QUOTE (George Hayduke @ May 6 2008, 06:51 AM)
The air appears transparent because your eyes filter out what you've been programmed to not see.
Disagree: Not with the concept of 'filters' (we do not see reality as it is but as our culture has taught us to see it) but with the idea that "the eyes" have anything to do with it. The eyes are receptors of photon energy. Any selective process happens because either the energy received falls outside the range of those receptors or because the 'mind' filters it out subliminally.
You are in a constant bath, a swirling, relatively dense, living cloud of space stuff, micro-meteors, gases, particulate matter, various colliding energies, all interacting with what we call the electromagnetic field of Earth. A monsoon of tiny space debris is raining down on you right now. The stimuli of this storm your brain has been conditioned to filter out b/c it has bigger things to perceive, no pun intended.
Of course our atmosphere is filled with things to which we are either insensate or 'filter' precognitively. What does that have to do with our science of optics.
You are making this too complicated. Atoms are mostly empty space. You are mostly empty space. The matter that you are is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. You appear solid to eyes that were designed to see you as a solid. In truth you are more nothing than you are something.
If I'm making this "too complicated" you are making this "too simplistic".
The stars are projectors, you are the 3-D hologram they project.
That may be an interesting metaphor for something but it certainly isn't accurate as stated; it could just as well be argued the other way around.
Now as for resigning, I fear you are losing touch with the basic premise of the struggle. The War is for your mind and the mass-mind. No matter the weapons they use on us, they don't win unless we surrender sovereignty over our minds. The more sovereignty we gain, the greater the weaponry they'll be forced to use. The greater force they use, the greater the opposition.
I love you George but you're talking out of your ass. Did you watch all four of these videos? Lear concludes, as I feared he might, that, if one accepts his world view or even some substantial part of it, the conclusion is we can have no effect on larger issues. Concludes (and I quote): "the point of all this is to try and advance in your life. And the way that you can do that is to try and live your life without envy, hate or greed. Also, to spend as much time with your family and tell them how much you love them. That's really all we can do. We can't be responsible for the bad guys. We can't be responsible for the children that are having so much trouble in the world. We can't be responsible for the nuclear wars that are going on. All we can do is be responsible for ourselves."
Part 4, about 35:00.
Now, as it turns out, I can't agree with him based on my own esoteric study for the past 40 years. He has missed the most important point. That in order to truly "do" any of the things he says we "can do," we have to first learn how to be
, and this is the most important lesson a human can learn. Being precedes doing and any 'doing' absent 'being' is slavery. Apparently, as is true for so many who don't know how to read, John Lear, who I find to be an amiable, attractive and, indeed, charming man, with an incredible wit and truly interesting perception on life, still has no clue
as to even the most basic understanding of the human condition. He, apparently, has never asked himself the question, Why are we so suggestible?
(as in hypnotic suggestion), much less the far more important question that follows hot on its heels, given that we are, what can we do about it?
Or, if he has asked himself these questions and given them any weight at all in his own conscious life, they certainly have not come forward in his "all and everything" interview with Camelot.
Only posers can go back to normal life after joining the Truth Movement. If you believe the Truth, then you can simply un-believe it and return to the world of automatons. If you KNOW the Truth, then you ARE the TRUTH. At that point there is no turning back. peace
I didn't say anything about "un-believing" the truth. I agree, that is not possible if one is the truth one knows
. That precisely begs the question.
My point is that if one accepts Lear's presentation as anywhere near factual and one remains on the same level of being and subsequent understanding that he had before accepting it
, then there is no other conclusion to arrive at except the one he points to in the quote above.
I don't accept it. I do accept that the universe we inhabit is far more peculiar than we know. I do accept there are many things about which we have been lied to, that there is much we do not understand or understand wrongly. I accept that time travel may be possible, that 'alien' contact may play a far greater role in human history than we know, etc., etc. However, like so many others, the most important thing in regards to all this has been completely missed. Without this 'most important thing' all the rest of it, however factual or fanciful it may be, becomes rather irrelevant -- just another 'dream' that keeps us enslaved by our masters.
You've still not shown how a 'hologram' that can be perceived as a material object can be 'projected' into thin air. My argument isn't that such may be impossible -- only that our science of optics as it stands
can not account for any such possibility. To "see" such an object with light energy passing into the eyes requires an energetic manipulation -- refraction or reflection -- of light energy off of a sufficiently 'solid' vortex that it would be indistinguishable from a solid object. That to use the term 'hologram' in this context is nothing more than a metaphor for an understanding of physical and energetic properties that is completely beyond anything we know. That, in fact, to propose such a concept is to propose a scientific knowledge so superior to our own that it is simply beyond our rational comprehension. If that is the kind of thing we are up against, then, indeed, there is nothing we can do except
, as Lear suggests, remain obedient sheep calmly awaiting the day our 'good shepherd' is in need of our meat and skins
If we're going to talk about making people see something that is not there we're going to have to EITHER deal with the science of photo optics
OR we're going to have to deal with the science of mass hypnosis, suggestion and perception
. That is outside the realm of 'holography' altogether. Every magician knows it is far easier to get people to "see" what was never there to begin with
than it is to create "something" out of "thin air." What I'm saying is, the 'hologram' model is an inaccurate metaphorical model because what we are really dealing with here is a perception
. Even if one were to accept your own hypothesis as stated above, "The stars are projectors, you are the 3-D hologram they project," one would have to move BEYOND materiality as we currently are given to understand it. If we go there
(and I do think there is good reason to begin to step in that direction, cautiously), then we have to begin to include the whole psychological (by which I do not mean contemporary 'psychology' which takes man as a completed being
) prospect that, in terms of understanding being must have a reciprocal relationship
. That understanding can not grow without a reciprocal growth and development of BOTH knowing and
Absent that we forever remain such as we are or, worse, degenerate into lower levels of being and the slavery attendant upon it.
OH, and your statement that shadows can't be cast in a vacuum is completely false. Where the hell did you come up with that?