OccultForum.org

The scientific method is no longer able to bring about the kind of advances it once did. I don't just mean established sciences, but the Scientific Method itself, which depends on having a proper supply of information.

In the past, knowledge was like nuggets of gold, washed from its long hiding and exposed for people to claim. Now the source veins have been located and mined, and the mine itself hidden and barred from entry. Likewise, scientific data is restricted in private hands or secretive national works.

A scientist can only study data that is available, and at this point of sophistication, any meaningful research is confined to invisible private facilities. Research into telepathy, warp drives, longevity, gene editing, wireless technology, even logistics are all capped at some level so that advances and attendant research are restricted from public view.

So when you hear someone tell you they "go with the science," remember that their science is limited to what the greedy and the covetous have permitted those scientists to know.

>In the past, knowledge was like nuggets of gold, washed from its long hiding and exposed for people to claim.

I am not sure that is true. Leaving aside that knowledge is a reification - the state of knowing is turned into an object that can be transported - much of the important data is really simple.

For example Schauberger saw rocks floating in very cold water in the full moon. Tesla had very good hearing and could track storms over hundreds of miles, noticing the EM signal grew stronger and weaker at regular intervals.

And important data often arrived in visions, e.g. the structure of benzene was found to be a ring after a vision of a snake biting its tail.

Then too, there are occasional reports on the internet of conversations with apparent aliens that say that humans do not need technology as they can produce whatever they need using their consciousness. Many years ago I met a young man who claimed that with the help of nature spirits he could precipitate tools like a shovel. He said when he mis-visualized then the device was mis-shapen and he would send it back.

The concept of humans being able to use consciousness to change the physical world brings us to quantum theory in which reality is said not to be formed until an observer observes. There is no mention of simultaneous observers.

Still there is much technology that is restricted including what was sealed when Antarctica snap froze long ago.

https://www.newswire.com/news/whistlebl ... e-15322661

You can't make it far by replacing science with crap. Most of that jazzy talk about Antarctica and UFOs is probably crap, and unless you have a Phd anything you say about quantum whatever is definitely crap.

In plain English I mean to say that the age of scientific progress is over. We aren't about to overturn Relativity or Thermodynamics, and the best of technology is just improvement on existing components, we have nothing really new and if we got anything new it would be hidden.

What is new cannot come from science because science is not cheap and its labor is usually secret. If you build or study something that is actually new and awesome, it will be bought out and hidden as proprietary research. That is in every major field: it is astounding anything gets studied at all.

Religion of every kind has been tried, and science from psychology to medicine or economics and engineering has become more of a support arm of existing institutions than a frontier to be explored at liberty.

> the age of scientific progress is over

I recall reading that in the 1890s the head of the US Patent Office declared that since everything had been discovered there would be no more patents.

>We aren't about to overturn Relativity

Unfortunately, when the US started to send probes around the solar system they discovered that relativity did not work for them. They would bounce a radar signal off a probe near Mars and the return signal would come back at the speed of light plus the velocity of the probe.

With relativistic calculations they had an error of 500 km in the location of the probe but with Newtonian mechanics they had an error of 0.5 km.

>Thermodynamics

The discovery of scalar radiation (non-hertzian) has moved us on past traditional thermodynamics.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scal ... rwar01.htm

Even without Tesla, every plant already knew how to deal with the third law of thermodynamics


No doubt you thought it odd that the Nazis, in the space of a decade jumped at least a generation ahead of the Allies in a wide range of technology. Oberth said they had help from outside the planet.

It seems that quite a lot of Earth humans have had and do have outside help with technology.

Read the Corey Goode interviews

Yes I've read all that stuff. There isn't going to be a part of it I have not heard. Its mostly bullshit, illustrating my point: you know that you aren't getting the full story. The real information is locked away, and that goes for simple basic things as well as these wild speculations from the internet.

In the 1800s, science brought the world out of a deep ignorance. It was a bonanza: if you wanted to study something, you could do that. That is no longer possible, and science should not be expected to be the source of advancement in civilization that it once was. It does not move the world forward anymore, but strengthens those parts of the past that resist losing their choke hold on all of us.

Growth, if it comes, will not come from science. It will certainly not come from sketchy pseudoscience either, you would do best to just forget about that stuff.

Most national governments this year have looked to science for strategic aid. Science gave us the virus, the lockdowns, and the vaccine, and if you think any of those have fuckall to do with the real needs of the world's people, I have shares in the Brooklyn Bridge for you to buy.

