IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How Long Have Humans Been Around?, alternative query

lunk
post Nov 9 2008, 03:53 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



How long have humans existed on this planet?
We only have a few thousand years of relics, yet,
ancient civilizations talk about even more ancient civilizations
Biologically we could have existed to a
much earlier time with the same potential as now.

10000 years,
100000 years
1000000 years,
...longer?

Have civilizations risen and fallen countless times in the past,
could the knowledge of these civilizations be kept hidden and used by a few,
for power and control, today?

Are the modern inventions that seem to instantly show up world wide everywhere at once,
just mass body and mind control devices, already designed and waiting, to be released at the appropriate time.

Ever since I was young, I always wondered why television,
that I thought was a wonderful device for teaching and learning,
was being used to broadcast such and so much useless dribble.

I have no idea, other than I know that lots of what we are told about history is just
the poop d'jour.

I suspect that people have been around even longer than the sciences proclaim, though.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 9 2008, 04:16 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I think man's "history" is related to at least half of the posts on that Broken History thread.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13047

Ever hear of Michael C. Cremo, lunk? (Much better than TV IMHO).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10731662
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 10 2008, 09:00 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Yes, very interesting,

though, I think, that the 2.3 billion year old carved spheres,
just grew that way, and were not carved by humans.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746284


Even 400 000 years is a blink of the eye, evolutionarily speaking.

Curious, about the 65 million year old, world wide, iridium layer,
...caused by a meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs?

I think that the migratory dinosaurs were more likely eliminated,
when the continents started breaking apart,
in a major way, 65 million years ago.

Starting to wonder if this (iridium layer) marked
the end of a previous human civilization. possibly much more advanced than our own is today
(this would explain a lot, as we could be the surviving mutant remnants,
of a previous rise of a civilization, that wiped itself out with biological, chemical, and nuclear war)

So, humans, over great stretches of time,
have brought rise and fall of countless civilizations,
erased by the passage of time.

But what we are seeing to day is an elite group of families,
running our whole civilization.
Could this have been the case in past civilizations?
Could these civilizations have been run by the ancestors
of the same elite families running our world today?
Is there hidden knowledge retained by these same elite families from these extinct civilizations?
And most importantly, is this knowledge being used today, to control and secretly lead our present civilization, disguised as technological advancement?

A civilization is like a garden, first cultivate the soil, agrarian,
then seed with your crop of humans, water with freedom and
it will thrive like an industrial revolution, fertilize with technology,
and lots of sunlight (energy).
... harvest, and repeat after the next ice age.

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 10 2008, 09:35 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I think that's 2.8 billion years (but what's 500 million years worth when history is broken after all?), not 2.3 billion. This hilarious (IMHO) quote was from your post on that thread lunk:

http://www.virtuescience.com/grooved-spheres.html

""It also seems that the spheres are so delicately balanced that, even with modern technology, they would need to have been made in zero gravity. The story goes that scientists at NASA were totally flawed when they examined them, and were unable to come up with any explanation." laughing1.gif

So do you think something non-human might have carved them, lunk? Also, am I just using engineer-think here, but why didn't anyone suggest that the spheres might be bearings of some flavor?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 10 2008, 10:28 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Some of those spheres were found to be filled with a fibrous material,
This makes me think that they are a type of geode.
Over eons of time, atom by atom, the fibrous crystals grew,
as they got bigger, they attracted more stray atoms, the Earths' gravity
which has more than doubled, since the spheres started growing,
this causes the spheres to malform and stretch
out somewhat, at right angle to the c. o. g. of the Earth.

A similar occurrence can be seen in the moon, where the pull of the Earths' gravity,
has caused the moon to grow slower on its' far side.
The Earth side of the moon has giant dark planes of new growth,
while the far side is all rugged and bunched up.
The crystalline internal growth of the moon has been affected by the gravity of the Earth.
So much so, that the two sides of the moon look completely different.
Another factor is that every crystal grows differently,
this may account for the ring formation on the spheres as different from
the one sided growth seen on the moon.

If civilizations have risen and fallen in the past,
we may have already been to the moon, ages ago.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 10 2008, 10:44 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Is it coincidence that these Klerksdorp Spheres and those "broken science" isolated bacteria were found in South African mines?

My astronomy professor referred to the moon as "gravitationally locked" due to a gradually-shifted, now-solid nickel-iron core IIRC. I haven't really seen proof of either theory though...

