From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> Subject: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 94 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: OTQgTm9BdXRoVXNlciBURUxPQ0lUWS1SRUFERVJTIDY0LjM0LjIzOC4yMjUgIFdlZCwgMjQgSmFu!IDIwMDEgMTI6Mjc6MjUgUFNU X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:27:25 PST Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:22:05 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:61963 Hi Ken, Warning! This post contains Extreme Woowoo stuff. So proceed slowly. (Kids, don't think this at home) For me UC is a bit beyond my ability to grasp. I would like to understand this concept better but I seem to be missing some important assumptions -allow me to explain. It seems you tightly connect UC to the existence/consciousness of God. I have a few difficulties with this. (my problem, not yours) I tender two possible working definitions for "God". The first one is simply "the combined output of all the conscious entities existing on various rungs of Jacob's Ladder". The second definition assumes "there is no smallest particle" in the Universe. From this assumption one can speculate on the idea of a "Consciousness Density" that would be formed from the time averaged output of zillions of micro-civilizations that would each grow, spread out, learn about the larger Universe their civilization exists in (and can effect), and finally even dwindle or die out. It's possible that many of these micro-civilizations would form, mature and die out in just nano-seconds. From this (micro) perspective, the animal brain might be thought of as an intentional form of *long term* data storage. I.E. a self growing and repairing archive of the history of large structures in the Universe (large to them, small and mundane to us). Both these definitions allow for omniscience and omnipotence but suggest that short term localized voids of these properties may occur. As you can see, my thinking is firmly mired in the assumption of a mechanical Universe that, luckily for us all, has enough time stability to allow complex (logical) structures to evolve, such as the animal physical brain. This in mind, I agree that: > "The *something* you refer to is nothing like you think it to be." Still, I need to work with models that my meager consciousness can understand and manipulate. This is what I meant when I said it is "hard to explain using" the UC model. I have no difficulties with an OOB based model of consciousness such as the "Mentalsoma" (IIPC) or "Soul" (Christian), etc. I simply feel it is reasonable to assume our consciousness, no matter where it is, is nonetheless a form of mechanical construct, formed out of "stuff" that has stable and long lived properties. "The Original Ken > Again, examine the something you hold dear, then apply it as a mechanism. > This is not a watch we are talking about. It is something you and I > completely do not understand. Actually Ken, I can't think of *anything* that I do (fully) understand. I see a Universe that has properties, and I imagine models for this Universe, models that also have properties. The best model, I can think of, for consciousness is a generalization of logic circuits or neural nets. 10^12 Neurons may not be enough, maybe our Mentalsoma needs 10^15 (or more) structural logic components to encompass a You or a Me. Regardless of the complexity of the inner workings of a consciousness, I prefer not to throw up my arms and declare the topic to be intractable or unknowable. I find it very interesting that a fair number of Projectors (IIPC) believe that some reincarnated entities acquire a Human physical bodies that possess a brain with greater conscious capabilities than these entities had while between lives. I'd call this one hell of a true conscious learning experience. If this is correct then the complexity of the physical brain may not be too many orders of magnitude different from the complexity of the average Soul. I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > God (the UC) has no sense of himself other than what he observes > and feels through us and through our physical brain. But certainly he has > an existence without our help before that was available. What might that > be? I reckon something we might never know. If the UC can only sense himself via discrete conscious entities then shouldn't there be locations where no entity has ever gone before? If so, did that place have its own existence prior to being visited by an entity These things being said, maybe you can help with my confusion. Wm ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:30:18 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 100 Message-ID: <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp129.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.129) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980380665 14906912 203.24.252.129 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp129.