On the other hand, the rate at which military science is spreading to the Chinese has led to the US Navy starting to patent its more obvious technologies. (Space craft are similar to submarines hence the Navy role)

"Last year, the publication of several unusual patents assigned to the U.S. Navy raised eyebrows due to the seemingly radical and unconventional claims found within them. These patents included bizarre technologies such as a “high temperature superconductor,” a "high frequency gravitational wave generator," a force field-like "electromagnetic field generator," a “plasma compression fusion device,” and a hybrid aerospace/underwater craft featuring an "inertial mass reduction device." "

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -in-a-demo

"Pais is named as the inventor on four separate patents for which the U.S. Navy is the assignee: a curiously-shaped “High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator;” a room temperature superconductor; an electromagnetic ‘force field’ generator that could deflect asteroids; and, perhaps the strangest of all, one titled “Craft Using An Inertial Mass Reduction Device.” While all are pretty outlandish-sounding, the latter is the one that the Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise personally vouched for in a letter to the USPTO, claiming the Chinese are already developing similar capabilities."

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... h-advances

It seems that the US Navy does not want to pay royalties on Chinese patents for space technology

Impudicus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 10:45 pm The scientific method is no longer able to bring about the kind of advances it once did. I don't just mean established sciences, but the Scientific Method itself, which depends on having a proper supply of information.

In the past, knowledge was like nuggets of gold, washed from its long hiding and exposed for people to claim. Now the source veins have been located and mined, and the mine itself hidden and barred from entry. Likewise, scientific data is restricted in private hands or secretive national works.

A scientist can only study data that is available, and at this point of sophistication, any meaningful research is confined to invisible private facilities. Research into telepathy, warp drives, longevity, gene editing, wireless technology, even logistics are all capped at some level so that advances and attendant research are restricted from public view.

So when you hear someone tell you they "go with the science," remember that their science is limited to what the greedy and the covetous have permitted those scientists to know.

I struggle to believe there is anything stopping you, or anyone, from discovering "warp drives". You have orders of magnitude more tools and knowledge at your disposal to built, create and discover anything you fancy, than guys like Newton, Einstein and Tesla had in their time. But do you have the same amount of resolve and drive for it?
On other subjects, not top sure what those supposed to mean. Telepathy is a fiction, mostly, not a single known experiment could ever produce a single grain of positive results. One of the subjects scientists with any credentials would steer clear of, and no one would fund such endeavours except perhaps DARPA (and similar agencies), not because such kinds of research can/would/did produce any results, but only because that agency was created for just that purpose, throwing money down the bottomless pit in hope that there is tiny chance that out of a 100 or 1000 insane ideas, there might be one two of some value which would float to the top of that cesspit with something revolutionary. High risk - high reward gamble.
No idea what is so suppressed about other things. Life longevity is ongoing, although I personally believe humans live already too long, 50 years is plenty, beyond that you people become a burdensome for the ecosystem. They should invest in birth control research first, or something that would bring down human population to manageable level. In theoretical sense, because in practice it won't matter long term anyway.
Gene editing? Wireless technology? Logistics? We do have those ongoing, there isn't anything to suppress there.

Amor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:24 am >We aren't about to overturn Relativity

Unfortunately, when the US started to send probes around the solar system they discovered that relativity did not work for them. They would bounce a radar signal off a probe near Mars and the return signal would come back at the speed of light plus the velocity of the probe.

With relativistic calculations they had an error of 500 km in the location of the probe but with Newtonian mechanics they had an error of 0.5 km.

Is there any source of such knowledge? I tried to find something my self, but all I could find was the opposite, articles of NASA confirming relativity etc.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:18 pm Is there any source of such knowledge? I tried to find something my self, but all I could find was the opposite, articles of NASA confirming relativity etc.

I think it was many years ago in the Journal of Borderland Research to which I used to subscribe. Here is a set of the journals. The reference is probably in the 1980s or early 1990s issues.

http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/jou ... _research/



Still there is reason for the saying that NASA stands for "Never A Straight Answer"

In a more recent context, about a decade ago India sent its first probe to the Moon but it missed. The Moon is quite large so how did that happen?

There is a secret about gravity. The first US satellite put into orbit, having disappeared over the horizon was being watched for on the other horizon. They knew exactly when it should appear, but it was late - about 15 minutes as I recall.

It turned out that it had a much higher orbit than expected - requiring 25% more fuel than its rocket had.

Eventually they discovered that rotating objects (700 rpm in this case) are less affected by gravity. Perhaps Indian scientists did not know.

