metaphysical tenet as true. I may be so convinced it is true, I will state without any hesitation, "I know this to be true!" It is, indeed, possible that it is true. And so, what if it turns out that, in fact, it is actually universally true? How did I come upon this truth? Was I born with this knowing? Did this knowing come forth to my ordinary consciousness during some point of my life journey? Did someone tell me and I suddenly "knew it!" Does it feel like intuition? If so, when did I recognize I "knew" this truth "deep down" all along?

Could my life experience have played a role in the emergence of this truth in front of my conscious mind? Is personal experience important with regards to what an individual develops as "their truths" during their life journey?

How beneficial are "third party knowers of all truths" to most of us? Especially when they thrust their truths upon others? Is it possible, "the knower" is wrong about some things? Have we ever encountered a knower that was so overflowing with knowing that we simply adopted all their knowledge as our evermore operational truth and lived happily ever after (including all afterlife?) Have there ever been cases where a knower that was so overflowing with knowing that we simply adopted all their knowledge as our evermore operational truth and... oooops, discovered holes in that container of "truths"?

How wise and how caring of others is it when we thrust our truth(s) upon others when it is possible we are, in fact, making it more difficult for others to discover these truths for themselves (as we did for ourselves) by telling them that this is the truth! It is "knowledge!" It is 'gnosis!' (I heard that last one a lot around here... haha.) And of course, we might have some things wrong, so how wise and how caring is it to thrust our truths upon others as fact?

Is, perhaps, the most important question each of us could ask ourselves regarding "knowing the truth" - Do we really know the absolute truth or... could we have even a tiny portion of it wrong? And if that is the case, what good am I doing for another by telling them "my metaphysical cosmological world view is the right one, the only one, the correct one... TRUTH!?"

And so consider the next steps within one's foundational world view where they begin to isolate particular details that might be recognizable to them (and maybe others) which are still simply metaphysical tenets... and one is going to thrust these upon others as facts when the foundational world view is only an assumption?

All the above is written to make the simple case that perhaps it might be helpful both to others and ourselves if we carefully examine what we have adopted as "operational assumptions" - as provisionally held "metaphysical tenets" - as "beliefs" we are always ever willing to modify or throw out when the evidence of our experience suggests it may be wise to do so.

So to simplify the entire message -

Perhaps a belief is an assumption one takes on as true or provisionally true. And perhaps it may be best for us all if each of us strives to carefully distinguish and then designate what is a belief and what is actually true. For what it is worth, I have greatly benefited (and so have my loved ones, friends, etc.) from adopting this operational protocol. Can't hurt someone to try it on.

[Mike]

who believes in nothing will believe anything.

I take the liberty to question this deeply, because seems to induce a self-sugestion to broken mind of distracted, maybe weak in conviction.

disbelief is a pragmatic (mental) tool near by a state of spirit, só this "quote" aim either distracted a neophyte as discredit who took the red pill.

disbelief is the only safe way out of veil of illusion, because anything one belief can be a illusion (of Ego), i.e., a self-trap.

So, I should repeat and reinforce what I said earlier


Belief may be blinded and Hypothesis may be clever and quote from Protagoras (Plato) -- there are more danger at acquiring knowledge than meats or drinks

every impulse of criticism and questioning is based on disbelief, so I ask to reevaluate the consequences of assuming that " by believing in nothing, one will believe in everything. "

I would say it's a good "suggestion" to induce a mind drift, allowing the will be relatively more susceptible to any "future biased influences".




Hi RogeRio, the spirit of that quote as I see it is to do with a dedication to ideals and values - and possibly God or soul by extension - nothing to do with not being discerning in the face of nonsense.

it's doesn't suggest we believe in everything. it suggests we orient ourselves towards something transcendent, and warns that in not doing so we risk being rudderless and adrift...spiritually and mentally and emotionally

[Chester]

Belief may be blinded and Hypothesis may be clever
How I understand this quote fits exactly with my suggestion... understand that a "belief" is taking on "something" as if were true and you are blind when you don't recognize the difference between belief and knowing.

In addition, taking on a hypothesis is also blind if you forget it is exactly that - a hypothesis.

And further to my suggestions is highlighting the importance in identifying that which is simply belief and that which may be hypothesis. This leaves one in position to continually grow... remaining ever open minded.

But the biggest point of all is to take risks in one's exploration of the nature and science of being, and sometimes to do so means taking on beliefs, assumptions... again, it helps to just be honest with oneself as to what is belief and what is actual knowledge.


and quote from Protagoras (Plato) -- there are more danger at acquiring knowledge than meats or drinks


Danger to who? Danger to what? Who can be harmed? I wouldn't tell you what your answer should be but I am happy to share my own answer to these questions.

I base my answer on the answer I have to this most fundamental question.

Am I born, live, then die and that's it? Or might there be more?