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:61978 Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. Keeping this thread for sure!!! Craig William Bliss wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > Warning! This post contains Extreme Woowoo stuff. > So proceed slowly. (Kids, don't think this at home) > > For me UC is a bit beyond my ability to grasp. I would like to > understand this concept better but I seem to be missing some > important assumptions -allow me to explain. > > It seems you tightly connect UC to the existence/consciousness > of God. I have a few difficulties with this. (my problem, not yours) > > I tender two possible working definitions for "God". > The first one is simply "the combined output of all the conscious > entities existing on various rungs of Jacob's Ladder". > > The second definition assumes "there is no smallest particle" in > the Universe. From this assumption one can speculate on the > idea of a "Consciousness Density" that would be formed from the > time averaged output of zillions of micro-civilizations that would > each grow, spread out, learn about the larger Universe their > civilization exists in (and can effect), and finally even dwindle or > die out. It's possible that many of these micro-civilizations would > form, mature and die out in just nano-seconds. From this (micro) > perspective, the animal brain might be thought of as an intentional > form of *long term* data storage. I.E. a self growing and repairing > archive of the history of large structures in the Universe (large to > them, small and mundane to us). > Both these definitions allow for omniscience and omnipotence but > suggest that short term localized voids of these properties may > occur. > > As you can see, my thinking is firmly mired in the assumption of > a mechanical Universe that, luckily for us all, has enough time > stability to allow complex (logical) structures to evolve, such as > the animal physical brain. This in mind, I agree that: > > "The *something* you refer to is nothing like you think it to be." > > Still, I need to work with models that my meager consciousness can > understand and manipulate. This is what I meant when I said it is > "hard to explain using" the UC model. > > I have no difficulties with an OOB based model of consciousness > such as the "Mentalsoma" (IIPC) or "Soul" (Christian), etc. > I simply feel it is reasonable to assume our consciousness, no > matter where it is, is nonetheless a form of mechanical construct, > formed out of "stuff" that has stable and long lived properties. > > "The Original Ken > > Again, examine the something you hold dear, then apply it as a mechanism. > > This is not a watch we are talking about. It is something you and I > > completely do not understand. > > Actually Ken, I can't think of *anything* that I do (fully) understand. > I see a Universe that has properties, and I imagine models for this > Universe, models that also have properties. > > The best model, I can think of, for consciousness is a generalization > of logic circuits or neural nets. 10^12 Neurons may not be enough, > maybe our Mentalsoma needs 10^15 (or more) structural logic > components to encompass a You or a Me. Regardless of the > complexity of the inner workings of a consciousness, I prefer not > to throw up my arms and declare the topic to be intractable or > unknowable. > > I find it very interesting that a fair number of Projectors (IIPC) believe > that some reincarnated entities acquire a Human physical bodies that > possess a brain with greater conscious capabilities than these entities > had while between lives. I'd call this one hell of a true conscious > learning experience. > If this is correct then the complexity of the physical brain may not be > too many orders of magnitude different from the complexity of the > average Soul. > > I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > > > God (the UC) has no sense of himself other than what he observes > > and feels through us and through our physical brain. But certainly he has > > an existence without our help before that was available. What might that > > be? I reckon something we might never know. > > If the UC can only sense himself via discrete conscious entities > then shouldn't there be locations where no entity has ever gone > before? If so, did that place have its own existence prior to being > visited by an entity > > These things being said, maybe you can help with my confusion. > > Wm ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 122 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /whxy8u8KA1Dv41InKDKHFm5eeB8NZCuz0HRTXjwTzelRxP4WomqCa3oWYPjt3Txjtt3F/Qkpf5v!fBXEb79Eg2gqd4g0QPDv+tGoV+zOnNeP+1mTwd7YD7bvlvp9AiQyhisgZ7NgO5Lse1e9SZiPkTVA!VimtUasPf/3w X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:26:17 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:26:17 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62049 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com>... >Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. >Keeping this thread for sure!!! > >Craig (Under Craig) Yes, I do think that you may be making it more complex and difficult than it is. Just take a look at the world around you. You are a part of it. And so have your ancestors from years before. We are all part of the process of living and dying ... a part of the universal state of the universe. Consider the universe itself consciousness, if you will ... it is all the same. At least ... IMO. -- Trish (JungleGirl) http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html > >William Bliss wrote: >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> Warning! This post contains Extreme Woowoo stuff. >> So proceed slowly. (Kids, don't think this at home) >> >> For me UC is a bit beyond