Sunday August 28, 2016
5:45 p.m. Asking John Wolf’s question:
[“I can’t help noticing that this thread is exploring what could be easily viewed as awareness of participation from the non-3D parts of us, while the thread on climate change is debating what the “independent and isolated” 3D part of us is doing to its 3D surroundings. Is consciousness such that it would intervene to help itself, but stand back while we (it) destroy(s) Mother Earth and humans alike? Can we reconcile these alternatives without accepting the extremes of fate or false perception (meaning, that they are not occurring) while steadfastly believing that it is all for a greater good?”]
Guys?
First, how can 3D consciousness be (as opposed to seem) independent and isolated? It can’t. So that is a misperception.
Next, how can a 3D individual (so-called) have freedom to choose and at the same time not have it? For, if constraints are exercised, the freedom is only apparent or only, let us say, conditional. We realize this doesn’t respond to anything posed in the question as such, but some may imply it.
Third, what makes you think that human activity can or will destroy the earth habitat unless restrained by your non-3D components? That is a rationally defensible view, but not an accurate one. The same very physical beings who have protected you from nuclear incineration are at least as aware as you are (said with a smile) of the threats posed by altering delicate variables in the terrestrial homeostasis.
You are referring to whomever is behind UFOs.
Well – some of them, yes. You have your own guardian angels [in them], realize it or not, protecting you from the worst manifestations of your ill-will and folly.
And other aliens are not so benignly inspired?
This is off the immediate subject, but think of the differences among the human race alone. How homogenous do you suppose a hundred alien races would be, in perception, in values, in intent? Be glad for the protection you enjoy, and try not to abuse it by unnecessary extremes of stupidity, ignorance, and ill-will – not to mention recklessness.
I have been staying out of the other debate, mostly, but I think they’re both right to a degree, and to a degree only. I think (and have ever since reading Velikovsky’s Earth in Upheaval) that our geological history is uniformitarian punctuated by periodic catastrophism, so you can pick your quite legitimate evidence and find your position supported, but that doesn’t take into account the other guy’s evidence, except in the sense of, “Oh yeah? So’s your old man.” Care to weigh in on this too?
Just remind people of the psychic’s description of ecological activists.
You mean, “Four-year-olds defending mother.”
Precisely. The attitude is admirable but unsuited to the facts. However, the corresponding extreme on the other side tends to the equally immature attitude that does what it wants regardless of consequences.
You just made lots of friends with that “equally immature.” People take their positions seriously.
Again, the desire for truth, the desire to improve things, the desire to follow the physician’s admonition “First, do no harm,” are all positive, all desirable – until pursued beyond a certain point. (And it is the finding of that “certain point” that is always going to be the difficulty, of course.) But any good thing pushed too far may become harmful.
I’ll see if this answers John’s questions. Thank you.