But Socrates and I know that we're agnostic on this history business, so we might not be broken yet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Nov 10 2008, 11:18 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



TOO LONG. AND NOT LONG ENOUGH.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 11 2008, 01:57 AM
Post #8


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Nov 10 2008, 07:18 PM) *
TOO LONG. AND NOT LONG ENOUGH.


Perhaps it isn't a matter of an interval, long or short.

Not disagreeing with your sentiment, exactly, but, as usual, wishing to point to something else -- perhaps another way of thinking about this question: The possibility of a dimension which contains but is not contained by, time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Nov 11 2008, 02:03 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Enter our Mobius Strip discussion (or it enters us, or ... )

The Mobius Strip, microcosm of Einstein's unified field
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=12339
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 11 2008, 09:17 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



If civilizations were known to rise and fall, by a dominant minority,
who wanted to preserve the harvested knowledge of each civilization,
the moon would make a wonderful archive.

Did anyone notice, everyone is suddenly going to the moon again.
...I wonder, what's up...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 11 2008, 01:22 PM
Post #11


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 11 2008, 05:17 AM) *
If civilizations were known to rise and fall, by a dominant minority,
who wanted to preserve the harvested knowledge of each civilization,
the moon would make a wonderful archive.

Did anyone notice, everyone is suddenly going to the moon again.
...I wonder, what's up...


Ancient knowledge is everywhere, all around us and in us. But it is the nature of esotericism that this knowledge can not be received or understood if it is not accompanied by an intentional, inner effort to be qualitatively and quantitatively more aware or more conscious. It isn't a matter of a passive acquisition of "more information" recorded like data on a disc. Knowledge is more than information. Transformation is the possibility, attention is the key:

QUOTE
During one conversation with G. [G. I. Gurdjieff] in our group, which was beginning to become permanent, I asked: “Why, if ancient knowledge has been preserved and if, speaking in general, there exists a knowledge distinct from our science and philosophy or even surpassing it, is it so carefully concealed, why is it not made common property? Why are the men who possess this knowledge unwilling to let it pass into the general circulation of life for the sake of a better and more successful struggle against deceit, evil, and ignorance?

This is, I think, a question which usually arises in everyone’s mind on first acquaintance with the ideas of esotericism.

“There are two answers to that,” said G. “In the first place, this knowledge is not concealed; and in the second place, it cannot, from its very nature, become common property. We will consider the second of these statements first. I will prove to you afterwards that knowledge” (he emphasized the word) “is far more accessible to those capable of assimilating it than is usually supposed; and that the whole trouble is that people either do not want it or cannot receive it.

“But first of all another thing must be understood, namely, that knowledge cannot belong to all, cannot even belong to many. Such is the law. You do not understand this because you do not understand that knowledge, like everything else in the world, is material. It is material, and this means that it possesses all the characteristics of materiality. One of the first characteristics of materiality is that matter is always limited, that is to say, the quantity of matter in a given place and under given conditions is limited. Even the sand of the desert and the water of the sea is a definite and unchangeable quantity. So that, if knowledge is material, then it means that there is a definite quantity of it in a given place at a given time. It may be said that, in the course of a certain period of time, say a century, humanity has a definite amount of knowledge at its disposal. But we know, even from an ordinary observation of life, that the matter of knowledge possesses entirely different qualities according to whether it is taken in small or large quantities. Taken in a large quantity in a given place, that is by one man, let us say, or by a small group of men, it produces very good results; taken in a small quantity (that is, by every one of a very large number of people), it gives no results at all; or it may give even negative results, contrary to those expected. Thus if a certain definite quantity of knowledge is distributed among millions of people, each individual will receive very little, and this small amount of knowledge will change nothing either in his life or in his understanding of things. And however large the number of people who receive this small amount of knowledge, it will change nothing in their lives, except, perhaps, to make them still more difficult.

“But if, on the contrary, large quantities of knowledge are concentrated in a small number of people, then this knowledge will give very great results. From this point of view it is far more advantageous that knowledge should be preserved among a small number of people and not dispersed among the masses.

“If we take a certain quantity of gold and decide to gild a number of objects with it, we must know, or calculate, exactly what number of objects can be gilded with this quantity of gold. If we try to gild a greater number, they will be covered with gold unevenly, in patches, and will look much worse than if they had no gold at all; in fact we shall lose our gold.