my ability to grasp. I would like to >> understand this concept better but I seem to be missing some >> important assumptions -allow me to explain. >> >> It seems you tightly connect UC to the existence/consciousness >> of God. I have a few difficulties with this. (my problem, not yours) >> >> I tender two possible working definitions for "God". >> The first one is simply "the combined output of all the conscious >> entities existing on various rungs of Jacob's Ladder". >> >> The second definition assumes "there is no smallest particle" in >> the Universe. From this assumption one can speculate on the >> idea of a "Consciousness Density" that would be formed from the >> time averaged output of zillions of micro-civilizations that would >> each grow, spread out, learn about the larger Universe their >> civilization exists in (and can effect), and finally even dwindle or >> die out. It's possible that many of these micro-civilizations would >> form, mature and die out in just nano-seconds. From this (micro) >> perspective, the animal brain might be thought of as an intentional >> form of *long term* data storage. I.E. a self growing and repairing >> archive of the history of large structures in the Universe (large to >> them, small and mundane to us). >> Both these definitions allow for omniscience and omnipotence but >> suggest that short term localized voids of these properties may >> occur. >> >> As you can see, my thinking is firmly mired in the assumption of >> a mechanical Universe that, luckily for us all, has enough time >> stability to allow complex (logical) structures to evolve, such as >> the animal physical brain. This in mind, I agree that: >> > "The *something* you refer to is nothing like you think it to be." >> >> Still, I need to work with models that my meager consciousness can >> understand and manipulate. This is what I meant when I said it is >> "hard to explain using" the UC model. >> >> I have no difficulties with an OOB based model of consciousness >> such as the "Mentalsoma" (IIPC) or "Soul" (Christian), etc. >> I simply feel it is reasonable to assume our consciousness, no >> matter where it is, is nonetheless a form of mechanical construct, >> formed out of "stuff" that has stable and long lived properties. >> >> "The Original Ken >> > Again, examine the something you hold dear, then apply it as a mechanism. >> > This is not a watch we are talking about. It is something you and I >> > completely do not understand. >> >> Actually Ken, I can't think of *anything* that I do (fully) understand. >> I see a Universe that has properties, and I imagine models for this >> Universe, models that also have properties. >> >> The best model, I can think of, for consciousness is a generalization >> of logic circuits or neural nets. 10^12 Neurons may not be enough, >> maybe our Mentalsoma needs 10^15 (or more) structural logic >> components to encompass a You or a Me. Regardless of the >> complexity of the inner workings of a consciousness, I prefer not >> to throw up my arms and declare the topic to be intractable or >> unknowable. >> >> I find it very interesting that a fair number of Projectors (IIPC) believe >> that some reincarnated entities acquire a Human physical bodies that >> possess a brain with greater conscious capabilities than these entities >> had while between lives. I'd call this one hell of a true conscious >> learning experience. >> If this is correct then the complexity of the physical brain may not be >> too many orders of magnitude different from the complexity of the >> average Soul. >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) >> >> > God (the UC) has no sense of himself other than what he observes >> > and feels through us and through our physical brain. But certainly he has >> > an existence without our help before that was available. What might that >> > be? I reckon something we might never know. >> >> If the UC can only sense himself via discrete conscious entities >> then shouldn't there be locations where no entity has ever gone >> before? If so, did that place have its own existence prior to being >> visited by an entity >> >> These things being said, maybe you can help with my confusion. >> >> Wm > > ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 233 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:35:30 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.46 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980393741 216.241.33.46 (Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:35:41 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:35:41 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62060 Hi William, William Bliss wrote in message news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > Hi Ken, > > Warning! This post contains Extreme Woowoo stuff. > So proceed slowly. (Kids, don't think this at home) > > For me UC is a bit beyond my ability to grasp. I would like to > understand this concept better but I seem to be missing some > important assumptions -allow me to explain. > > It seems you tightly connect UC to the existence/consciousness > of God. I have a few difficulties with this. (my problem, not yours) > > I tender two possible working definitions for "God". > The first one is simply "the combined output of all the conscious > entities existing on various rungs of Jacob's Ladder". This is probably the one