Courtney Brown Announcement for February (now March) 2014

[CD7]

Posted by Johnny (here)

Posted by CD7 (here)
"nothing that is believed can be perceived. Thus humans are not automatically destined to suffer, and sin and redemption are beliefs of control, not automatic elements of the human condition"


A most awesome implication :D

Sorry to correct you CD7, but it is "nothing that is NOT believed can be perceived.".

Now we just have to find out: What will it really say 'to believe'

Regards Johnny

Oops Thankyou! See how EASY it is to screw with something---ONE WORD changes the context

...one word its a battle ground..one word and we'll smash it down...one word, one worrddd...."Pink Floyd"

[T Smith]

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
Is this all coming down to, "We create our reality"?

Yes. All these implications render down to that exactly. This was fairly evident to me after implication post # 13 or so. With all due respect, however, philosophers have been saying this for millennia (as well as some esoteric branches of science).

I'm not discounting the profundity of these statements, but this is certainly nothing new, nor the subject or explanation of something that has been a "mystery" to our species for thousands of years.

[swoods_blue]

I agree with Harley that the image accompanying the latest Implications Posting is rife with hints, and I think we should be on the lookout for a major announcement about ancient Egypt soon.

Collating the hints from this image with some of the other threads of thought that have appeared here in the forum, I think that we'll probably be hearing that DNA tests have proven that ancient Egypt was led by people who are not the same species as the rest of us. That would ultimately be a irreparable crack in the facade of our fake ancient history, and a major step forward for Truth. Avalonians will not be as shocked at the content of such an announcement as the rest of the world, but we will find ourselves beginning conversations explaining this information to people around us, many of who will undoubtedly remain skeptical. But it would be a major step forward in awareness, and the paradigm could shift rapidly. Re-evaluation of ancient monolitic sites, including S. America, Japan, Ukraine, Egypt and yes, under the waves, would follow. Graham Hancock would be a megastar overnight... haha, it would be interesting to watch!

That said, the wording of this last implications posting is probably not at all a mistake or imprecise. The POINT is that what we do not believe, we cannot perceive. And that has been the crux of all the implications postings -- that we have been fed a lie, and in accepting that lie, we (collectively, not necessarily as individuals) have been blind to the evidence of truth all around us.

[Hervé]

Posted by Operator (here)

Posted by Johnny (here)

Posted by Operator (here)

Posted by Johnny (here)

Posted by CD7 (here)
"nothing that is believed can be perceived. Thus humans are not automatically destined to suffer, and sin and redemption are beliefs of control, not automatic elements of the human condition"


A most awesome implication :D

Sorry to correct you CD7, but it is "nothing that is NOT believed can be perceived.".

Now we just have to find out: What will it really say 'to believe'

Regards Johnny

Is it me or ... I don't like the use of double negatives and he uses them often.
Not very scientific use of language, very confusing.

But very common in Danish

Johnny

So if we reverse this ... does it mean: everything that is believed can be perceived ?
If so, then why not say it like this? Much clearer. Was it done to sound mystical?

It's an unfortunate wording of what -- I think -- he is trying to express and which derives from some: "Something that does not exist cannot be perceive." as a corollary to "Something that exists can be perceived and communicated to."

However, the way Courtney expresses it without context can lead to attempting to fit square pegs in round holes or trying to fit data into a theory/hypothesis.

Here is the context exemplifying the negative of what one does -- when led to believe something is nonexistent -- ... one shuts down its actual perception:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
The third man in the room on how even "unwilling" subjects are also hypnotizable:

Cosmic Cointelpro Timeline

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapies to stop bad habits do not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessible to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe - the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VTobS-09fBQ

[...]

[araucaria]

Some negatives are totally unimportant and inoperative. Saying ‘Do NOT think of an elephant’ is a surefire way to get you thinking of an elephant.

Similarly, saying ‘Do NOT think positively’ or any amount of suggesting such a negative mindset is ultimately going to backfire.

[Hervé]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VTobS-09fBQ

[...]

The above fits the "Prison Planet" data in that the vast majority of the population does not perceive anything wrong since the prison guards are such benevolent souls... right?