I remember that both the US and the Soviets had difficulties in getting their early Moon probes to go where they wanted.

My geometry lecturer told us that Euclidean geometry is not used for space probes as non-Euclidean geometries are more accurate in the solar system. Perhaps there are other secrets in science.

Amor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:57 pm

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:18 pm Is there any source of such knowledge? I tried to find something my self, but all I could find was the opposite, articles of NASA confirming relativity etc.

I think it was in a type-written newsletter I used to subscribe to - name escapes me.

Still there is reason for the saying that NASA stands for "Never A Straight Answer"

In a more recent context, about a decade ago India sent its first probe to the Moon but it missed. The Moon is quite large so how did that happen?

There is a secret about gravity. The first US satellite put into orbit, having disappeared over the horizon was being watched for on the other horizon. They knew exactly when it should appear, but it was late - about 15 minutes as I recall.

It turned out that it had a much higher orbit than expected - requiring 25% more fuel than its rocket had.

Eventually they discovered that rotating objects (700 rpm in this case) are less affected by gravity. Perhaps Indian scientists did not know.

I remember that both the US and the Soviets had difficulties in getting their early Moon probes to go where they wanted.

My geometry lecturer told us that Euclidean geometry is not used for space probes as non-Euclidean geometries are more accurate in the solar system. Perhaps there are other secrets in science.

Not sure what probe you mean, or what part of the entire orbital insertion operation you are referring to, but if you mean "Chandrayaan-1" then to the best of my knowledge it didn't miss the moon, orbital insertion went as planned. It went passed the moon at first, but that's how orbital insertion work ( not that I'm qualified expert on orbital mechanics), but all spacecrafts dance around large space bodies for few days, needing to make few precisely timed engine burns to slow down and lower their orbit. Only later their craft start to experience technical faults, not related to relativity or Newtonian laws.

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:18 pm ... although I personally believe humans live already too long, 50 years is plenty, beyond that you people become a burdensome for the ecosystem.

err ... wait ... My husband would be dead then and I would die in two years, without having written all the novels I am working at right now. No, 50 years definitely is not old enough to die!!! And why should we be a burden for the ecosystem? (Which ecosystem btw?) I am not a burden for anyone.

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:18 pmI struggle to believe there is anything stopping you, or anyone, from discovering "warp drives".

I'm sure you are familiar with the term "proprietary research." Let us suppose you spend your Batman-esque fortune on recruiting twenty quality professional scientists for the sole purpose of redesigning the toilet. Until you get a functional prototype that you are prepared to release and market worldwide, it's probable that anything you learn - even the concepts you are studying - will be kept behind a silent and opaque wall of secrecy. It's your investment, you don't want the Chinese coming out with a copy before you have even figured out your approach. Despite their profit motives, those industrial spies and their development labs want essentially the same thing you do, and they are also working on it, but they don't share their findings with you. You pretend what you're working on doesn't exist, and so do they, and for all of us public viewers in this hypothetical example, nobody is working on inventing better toilets. The "science", or at least any significant data learned by the labs, doesn't exist in any meaningful degree for the general public.

Industry is alive and well, and it killed science.

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:18 pmOn other subjects, not top sure what those supposed to mean. Telepathy is a fiction, mostly, not a single known experiment could ever produce a single grain of positive results.

Telepathy is something that millions or perhaps even billions of people have experienced, back to the dawn of time. It's a fact that it happens, however you want to spin it, even if nobody has found a way to tie it down and prod it to death in a lab setting. The fact that science demands, rather strongly in this case, that all of those people regard their experiences as false, mistaken, or otherwise unreal, all the while admitting that the subject has never been properly examined, is one of the reasons why science has died.

When violating the assumptions of scientific orthodoxy will kill your career, thereby preventing experiments and other science from happening in the first place because nobody wants to risk that, it serves the cause of policy, not science.

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:18 pmGene editing? Wireless technology? Logistics? We do have those ongoing, there isn't anything to suppress there.

Gene editing remains highly restricted technology. There are near-certain cures available (for many years now) for most of the major degenerative diseases, and the public on the whole does not hear of them. They are in private circulation. Unless you are taking them, and I gather from your response that you are not, then you are simply unaware of their existence. So instead of science pushing the world forward into something better, it has become the means whereby people like you are condemned to the 50+ years of life you expect, while others are given much, much more. Science in this sense is a weapon against mankind, rather than an asset.

