Quoting: aether Quoting: aka 20093181 Quoting: aether
The premise of instanteous transfer is potentially a spiritual evolution. It does however, have a downside for those individuals that are unable to compartmentalize external stimuli. Authority, in this case modern medicine, appears is too eager to categorize and treat such individuals as unbalanced. Instead of exploring the root cause, modern medicine is often to quick to identify and stigmitize such individuals and pharmaceutically treat sensations as an aberrations from the norm. This leads to a relunctance in most to further explore these aspects of human potentiality. Quoting: aka 20093181
It is ironic that we trust technology to provide the ability to make us aware and yet we consider what resides in us as an abberation. We have been culturally conditioned to accept what authority wish to impose on us as acceptable norms regarding our individual spiritually. I can understand why the suppression of such potentiality has been discouraged. It has unforeseen ramification, and and unforeseen variances are not something authority is willing to deal with. I must disagree with when you state that such new thinking has been sanctioned. To me, it is more resembles an experiment with human guinea pigs.
Again, social conscious is easily swayed by conditioning, what is acceptable one day is demonized the next. While technological advances (implants) that are touted to improve the human condition are completely sanctioned; the human attempting to delve into the natural aspects of human potentially represents a threat that cannot be controlled. Just my opinion.
overview by nature functions (affects) above downwards
in hierarchical society that expresses as:
future dictates (structures) present forcing past (memory) into reconfiguration
there are at present no known overview personalities in political, military and belief leadership nor are any anticipated in our near future
The sensation is condescension, produced by an inadequacy for proper summarization.
i missed that
i understand condescension
can you rephrase what you say causes it
i don`t see what your sequence means/says
The cause is based in a feeling re-enforced by experiences that the Brits are an ethocentric people, even more so than Americans. Being such, an unrecognized aire of superioty arises from their consciousness that they are unaware of. It translates into a inability to relate to some on a
basic human level. It is this self imposed separation of interaction on a variety of fundamental human conditions that restrict their understanding of those that are deemed culturally/socially/intellectually deficient. I attribute this in part to the aloof attitudes of the Brits royal hierarchy.. It is not that Brits donot engage, it is that there is a aire in whom they are willing to engage with and on what subject based on a predetermined evalutions. It is
my feeling that some are looked upon as merely intellegent savages. hehe. I read your comments through yesterday and I find your willingness to ask questions and be open to input a bit of an improvement. In my opinion it is preferable to engage rather then dispense information, I feel that sharing bring about quicker and more dynamic results.
I understand the impetus behind such motives are well intentioned, I also respect your ability to step out of the way to allow discourse to continue along avenues that you yourself may not share an interest in. As I said, you have my respect. When I posted my comments yesterday, they were from feeling w/o thought, and as such were raw. I shared them with you as an open criticism. If I was wrong in my feeling, then I was wrong. Thank you for your inquiry as
to my purpose in disclosing the reasons for my postings from yesterday.
The main reason however for the postings yesterday was beyond an expression of my feelings. It has to do with the perceptions of those inside and outside the moving group. As eye become more directed towards this thread, it is
important that it be viewed as being as transparent as possible. The biggest criticisms directed towards the moving group is that it is cryptic/secretive and that those within the group are operating in an exclusive manner so as to place themselves others. The feeling is that an
ethocentric inclusivity/exclusivity is at play. Being that this is an incorrect perception, I rightly or wrongly took it upon myself to prove this otherwise. Your requesting an explanation for my rather brusque comments to you goes a long way in demonstrating that these misperception of this moving group are not as well founded as portrayed.
Many within the moving group operate inside and outside the sphere of influence of this thread. I believe that this goes a long way to dispel any notions of what I described above. It however does not silence the critics. In an attempt to silence the critics as to what they claim are nefarious intentions, I acting within the precepts of my nature was openly critical of you. It was done not to inflict consternation but to allow an honest point to be demonstrated. The point being an openess and honesty for disagreemnet in discourse. I may have used you as punching bag in doing so but it was my feeling that this was the
most direct approach to demonstrating the fairly free nature of the discourse that is practiced here.
Oh by the way, the nobody, yesterday your comments to Aether displayed an unappealing display of sucking up,, much love.