Things that are alike are the same.

[noprophet]

Curious as to what people think about this. It's something that's been in my head for awhile and while it is not all of it - it's a much as I think I can cleanly phrase for now.

-

If you think of material form as an instrument and consciousness as the force producing a note from that instrument, the source of your-self becomes the note, or chord, produced.

Planets work this way as well - hence astrological alignments coloring certain tones.
(By coming within closer proximity to the planet producing the given tone in the 3d an individual's personal geometries take on some of its form rather than just the tone of the birth-planet.)

Any beings that share a similar geometry (physical construction) produce a similar tone as pure consciousness moves through them.

Many of the racist ideologies formed in the 19th and 20th centuries unconsciously seized on this information realizing that physical differences can be attributed to differences in consciousness. They however attempted to apply it to lower egoic conscious-functions and quickly dogmatised it into individual attributes rather than proportional construction.
(e.g. You can be of any skin color, tall or short, it is simply the proportional ratios that derive the note just as a musical note is actually derived by the proportional oscillation of noise.)

The core tone of this planet is well represented in the golden ratio or the more dense equivalent - the Fibonacci sequence.

[Mark]

If you think of material form as an instrument and consciousness as the force producing a note from that instrument, the source of your-self becomes the note, or chord, produced.

I think maybe it is the other way around since material form comes after consciousness, not before ...


Any beings that share a similar geometry (physical construction) produce a similar tone as pure consciousness moves through them.

So all of a bipedal form and a general family type might share similar tones? Humans, and aliens with two arms and legs? Humans and chimpanzees and the great apes?


Many of the racist ideologies formed in the 19th and 20th centuries unconsciously seized on this information realizing that physical differences can be attributed to differences in consciousness. They however attempted to apply it to lower egoic conscious-functions and quickly dogmatised it into individual attributes rather than proportional construction.

What do you mean by your final sentence above? lower egoic conscious-functions? What do you mean by proportional construction? Two arms and two legs?

[noprophet]

So all of a bipedal form and a general family type might share similar tones? Humans, and aliens with two arms and legs? Humans and chimpanzees and the great apes?
Exactly - but more so, if you measure your finger tip to shoulder and finger tip to elbow you get a golden ratio. Variations of these golden ratio's all over the body may serve to define the difference between one level of consciousness to the next, or what we view as physical evolution; though it starts with a constant adjustment of the source consciousness via the current forms - hence why evolution seems to occur in leaps - e.g. when the mean mentality of all the forms is shifted, the next form is produced. I also believe that there are levels to this which, as they become more dense, time/space applies much more to.

An example of this is when you breed wolves into dogs by separating out the aggressive ones - suddenly within in three generations the snouts have shortened, ears become smaller and they begin to resemble what we think of as dogs. It happens very quickly by controlling the consciousness of the group.


What do you mean by your final sentence above? lower egoic conscious-functions? What do you mean by proportional construction? Two arms and two legs?
Lower egoic conscious functions : Values, beliefs, ethics (lower does not mean bad, it's just when you get out of the separated stuff into the unity stuff these no longer apply as malleable terms.)

Proportional construction means the physical proportions of the body. To the best of my knowledge all humans are like 90% identical. Short, tall, fat, thin - the core proportions are basically the same.

edit:


material form comes after consciousness
This I agree with in terms of what we call beginning. On a feedback loop between matter and spirit however, anything beyond initial formation becomes chicken/egg.

[Mark]

Variations of these golden ratio's all over the body may serve to define the difference between one level of consciousness to the next, or what we view as physical evolution; though it starts with a constant adjustment of the source consciousness via the current forms - hence why evolution seems to occur in leaps - e.g. when the mean mentality of all the forms is shifted, the next form is produced.

Sounds a lot like biological determinism. How a person's physical body is proportioned determines their ethical nature and spiritual evolution. I think all souls are equal and bodies are created for specific types of lessons. The soul comes first, the body later. Evolution as conceived by Darwin continues to be a non-starter. Doesn't take forbidden archeology into account, technological and biological anomalies that have been discovered over the centuries. The so-called "leap" in evolution that led from one type of human to another occurred most probably because humanity as we know it has been tinkered with continuously by others. Those "others" were not necessarily "lower", just different.


I also believe that there are levels to this which, as they become more dense, time/space applies much more to.

When the levels of consciousness density, of mental density shifts, becomes more dense, time and space apply more to those forms? What you are stating above is not clear.



An example of this is when you breed wolves into dogs by separating out the aggressive ones - suddenly within in three generations the snouts have shortened, ears become smaller and they begin to resemble what we think of as dogs. It happens very quickly by controlling the consciousness of the group.