I go for. The important point I like to express is that God is not self aware/conscious as is usually thought in the Christian (or for that matter, most) religion but rather self aware repetitively through us, animals, and perhaps even plants in a way that is familiar to each of us. > > The second definition assumes "there is no smallest particle" in > the Universe. From this assumption one can speculate on the > idea of a "Consciousness Density" that would be formed from the > time averaged output of zillions of micro-civilizations that would > each grow, spread out, learn about the larger Universe their > civilization exists in (and can effect), and finally even dwindle or > die out. It's possible that many of these micro-civilizations would > form, mature and die out in just nano-seconds. From this (micro) > perspective, the animal brain might be thought of as an intentional > form of *long term* data storage. I.E. a self growing and repairing > archive of the history of large structures in the Universe (large to > them, small and mundane to us). Wow! That's pretty heavy. I hadn't really gone through that angle before. Trips the mind up for sure. > Both these definitions allow for omniscience and omnipotence but > suggest that short term localized voids of these properties may > occur. As far as the first, I wouldn't really say "void". It is extremely easy to experience existance through our brain: there is internal discussion using our personal language, there is experiencing what our senses offer up to us and so on. One has to consider that existance can take place without these things albeit not something easily imaginable. Perhaps a few inklings of what it might be like are 1. Pure emotion where we don't have any thoughts or sensations, but have an awareness of an emotion. A good emotion, a bad emotion, and it can't be put into a context. Imagine no sight, sound, touch, or language or visual based thought, but imagine an emotion existing in this realm. Perhaps this is what non human based consciousness (God like consciousness) is like. I use emotion because it's the one thing that is not lanquage or sense based. 2. A realm of sense, vision, sound, etc. that is generated not from senses, but from pure mind, and from this human existance which manifests this internal sense into an externally sensing human (or lifeform). > > As you can see, my thinking is firmly mired in the assumption of > a mechanical Universe that, luckily for us all, has enough time > stability to allow complex (logical) structures to evolve, such as > the animal physical brain. This in mind, I agree that: > > "The *something* you refer to is nothing like you think it to be." But sight is not physically based. Sight is stimulated by the eyes, and the human awareness factor "sees" because of it. "If eyeballs did not have a mind, would they see?" > > Still, I need to work with models that my meager consciousness can > understand and manipulate. This is what I meant when I said it is > "hard to explain using" the UC model. I couldn't get relativity for the longest time. I studied it and studied it, but it just didn't click. Then one day it did. I was like Mr. Eureka. Now it seems so simple. I also struggled with the concept of UC, but now I have it (to my satisfaction at least) and it seems the only possible scenario to explain human consciousness without contridictions. > > I have no difficulties with an OOB based model of consciousness > such as the "Mentalsoma" (IIPC) or "Soul" (Christian), etc. I am not familiar with "Mentalsoma" but the Soul model has a serious problem. The best way to express this is to just say that when we are alive, we sit and think that our body must contain a "Soul" and this explains everything. When we die however, we sit in our Soul body and think that our Soul must contain a Sub-Soul which explains the existance of the Soul and so on. It is an infinite regress that simply has no solution. So for me, the Soul model must be discarded. > I simply feel it is reasonable to assume our consciousness, no > matter where it is, is nonetheless a form of mechanical construct, > formed out of "stuff" that has stable and long lived properties. And so it is. At least consciousness as we know it. This does not cause a conflict with the UC theory. > > "The Original Ken > > Again, examine the something you hold dear, then apply it as a mechanism. > > This is not a watch we are talking about. It is something you and I > > completely do not understand. > > Actually Ken, I can't think of *anything* that I do (fully) understand. > I see a Universe that has properties, and I imagine models for this > Universe, models that also have properties. But we have no clue to the properties of human consciousness. We seem to know a great deal about the properties of matter. (And thank God for consistancy or we'd all go nuts) and we can model matter in VR because we understand it so well. (rubber balls bounce and so on). But can we model consciousness in VR? Can you think of one property of human consciousness? Is is matter? Is it energy? Is it made up of particles? Is it destroyable? Does it travel faster than light? Is it singular shared by all? Does it only exist in the presence of a brain? Can it be swapped among brains? Can it see life from a perspective outside the body? Do we know one single property of human consciousness