There never was a 'great Darkness'

Not reading whatever he tried to 'attack' me with, which was his method from the get go of misunderstanding my communication and seeing someone who was too 'confident' and trying to 'attack' their logic yet completely misunderstood every single notion.

I also wanted to re-bring up what I said inspired by one dude i quoted that

Movement is how the canvas of the present moment experiences spontaneous creation.
or
Movement is how the canvas of the present moment creates meaning.

And I'd like to add when you 'wanna' get to feeling good.. as you pretty much always do, until you start to doubt things- is that if you are not living in the present moment, then you are living in your head and you are filled with fear/insecurities and that will take you away from the present. But I can assure you that this 'creation' has your full trust you can always rely on it. So there's truly no good reason to be taken out of the present- like I have been since 18. The only reason I got out of it was I started to think the universe was mechanistic and meaningless and that we were chemical reactions who had just an 'illusion' of consciousness. So that is why I unfortuneately got taken out of the present moment. But every living being wants to be in it. So I can tell you. Instead of wasting your time but I guess we all need to figure things out our own way- but you can always trust the creation.. and that means you have no need for fear/insecurity and so you will always live, in THE:

Movement is how the canvas of the present moments creates meaning.

present moment. I can't project my understanding

no need to bow down. sorry if you feel inferior while reading
There's people who can actually read this and relate
without having an inferiority complex from seeing someone doing the things you dreamt of

One more thing I'd like to add
You think why would this 'particular' experience i had, have the need for god to reveal itself
I don't really know. But i do know it's significant to see what i know

This is the reality- we live in. We can speculate how aliens are. But we never really know.
We can think what I thought- they are full of love, a bit too much in their minds from evolution of sitting too long, and very ethereal meaning they feel the energy in their head very strongly. They are here because they love us.

Now like I said- I mean maybe that was one of my true encounters. But I didn't get up to verify as it was making sounds outside.

So why is this experience different?

The being was harsh.

There are harsh beings all over this planet. Secretive. Non-loving.

Do you think I'd be happy?

A rock in it's natural site can remain rested there for a long time, but if something never before or rarely seen comes and moves it and it stumbles down a hill (5% of rocks are near a hill) then all of a sudden you experience a different experience than most rocks ever do. Maybe it's not that significant that I got that 'sign' from what seemed like a stronger force than I'm used to dealing with. It almost seemed controlled.

In order to have a functional concept of nonmaterial characteristics concerning time we need to take into account our own perceptions of things and apply them. As something moves toward or away from you it appears to grow and shrink respectively until it apparently disappears; As something speeds or slows it appears to age faster or slower. Ultimately they are following the description of space and time themselves to the letter and so I believe can be used as a proxy for identifying the truth of the "laws" (walls).

Just as we lose sight of something in the distance it is entirely possible that there is a similar occurrence in our perception of speed as well. I don't have the qualifications to get into the nitty gritty of how they correlate exactly, but the idea holds firm with observations I know of. The speed of light appears constant, but if everything is constantly moving within the universe in incalculable ways then how is it that light is the only constant? My answer is in parabolic equations, infinitely approaching a certain value but never exceeding it. Mentally bind all things to this idea for a moment then consider the perspective of consciousness as the scale it being viewed on. We can only see certain parts of it at any time, but no matter where we look on the graph or how the values change we will still see the same curve. So its not that the speed of light is insurmountable, we just misunderstand the meaning of it because we are actually moving at fluid speeds ourselves.

thought experiment. A rocket is approaching relativistic speeds and traveling toward a packet of light in front of it while an observer observers from a "fixed position".
To the observer initially light appears to be moving away from the rocket until it approaches light speed. Once it reaches that speed the rocket then appears to be in a "fixed" position relative to the packet of light.
To the rocket however, the light appears to be moving slower until it stops.
If the rocket exceeded light speed it would appear to be moving toward the rocket.
In fact, if measured from the rocket the light would literally have slowed down.
Thus the constant of the speed of light is actually entirely relative to the speed of the viewer.
UNLESS... (dundundun)
light isn't moving, a wave, a particle, or both, but a physical property of space/time that retains its position. It acts as the asymptotes of the parabola and its perceived movements are actually expressions of the scale we are "viewing the curve" with. i.e. the space(s) and time(s) being occupied while observing.

Applying this further gives the idea that the beginnings and ends we see with physical properties is actually just an inability to see its continuation in either direction. What we need to do in order to see its continuation is to zoom in more on the graph. The big picture obscuring what we all see is actually just one part of a multilayered diagram involving the nuances which make existence itself not only possible, but real and unquestionable.