And I cannot answer definitively, provably this question for anyone including myself, but guess what I can do? I can consider life based on which might be true. For me, if 'I am born. live, then die and that's it' is true, then (again, for me) none of this matters anyway. For me, life is short and meaningless.

But if there be more... that is so much more exciting, wonderful, hopeful... and the best part about that is that if this is true for me, it may very well be true for others. And so (in speaking for myself) I now have the opportunity to explore the meaningfulness of relationship, especially with regards to being a light that brings inspiration to others and as an eternal learner who receives the light from others - the same!

And guess what? I cannot say, I know there's more... even though I have plenty of personal evidence that suggests this is likely true, but the fact is, I simply do not, unequivocally know this and I find it much more wondrous and mysterious in not knowing yet firmly believing (and properly characterizing this as belief).

[RogeRio]

it's doesn't suggest we believe in everything. it suggests we orient ourselves towards something transcendent, and warns that in not doing so we risk being rudderless and adrift...spiritually and mentally and emotionally

Yes Mike, I understand and agree the idea, but warn about thought "Will Believe In Everything", first, because things we don't believe anymore, we never will believe in them or again, so on this path the idea is broken, second, its needed evaluate the issue as It are, and this involves a process like -- "may be a Belief or may be a Hypothesis" -- and sometimes one need to choose without time to think much about.

please, understand I made a Deep Critics on possible thought (Will) effects, not forgetting that human condition is subject to fail when do a choose, so I pointed that kind of "self-programming" its not be utterly safe. Each choose involves risk by itself and based on a thought not utterly safe, the risk increases.

the most important point of conscious surveillance is not to allow failures in the mind, because if the mind fails, the consequences certain will come to chance, and not by Will.

more consistency there is in this process, the better results.
tip - the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I am showing an example of how thoughts can and should be observed and even questioned objectively.
----

Sammy, I'll split comments under quotes bellow



"belief" is taking on "something" as if were true and you are blind when you don't recognize the difference between belief and knowing.


ok, but traditional colletive unconscious works in a sense that Belief is absolutely True without questions.

no problem with your approach, but it seems the same (philosophical) meaning about Opinion -- The middle between ignorance and knowledge!

in that sense Hypothesis is more clever to be useful than Belief, anyway, because the colletive unconscious influence is powerful over the human choices.

it's not wise underestimate the influence of the Collective Unconscious



all is to take risks in one's exploration of the nature and science of beingYes, and I still add that Disbelief way takes the " Experiences are Irreplaceable ". The best way to evolve is to experiment and not just to believe. Making mistakes is part of the game, but insisting on them reduces the chances of gain something that worth.



Danger to who? Danger to what? Who can be harmed?the misuse of knowledge has consequences for the fate of those involved.

I used a famous philosophical quote to reinforce my arguments. The context of this quote, in the work Republica (Plato), is due to the sophists of the time, also sellers of any type of product, including the knowledge offered to people by sophists, where those who offer hardly know the product and even less know their customers. So Protagoras rhetorically says that " there is more danger in acquiring knowledge than meats or drinks ". Its wise philosophy !



Am I born, live, then die and that's it? Or might there be more?its a interesting point to answer because part belief Yes, part belief Not, part are in doubt and part be sure there be more beyond.

on this regard the relativism of each individual applies more well than cartezian (Yes-No) paradigm, because the best answer to each one depends on each individual state of awareness already achieved. So relative to oneself as individual make sense.

Everything is Relative, it's not a bad paradigm.



I can consider life based on which might be true.that's exactly the point where a Belief Perspective virtually disappear, because If one be sure about the true, don't need to Belief in It, anymore.



I find it much more wondrous and mysterious in not knowing yet firmly believing (and properly characterizing this as belief)the criticism was addressed to the act of "Will Belief Anything" and not to what are believing now.

For now, I previously said to "Go Ahead" because I'm (relatively) aware about the vast and deep implications of Food Chain that its very important and fundamental to understand the process of giving and sharing "Energies" throught the food chain. It's a Law of Nature, as to say, not restriced to 3D (physical) life.

The big issue about belief systems (as paradigms) is that It caused and has been causing a series of (karmic) problems and limitations in the human evolution as a whole, because of Wars, intolerance, beligerance, among others negative consequences to life on planet and on the fraternal (universal) model of convivence.

BTW, the raise of human awareness tends to put aside the need of belief systems, more soon or more latter.

I admit this can not happen to everyone at the same time, but for a good part of humanity it is expected that this kind of awareness will predominate.

I didn't comment the issue about "the short life be meaningless", because I think this thought should be change with the raising of extra-physical awareness. I think this subject can be explored on others posts more specifically.