“The distribution of knowledge is based upon exactly the same principle. If knowledge is given to all, nobody will get any. If it is preserved among a few, each will receive not only enough to keep, but to increase, what he receives.

“At the first glance this theory seems very unjust, since the position of those who are, so to speak, denied knowledge in order that others may receive a greater share may seem very sad and undeservedly harder than it ought to be. Actually, however, this is not so at all; and in the distribution of knowledge there is not the slightest injustice.

“The fact is that the enormous majority of people do not want any knowledge whatever; they refuse their share of it and do not even take the ration allotted to them, in the general distribution, for the purposes of life. This is particularly evident in times of mass madness such as wars, revolutions, and so on, when men suddenly seem to lose even the small amount of common sense they had and turn into complete automatons, giving themselves over to wholesale destruction in vast numbers, in other words, even losing the instinct of self-preservation. Owing to this, enormous quantities of knowledge remain, so to speak, unclaimed and can be distributed among those who realize its value.

“There is nothing unjust in this, because those who receive knowledge take nothing that belongs to others, deprive others of nothing; they take only what others have rejected as useless and what would in any case be lost if they did not take it.

“The collecting of knowledge by some depends on the rejection of knowledge by others.

“There are periods in the life of humanity, which generally coincide with the beginning of the fall of cultures and civilizations, when the masses irretrievably lose their reason and begin to destroy everything that has been created by centuries and millenniums of culture. Such periods of mass madness, often coinciding with geological cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of the matter of knowledge. This, in its turn, necessitates the work of collecting this matter of knowledge which would otherwise be lost. Thus the work of collecting scattered matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations.

“This aspect of the question is clear. The crowd neither wants nor seeks knowledge, and the leaders of the crowd, in their own interests, try to strengthen its fear and dislike of everything new and unknown. The slavery in which mankind lives is based upon this fear. It is even difficult to imagine all the horror of this slavery. We do not understand what people are losing. But in order to understand the cause of this slavery it is enough to see how people live, what constitutes the aim of their existence, the object of their desires, passions, and aspirations, of what they think, of what they talk, what they serve and what they worship.

Consider what the cultured humanity of our time spends money on; even leaving the war out, what commands the highest price; where the biggest crowds are. If we think for a moment about these questions it becomes clear that humanity, as it is now, with the interests it lives by, cannot expect to have anything different from what it has. But, as I have already said, it cannot be otherwise. Imagine that for the whole of mankind half a pound of knowledge is allotted a year. If this knowledge is distributed among everyone, each will receive so little that he will remain the fool he was. But, thanks to the fact that very few want to have this knowledge, those who take it are able to get, let us say, a grain each, and acquire the possibility of becoming more intelligent. All cannot become intelligent even if they wish. And if they did become intelligent it would not help matters. There exists a general equilibrium which cannot be upset.

“That is one aspect. The other, as I have already said, consists in the fact that no one is concealing anything; there is no mystery whatever. But the acquisition or transmission of true knowledge demands great labor and great effort both of him who receives and of him who gives. And those who possess this knowledge are doing everything they can to transmit and communicate it to the greatest possible number of people, to facilitate people’s approach to it and enable them to prepare themselves to receive the truth. But knowledge cannot be given by force to anyone and, as I have already said, an unprejudiced survey of the average man’s life, of what fills his day and of the things he is interested in, will at once show whether it is possible to accuse men who possess knowledge of concealing it, of not wishing to give it to people, or of not wishing to teach people what they know themselves.

“He who wants knowledge must himself make the initial efforts to find the source of knowledge and to approach it, taking advantage of the help and indications which are given to all, but which people, as a rule, do not want to see or recognize. Knowledge cannot come to people without effort on their own part. They understand this very well in connection with ordinary knowledge, but in the case of great knowledge, when they admit the possibility of its existence, they find it possible to expect something different. Everyone knows very well that if, for instance, a man wants to learn Chinese, it will take several years of intense work; everyone knows that five years are needed to grasp the principles of medicine, and perhaps twice as many years for the study of painting or music. And yet there are theories which affirm that knowledge can come to people without any effort on their part, that they can acquire it even in sleep. The very existence of such theories constitutes an additional explanation of why knowledge cannot come to people. At the same time it is essential to understand that man’s independent efforts to attain anything in this direction can also give no results. A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. This must be understood from the very beginning. One must learn from him who knows.”