However, with individual research such as the kind done by Truman Cash which unravels how an entire, whole, complete planet can be utterly programmed since beyond the dawn of humanity... there are some realities which are in want of being perceived...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Operator (here)
(not A) AND (not B) = A OR B

I think you left out a NOT .

"(not A) AND (not B)" is what is called joint denial or NOR. It asserts that both A and B false.

"A OR B" is what is called disjunction or OR. It asserts that at least one of A or B is true.

Adding a NOT to the left side, the assertion that "NOT ( (not A) AND (not B) ) = A OR B" is true. If they're not both false, then at least one of them is true.

(Sorry ... my math thesis was "The Independence of the Axiom of Choice from the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem" ... that's "Boolean" as in "Boolean Algebra" . )

[Snookie]

"Revolutions are simply rapid shifts away from beliefs that were previously held by many, beliefs of pain and suffering that are finally discarded."Those who benefited from those beliefs lose control and power when this happens

As I mentioned earlier, I think the Vatican will lose face big time once this knowledge/information becomes known. People will begin to see how they have stolen and kept manuscripts and ancient knowledge under lock & key in their archives for centuries. Every time a people/country have been conquered, they have stolen their knowledge, and kept it for themselves.

[Operator]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
...
However, the way Courtney expresses it without context can lead to attempting to fit square pegs in round holes ...
...

Yep, it felt that way ...

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
...
It's an unfortunate wording of what -- I think -- he is trying to express and which derives from some: "Something that does not exist cannot be perceive." as a corollary to "Something that exists can be perceived and communicated to."
...

Ok, so perhaps reword it as "things that are NOT believed can NOT be perceived." (reusing as much as possible original words from Courtney)

Thanks for all the hints guys ... I think I get the gist now. I'm apparently a bit slow this morning ...

[Johnny]

Posted by Operator (here)
Hi Johnny,

Thanks for your explanation. I see 2 sides of it ...

Boolean algebra is used in the computer/automation world and there you can do these tricks and the logic stays the same.
Example: (not A) AND (not B) = A OR B ... so negate A and B and change AND into OR .... this is pretty well understood in computer science.

But when Bill Clinton said "I did NOT have a sexual relation with that woman" he demonstrated the power of negation in human language.
The only thing he said was only one 'tiny thing' that did not happen leaving open a whole plethora of things that may have happened.
So not clear at all !

When I write e.g. a functional specification (human language) I pay special attention to avoid double negatives in order to prevent
misunderstanding of what it does. I would expect the same of a person creating a high focus situation stressing on a scientific
approach all the time and who is a professor of all people.

But maybe it's just me ... I don't like words that much. I liked the graphics more, a picture equals a thousand words ...
Words distract me while I get almost immediately a deeper 'psychic' connection to images and the intention of the
moment they were created.

As a retired programmer, I know the first example, it is called inclusive or, if I remember correctly.

The second example, it depends what the question was, if there was a question.

But I agree with you.

When I write e.g. a functional specification (human language) I pay special attention to avoid double negatives in order to prevent

I would wish I could say the same, I'm a huge fan of KIS (Keep it Simple) and if people correct me, I will never be offended.

We had a foreign minister who once said, before he became foreign minister: "Not telling the whole truth is not the same as lying". That is to keep it too simple, i will say

Cheers Johnny

[Johnny]

Posted by CD7 (here)
..one word its a battle ground..one word and we'll smash it down...one word, one worrddd...."Pink Floyd"

I have always, and still do LOVE Pink Floyd

Johnny

[Operator]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
(not A) AND (not B) = A OR B

I think you left out a NOT .

"(not A) AND (not B)" is what is called joint denial or NOR. It asserts that both A and B false.

"A OR B" is what is called disjunction or OR. It asserts that at least one of A or B is true.

Adding a NOT to the left side, the assertion that "NOT ( (not A) AND (not B) ) = A OR B" is true. If they're not both false, then at least one of them is true.

(Sorry ... my math thesis was "The Independence of the Axiom of Choice from the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem" ... that's "Boolean" as in "Boolean Algebra" . )

Yes, you're right ... and that's how confusing negating can be... (and I'm still not awake enough this morning apparently)

"(not A) AND (not B)" :
A B
0 0 = 1
0 1 = 0
1 0 = 0
1 1 = 0

"A OR B":
A B
0 0 = 0
0 1 = 1
1 0 = 1
1 1 = 1

Or the exact inverse of the first table ... so a NOT is missing on one of both sides ...
But, although interesting to some, I think we digress ...