Most of the legitimate UFO vids from previous decades are examples of early wireless technology projects, and the government has repeatedly admitted to this fact. We had drones before drones were a thing. That might not seem like a big deal, but again it is science being conducted in secrecy with malicious intent, crafting weapons to preserve the existing systems of political power rather than moving the human race forward in any way.

Logistical data was used by the Soviets to inflate the populations of their cities, claiming for example that Moscow's 700,000 people were actually several million at the time. All of that was Pravda. The amounts of food, money, other resources available at any time for inspection by professionals in economics, (which is also its own kind of science) are all carefully guarded bits of data. And they are just as carefully manipulated. The general public might look at economics data, or the global transfer of food or coal or other resources, and there is hardly any way to distinguish lies from data. Using that data in a scientific way will get scientific results that are not true. Like lead in the bloodstream, that kind of toxic science leads to retardation and death in those systems wherein it is critical.

I really have nothing to counter all those "facts" you have thrown at me. Anything is possible I guess, but in my day to day life I personally tend to stick to general consensus when it comes to sciency bit and bobs.

It is certainly true that much science is hidden from the Earth's population, for both good and bad reasons.

There is also another agenda. If adverse entities can discourage Earth humans, then the humans will be greatly delayed in achieving their purpose.

Being of good cheer is a major defence against the dark arts.

I think we're running up against walls in terms of what can be utilized for industrial application. To some extent, not great for our comfort but probably important to some degree, we're in enough turmoil with the Pandora's box of social media opening on us as well as really depressing collapse of mainstream media to do anything more than pander to the titillations of whatever group of people their advertisers are trying to sell things to - it's a lot like the stuff that Tristan Harris has been talking about for a long time and made his centerpiece in The Social Dilemma is hitting just about every side of our culture right now and if we had another kind of strapping new technological fields that brought us forward leaps and bounds we'd likely drive ourselves extinct within a decade because our present game is race to the bottom, multi-polar traps, if someone's going to be an arsehole it might as well be me, etc..

An article that gets into just how convoluted our game theory is and how miserable a puzzle it is to sort out:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/m ... on-moloch/

I think our most critical problems right now:
a) Get a story about what human problems are that makes any sense at all (my money is primarily on evolutionary game theory).
b) Get a story about what's important to us (liberalism 2.0 of some kind).
c) Get a story about what it is we're working through and trying to solve (IMHO - 'The Meaning Crisis', climate, surviving the limitations of our biosphere without killing each other over lack of growth, and as if not more important - getting off of this rock).


One of the things I've been seeing a lot on Youtube now is more discussion about the economics of bringing game-changing technologies to market. One of the troubles we have is that there are a lot of things that could help us out tremendously but the trouble is 'is it market viable'. There's been one big success story (potentially) with Ambri's calcium-antimony batteries as an efficient means of grid-level energy storage for intermittent renewable sources, even though lithium ion are less efficient they're a matured technology with all kinds of manufacturing infrastructure, capital, and fine-tuned process whereas what's probably going to be a better product in several years time has to fight quite hard to even get a foot into the market. Ambri at least got a deal with TerraScale to start construction this year for a 250 MWh array for their facility and that could be exactly what's needed.

With that last example you can also throw in the same barrier to entry AND regulatory hurdles for anything nuclear - whether fusion, thorium, small modular reactors, etc.. Clearly for fission having strong regulation is critical but I think we're seeing at least one particular corner of capitalism where markets go stale because matured players are still able outcompete everyone else with products that are either over/misapplied or passed their shelf date but the amount of velocity behind them keeps them almost in a monopoly status. This is where I think we need more advanced ways for funding this sort of humanity-scale R&D and especially so when it's dealing with huge problems like preventing civilizational collapse, preventing environmental collapse, or finding ways to get us out there to mine the asteroid belt or start experimenting on what it takes to have sustainable bases on the moon or Mars.

The other thing - I think in the US at least, science has been corrupted from a lot of sides. First everyone knows that it's about funding (a lot of it corporate), it's about professors trying to write papers for recognition for the academy, null results are underreported, replication costs too much or too few people are interested in funding it, so the financial and social incentive structures are really doing a number on it right now because we're in a state of relative decadence without either a Cold War to hold our feet to the fire or some other emergency to mobilize massive amounts of money toward Manhattan Project sized endeavors (some recent exception with vaccines for Covid). If it's just left to return on investment for shareholders then we're in a place where business just cannibalize each other and become fewer and fewer companies who raid other people's R&D rather than doing much of their own because the shareholders want dividends not promises of dividends.