From P. D. Ouspensky's, In Search of the Miraculous, quoting G. I. Gurdjieff, pp 35, 36.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 12 2008, 09:04 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Ouch, my brain hurts.


QUOTE
You do not understand this because you do not understand that knowledge, like everything else in the world, is material.


Now that's a heavy thought.

QUOTE
Such periods of mass madness, often coinciding with geological cataclysms, climatic changes, and similar phenomena of a planetary character, release a very great quantity of the matter of knowledge. This, in its turn, necessitates the work of collecting this matter of knowledge which would otherwise be lost. Thus the work of collecting scattered matter of knowledge frequently coincides with the beginning of the destruction and fall of cultures and civilizations.


OK, so that's why everyone is going back to the moon.

QUOTE
“The collecting of knowledge by some depends on the rejection of knowledge by others.


I'm a pack rat for knowledge myself,
I've learned that whenever I toss out,
what I think is old knowledge,
I always needed it the very next day.

QUOTE
A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it.


No, but it could shorten the learning experience.

I think this guy is getting gold and knowledge mixed up.

There are a lot of ambiguities in these statements.

How does knowledge get preserved if it's always getting wiped out?

Where is it stored outside of time?

Inventions from civilizations in the past,
all destroyed?

I think not.

It only take one simple idea and life could be so much easier.

...take the wheel.

imo, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Nov 12 2008, 09:07 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 12 2008, 07:15 PM
Post #13


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 12 2008, 05:04 AM) *
QUOTE
A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it.


No, but it could shorten the learning experience.


1: You're still taking "knowledge" as representing information. That is not what is being spoken of. 2: The "learning experience" for what is being spoken about, great knowledge, can not be shortened. It takes as long as it takes. If one does not find "those who possess it," it will not happen at all. Think of it as an exchange of a particular quality of energy. It demands something from both he who gives and he who receives.

QUOTE
I think this guy is getting gold and knowledge mixed up.


The former is a symbol for the latter.

QUOTE
There are a lot of ambiguities in these statements.


How so?

QUOTE
How does knowledge get preserved if it's always getting wiped out?


Knolwedge never gets wiped out.

QUOTE
Where is it stored outside of time?


Everything is, always.

QUOTE
Inventions from civilizations in the past,
all destroyed?

I think not.


Perhaps so, but they may not be available to us.

QUOTE
It only take one simple idea and life could be so much easier.

...take the wheel.

imo, lunk


Life can not be made "easier," it can only be made more comfortable such that we sleep all the more soundly.

I'm reminded of how Plato, in the Phadreus IIRC, relates a story he puts in the mouth of Socrates, saying he was told by a Sybil that an Egyptian Pharoh protested to the god Thoth: "The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learner's soul because they will not use their memories, they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. You give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth. They will be heroes of many things and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing."

Turns out he was right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 12 2008, 08:05 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I'm still trying to grasp if it is a particle or a wave.

I would say that gold is like knowledge, and can be expressed
just as well as an idea.
Instead of saying that knowledge is solid like gold.

In reality a nugget of gold is not much different than any other rock on the beach.
While knowledge is worth more than either.

What has weight, but is unmeasurable?
Knowledge.

So, I have to side with the wave, at the moment.

The premise of knowledge being material, like gold, is backwards.

What is knowledge?
How does it differ from information?

I know, dumb questions,
but I must ask.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 13 2008, 01:35 AM
Post #15


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 12 2008, 04:05 PM) *
I'm still trying to grasp if it is a particle or a wave.

I would say that gold is like knowledge, and can be expressed
just as well as an idea.
Instead of saying that knowledge is solid like gold.

In reality a nugget of gold is not much different than any other rock on the beach.
While knowledge is worth more than either.

What has weight, but is unmeasurable?
Knowledge.

So, I have to side with the wave, at the moment.

The premise of knowledge being material, like gold, is backwards.

What is knowledge?
How does it differ from information?

I know, dumb questions,
but I must ask.

imo, lunk


There is never a "dumb" question if you must ask it.