If you consider the asymptote of the graph to be "the beginning" then approaching it wouldn't mean traveling to it, just changing the zoom of the graph, and reaching it would mean the cessation of observation.

originally posted by: makalit
There is no limitation on what existence can will itself to be able to do eventually through equillibreum

Notice how the teaching or way of thinking above about "will" matches the quotation from the Hindu guru (or teacher) quoted at 0:56 (in part 1 "will" is also referred to as an "internal consciousness" which he also says something about after 3:09 regarding the quotation from Plato):

originally posted by: SierraAlphaKilo
In order to have a functional concept of nonmaterial characteristics concerning time we need to take into account our own perceptions of things and apply them. As something moves toward or away from you it appears to grow and shrink respectively until it apparently disappears; As something speeds or slows it appears to age faster or slower. Ultimately they are following the description of space and time themselves to the letter and so I believe can be used as a proxy for identifying the truth of the "laws" (walls).

Just as we lose sight of something in the distance it is entirely possible that there is a similar occurrence in our perception of speed as well. I don't have the qualifications to get into the nitty gritty of how they correlate exactly, but the idea holds firm with observations I know of. The speed of light appears constant, but if everything is constantly moving within the universe in incalculable ways then how is it that light is the only constant? My answer is in parabolic equations, infinitely approaching a certain value but never exceeding it. Mentally bind all things to this idea for a moment then consider the perspective of consciousness as the scale it being viewed on. We can only see certain parts of it at any time, but no matter where we look on the graph or how the values change we will still see the same curve. So its not that the speed of light is insurmountable, we just misunderstand the meaning of it because we are actually moving at fluid speeds ourselves.

thought experiment. A rocket is approaching relativistic speeds and traveling toward a packet of light in front of it while an observer observers from a "fixed position".
To the observer initially light appears to be moving away from the rocket until it approaches light speed. Once it reaches that speed the rocket then appears to be in a "fixed" position relative to the packet of light.
To the rocket however, the light appears to be moving slower until it stops.
If the rocket exceeded light speed it would appear to be moving toward the rocket.
In fact, if measured from the rocket the light would literally have slowed down.
Thus the constant of the speed of light is actually entirely relative to the speed of the viewer.
UNLESS... (dundundun)
light isn't moving, a wave, a particle, or both, but a physical property of space/time that retains its position. It acts as the asymptotes of the parabola and its perceived movements are actually expressions of the scale we are "viewing the curve" with. i.e. the space(s) and time(s) being occupied while observing.

Applying this further gives the idea that the beginnings and ends we see with physical properties is actually just an inability to see its continuation in either direction. What we need to do in order to see its continuation is to zoom in more on the graph. The big picture obscuring what we all see is actually just one part of a multilayered diagram involving the nuances which make existence itself not only possible, but real and unquestionable.

If you consider the asymptote of the graph to be "the beginning" then approaching it wouldn't mean traveling to it, just changing the zoom of the graph, and reaching it would mean the cessation of observation.

Hiya SAK.

That's a pretty epic first-ever post on ATS! Nice!

Could be: something; nothing; neither; or both.
Is there: an observer; a subject; neither; or both?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
I haven't addressed anything you have said about your encounter.

originally posted by: Makalit
Then I summoned an alien and i regretted it. Now I don't feel alive anymore, and sometimes don't care if i die. I feel it would be an honor to die by the hands of a human.

After I saw the alien, I had a strange experience.

Then-->

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
everything you posted about aliens and how you reply to others with their own opinions is obvious you believe a little too much of what you read or what YouTube videos you watch.

Inhale: "I haven't addressed anything you have said about your encounter."
Well.. verbal communication logic would say I just showed you have.

I could also go back to where I explained that the post where you quoted truth, the 'truth' was specifically in that quote referring to my alien experience, of which maybe you still didn't understand, and then you said "i am talking about all the 'truth' you refer to having spoken of in this post" meanwhile missing the notion that that really had no relevance to the use of 'truth' in my quote. It's like someone saying "Yeah running in my bare feet down a road full of thorns felt as if I was running on Valcanic magma" and then you don't address what that paragraph implied but instead would rather 'get your unrelated feeling out' and say: "Volcanic magma can't be found on roads, they are only in volcanoes."

Completely unrelated to the easy to decipher words that were quote.

But ever since I first posted on another place and I said "I know they are here, I saw them" and every other thing I said, You weren't there to ask questions, you were simply there to say I was wrong and apply your logic that I was an attention seeker who is lying or delusional. You say you have questions, but coming from a place of sincerity you never have. You're questions are all along the lines of "How do you not see that you are wrong?"