Someone has been talking a lot lately about break away societies or hidden technologies, and that's Jason Reza Jorjani. I'm on the fence with what to do with those ideas. On one level if they stripped some crashed alien craft and have just one or two tricks now that could spell species level extinction in the hands of a religious fanatic or in the hands of any strong man or petty despot I get it, if it's not an incredibly narrow notch like that though - all sorts of things are going wrong at the ground level which are really putting the future and longevity (or what kind of planet that they get) even for the elites, so my guess is that if they're hiding anything it's not likely to be solutions to plastic in the ocean, clean energy, high yield vertical farming, or any of the stuff we really need to make society sustainable.

Societies have been breaking away for a long time. Legends of the underworld are about breakaway civilizations.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Covert-Wars-B ... B00E3DZK3C

Cybernetic_Jazz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:06 am Someone has been talking a lot lately about break away societies or hidden technologies, and that's Jason Reza Jorjani. I'm on the fence with what to do with those ideas. On one level if they stripped some crashed alien craft and have just one or two tricks now that could spell species level extinction in the hands of a religious fanatic or in the hands of any strong man or petty despot I get it, if it's not an incredibly narrow notch like that though - all sorts of things are going wrong at the ground level which are really putting the future and longevity (or what kind of planet that they get) even for the elites, so my guess is that if they're hiding anything it's not likely to be solutions to plastic in the ocean, clean energy, high yield vertical farming, or any of the stuff we really need to make society sustainable.

One could even consider theoretical possibility, that perhaps greater powers don't really care about all these "minors" issues like pollution, global warming, overpopulation, rapid degradation of entire ecosystem and so on, maybe because there may be other problems and challenges we don't know about yet, that are far greater still ahead.
Maybe it doesn't matter if we reproduce like rabbits or not, because there won't be all that many humans left breathing by the end of this century, due to some factors beyond humanities control. Maybe it doesn't matter if we clean the ocean or not, because there wont be any oceans left in few centuries. Assuming that's the case, purely hypothetically, in such scenarios, it wouldn't make much sense to invest resources to solve problems which about to solve it self anyway, and all efforts would be wasted, long term.

Cerber wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:15 am Maybe it doesn't matter if we reproduce like rabbits or not, because there won't be all that many humans left breathing by the end of this century, due to some factors beyond humanities control. Maybe it doesn't matter if we clean the ocean or not, because there wont be any oceans left in few centuries. Assuming that's the case, purely hypothetically, in such scenarios, it wouldn't make much sense to invest resources to solve problems which about to solve it self anyway, and all efforts would be wasted, long term.

That's part of why there's no way to guess our way through it but we are at least stuck with the sense that what we have in front of us to fix (that we're aware of) is at least our ethical responsibility to attend to, and then if we have all sorts of problems such as multipolar traps, human beings always prioritizing for local maximums rather than planetary maximums for Darwinian fitness and gaining differential success over those who don't (Daniel Schmachtenberger and Bret Weinstein had a great discussion of this on Bret's Dark Horse podcast) - we're in a fix as conscious agents, bound to linear time, that all we can even conceive of doing is try to solve the problems that render us incapable of things like destroying the commons. Past that, trying to grab loops from the future, reminds me of the children's storybook where a little girl or boy gave this elaborate story of mythical creatures who might eat them if they don't shake pepper flakes in their hair.

That might bring up another rather frightening and nihilistic set of thoughts - could what we know, and our best intentions to maintain what we know in the parameters we understand it, do more damage than good and could we even be considered morally or ethically responsible for acting (doing anything at all) without sufficient knowledge, to which my thought is - we're kind of screwed, ie. if something looks like it's a problem we've caused we should do something about it but - giving a nod back in the other direction - when in doubt regarding secondary and tertiary consequences do your level best to come up with the absolute least invasive solution or fix (ie. if it's a complex system don't pretend you'll enhance it by breaking it - that's the utopian political trap).

Cybernetic_Jazz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:34 am That's part of why there's no way to guess our way through it but we are at least stuck with the sense that what we have in front of us to fix (that we're aware of) is at least our ethical responsibility to attend to, and then if we have all sorts of problems such as multipolar traps, human beings always prioritizing for local maximums rather than planetary maximums for Darwinian fitness and gaining differential success over those who don't (Daniel Schmachtenberger and Bret Weinstein had a great discussion of this on Bret's Dark Horse podcast) - we're in a fix as conscious agents, bound to linear time, that all we can even conceive of doing is try to solve the problems that render us incapable of things like destroying the commons. Past that, trying to grab loops from the future, reminds me of the children's storybook where a little girl or boy gave this elaborate story of mythical creatures who might eat them if they don't shake pepper flakes in their hair.