First of all, esoteric knowledge is generally presented to the novice, and is commonly available to most everyone, through myth, symbol and metaphor. There are many reasons why this is necessary but like so many things having to do with this subject, the reasons aren't always obvious. In fact they seldom are obvious to us. But perhaps it will help if we begin with at least a partial awareness that the function of esoteric knowledge is the transformation of the human being from one state (our 'ordinary' state) to another state. One common metaphor that is used to express this idea is sleep vs awakening. So it can be said, the purpose of esoteric knowledge is to "awaken" the human being from his his ordinary state of "sleep". "Sleep" is a metaphor not to be taken too literally but, at the same time, it is a far more 'apt' metaphor than we can commonly admit. Those of us who have gone through the 9/11 looking glass see "sleeping" people everywhere all around us, people who are "hypnotized" by government, media, and so on -- and we know we were once one of them (and may suspect that to some degree we still are).

From the point of view of esotericism, the human being is "asleep" to his higher potential. That is, "asleep" to -- or unaware of -- his potential to be far more conscious than he ordinarily is. However, there is a fundamental problem. The man does not know that he is "asleep," does not experience himself as "asleep". Usually if you tell a man he is "asleep" he will get quite irritated and find various means of proving you are wrong. He is an adult with adult responsibilities, perhaps he is quite well educated, maybe even a man of some importance with a lot of money -- or not. In any case, he is quite certain that if he were "asleep" he would know it -- just as many who haven't gone through the 9/11 looking glass assume that it is too big a lie to be kept secret (or whatever excuse you wish). Or, worse, the man told that he is "asleep" may "believe" you just enough that he then takes this idea and turns it into some fantastical "dream" about what it would mean to "awaken". He begins to fantasize about himself and about the history and future of humanity and read all sorts of books, attending lectures and workshops led by authoritative crack-pot sycophants eager to fleece him to his grave.

sh*t happens.

As regards your questions, I think I've said this elsewhere on this forum in some context or other but we can construct a hierarchy that looks something like this:

data > information > knowledge > understanding > wisdom > awakening > transcendence
(Your word choice may vary.)


This hierarchy is not only quantitative but qualitative -- becoming increasingly qualitative as it progresses. Regardless of your data set or range of samples, no amount of data can become "information" until it is perceived and organized, sorted and stored in some way. Similarly, a large quantity of information will not produce "knowledge" until it is somehow put to use.

I hesitate to say anything beyond the mid-point of this schematic, "knowledge," because to go further up this 'ladder' requires qualities that are very difficult to define. Still, I think you can 'get it' at least that even a very knowledgeable man may not be a very "understanding" man. He may be very powerful but he may not "understand" the world, the other people around him, or even himself -- and never quite manages to no matter how many books he reads or authorities he consults. Something qualitative is missing.

But, so far, all that I've been describing with this little flow chart is ordinary knowledge such as you and I possess as we are. We're not yet talking about the kind of great knowledge that Gurdjieff says is "material" and for which he uses "gold" to represent symbolically. To even begin to understand this requires that 'something qualitative' that is missing from mere knowledge in the ordinary sense.

At another place in the book quoted above, Gurdjieff says a man's understanding is equal to his level of being. This word "being" is a bit hairy but suffice it to say that although a rock, a flower, a dog and a man may all "exist", they do not have the same "being". What is being proposed, here, is that men, too, can have different levels of "being" (which, in esoteric terms, can range almost as much as the examples I've used). According to this idea, a man can not understand anything beyond his level of being. Perhaps we could just as well say that a man's understanding is his level of being. If you want to know what a man is as opposed to what he believes himself to be or pretends to be, look at his level of understanding -- of himself, the world, others, etc. You and I and almost any man or woman we come in contact with are on the same level of being (more or less). Therefore, to understand something greater than we do -- and humanity in general does -- requires not only an increase in knowledge but also an increase in being.

The question you are asking (if I've understood you) is, in what sense of the word is this knowledge, esoteric knowledge, "material" in nature. Chances are this is a "new" idea, not one you've ever come across before and, indeed, it seems counter-intuitive -- which is to say, contradicted by everything you know or think you know already. Most everyone would agree with you, I'm sure. In what sense can "knowledge" be "matter"?