This is more biological determinism as consciousness is beyond the confines of the physical body. Bodies may limit their inhabitants to the extent that they may or may not perform physically as well as others, but as far as the workings of the mind and soul, I am not at all certain that a clear analogy can be made between humans and dogs as you attempt to above. A canine consciousness may not have the potential for conceptualization that a human consciousness might have, for instance.


Lower egoic conscious functions : Values, beliefs, ethics (lower does not mean bad, it's just when you get out of the separated stuff into the unity stuff these no longer apply as malleable terms.)

Proportional construction means the physical proportions of the body. To the best of my knowledge all humans are like 90% identical. Short, tall, fat, thin - the core proportions are basically the same.

I see. So, people with perfectly proportioned bodies would be ethically and spiritually higher than people whose bodies were not?


This I agree with in terms of what we call beginning. On a feedback loop between matter and spirit however, anything beyond initial formation becomes chicken/egg.

Hm. Consciousness had to exist before bodies did. Before matter did. Imho. You have some very interesting views. Thank you for sharing them.

[noprophet]

Sounds a lot like biological determinism. How a person's physical body is proportioned determines their ethical nature and spiritual evolution.
Ethical nature is an ego function of deciding what is right/wrong based on individual experience. Our spirit has no ethical nature because it is simply blown away with what is. What we might refer to as spiritual ethics are called spiritual laws for a reason. You have a choice with ethics - they are malleable, debatable, true Laws are not. What we refer to as our ethics are actually our innate observation of spiritual laws then coupled with symbolic experience and logic. I am trying to be more careful with words here as they are not very good. We are driving along semantics canyon. :P


When the levels of consciousness density, of mental density shifts, becomes more dense, time and space apply more to those forms? What you are stating above is not clear.
I apologize, I gave this a few attempts and lack the words for it at this point. So here's my best shot: Existence is like stacking dolls. Time applies to every layer proportionally equal. A minute to the outer doll feels no different than a minute to the inner doll - though the inner doll would perceive the outer dolls minute as ten(this number is unimportant, just an illustration). I wish I could explain this better. Maybe I'll come up with something later.


This is more biological determinism as consciousness is beyond the confines of the physical body. Bodies may limit their inhabitants to the extent that they may or may not perform physically as well as others, but as far as the workings of the mind and soul, I am not at all certain that a clear analogy can be made between humans and dogs as you attempt to above. A canine consciousness may not have the potential for conceptualization that a human consciousness might have, for instance.
They are most certainly at different levels of consciousness - or should I say - form. We believe as animals develop larger brains they begin to stand upright - or adhere to a new conscious geometry. this does not mean a new soul has taken the place of the old group soul - it means that the constant feedback loop of the material bodies and the group-soul has expanded the awareness of the group-soul enough that it can start expressing more diverse geometry. So I do agree with you on spirit comes first but then I look behind that and say; "well, spirit defines the now but it, spirit, was defined by the before." If it was not for the feedback loop spirit would only ever inhabit very simple forms. We are expanding it as it is expanding us. I think.


I see. So, people with perfectly proportioned bodies would be ethically and spiritually higher than people whose bodies were not?
I feel that status is attempting to be derived from proportion. I'll relabel it awareness and say sure, they may tend to be a little bit healthier but we're talking about very small degrees of variation within the human form. Even homo-erectus to homo-sapien, while having greater variation than anyone on this planet today, is still slight in comparison to the entire form.


Hm. Consciousness had to exist before bodies did. Before matter did. Imho. You have some very interesting views. Thank you for sharing them.
I am still not convinced in a beginning or end to all of it, that there was before or will be an after. But in the cases of beginnings, splits and the such I agree. The spirit has to cause the split because it defines the body. But the body before the split occurs has to build spirit up to doing that.

I realize that people are wary of these things since the Volks, especially since Lanz and Liebenfels, but I feel something underneath the BS of it all and I am quite concerned there may be some babies in that bathwater.

edit: I realize this isn't capital evidence but I have heard that the reason the soul group has moved on mostly from the Yeti is because of biological reasons confining it's spiritual evolution. That they were an anunaki work horse and there spirit/form relays had been altered to prevent further mental/emotional evolution.

[jackovesk]

Let me just leave you with these words of 'Wisdom'...

There's a 'Stupid Description' that Americans use for a 'Sea-Saw' or is it the other way round..?

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1606742770766&id=6465944d42e1113fb49bcd348f8ca673&url=http%3a%2f%2fthesecretiswags.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2010%2f04%2fteeter-totter.gif

There's a 'Stupid Description' that Australian's use for a 'Teeter-Totter'..?

...Or is it

Just a piece of 'Wood' balanced in the middle, where kids can spend time enjoying themselves..?