You said that, as if that sort of behaviour is exclusive to human beings. Nothing really change down scale or up scale. The only thing that ever really change on the path of evolution (physical, intellectual and spiritual evolution) is that species tend to gradually, slowly shift away from prioritising personal benefit and more towards prioritising collective benefit, whatever collective they perceive them selves to belong to. In other words, "selfishness" merely grows in scale.

That might bring up another rather frightening and nihilistic set of thoughts - could what we know, and our best intentions to maintain what we know in the parameters we understand it, do more damage than good and could we even be considered morally or ethically responsible for acting (doing anything at all) without sufficient knowledge, to which my thought is - we're kind of screwed, ie. if something looks like it's a problem we've caused we should do something about it but - giving a nod back in the other direction - when in doubt regarding secondary and tertiary consequences do your level best to come up with the absolute least invasive solution or fix (ie. if it's a complex system don't pretend you'll enhance it by breaking it - that's the utopian political trap).

As a collective, our number one priority, first, foremost and always should be - to survive. Saving others, or even fixing problems we caused, is a luxury that we may or may not be able to afford merely for the sake of indulging our moral/spiritual superiority. Life is meaningful, as long it serves the collective good. Our known universe is a predatory one, there are no evidence yet that the unknown universe is any different, and if all of it is more or less the same, then in such universe there are only two possible parts to play - to be predator or to be pray. There is nothing in-between.

Some of the apparently alien sources distinguish between civilizations that are service to self and those that are service to others.

Earth humanity is considering the issue

https://pfcleadership.org/blog/2017/12/ ... e-to-self/

>Our known universe is a predatory one

There are certainly plenty of predators, but my perception is that Andromeda is sending in help troops and putting the hard word on our galactic logos to step up. Thus we (the galaxy) are being required to use Love with Intent.

Cerber wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:50 am You said that, as if that sort of behaviour is exclusive to human beings. Nothing really change down scale or up scale. The only thing that ever really change on the path of evolution (physical, intellectual and spiritual evolution) is that species tend to gradually, slowly shift away from prioritising personal benefit and more towards prioritising collective benefit, whatever collective they perceive them selves to belong to. In other words, "selfishness" merely grows in scale.

In that case it sounds like our whole conscious system is in for a lot of hard lessons ahead. If the 'Moloch' problem (as presented by Slate Star Codex recently) is universal then there are all sorts of creativity, development, evolution that just can't happen because the whole tuning of reality makes this place a fair amount like Frank Herbert's universe in Dune where Paul Atreides's visionary capabilities kick in and he gets to see that no matter what happens all and any information (particularly prophetic) will be bent to Darwinian ends. It's a place where power is blind and dumb and will perpetually be smashing things it couldn't begin to comprehend.

Cybernetic_Jazz wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:08 am

Cerber wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:50 am You said that, as if that sort of behaviour is exclusive to human beings. Nothing really change down scale or up scale. The only thing that ever really change on the path of evolution (physical, intellectual and spiritual evolution) is that species tend to gradually, slowly shift away from prioritising personal benefit and more towards prioritising collective benefit, whatever collective they perceive them selves to belong to. In other words, "selfishness" merely grows in scale.

In that case it sounds like our whole conscious system is in for a lot of hard lessons ahead. If the 'Moloch' problem (as presented by Slate Star Codex recently) is universal then there are all sorts of creativity, development, evolution that just can't happen because the whole tuning of reality makes this place a fair amount like Frank Herbert's universe in Dune where Paul Atreides's visionary capabilities kick in and he gets to see that no matter what happens all and any information (particularly prophetic) will be bent to Darwinian ends. It's a place where power is blind and dumb and will perpetually be smashing things it couldn't begin to comprehend.

Sounds right in theory, but in practice, people's creativity seem to reach maximum potential when they are under pressure and in the corner. In do or die situations. So I'm too sure it's all bad on that regard. While I'm pretty sure this planet will die in not too distant future, I'm even more confident humanity will survive despite it, even if in pretty rough up shape. I see bright future for this species, in like 10-20k years. Well the next 10k+ might be rough, but it's just short rough patch, only 10k or so years, not a biggy, will crawl through it.
I mean there are forms of existence, in physical plane, that supersede the known "Darwinian" model of life, but I don't think humanity can "invent" it on it's own. It needs to meet such form of life face to face, to learn, to understand and to adopt it. In ideal world such encounter would be of a peaceful kind, but our reality it most likely won't be, which is fine, this species have great capacity to learn from pain, as long as all those sacrifices worth it at the end. It's just no such life form anywhere near this solar system, or at least so I heard, so it might take a while to "accidentally" find it, or to be found by it.