Perhaps it will help if we both agree that matter is energy of a certain density, having certain properties that can be analyzed and comprehended. You've seen before where I've said that living beings are transformers of energy. We take in the matter of food and air into our bodies and they, in turn, through various autonomic processes extract the elements and nutrients that are then transformed into all the functional properties of our organism. However, what is not commonly understood is that air and physical food (including water) are not the only materials that enter our bodies. Right now as I sit here typing this and as you sit there reading, our senses are being bombarded with a flood of energetic stimuli. We are being "fed" constantly through our nervous system, "stimulated" we call it, far more so than we commonly realize. And we can prove this to ourselves through intentionally shifting our attention. If I suggest, for example, that while reading these words you shift a part of your attention to sensing your left foot, you may find that, although it isn't easy, it can be done. Wiggle your toes if you need to and sense what that feels like. Perhaps now you can also sense your socks (if you're wearing any) or the pressure of your shoes at specific points on your foot. All that energy of sensation was already there stimulating your brain but it did not rise to the level of your 'conscious attention' because you were not paying attention to it. You should be able to verify this directly for yourself. But I'll go a bit further because if your experience of this is at all like mine as you continue to read these words within a relatively short time you will once again forget to pay attention to your foot and this stimulation, though still there, will no longer be available to your awareness. This is a fundamental model of the entirety of the human condition: We are but we do not continuously and directly know that we are. This is our "level of being." We have learned and been conditioned to focus our attention in specific ways in order to accomplish given tasks. For example, all of us here know how to "read" in the conventional, 'reading comprehension' sense and it isn't necessary to have a sensation of one's left foot (or, indeed, much of any sensation of the body what ever) to do so. Whether it is reading or writing or talking or walking or screwing or driving a car or taking a sh*t or performing brain surgery or plotting the overthrow of the American Republic and the institution of a New World Order -- it is all the same. All these things are done by men and women who are operating out of a certain very restricted level of being, completely unaware that something more might be possible for us if we could only learn to pay attention in a new way.

Gurdjieff speaks of the "matter of knowledge" because he's speaking of the possibility of receiving more directly, consciously and intentionally, the "energy of impressions," -- the "food" necessary for our transformation -- trough a simultaneous growth of both knowledge and being. The whole esoteric proposal is actually quite simple: We will change as the center of gravity of our attention changes. But to read these words is one thing, to engage in the activity is quite another and not without certain risks. Mostly these 'risks' are of no particular consequence. For one thing, most people, even when they come across this idea, and even if they find it momentarily a little bit interesting, soon forget all about it and, like having taken the blue pill instead of the red one, they wake up the next morning believing whatever they want to believe, brush themselves off, and go about their lives as though nothing had happened. It is, indeed, extremely rare that someone becomes sufficiently interested in this proposal to begin to make efforts and experiments coupled with researching the necessary texts that may, in time, lead them to encounter "one who knows". Well, at least someone who honestly knows they don't know enough but may have a clue. Perhaps even someone who has begun to learn how to digest and transform the energies of impressions such that they have begun to develop within themselves a new being.

IMO: painter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 13 2008, 10:46 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Now I feel like I'm swimming underneath the thick primordial muck
with only and inkling of a memory that there is
a less viscous atmosphere above.

hmm...attention...
how does one maintain, awareness of the moment, constantly,
without drifting off into distraction?

still wiggling left toe,
cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 13 2008, 05:43 PM
Post #17


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 13 2008, 06:46 AM) *
Now I feel like I'm swimming underneath the thick primordial muck
with only and inkling of a memory that there is
a less viscous atmosphere above.

hmm...attention...
how does one maintain, awareness of the moment, constantly,
without drifting off into distraction?

still wiggling left toe,
cheers, lunk


Your sense of humor will be a help when it doesn't work against you, as well as the quality of "memory" you speak of.

The answer to your question has to be found for yourself. That is part of the beauty of it. But, in brief, how do we learn to do anything we want to learn? In most respects this is no different. We have to want to enough to overcome the inner and outer obstacles that inevitably come up, we have want to do the necessary preliminary work and research and then we have to want to enough to take the step beyond "theorizing" or "dreaming about" it to actually make the effort to try something, to practice and observe and learn directly from these observations. This is where the "matter of knowledge" comes into play because when we actually learn something, a certain amount of material has been digested and incorporated into our being. Something gets "deposited" and is not so easily lost or taken away. If this progresses, the center of gravity of our attention becomes more even, more stable, more consistent and possibly deepens.

