Final Conclusions Regarding UFOs

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

It’s sad that these days you can’t even invite the ones you love inside anymore cause of the risk of contaminating one another. That in itself is and could be a reason for boundry and would be an argument pro “nuts and bolds” (or at least a nuts and bolds legacy if we really want to keep it decent).

The whole permission to enter the house in folkore apparently inspired the vampire mythology as well. Still I do find it strange cause why would some bricks and stones hold back the supernatural/alien? Could it be an indication that it’s familiar and respect the concept of a home, or that at least our construct of a home has something in common? Or is it all a wrong misinterpretation of mind/body?

There’s also a bible story we where thought in school that I always found very peculiar. It described a battle where Moses had to raise his hands (literally) to win the battle against Amalek. That one always stick to me cause I found it very strange that raising or lowering your hands (for God - it’s also confronting to me that I still refuse to write this between quotes) could make any difference, but perhaps that’s a wrong misinterpretation by me. Reference is Exodus 17. Thing is the open/raised arms (palms facing forward, even including a burning heart) are a very common theme in depictions of saints in European churches.

Now perhaps a very silly remark, but imagine opening up the door for someone inviting them in. Pay attention to your posture (in most cases). Arms open, palms facing forwards, you welcome somebody with open arms.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Who knows; maybe after careful long term study of human behaviour, the aliens decided when in Rome do as the Romans do and tossed honesty out the window.

Another consideration could be that humans infect them. That is, we may have to "grant permissions" à la surrender; and "abandon" the ego. But what about the "other"? Do they need to surrender to humans in order to flirt with them? Would they have to abandon their "purity"?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

That's a very fascinating response.

Right on the money too.

Nothing is more dangerous than giving a 'guru' permissions to enter your mind.. it's 'unprotected sex'.

Yet, life is INTENDED to merge with other life.. EVENTUALLY.

So just Who is it safe to have 'spiritual sex' with?

That's always the question.

And nearly universally people 'get it wrong'.

But that's how evolution works, no?

To spread those 'spiritual genes' around.

Many white American's think that 'colored people 'are 'evil'. Sons of Cain you know.

But every white person alive today, is descended from one black woman, probably in Africa.
(Mitochondrial Eve).

Sometimes 'perceived evil' is your actual 'salvation'.

And sometimes you screw yourself over BAD.

No wonder it's Leela the Game of Self Knowledge.

Kev

a reply to: IgnorantGod

It's what happens.

That's the 'impurity' 'the Buddha' spoke about.

'Enlightenment' while 'mutual' is quite a bit for 'them'.

Play with humans long enough, and you get captured in them; humans are 'drugs'
for the low entropy life forms.

This 'crud layer' builds up on the 'threads' and that's what humans call 'a soul'.

But most humans don't live to 'become enlightened' anymore, so the 'low entropy
life forms' have had to resort to appearing as 'UFOs' to get people's attention and
to get permission to enter them, so that they can finish their lifecycle.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I see. Then, I'm wondering; wouldn't there be a "third party", so to speak, that actually gets more benefit from the "sacrificial reunion" of the former two's?

a reply to: IgnorantGod

I presume you mean 'god' ?

I didn't say that a third party wanted the process to occur..

of course I didn't say that there was NOT such a third party.

Did 'god' want the captured bacteria in our cells (the mitochondria)
to 'rejoin us'?

'God' is the most toxic subject matter in existence.. it does major
damage to the 'human ego'. Makes it go wiggy.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Not necessarily 'god'.

Hmm, I'll try to demonstrate it by an analogy.

Let's consider that a human in ASC is more prone to give permissions; if I consider the process, but changes the two parties, so that drugs take the place of humans and humans take the place of the "other".

What I'm coming with this is that if I consider a drug as an "entity", I can say that it would abandon its body by "reuniting" with a human. If so, then humans get the "better" from the process; they get an ASC. (As a side note, maybe the drug could actually gets an "enlightenment" from altering its molecular structure with some in the human's body)

Now, if the "other" gets easier "access" from humans in ASC, I could then conclude that the one benefiting the most from the process, would be the "other", even if it doesn't appears in it. It may, or may not influence humans in doing the actual process, doesn't matter.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Everything is about shutting off the rational mind, so that the 'other' can use the bodies resources more efficiently.

It's really that simple.

However that can be accomplished;

Whether by meditation, impressive displays from 'UFOs' and 'Cryptids' or whatever.

Now AFTER the 'experience' the rational mind re-engages and talks, talks, talks.

These 'forces' wait for an equivalent of 1 million years in 'their time' for those 10 seconds
that someone 'sees a UFO' and opens to them (and in a way to themselves).

Now yes, there are 'good', 'evil' and 'in-between' 'forces'.

But they are all family.

Should 'good' resist 'evil'?

Well, we find ourselves doing that sometimes.

And both the 'good' and the 'evil' learns from it.

Sorry if that got philosophical.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I have no problem with philosophy, or morality.

Yes, tricktsters seem to exhibit a "long thriving" for the narrative. I understand most would use "contextual images" to better "sync" with the observer's mind; as to why more UFO's than Fae nowadays.

a reply to: IgnorantGod

Man has been thoroughly worshipping technology since day one; but especially since they dropped atomic bombs on Japan.
So 'technology' is the new doorway into the human body, both 'Nuts and Bolts UFOs' and 'AI' and other variants.