Amor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:57 am Some of the apparently alien sources distinguish between civilizations that are service to self and those that are service to others.

Earth humanity is considering the issue

https://pfcleadership.org/blog/2017/12/ ... e-to-self/

>Our known universe is a predatory one

There are certainly plenty of predators, but my perception is that Andromeda is sending in help troops and putting the hard word on our galactic logos to step up. Thus we (the galaxy) are being required to use Love with Intent.

Cannot confirm any of those ideas, reports. I've not encountered my self anything or anyone that would match that description.
But to greater or lesser degree I believed many of them few decades ago, or at least believed them to be a strong possibility, back when my only source of information internet, books, etc. Until I "got out". And when I did, the picture of the universe I had in my mind, the one that was crafted from stories of others.. Well that one didn't match what I saw and encountered my self, at all.
I've encoutered "extraterrestrial" group passing by with which we just did some trades, after initial minor misunderstanding, and few changes to our "communication protocols". Met some, that still not sure if they are "extra", even though they look like from another planet, or even entirely different dimension of existence. Some others I've seen, just casually settled in to some worlds we've been wkeeping eyeon, but I've not had the time and pleasure to sit down and chat about their stories and origins.
And then there are well known "extra terrestrials" around that look like locals, and are known as locals, but just because something lived amongst us for few thousand years, and dress in human-like forms, doesn't mean they actually belong here. But I guess it depends on personal definitions what is "alien", those all are very arbitrary. Anyway, neither of them were anything like those "Andromedans" everyone been talking about, or similar species.
But all my encounter were not of a physical nature. "Astral spaceships" passing by have little impact on our physical reality.
And when it comes physical aliens, or at least those that have both astral/spiritual and physical presence anywhere near our solar system, from the rumours I've been hearing, those aren't the nice and friendly type, or so people say (including extra-terrestrial people).
So no idea. All other astral travellers on internet and in books talk about all these benevolent entities, species, about "galactic federation of light and love" or similar. But all I personally met was extraterrestrial refugees passing by. And further "beyond the horizon" - predatory species, hopping from world to world consuming and devouring everything, disregarding all other life as nothing but a resource at best, and at worst - a rodent infestation to be purged.
I really would like to believe the version of reality I've seen is the false one. That it's all my personal projections, echoes of my mind or something along the lines. Because if it's the other way around, most life on this rock might go extinct fairly soon, which would be a shame.
But after all the years of trying to cleanse my own mind of any noise and distortions, the picture didn't change for better, it's reached higher and higher "resolution", got even more gruesome.
But I'm thinking it doesn't really matte all that much, it's not like that changes anything, or that anything can be changed, just gonna have to navigate through it somehow, if it come to pass.
On other hand, if there actually is fleet of city size ships filled with predatory space gypsies, only few light-years away flying at cruise speed towards this rock. Then it does make sense why suddenly over the last century or so, there has been so much activity in regard of new kind of spiritual groups with extra-terrestrial flavour. From certain angle it does kind of look like massive evacuation effort Efforts to find, locate, re-connect and retrieve their own people that perhaps went on to excursion to Earth in physical human form, and now need to be rounded up so they could get "beamed up" to their non-physical place of origin, or something along the lines. Perhaps.

> fleet of city size ships

My own views is that entities that need tin cans to get here may be locally dangerous but they are unlikely to be significant in the formation of Reality - existing as they do on such a dense plane.

>need to be rounded up so they could get "beamed up" to their non-physical place of origin

I am not at all sure that is a good idea. At present, large scale physical removal of humans seems to be for purposes of slavery. Perhaps the end times ascension beliefs are to make mass abduction easier.

Why would spiritual beings want to take Earth bodies with them? Better to form new bodies from the substances of the new home.

Amor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:34 am > fleet of city size ships

My own views is that entities that need tin cans to get here may be locally dangerous but they are unlikely to be significant in the formation of Reality - existing as they do on such a dense plane.

I tend to disagree with that notion. From personal experience matter seem to have authority over spirit. So beings with both physical and spiritual form can shape the reality with much greater strength and force, than beings with only spiritual form.