:noidea:

[Mark]

Ethical nature is an ego function of deciding what is right/wrong based on individual experience. Our spirit has no ethical nature because it is simply blown away with what is. What we might refer to as spiritual ethics are called spiritual laws for a reason. You have a choice with ethics - they are malleable, debatable, true Laws are not. What we refer to as our ethics are actually our innate observation of spiritual laws then coupled with symbolic experience and logic. I am trying to be more careful with words here as they are not very good. We are driving along semantics canyon. :P

The Laws of Conservation (Energy) that seem to govern the natural world can be seen to form a sort of ethical backdrop to material existence and consciousness. All human thought is energy. That thought manifests in action. Those actions manifest in form. Choosing a steady state between two extremes, moving between the dichotomies, for instance (Good and Evil) can be seen as a conservation of energy. Ethics work out mathematically.

We do indeed have a choice with ethics, but that is when energy being neither created nor destroyed comes into effect, for each action results in an opposite and equal reaction, which equates to the laws of karma as all energetic output must have its inevitable backlash, blowback, etc. So our human choice is really much like the individual expression of difference that allows certain physical systems to pendulum around a statistical mean but always, invariably, return to that mean in their overall trend, despite seeming to display "free will" in its perambulations.


Existence is like stacking dolls. Time applies to every layer proportionally equal. A minute to the outer doll feels no different than a minute to the inner doll - though the inner doll would perceive the outer dolls minute as ten(this number is unimportant, just an illustration). I wish I could explain this better. Maybe I'll come up with something later.

I look forward to it as this idea seems to be central to your thesis.


They are most certainly at different levels of consciousness - or should I say - form. We believe as animals develop larger brains they begin to stand upright - or adhere to a new conscious geometry. this does not mean a new soul has taken the place of the old group soul - it means that the constant feedback loop of the material bodies and the group-soul has expanded the awareness of the group-soul enough that it can start expressing more diverse geometry. So I do agree with you on spirit comes first but then I look behind that and say; "well, spirit defines the now but it, spirit, was defined by the before." If it was not for the feedback loop spirit would only ever inhabit very simple forms. We are expanding it as it is expanding us. I think.

Who is "we"? Are you speaking of the general theory of evolution? Perhaps we have little room for discussion on this topic, as my understanding of consciousness as manifest in material form seems to be quite different from yours. From my understanding, sacred geometry is present in all forms, from seashells to trees to people, as you originally state. There is science to suggest that it is quite possible to change form according to a non-physical consciousness matrix (http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm) that can be manipulated by technology, which means that form is pre-determined rather than post-determined. The science holds merit, imho.



I feel that status is attempting to be derived from proportion. I'll relabel it awareness and say sure, they may tend to be a little bit healthier but we're talking about very small degrees of variation within the human form. Even homo-erectus to homo-sapien, while having greater variation than anyone on this planet today, is still slight in comparison to the entire form.

I agree with that. Consciousness differentiation was also slight as a result.


I am still not convinced in a beginning or end to all of it, that there was before or will be an after. But in the cases of beginnings, splits and the such I agree. The spirit has to cause the split because it defines the body. But the body before the split has to build spirit up to doing that.

The research that I linked above posits that there are non-material, energetic forms for all things that are pre-existent. A pattern for every lifeform. Their physical manifestation corresponds to that greater spiritual/non-physical reality, from whence all things originate. Here is where ethics comes in again as a form of energy. "Building up" spirit basically means removing the manifest illusions of materiality and returning to a state of energetic purity. Removing the detritus, the wasted energy, the extra intentions, thoughts, actions, that move us from the direct path out into the hinterlands. There can be no disagreement between material and spiritual law. The material is mirror to the spiritual. Imho.

Related to that is research, also by Russians, that seem to show that language is related to genetic structure (http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/dna1.html) and that structure can be changed by words. That also flies in the face of traditional beliefs in evolution as put forth by those who believe that the physical is paramount and that which lies beyond is beholden to it, rather than the other way around.


I realize that people are wary of these things since the Volks, especially since Lanz and Liebenfels, but I feel something underneath the BS of it all and I am quite concerned there may be some babies int hat bathwater.

Perhaps you, and they, may be on to something that may have some sort of material ramifications in our lives. I do believe that we incarnate into specific types of forms for specific types of lessons that we can only get through the experiences of bodies created specifically to reflect where we are spiritually at a particular time. But I in no way believe that equates to any type of spiritual superiority in any other world nor in any type of ethical superiority in this world.


I realize this isn't capital evidence but I have heard that the reason the soul group has moved on mostly from the Yeti is because of biological reasons confining it's spiritual evolution. That they were an anunaki work horse and there spirit/form relays had been altered to prevent further mental/emotional evolution.

Hm. They say some of the Grey/Zeta types have done that to themselves. And also that the Anunnaki or Reptilians have done that to humanity too. But it is questionable that the physical can limit the spiritual. I do not believe it works that way if the will power is strong enough.