other than it is the basis for our reality? > > The best model, I can think of, for consciousness is a generalization > of logic circuits or neural nets. 10^12 Neurons may not be enough, > maybe our Mentalsoma needs 10^15 (or more) structural logic > components to encompass a You or a Me. Regardless of the > complexity of the inner workings of a consciousness, I prefer not > to throw up my arms and declare the topic to be intractable or > unknowable. Nor I! But as I so heatedly expressed to Ian, logic circuits do not make a consciousness. I say this because there is not one single shred of evidence that it can. There is not one single article written in Nature Magazine, there is not one device constructed, there is not one theory that can relate consciousness to a physical brain. All we can be sure of is that a brain seems to be required for consciousness *as we know it* to exist in the reality of the person endowed with that brain. This says absolutely nothing about the nature of consciousness anymore than the fact that honey bees like to swarm around honey says anything about what a bee is. > > I find it very interesting that a fair number of Projectors (IIPC) believe > that some reincarnated entities acquire a Human physical bodies that > possess a brain with greater conscious capabilities than these entities > had while between lives. I'd call this one hell of a true conscious > learning experience. Well I think that the whole thing of possession is a matter of the entity desiring a bit of physical reality rather than a means to change the level of consciousness or awareness although that may indeed be the case. > If this is correct then the complexity of the physical brain may not be > too many orders of magnitude different from the complexity of the > average Soul. Here again is why the UC model is so important. What is a Soul without a brain? Is it an Alzheimers victim because it has no working physical memory? Can it see without physical eyes and if so how? The UC model doesn't suffer from this because there is no Soul floating around. > > I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was just to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > > > God (the UC) has no sense of himself other than what he observes > > and feels through us and through our physical brain. But certainly he has > > an existence without our help before that was available. What might that > > be? I reckon something we might never know. > > If the UC can only sense himself via discrete conscious entities > then shouldn't there be locations where no entity has ever gone > before? If so, did that place have its own existence prior to being > visited by an entity Hahaha! You seem to be familiar with wave/particle duality. Doesn't that explain this? There is no existance until a conscious entity goes there. > > These things being said, maybe you can help with my confusion. OK, now about the UC thing. Here's my stance. There can only be one consciousness because this is the only way you can have separation (individual awarenesses). Why? Because if indeed we are truly individual, then we would be alike. (Can you tell one Winchester gun from the next?). If we are alike then we would all see, hear, feel the same things. Our eyesight would be a blur of multitudes of awarenesses, our hearing would be the jibberish noise of a million souls. Here's a better example. Take two video cameras and cable them into a console. The console has two monitors: vid 1 and vid 2. (your basic security system in a bank for example). Now one camera goes out and the guts have to be replaced. Or better still, take the guts from camera 1 and stick them into camera 2 and vice versa. What do you have? vid 1 now has all of vid 2 parts, yet it's image still shows up on vid 1 on the console. What does this mean? This means that vid 1 still has vid 1's consciousness even though it's been completely rebuilt with vid 2's parts. It's "soul" is not related to what it is, but rather it's simple connection to the console (the UC). Transplant my heart, lungs, liver, and brain, and you will still know me although the brain thing will mean I might not have the same memories. Now lets try this with the mechanical based system. We got vid 1 and vid 2 but they are independant camcorders, not connected to anything. Total standalones. Take vid 2's tape and swap it with vid 1. What do you got? Exchange of consciousness. But what if only half the tape is swapped? Where are the consciousnesses now? Are you swapped or not? You can't do this and make sense of it. The only way to make sense here is to realize that the consciousness is not a part of the vid, but is independant of it. My take anyway. Ken > > Wm > > > ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 197 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /wOMVDdvDk0EATQ1hpOD2YHDrxmpUoM2G7jltxdGhmHt9xP8KeqJ3UGH2x1xPRo/grELURW3mkWr!rEP1XL9mZv9upVyOL6Xd3Cd5gsPefzuwl3u6W5xMxnr1XJpssfSPgTlWbd3GgbivfwUBvTKv8gf+!JbmWjr9w8sYe X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:13:04 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:13:04 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!proxad.net!oleane.net!oleane!