I didn't even see this post

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: makalit

Makalit:
"Well guess what what you see in others is what you are yourself. If you see intelligent people who have reasons to think what they think, you are likely intelligent. If you see compassionate people everywhere, that's because it's something inside of you. You are compassionate and that's why it matters so much that you would focus on and see it in others, because it matters to you. So you are delusional not me."


Its great that you posted this along with everything else you have called me and others.

So if you see a lonely delusional troll who is like a special needs student in me is that actually what you are going by your own logic?

It is likely so. Even though I wouldn't say the above things about sailorjerry. For him he kind of copied my care-freeness of feeling over confident, he observed my expression of self and copied it from perhaps not having much experience on forums and thus thinking I'm normal, copied my ways to adapt, and naively said a bunch of things even though he doesn't really IMO have a reason to be confident to say those things while I do. Like a boy seeing a dark suited karate master (but he just looks like a dark guy who is non-significant to the boy, meanwhile everyone who's been there a few hours knows he's a master) and sees the master jump into an obstacle course of dodging and lifting heavy things (really strong) and the boy says ha! i can do that! and jumps in but he couldn't even lift a rock 1/50th the weight of the dark clothed karate master.

As for krazhee_fuhkar he takes pride in his abilities to not foolishly believe what he sees many do, he feels he's smart for this however doesn't realize he's not smart enough to actually decipher what the higher truth is since he's showed he doesn't have the ability.. and he's already dismissed some truths as false that were true. So really, not that smart.

Is that a reflection of myself? I don't know. I know what I am. After seeing what I saw (which inhaleexhale won't understand what I'm reffering to, but any intuitive person should) something over-electrocuted in my brain. Like a large zap but not overly destructive. I'm a good student with a good mind. Paired with god revealing itself, and a sense of feeling another personality in my mind temporarily which my mind created out of suspicion of being watched, (which is gone now) I started to act a bit more care free thinking my mind does have a physical flaw from that little zap where maybe my brain isn't piecing together as well as before but I don't think it's too damaging if anything I feel freed.

Sure I can act crazy but really I'm just as logical as before I just have shards of glass sticking out of my body as I dance while others are seemless.

Now knowing exhale he will quote

Makalit:
Well.. verbal communication logic would say I just showed you have.

"Verbal communication?? How can this be verbal if this is online?? You aren't making any sense."

And then needing further clarification for that sentence, he will move on to the next quote.


When I finally correct him, he then will say "Well why didn't you say that then?" Meanwhile not addressing the quote now that's it should have been clarified.

That's why I can't re-explain myself to him. It's like a never ending spiraling vortex. Cause verbal sometimes refer to oral spoken in some places.




As for SailorJerry, he said his info that he had, I said it was wrong, then he rants of how Can I be right when I say things but that he is automatically wrong?

That's because you can look on any alien forum. There is ALWAYS a process of verification for the posters. If the person says they ACTUALLY saw something, usually people question the circumstances, or say it is interesting. Usually if the person says 'they dreamt something and wondering if it was real or a dream" where as often enough you'll get people responding that it was a dream. Unless you're very sure of your feelings, most people don't automatically believe something they felt in their head as really happening.

If 2 guys lined up in a field and a crowd asked them questions, do you think they'll take the guy who said "Yup I physically seen something" or the guy who said "I felt them communicate a message in my soul, but I never saw anything" which one will they consider of more importance? That's why i said you must be naive because if you leave me and go to a lot more people they'll all dismiss your story because you didn't see anything. It's like you only been around 3 people your whole life.

I gave you the courtesy to be open to what you knew, I only said it was likely wrong. You are inexperienced in that situation as well because anyone who has truth will argue back how it is true. I've seen it countless times. I still questioned what it was like- your experience, but I guess in some metaphysical way since your experience didn't happen there wasn't anything metaphysically the reality could sense I was questioning, and so it was more rather raising some awareness inside of you that it's annoying people will take what you want to believe and crush it because they seek validity in what you put out in the open on here, rather than nurturing your wants.

a reply to: makalit

"Verbal communication?? How can this be verbal if this is online?? You aren't making any sense." And then needing further clarification for that sentence, he will move on to the next quote. When I finally correct him, he then will say "Well why didn't you say that then?" Meanwhile not addressing the quote now that's it should have been clarified. That's why I can't re-explain myself to him. Cause verbal sometimes refer to oral spoken in some places.

Do you just make up your own definitions or what?

The sharing of information between individuals by using speech

This is written communication, not verbal.