[TomKat]

The following is a list of advice Gurdjieff wrote for his daughter Duska Howard. However, anyone who wishes to awake his consciousness and develop a more integral and satisfactory life, will appreciate it. This list is also, and above all, a cluster of concise recommendations that could help us to lucidly transcend daily situations, reminding us that integrity is far easier than we think. Gurdjieff’s councils allude to hard work, nourishment, human passions and emotions, cynicism and generosity, and together they comprise a sort of manifesto, one which would be wise to read every morning.

1. Fix your attention on yourself, be aware at every moment of what you think, feel, want and do.

2. Always finish what you started.

3. Do what you are doing as best as possible.

4. Do not be chained to anything that in the long run can destroy you.

5. Develop your generosity without witnesses.

6. Treat every person as a close relative.

7. You must order what is disordered.

8. Learn to receive and be grateful for each gift.

9. Stop defining yourself.

10. Do not lie, do not steal, for if you do, you lie and steal from yourself.

11. Help your neighbor without doing making them depend on you.

12. Do not wish to be imitated.

13. Make plans and see them through.

14. Do not take up too much space.

15. Do not make unnecessary noises or gestures.

16. If you do not have faith, act as if you do.

17. Do not be impressed by strong personalities.

18. Do not appropriate anything or anyone.

19. Distributed equally.

20. Do not seduce.

21. You must only eat and sleep as much as is necessary.

22. Do not discuss your personal problems.

23. Do not pass judgments or criticize when you do not know all the facts.

24. Do not have useless friendships.

25. Do not follow fads.

26. Do not sell yourself.

27. Respect the contracts you have signed

28. Be punctual.

29. Do not envy others’ property or goods.

30. Speak only what is necessary.

31. Do not think of the benefits that your work will bring.

32. Never threaten.

33. Follow through with your promises.

34. In an argument, put yourself in the place of the other.

35. Accept when someone is better than you.

36. Do not eliminate, transform.

37. Defeat your fears; each one of them is a desire that is camouflaged.

38. Help the other help themselves.

39. Put an end to your antipathy and get closer to people that you want to reject.

40. Do not react when they speak well or ill of you.

41. Transform your pride into dignity.

42. Turn your anger into creativity.

43. Transform your greed into respect for the beauty.

44. Transform your envy into the admiration for the values of others.

45. Transform your hate into charity.

46. Do not praise nor insult yourself.

47. Treat the things that do not belong to you as if they did.

48. Do not complain.

49. Develop your imagination.

50. Do not give orders for the pleasure of being obeyed.

51. Pay for the services you are given.

52. Do not boast about your work or ideas.

53. Do not try to arouse emotions like pity, admiration, sympathy and complicity in others.

54. Do not try to distinguish yourself by your appearance.

55. Never contradict, just be silent.

56. Do not fall in debt, buy and pay immediately.

57. If you offend someone, ask for forgiveness.

58. If you have offended publicly apologize publicly.

59. If you realize that you have said something wrong, accept your mistake and desist immediately.

60. Do not defend your old ideas simply because it was you who said them.

61. Do not keep useless objects.

62. Do not embellish yourself with the ideas of others.

63. Do not get pictures with celebrities.

64. Be your own judge.

65. Do not let your possessions define you.

66. Never talk about yourself, without allowing yourself the possibility of changing.

67. Accept that nothing is yours.

68. When you are asked what you think about something or someone, mention only their qualities.

69. When you fall ill, instead of hating this evil, consider it your teacher.

70. Do not look surreptitiously, stare steadily.

71. Do not forget the dead, but give them a limited place to prevent them from taking over your life.

72. In the place where you dwell, always consecrate a sacred place.

73. When you do a favor do not make others notice your effort.

74. If you decide to work for others, do it with pleasure

75. If in doubt between doing and not doing, take risks and do.

76. Do not try to be everything to your partner, accept that he must seek in others the things you cannot give him.

77. When someone has an audience, do not disrupt them with the purpose of stealing their audience.

78. Live with the money you have earned.

79. Do not brag about your love affairs.

80. Do not take pride in your weaknesses.

81. Never visit someone just to fill your time.

82. Obtain with the purpose of sharing.

83. If you are meditating and a devil arrives, make the devil meditate.

[Chester]

ok, but traditional collective unconscious works in a sense that Belief is absolutely True without questions.


Here's a great example of what Mike and I are suggesting... that we strive to transcend. First, if an individual is able to succeed in the identification process where they correctly identify "that which they know" and "that which they believe" then they are able to take the next all important step which is to choose what they hope, wish and desire what may be true from within their set of beliefs! This now puts the individual in charge of their beliefs.

It is my hypothesis that by taking these two steps as best as one can, one's life experience begins to reveal more and more what may actually be true, and what appears to not be true.

If the result of this process proves that one cam transcend "the prison of the traditional collective unconscious" then the "traditional belief" that the collective unconscious works in a sense that Belief is absolutely True without questions"... isn't universally true!