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62053 The Original Ken wrote in message ... >Hi William, > >William Bliss wrote in message >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >> Hi Ken, >> >> Warning! This post contains Extreme Woowoo stuff. >> So proceed slowly. (Kids, don't think this at home) >> >> For me UC is a bit beyond my ability to grasp. I would like to >> understand this concept better but I seem to be missing some >> important assumptions -allow me to explain. >> >> It seems you tightly connect UC to the existence/consciousness >> of God. I have a few difficulties with this. (my problem, not yours) >> >> I tender two possible working definitions for "God". >> The first one is simply "the combined output of all the conscious >> entities existing on various rungs of Jacob's Ladder". > >This is probably the one I go for. The important point I like to express is >that God is not self aware/conscious as is usually thought in the Christian >(or for that matter, most) religion but rather self aware repetitively >through us, animals, and perhaps even plants in a way that is familiar to >each of us. > >> >> The second definition assumes "there is no smallest particle" in >> the Universe. From this assumption one can speculate on the >> idea of a "Consciousness Density" that would be formed from the >> time averaged output of zillions of micro-civilizations that would >> each grow, spread out, learn about the larger Universe their >> civilization exists in (and can effect), and finally even dwindle or >> die out. It's possible that many of these micro-civilizations would >> form, mature and die out in just nano-seconds. From this (micro) >> perspective, the animal brain might be thought of as an intentional >> form of *long term* data storage. I.E. a self growing and repairing >> archive of the history of large structures in the Universe (large to >> them, small and mundane to us). > >Wow! That's pretty heavy. I hadn't really gone through that angle before. >Trips the mind up for sure. > >> Both these definitions allow for omniscience and omnipotence but >> suggest that short term localized voids of these properties may >> occur. > >As far as the first, I wouldn't really say "void". It is extremely easy to >experience existance through our brain: there is internal discussion using >our personal language, there is experiencing what our senses offer up to us >and so on. One has to consider that existance can take place without these >things albeit not something easily imaginable. Perhaps a few inklings of >what it might be like are 1. Pure emotion where we don't have any thoughts >or sensations, but have an awareness of an emotion. A good emotion, a bad >emotion, and it can't be put into a context. Imagine no sight, sound, >touch, or language or visual based thought, but imagine an emotion existing >in this realm. Perhaps this is what non human based consciousness (God like >consciousness) is like. I use emotion because it's the one thing that is >not lanquage or sense based. 2. A realm of sense, vision, sound, etc. >that is generated not from senses, but from pure mind, and from this human >existance which manifests this internal sense into an externally sensing >human (or lifeform). > >> >> As you can see, my thinking is firmly mired in the assumption of >> a mechanical Universe that, luckily for us all, has enough time >> stability to allow complex (logical) structures to evolve, such as >> the animal physical brain. This in mind, I agree that: >> > "The *something* you refer to is nothing like you think it to be." > >But sight is not physically based. Sight is stimulated by the eyes, and the >human awareness factor "sees" because of it. "If eyeballs did not have a >mind, would they see?" > >> >> Still, I need to work with models that my meager consciousness can >> understand and manipulate. This is what I meant when I said it is >> "hard to explain using" the UC model. > >I couldn't get relativity for the longest time. I studied it and studied >it, but it just didn't click. Then one day it did. I was like Mr. Eureka. >Now it seems so simple. I also struggled with the concept of UC, but now I >have it (to my satisfaction at least) and it seems the only possible >scenario to explain human consciousness without contridictions. > >> >> I have no difficulties with an OOB based model of consciousness >> such as the "Mentalsoma" (IIPC) or "Soul" (Christian), etc. > >I am not familiar with "Mentalsoma" but the Soul model has a serious >problem. The best way to express this is to just say that when we are >alive, we sit and think that our body must contain a "Soul" and this >explains everything. When we die however, we sit in our Soul body and think >that our Soul must contain a Sub-Soul which explains the existance of the >Soul and so on. It is an infinite regress that simply has no solution. So >for me, the Soul model must be discarded. > >> I simply feel it is reasonable to assume our consciousness, no >> matter where it is, is nonetheless a form of mechanical construct, >> formed out of "stuff" that has stable and long lived properties. > >And so it is. At least consciousness as we know it. This does not cause a >conflict with the UC theory. > >> >> "The Original Ken >> > Again, examine the something you hold dear, then apply it as a >mechanism. >> > This is not a watch we are talking about. It is something you and I >> > completely do not understand. >> >> Actually Ken, I can't think of *anything* that I do (fully) understand. >> I see a Universe that has