>need to be rounded up so they could get "beamed up" to their non-physical place of origin

I am not at all sure that is a good idea. At present, large scale physical removal of humans seems to be for purposes of slavery. Perhaps the end times ascension beliefs are to make mass abduction easier.

Why would spiritual beings want to take Earth bodies with them? Better to form new bodies from the substances of the new home.

I meant it figuratively. Non terrestrial beings incarnated in human form forget their origins, to the most part, the flesh may give much "strength" of all kinds, but at the same time it does weigh heavy.
And because our human life can often be very brutal, very damaging to the mind and spirit. It's not uncommon to get lost, to forget own origins, and wonder off too far, even in to darker and heavier states of consciousness and spirit, and to get stuck there. And if that happens, at the time of their physical death, they may wonder off further, instead going back home. Or in "confusion" hey may cling to physical existence, incarnate again, and again, and in that way move further and further until even in spirit they begin to perceive them selves as humans. Or worse, get stuck on some lower plane for eternity, and all kinds of things might happen.
We don't have much cognitive capacity to navigate spiritual realms on our own, without connection to any kind of collective, the source, and without physical "brain", if we fail to establish spiritual connection with "home base" while we still breathing, chances of achieving that after we stop breathing dimmish by orders of magnitude.
So I meant all those ideas, stories, myths of extraterrestrial tone, might be just acting as beacons, lighthouses for all those "travellers", just for their spirit, their bodies aren't invited. Those stories may not be factually correct, but those don't have to be. They only required to make "spiritual" connection with the source of this or that story/mythos/idea/teaching whatever the medium. So when their physical life ends, that vague connection can turn in to "portal" guiding everyone back to their respective sources. They don't even need to actually "know" what is it and where it leads, just need to "feel" it's something they would like to be at.
So no flesh will be saved, all the suits and dresses are borrowed and will be return to the earth.

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:48 am Sounds right in theory, but in practice, people's creativity seem to reach maximum potential when they are under pressure and in the corner. In do or die situations. So I'm too sure it's all bad on that regard. While I'm pretty sure this planet will die in not too distant future, I'm even more confident humanity will survive despite it, even if in pretty rough up shape. I see bright future for this species, in like 10-20k years. Well the next 10k+ might be rough, but it's just short rough patch, only 10k or so years, not a biggy, will crawl through it.

I'd agree with the concept of antifragility and acceleration by urgency, I've just seen it go in excess to degrees that the bulk of those involved genuinely end up worse people. It's like the visions some Christians have had of hell being a place where people walk into furnaces and walk out the other side looking like they properly belong there, I can hardly think of a worse fate for someone than to die in a worse state or as a worse person than they came in as, it's like every core principal of value cracking and splintering, quite a bit like the universe treating that person as the lunch meat that some kid who doesn't care about their job puts under their feet and starts ice-skating around the store. I'd have to guess that God is a ferret to these people.

Cerber wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:48 am I mean there are forms of existence, in physical plane, that supersede the known "Darwinian" model of life, but I don't think humanity can "invent" it on it's own. It needs to meet such form of life face to face, to learn, to understand and to adopt it. In ideal world such encounter would be of a peaceful kind, but our reality it most likely won't be, which is fine, this species have great capacity to learn from pain, as long as all those sacrifices worth it at the end. It's just no such life form anywhere near this solar system, or at least so I heard, so it might take a while to "accidentally" find it, or to be found by it.

I don't know what it's like not to live in the US but I've felt for a good portion of my life like the archetypes have been blasted at almost cartoonish level, ie. all of our politics and culture look like Blavatsky parade floats, or like a festival in Las Vegas. It's like living in a world that's still deeply lost in a dream state and externalizing that dream, maybe the only other place I can think of that has that sort of fevered archetypal drive is the world of radical Islam where they're still anticipating end times and global caliphate.

This is the kind of thing that I have to genuinely hope leaves us. We have to get to a point where the whole global culture has figured out that humanity wasn't created six thousand years ago either by God or by angels defying God. We also need to get to a place where the perpetual parade of commercial grifting, gimmicks, jingles, and perpetual betting on the weakness of the public stops being the predominant atmosphere. Until that really starts to fade out it'll be really difficult to have any sort of culture 2.0 or any kind of second axial age because I get the sense that the concepts that are actually nutritious, to the degree that they exist now, no one would pay attention to them because they're distracted by so many other necessities and because by most people's ordering of reality these things are entirely irrelevant as to whether they can get status, mate, and be seen as successful. It's all still too smash n' grab right now for anything new to happen.