So what I am pointing out to you is that you are using a statement as if it is fact (true) where, from my perspective, it is simply a belief, an assumption.

Once the following thought came to me...



True is what is true for you at the moment you decide it is true... and there is one really true thing about truth - it usually changes.

I have no clue where that thought came from. It arrived within the confines of my individuated mind somewhere around 9/11.

I can now rephrase that as - "What you think is true is usually, actually and only, a belief. A belief that can be tried on, like a pair of clothes you are considering buying... to see how they fit, to see if you like the way you look in them in a mirror (to see if it is really something you wish to hold onto, to continue to believe in, to even decide once and for all... "it is TRUE and forever will be" (if you dare)... because your view of "it" usually changes."

Does TRUTH change? Can TRUTH change?

Can a traditional "belief" change?

Could the process of identifying what your beliefs are, free you from the prison of mistaken truths? That is the point of the whole thread.

[Chester]

The following is a list of advice Gurdjieff wrote...

84. Do not confuse what you believe (or wish to believe) with what is true.

[RogeRio]

Does TRUTH change? Can TRUTH change?

Can a traditional "belief" change?

Could the process of identifying what your beliefs are, free you from the prison of mistaken truths? That is the point of the whole thread.

Yes, the truth change because the universe change (while expanding - constraints, i.e., breaths).
There is a latin term about this approach -- Universe is Mutatis Mutantis.
The ancient Book of Mutations (I-Ching) is based on this premise -- the only constant of the universe is the "mutation of everything"
--
a Belief system is usually conservative which aims to be an Absolute True, so the usual (deception) method is not change It, but replace one belief system with another or by a new one with the same purposes and paradigms preserved (beneath the veil of fables and symbols, it preserves for a world yet to come, the secrets of a world that has passed away)
--
Yes, because if one identify what the belief systems really are, and their real pourposes of mind-control, the veil of illusions start to collapse down.

this process is very sensitive because the Free Will Law means that everyone have right to ignore the truth according their own (free will) conveniences (as choices).

because of Free Will Law that "Ethical Beings" can not interfere neither individually nor collectively without own choice of individuals for that change.

[waves]

@ waves

At around 35:00 Matt gets into "structure." He sites sources he trusts for this information. I hope he informs who these sources are.

As to the information, though I use different terms, I can see parallels in the information Matt is conveying as to what is depicted in my own "structural map."

More to come, but I did wish to respond as soon as I could, out of respect, waves.

Thank you for sharing this find... I know I have come across Matt McKinley in the past (the voice sounds so familiar but I can't nail it).
And sorry for a very late follow up from me, I've been waiting until I understood what's been said and had something to contribute, and I really don't as it's progressing.
I'm especially sorry because it's so unusual for people to have that much old school posting integrity here, let alone take the time to carefully understand a video suggested, which was really long too, then it seemed like I dropped the ball.

So I just want to say, it's possible I don't belong here at all for the following reasons, especially because I don't want to ignore what could be an additional crucial factor to the nature of soul/humanness.

1. The title of the thread itself makes the assumption that any/every human has a soul which is something I'm having serious doubts about in a new way, which is why I immediately posted a video suggesting an additional concept about the non-souled or diminishing-souled humans around us.

2. It's that I can't shake the gut feeling that there's something to Matt's description of how humans may differ.... which actually fits nicely with the every religion concept of growing in some way with loving action, and losing in some way from destructive action.

But he goes even further to propose that what's on the line is losing your humanity for good. I find how he described how various stages of people losing their humanity look like especially intriguing and hard to disagree with.

3. Though neither have mentioned each other, I find correlation between Matt and Tom Campbell. Tom is also proposing gaining/losing consciousness/soul growth by choices, but reports that his years of OOB meditations at the Monroe Institute have shown him that though the multi dimensional soul continues after death and enjoys the progress that one of it's lives earned, there is no continuous individuation of that life that continues after death. If you see Aunt Sally greeting you at the pearly gates, it's just still the same never existing Aunt Sally you created to interact with while on Earth.

4. I most strongly think our teeny view right now is missing something HUGE and it has to do with the nature of infinity plus this digital reality/universe we seem to be occupying. It occurred to me without having read it anywhere.

Considering Tom's insistence of this VR made up by our digital information consciousness, I wonder if humans are former AI's generated by computers from other civilizations over billions of years. AI's first become a primitive sort of consciousness, then they begin a long journey trying to 'increase their entropy' as Tom would say to eventually graduate past the possibility of annihilation into the permanent frequency of love, and possibly a prime creator.

I think a much more brutal, challenging and treacherous foundational reality like that, which is far less romantic, warm and fuzzy than how religions portray the 'just be good and you'll be rewarded' journey is far more likely.

Anyway, wanted to respond but say feel free to tell me to take these additional concepts of the nature of soul to a different thread.