However, there are also "differences". For one thing, it may be helpful to understand that this "drifting into distraction" is lawful (cosmic law). This is the human condition as we are at our current level of being. I'm always a little reluctant to say things like that because it creates in the mind of the reader that I "understand" what these laws are and how they work but the truth is my "understanding" and "knowledge" of these things is limited. What one must be cautious of here is "believing" anything that has not been confirmed by one's own experiential observation. I certainly have confirmed for myself that achieving the aim of maintaining an more or less continuous awareness of the moment is almost impossible. It seems like it should be the simplest, easiest thing imaginable but the fact is it isn't. The question, then, becomes something like "why?" and "what can I do about it?" Esoteric writings indicate that the "reason" is "lawful" (as everything that happens is lawful, however much we may not understand this). "Laws" are "forces" at work. In this instance we are speaking of forces in exactly the same way that certain physical principals of the universe are "lawful". As an analogy, if I toss a rock into the air it will come back down according to the "law of gravity" and when and where it will come down can be predicted provided I understand the principals of "law" that are at work. Moreover, if I can toss the rock at the correct trajectory and with sufficient velocity, the rock can break free of Earth's gravity. But all this, too, is "lawful". It isn't that the "law" has been broken but that it has been understood and compensated for. The rock is not free from "the law of gravity" or any other physical constraint but has moved beyond the influence of the Earth's gravity. Perhaps it will become an orbiting satellite or perhaps it will continue onward out into space. All this, too, is "lawfully" determined.

So, I have to study this phenomena in myself. It may be helpful to also study what has been written by others about this but it will be of no use to study what others have written or said if I do not simultaneously make the effort to try. There are practices and experiments which may also be a help. I might discover that certain conditions are also helpful. The closest I can come to giving you any specific suggestions at this point is to say that I find it helpful to consider that it is somewhat like breathing. I can not only breath in or only breath out, there is a natural rhythm to my breathing that changes with changing conditions. I can observe this for myself. Perhaps in certain quiet conditions when my attention isn't demanded by external influences, I can study this 'rhythm' and movement of attention.

Finally I'll only say that nothing is possible outside the laws which govern our existence. This simple thing that interests us would be impossible were it not for the fact that it is lawfully possible for us to pay attention to our attention itself -- at least now and then, at least a little bit, at least under certain conditions or at least when we remember to try. You began your post above with an analogy and a moment of self-awareness. You are not literally "swimming underneath the thick primordial muck." But there is a truth there, an awareness of something. You've presented it to yourself and to us with an analogy coupled with an "inkling of a memory that there is a less viscous atmosphere above". Just as a stone can be catapulted into orbit or further out and free from the influence of Earth's gravity, intuitively you sense that there is a possibility to be differently than you are. This intuition is a signpost to the path. We only need to be careful not to become too fixated on how our minds articulate these impressions of what may be possible such that they become further distractions. (This is why religions, lawfully, always fail, by the way; and this is the source of the admonitions against "idolatry", which themselves, in turn, have become 'idols' of a sort.) The ordinary mind that has been conditioned by life may not understand any of this very well and yet something within us that the ordinary mind blinds us to (the way the sun blinds us to the constant shining of the stars) is capable of knowing -- and capable of growing. But it is very subtle and easily lost or distorted. Even saying anything in words about it is two-edged for, on the one hand, it may need to be said because it resonates with what is lawfully and truly possible but, on the other hand, if it simply is recorded by the ordinary mind or some portion of it and becomes a matter for "belief" or "disbelief," its transformative potential is lost. This, too, is lawful.

Read again what I wrote in the OP of my "Learning How to Read/Be Free" thread and we'll take it from there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 16 2008, 06:11 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Thanks Painter,

OK, back to this thread on how long have people been living on this planet?

We are told that modern humans only genetically came into existence...

...now, 400 000 years ago.

I think it is much longer than that.

If it was, then it is entirely possible that civilizations, as or more advanced
than our own have risen and fallen, in the past.
If our present situation is controlled by family dynasties,
were these same families around, running the "civilizations" of the past?
Civilizations, their creations?

If this is so, it seems possible, that there may be, archives of these civilizations, that could only be saved and kept secret by these same families that are ruling us, today.

my logical conclusion,
that is, if people, with the same potential, as each one of us has today,
have been around for longer than we have been theorized, in being here.

S.W.L.T.
imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Nov 16 2008, 02:12 PM
Post #19


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (lunk @ Nov 16 2008, 02:11 AM) *
Thanks Painter,

OK, back to this thread on how long have people been living on this planet?

We are told that modern humans only genetically came into existence...

...now, 400 000 years ago.

I think it is much longer than that.


Why though? Why do you think that?

QUOTE
If it was, then it is entirely possible that civilizations, as or more advanced
than our own have risen and fallen, in the past.