[Hervé]

Implications Posting #23:

[...]

... Life can only be painful if we believe it to be painful, no matter what the apparent cause, and no matter what the degree of perceived trauma.

[...]

Well... a "book" or not a "book"?:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]

Parchment rolls will be found in the Azores and talk about ancient civilizations that will teach men of ancient things unknown to them. Death will be distant and pain small.

Things of the earth, through the rolls, will speak of heavenly things to men.

Ever growing in numbers, signs. The lights in the sky will be red, blue, green, fast. They will increase.

Someone comes from afar, wants to meet men of the earth.

There has already been meetings. But who has really seen kept silent.

[...]

[...]

[Johnny]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Operator (here)
(not A) AND (not B) = A OR B

I think you left out a NOT .

"(not A) AND (not B)" is what is called joint denial or NOR. It asserts that both A and B false.

"A OR B" is what is called disjunction or OR. It asserts that at least one of A or B is true.

Adding a NOT to the left side, the assertion that "NOT ( (not A) AND (not B) ) = A OR B" is true. If they're not both false, then at least one of them is true.

(Sorry ... my math thesis was "The Independence of the Axiom of Choice from the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem" ... that's "Boolean" as in "Boolean Algebra" . )

You are quite right Paul, You see, I knew what he meant, but that is not how the piano plays in the 'real wold'

Johnny

[Cognitive Dissident]

Posted by Johnny (here)
And now with 1 day left, I want to thank you Harley Hawkins for your good job, and also thank you to all the contributors to this thread.

Johnny

I also say thank you to Harley, and I suggest that you be the first one to post the actual announcement on this thread!

[eaglespirit]

...and all the Colored Girls go "Doot Daah Doot Daah Doot Daah Doooo DaDoooooh"

Take A Walk On The Wild Side and Do Not Not "Change The World"...

To the 'Other Side' where Lou now resides and helps Us Transition To Spirit!!!

One more Day and We'll be over this hump...forever good, as in non-ending everlasting Spirit Good!!!

[Robin]

Posted by Cognitive Dissident (here)

Posted by Johnny (here)
And now with 1 day left, I want to thank you Harley Hawkins for your good job, and also thank you to all the contributors to this thread.

Johnny

I also say thank you to Harley, and I suggest that you be the first one to post the actual announcement on this thread!

Or should we create a whole new thread? It may be worthwhile to separate the implications from the actual announcement. Just a suggestion!

[Operator]

Posted by SamwiseTheBrave (here)

Posted by Cognitive Dissident (here)

Posted by Johnny (here)
And now with 1 day left, I want to thank you Harley Hawkins for your good job, and also thank you to all the contributors to this thread.

Johnny

I also say thank you to Harley, and I suggest that you be the first one to post the actual announcement on this thread!

Or should we create a whole new thread? It may be worthwhile to separate the implications from the actual announcement. Just a suggestion!

B.t.w. Jill started this one but never posted in this thread
while it was running ....

[Robin]

There is also the thread Be AWARE on the Ides of March: "Et tu, Courtney?" that we could create a valuable discussion on.

[Snowflower]

Several things:
Synchronicity, I apologize if I made you feel bad, or even if you thought I intended you to feel bad, about your giggle comment. I've spent most of this thread basically laughing at my perception of arrogance and an ego-driven need to act like a carnival barker from Courney Brown, so can well understand the giggle reflex. My post was really about my abrupt switch in perspective, because I was kind of shocked by it. My other position in this thread still holds strong: the wish to hope this is something real, but the fear of hope because of the many hope crashes in the past.

Cognitive, Harley could be first to post the announcement, but no one is going to sit on it unposted if it isn't here!

Samwise, the whole subject is - well - a "whole." To divide the thread now would be far more confusing. The implications are definitely an integral part of whatever it is they have to tell us.

I wonder where (as in what website) the whole announcement will be. Way back there in the beginning, CB said "part" of it would happen on his Facebook page. Will the whole thing appear at Farsight Institute or somewhere(someone) else?

Harley, thank you very much for compiling the Implications.