properties, and I imagine models for this >> Universe, models that also have properties. > >But we have no clue to the properties of human consciousness. We seem to >know a great deal about the properties of matter. (And thank God for >consistancy or we'd all go nuts) and we can model matter in VR because we >understand it so well. (rubber balls bounce and so on). But can we model >consciousness in VR? Can you think of one property of human consciousness? >Is is matter? Is it energy? Is it made up of particles? Is it >destroyable? Does it travel faster than light? Is it singular shared by >all? Does it only exist in the presence of a brain? Can it be swapped >among brains? Can it see life from a perspective outside the body? Do we >know one single property of human consciousness other than it is the basis >for our reality? > >> >> The best model, I can think of, for consciousness is a generalization >> of logic circuits or neural nets. 10^12 Neurons may not be enough, >> maybe our Mentalsoma needs 10^15 (or more) structural logic >> components to encompass a You or a Me. Regardless of the >> complexity of the inner workings of a consciousness, I prefer not >> to throw up my arms and declare the topic to be intractable or >> unknowable. > >Nor I! But as I so heatedly expressed to Ian, logic circuits do not make a >consciousness. I say this because there is not one single shred of evidence >that it can. There is not one single article written in Nature Magazine, >there is not one device constructed, there is not one theory that can relate >consciousness to a physical brain. All we can be sure of is that a brain >seems to be required for consciousness *as we know it* to exist in the >reality of the person endowed with that brain. This says absolutely nothing >about the nature of consciousness anymore than the fact that honey bees like >to swarm around honey says anything about what a bee is. > >> >> I find it very interesting that a fair number of Projectors (IIPC) believe >> that some reincarnated entities acquire a Human physical bodies that >> possess a brain with greater conscious capabilities than these entities >> had while between lives. I'd call this one hell of a true conscious >> learning experience. > >Well I think that the whole thing of possession is a matter of the entity >desiring a bit of physical reality rather than a means to change the level >of consciousness or awareness although that may indeed be the case. > >> If this is correct then the complexity of the physical brain may not be >> too many orders of magnitude different from the complexity of the >> average Soul. > >Here again is why the UC model is so important. What is a Soul without a >brain? Is it an Alzheimers victim because it has no working physical >memory? Can it see without physical eyes and if so how? The UC model >doesn't suffer from this because there is no Soul floating around. > >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was just >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but what property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? -- Trish (JungleGirl) http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### Message-ID: <3A70044E.9F036893@televar.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:47:42 -0800 From: dorothy X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1019.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1019.bossig.com X-Trace: 25 Jan 2001 04:31:52 -0600, sanduser1019.bossig.com Lines: 120 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser1019.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:61989 Craig Shillington wrote: > > Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. > Keeping this thread for sure!!! Hey, me too Craig! I think I'm getting it, but my feet are kinda cold so, like you, I'm having a little trouble concentrating. :-) (say, if you send a little of that heat over this way, and I send you a little cold, then we'll both end up just about right, eh? 75 F would suit me rather well just now... You remember the rain gods responded last time we did a weather alteration experiment, right? Heh heh) Anyway, this thread will definitely go into the "notfluffy" file. (not to be confused with notsnuffy, Ian...) The speculations on Universal Consciousness may be complicated, as Trish says, but definitely more interesting than the usual "please provide evidence" blather, or the late great debate regarding Sheri's alleged verbal obsfucation (which you missed, lucky you), or even, IMO, the threads on neurobiology and the geology of the pyramids! By the way, will try to get that email reply to you sometime before the next heat wave. :-) All the best, Dorothy > William Bliss wrote: > > > > Hi Ken, > > > > Warning! This post contains Extreme Woowoo stuff. > > So proceed slowly. (Kids, don't think this at home) > > > > For me UC is a bit beyond my ability to grasp. I would like to > > understand this concept better but I seem to be missing some > > important assumptions -allow me to explain. > > > > It seems you tightly connect UC to the existence/consciousness > > of God. I have a few difficulties with this. (my problem, not yours) > > > > I tender two possible working definitions for "God". > > The first one is simply "the combined output of all the conscious > > entities existing on various rungs of Jacob's Ladder". > > > > The second