[noprophet]

Thank you for the links, I'm reading through them right now. I also really appreciate this conversation. :)

It will take me time to re-calibrate with all the new DNA information but I would like to define a belief in hopes it will shell out the query a bit better.

I am of the belief that the world, the physical reality as well as 'non-physical' (though for the sake of not having to draw a line let's just say 'existence') is in fact God. That when the word 'God' was created it did not mean what we perceive it to mean today. They did not see the world and then god behind it - they simply saw god. I believe this is where the Jewish tradition of not saying the name of god also developed from. It was not that you couldn't say the name of god. It was that you literally couldn't say the name of God because it was already everything. By giving it a word it becomes that word - but it isn't - it is a symbol to say everything. The mind does not handle this well though - hence the need for oral initiations along with the information.

This means that 'God's will' is in fact simply will. Not a separate will guiding our own, trying to help us be like it, but literally our own will(s).

I found out after playing with this idea for some time when I was first exploring spirituality that it is an advanced kabalist belief. Probably where Crowley derived "Do what though wilt. Love is the law, love under will."

After a lot of internal deliberation, that still pops up even now, I finally decided that while the moral arguments that it proliferated were endless, the actually utility of being able to read the world at any given moment as God's will in action spawned very interesting perspectives. Let's call it a utility perspective.

The implications of this is what I have heard described as where the term "righteous" originated. It was not a term for a holy man who fought for conceptual ethical goals or observed some form of conceptual law. It was instead a person who saw the world and said "this is right" - not "this is what it has to stay" - but "this is right, this is what it is." This has the interesting effect of making you deal with a negative issue directly. Rather than pointing at the person symbolically embodying it, destroying them through word or action, and then feeling that reality is now back in check. You become them - you see what they see and you realize that these actions are the results of certain strains of energy - not defects. "The road to hell is paved in good intentions." Well sometimes the karmic reverberations of our good intentions end up in one of these strings that becomes negative to our perception. It is in fact just the "Laws" playing out - hence, do not judge.

I also believe even by speaking about these abstract perspectives and ideas were making them more clear to everyone. Healing possible karmic circuits. 100th monkey effectiveness.

<3

[Mark]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I "lost" this conversation in the press of the moment:


That when the word 'God' was created it did not mean what we perceive it to mean today. They did not see the world and then god behind it - they simply saw god. I believe this is where the Jewish tradition of not saying the name of god also developed from. It was not that you couldn't say the name of god. It was that you literally couldn't say the name of God because it was already everything. By giving it a word it becomes that word - but it isn't - it is a symbol to say everything. The mind does not handle this well though - hence the need for oral initiations along with the information.

Well said.


This means that 'God's will' is in fact simply will. Not a separate will guiding our own, trying to help us be like it, but literally our own will(s).

We are, then, God, eh? The manifestation of the Divine within material existence. In that viewpoint there can be no greater "right or wrong" as all is as it is supposed to be. I do understand that viewpoint. It is certainly an unpopular one though, as the inevitable conclusion must be that evil is ok from that higher perspective. So many find that hard to accept as we formulate our belief systems within the context of culture and acceptable modes of behavior.

Doing what thy willst in light of the whole of the Law is alright in theory but in practice results in you being hunted down by the mob and lynched.


After a lot of internal deliberation, that still pops up even now, I finally decided that while the moral arguments that it proliferated were endless, the actually utility of being able to read the world at any given moment as God's will in action spawned very interesting perspectives. Let's call it a utility perspective.

The implications of this is what I have heard described as where the term "righteous" originated. It was not a term for a holy man who fought for conceptual ethical goals or observed some form of conceptual law. It was instead a person who saw the world and said "this is right" - not "this is what it has to stay" - but "this is right, this is what it is." This has the interesting effect of making you deal with a negative issue directly. Rather than pointing at the person symbolically embodying it, destroying them through word or action, and then feeling that reality is now back in check. You become them - you see what they see and you realize that these actions are the results of certain strains of energy - not defects. "The road to hell is paved in good intentions." Well sometimes the karmic reverberations of our good intentions end up in one of these strings that becomes negative to our perception. It is in fact just the "Laws" playing out - hence, do not judge.

I also believe even by speaking about these abstract perspectives and ideas were making them more clear to everyone. Healing possible karmic circuits. 100th monkey effectiveness.

I agree without qualification. As you stated it all so well, there is very little for me to add on, excepting the following: what you've shared here is indicative of a state of reality, of BEingness that permeates spiritual systems the world across, yet lies hidden amongst the more in-depth and higher-level teachings, as its actualization is often problematic within the context of social convention, which is necessary in the evolution of human civilization. This also explains the inevitability of having an "Illuminati", imo. The formulation and continuance of these streams of thought and belief within the context of societal evolution necessitates a state of "open secrecy" as small groups and individuals attempt to live the credo, "the ends justify the means" and direct the Earth toward specific ends.