Yes, some still worship holy ghosts and 'higher selves' and what not.

But the 'UFOs' get even the atheists.

And over time, religion and spirituality will fade out in the world,

and 'technology' will be the only remaining god.

That's the plan, for a very powerful faction anyway.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

If you look at how most (non IT) people are using the term AI it wouldn't even be a hard sell.

And when we once get to have a superintelligence, depending how much we keep ourself 'unplugged', it will be beyond our understanding.

Skydaddy, meet techdaddy..

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Are you willing to share how you summoned the black triangle/dwarf?

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Yup!

I'm always fascinated by how the Gnostics view this sort of thing.

Kev

a reply to: MagnificatMafia

It was a highly personal thing. I have shared it with some folks, but they are in a difference place than I was. I might just post it before I make my final exit from ATS; I might not.

You wish to 'summon a BTUFO'?

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

No I do not, I'm just interested in your experience. I've been lurking for months and unable to register until today, and its just been a burning question I had...

a reply to: MagnificatMafia

Well, welcome!

originally posted by: IgnorantGod
a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Who knows; maybe after careful long term study of human behaviour, the aliens decided when in Rome do as the Romans do and tossed honesty out the window.

Another consideration could be that humans infect them. That is, we may have to "grant permissions" à la surrender; and "abandon" the ego. But what about the "other"? Do they need to surrender to humans in order to flirt with them? Would they have to abandon their "purity"?

Hi IgnorantGod.

Introducing the word "purity" has me re-examining the mechanics of encounters.

To my thinking, the 'boundary of self' is the important definition. How to say? The difference between a ghost haunting a house and possession? We remain separate in the haunting and both the ghost and person remain pure. In possession the ghost crosses our boundary of self, and our purity becomes corrupt.

I like the word "flirt" too, flirting implies a playful interaction without commitment.

The optical properties of the boundary of self is a still a mystery for me, I haven't got my head around how we perceive others and ourselves. "Purity" and "flirting" add a nice spacial perspective to encounters.

Your reference to "infection" is an important consideration too. Infection equates with corruption.

So when one thinks with those terms of "purity" and "infect" you bring a new and practical perspective to encounters.

How to create a comfy relationship in encounters is something worth working out how to do. I have plenty of encounters but still suck at "relationships".

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Nothing is more dangerous than giving a 'guru' permissions to enter your mind.. it's 'unprotected sex'.

Yuk! Kevin. Yuk!

Just the thought . . .

Yet, life is INTENDED to merge with other life.. EVENTUALLY.

Are we really?

I know that is what the Buddhists and everyone else says we are supposed to be doing, However do we really need to get on that train to Oneness?

I'm feeling mischievous, so I'll toss this next one back at you;

So just Who is it safe to have 'spiritual sex' with? That's always the question. And nearly universally people 'get it wrong'.

Chastity would be my suggestion here.

Leela the Game of Self Knowledge

I had to google that reference. Interesting . . .

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

There are two forms of 'oneness'.

One is the simple realization that everything is connected from an initial point of low entropy "the big bang if you wish to characterize it that way".

Thus understanding that all the little 'petri dishes' are like pearls on a string.. at the very least sharing the string..

I call that realization 'Temporarily Distributed Buddhism".

That's the "so-called right-hand path" way to accurately describe it (IMHO)

Now there's another form of 'Oneness' and it's very common.

Anyone who has ever lived the so-called 'Left Hand Path' is very familiar with it, but won't discuss it. (IMHO).

I'll leave it there.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The whole "spriitual oneness" thing is something I don't really understand the mechanics of, nor do I fathom the reason to do so.

In my own way, I can understand that if I extend my boundary of self over my house, then my house becomes my home. I guess the difficulty is feelings of "territory" giving a selfish quality to my home. How to allow other boundaries of self to also extend over the same house to become their home too in harmony is perhaps what makes a family(?) or an ecosystem. To be born within a home is different to creating the home.

There is a "oneness" there that is very different to the oneness of yoga where one is said to lose the sense of self. Perhaps yoga in that respect deals with the shedding of our boundary of self? Yoga seems to know a lot about the boundaries.

We can separate a drop of water from the ocean, and it can have a sense of self which it could not have while within the ocean. If we return the drop of water to the ocean it is lost forever even though we can remove as many drops of water as we wish. None will ever be the same.

I am not saying anything is wrong with the idea of oneness. Only that the oneness of spiritual thinking looks like this to me. It seems that it is only the ocean that is enriched if so.

If one takes the analogy a step further we find life living within the ocean. The ocean provides the home for the creatures.

There is room within the analogy for life to not lose the sense of self completely when becoming something more. "Evolution" if you want to call it that, though evolution implies intelligent intent of something more. Perhaps the ocean has an intent, though to attribute intent would imply a sense of self.

Perhaps the ocean dreams of becoming more than that it is?

If so there may be some sort of oneness that has a dream.

Just my thinking aloud here.

Where I cannot find harmony with the ideals of spiritualistic thinking, I can find harmony in the thought of living the dream.

The dream seems to be very interactive.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

The oneness never stops dreaming is a pretty common thought, or stops dreaming every 1000 kalpa or so;
if you want to use that system.

Of course, this is all beyond our paygrade, so to speak.

Sometimes fun to discuss, generally of little practical value.

Kev