Big IF but there is also another question. What do you mean by "more advanced"? In certain respects one of the earliest Civilizations we know of, Egypt, (and I realize your talking about something far more ancient), was far "more advanced" than we are. I don't think ours is a particularly "advanced" age, more like a very dark one, but I'm using a completely different criteria for that assessment than mere technological achievement. (C.f: Her-Bak: The Living Face of Ancient Egypt.)

QUOTE
If our present situation is controlled by family dynasties,
were these same families around, running the "civilizations" of the past?
Civilizations, their creations?

If this is so, it seems possible, that there may be, archives of these civilizations, that could only be saved and kept secret by these same families that are ruling us, today.


More big IFs.

QUOTE
my logical conclusion,
that is, if people, with the same potential, as each one of us has today,
have been around for longer than we have been theorized, in being here.

S.W.L.T.
imo, lunk


Not sure what SWLT stands for. I'm also not clear about the meaning of the previous stanza. Semantically it doesn't resolve itself as a "conclusion" -- or is it saying that the previous stanza is your "conclusion"? I'm confused.

But in any case, my question to you is, how are you going to know the answer to any of your questions? Moreover, what does it matter, really? I know (because I've been told and I believe it) that Rockefeller (for example and as a metaphor) has far more wealth than I do. But what does that have to do with me? I might admire him and envy him for his riches or I might despise him and think of him as my enemy because of it -- but what difference does that really make in terms of whether or not I begin to actualize my "potential"?

If we're going to play "what if" ... What if there is a "galactic civilization" far older than Earth itself? A "civilization" so ancient (by our standards) and so far advanced that we can barely imagine it? A "civilization" which is the repository of all the knowledge accumulated by conscious beings over eons of time through countless star systems -- such that it is not constrained by the laws manifest in the three dimensions of space plus the fourth dimension of time? What if planet Earth is a kind of combination penal colony, laboratory and incubator? And what if "human beings" are not solely defined or limited by the genetic history of their physical and temporal, "planetary bodies," but have a higher potential and calling? What if there are a few "blood lines" that are far more ancient than we know and who have both knowledge and responsibilities different from our own? What if nothing is "hidden" anywhere, only that we are too "asleep" to see it? What if our responsibility is very simple: Awaken! And what if playing "what if" games absent any personal effort to awaken through growth of both knowledge and being is another way to keep ourselves distracted, imprisoned and enslaved to forces (laws) we do not (yet) understand from the inside out and, therefore, can not (yet) use consciously and intentionally for this (if properly understood) sacred purpose?

We have very active imaginations: A double edged sword. We need our imaginations to imagine what is possible. But it isn't enough, even on the most basic level. In order to create anything new some imagination is essential. But, on the other hand, if our work and our lives remain only or primarily imaginary then we, ourselves, remain as we are -- primarily imaginary beings. We can imagine something and actualize it in the world -- we do it every day. We're doing it right now. We may imagine that we are beggars or kings and manifest the trappings to accompany either; subjectively different experiences but objectively (from the point of view of our actual level of being) identical. Both "imaginary situations" that each has accepted as definitive and "real".

The potential for actualization beyond this is also real, but not a given. One ancient metaphor that is used is "seed." Think of how many seeds are produced by, say, a mature apple tree. In natural untended conditions, how many of these seeds find the conditions necessary to actualize their potential and sprout? How many of these become the next generation? You might also recall the parables of seed and sower and contemplate them absent any particular Christolic interpretation.

One esoteric law that describes this process is: "The higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. This new middle then becomes the lower for blending with the next higher." In other words, it isn't a static process, but (at least potentially) a progressive process, an evolutionary (not to be confused with genetic/Darwinian) process. We are at a certain level of being. We are the 'ground' upon whom the 'seed' falls. The question is, are we open? Can we receive it? And, even if so, do we have the nutrients to 'feed' it such that it will germinate and grow? Can we actualize this and not merely imagine it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 16 2008, 08:35 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



100 000 years is what I was taught growing up as the age of modern man.
400 000 years is what Wikipedia says the that age is, today.
I think that it is longer then that.
We already know that lots of other things that science claims today,
are just irrational, disprovable theories.
This makes all those, what ifs, more possible.

But which of these "what ifs" are provable?


Still Wiggling Left Toe=SWLT

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd August 2014 - 01:53 AM