The Latin word verbum, meaning “word,” gives us the root verb. Words from the Latin verbum have something to do with words. A verb is a word that shows action. ... Anything verbal is made up of spoken words.

You write properly, interchange words like you just make up your own rules on what words mean and then insult everyone elses intellect.

Me thinks:

a reply to: SailorJerry

Another un-backed up remark by you in attempts to insult my intelligence..

I said knowing the true definition of verbal was "relating to or in the form of words." knowing that I was not wrong, but said it knowing that in some places it means oral and assuming inhaleexhale would potentially draw this conclusion.

Edit: Btw nice picture. You found that online? I like that it exists.

I would say it is actually pretty accurate. I like it! A crazy beast.


To add: About your 'experience': People will question: "Do you have any past history of them making contact, and seeing them?" You: "No"-Them:"Never?" You: "no" them: "So you just randomly felt that voice energy feeling in your head?" You: Yeah
Them: So besides feeling it, you don't really have any other evidence that shows that they actually did speak?

a reply to: makalit

Another un-backed up remark by you in attempts to insult my intelligence..

I quoted what you said, and then provided the actual definition of the word, it doesnt get much more backed up then that.

I said knowing the true definition of verbal was "relating to or in the form of words." knowing that I was not wrong, but said it knowing that in some places it means oral and assuming inhaleexhale would potentially draw this conclusion.

You were wrong, and that is not the definition, I provided the actual definition. YOUR definition is not the ACTUAL definition.

a reply to: SailorJerry

That was the definition in the 1600's. Standardly it means spoken or written. Google

So by making fun of exhale for picking on that line 'not making sense' (to him?)
For him it was a play (from me) making fun of his inability to creatively understand the true meaning required for my speech.

For you: It has now become a play for you to not care for the intended speech, and scapegoat to verbalities. Your mission here isn't to understand me. It's to try to say I'm dumb. (Not a very noble cause IMO but to each is own) My light year sentence did express a figurative notion that it would mean A LOT of effort and that's what krazhee_fuhkar knew.

a reply to: makalit

That was the definition in the 1600's. Standardly it means spoken or written. Google

No thats the current definition, you dont get to make up your own facts. You can make up your own BIAS but you dont get to make up facts.

Point is youre attacking other members and insulting them while trying to boast your own intellect, yet youve displayed nothing of the sort.

a reply to: SailorJerry

I don't have intellect. I've seen guys in person who have complex logical structures in their head. You ask them what's out there in the universe and they'll go over the thousands of different concepts and facts they've learned and piece together what is it. I know I'm not intellectual but I'm still somehow able to come to a further conclusion that isn't backed with the complexities of the subject but just a simple logic. My mind is simple yet profound like a deep large rock who doesn't think.

On other forums people could call non-significant
Yet I personally was presenting facts for things no one had proof for, such as astrology
They could overlook it and think I don't know what I'm talking about
I could care less, I know that I'm right
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
You could have accepted that maybe I am right about the definition and check any online current dictionaries but you don't because you have a need to feel that I'm wrong which is deep-rooted in your insecurity that I was right about you pretending to have aliens speak. Yes you got a taste of the meat seeing that I didn't outright call you a liar and pretender, and using that you saw you could 'manipulate' non-true things and wove them online so you took it further and said "Of course I could be correct, why the hell not"

So what the heck am I dealing with here, SailorJerry and InhaleExhale, 2 of the worst people on the web are attracted here, must be because my positivity has no exclusion and finally a chance for someone to carress these otherwise outcasted from manners boys

a reply to: SailorJerry

You write properly, interchange words like you just make up your own rules on what words mean and then insult everyone elses intellect. Me thinks:

No,

even though using their logic they are one, because they see one in me and what the Op said is what you see in others is whats in you.

I think the ego plays a large part in posting the way they do.

I think the awakening they are going through along with an ego-maniacal mindset has put blinders on our OP.

To makalit:

Once you get through this awakening of a greater understanding, you will go through a few phases and finally realize it was pointless, then you might get another perspective and see what others are trying to tell you.


Maybe you should have come here to learn instead of teach.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Yes I realize my awakening is pointless. How would you know? Have you had any significant strange awakenings? If so what was it

after you awaken everything is still the same

a reply to: makalit

Hi Guys.
If you have seen the movie: "The Truman Show", this philosophical analysis might resonate with what you are hinting-at.
This may be more for older folks, post awakening, or post-enlightening, or whatever.
Perhaps less for Indigos, but offered-up with good intentions none-the-less.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I wasn't really having a dig at you...just trying to stay non-judgmental myself

a reply to: makalit

Ok...thanks for your response

a reply to: Nothin

Nice!