definition assumes "there is no smallest particle" in > > the Universe. From this assumption one can speculate on the > > idea of a "Consciousness Density" that would be formed from the > > time averaged output of zillions of micro-civilizations that would > > each grow, spread out, learn about the larger Universe their > > civilization exists in (and can effect), and finally even dwindle or > > die out. It's possible that many of these micro-civilizations would > > form, mature and die out in just nano-seconds. From this (micro) > > perspective, the animal brain might be thought of as an intentional > > form of *long term* data storage. I.E. a self growing and repairing > > archive of the history of large structures in the Universe (large to > > them, small and mundane to us). > > Both these definitions allow for omniscience and omnipotence but > > suggest that short term localized voids of these properties may > > occur. > > > > As you can see, my thinking is firmly mired in the assumption of > > a mechanical Universe that, luckily for us all, has enough time > > stability to allow complex (logical) structures to evolve, such as > > the animal physical brain. This in mind, I agree that: > > > "The *something* you refer to is nothing like you think it to be." > > > > Still, I need to work with models that my meager consciousness can > > understand and manipulate. This is what I meant when I said it is > > "hard to explain using" the UC model. > > > > I have no difficulties with an OOB based model of consciousness > > such as the "Mentalsoma" (IIPC) or "Soul" (Christian), etc. > > I simply feel it is reasonable to assume our consciousness, no > > matter where it is, is nonetheless a form of mechanical construct, > > formed out of "stuff" that has stable and long lived properties. > > > > "The Original Ken > > > Again, examine the something you hold dear, then apply it as a mechanism. > > > This is not a watch we are talking about. It is something you and I > > > completely do not understand. > > > > Actually Ken, I can't think of *anything* that I do (fully) understand. > > I see a Universe that has properties, and I imagine models for this > > Universe, models that also have properties. > > > > The best model, I can think of, for consciousness is a generalization > > of logic circuits or neural nets. 10^12 Neurons may not be enough, > > maybe our Mentalsoma needs 10^15 (or more) structural logic > > components to encompass a You or a Me. Regardless of the > > complexity of the inner workings of a consciousness, I prefer not > > to throw up my arms and declare the topic to be intractable or > > unknowable. > > > > I find it very interesting that a fair number of Projectors (IIPC) believe > > that some reincarnated entities acquire a Human physical bodies that > > possess a brain with greater conscious capabilities than these entities > > had while between lives. I'd call this one hell of a true conscious > > learning experience. > > If this is correct then the complexity of the physical brain may not be > > too many orders of magnitude different from the complexity of the > > average Soul. > > > > I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > > to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > > step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > > > > > God (the UC) has no sense of himself other than what he observes > > > and feels through us and through our physical brain. But certainly he has > > > an existence without our help before that was available. What might that > > > be? I reckon something we might never know. > > > > If the UC can only sense himself via discrete conscious entities > > then shouldn't there be locations where no entity has ever gone > > before? If so, did that place have its own existence prior to being > > visited by an entity > > > > These things being said, maybe you can help with my confusion. > > > > Wm ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:23:25 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 36 Message-ID: <3A707D2D.78FF2CA4@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.118) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980455174 14984227 203.24.252.118 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newscore.gigabell.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp118.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62070 Hi Trish. > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com>... > >Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. > >Keeping this thread for sure!!! > > > >Craig > > (Under Craig) > > Yes, I do think that you may be making it more complex and difficult than it > is. Just take a look at the world around you. You are a part of it. And > so have your ancestors from years before. We are all part of the process of > living and dying ... a part of the universal state of the universe. I understand and agree to a point with you there. But I also understand how passionate we can become when trying to explain how we believe things are. Sometimes, in order to explain ourselves, I guess we go a little bit deeper than we really mean to, I know, I'm guilty of it myself. ;) > Consider the universe itself consciousness, if you will ... it is all the > same. At least ... IMO. VBS .... I like that. If you are of the belief that we all originated from a single point at one stage, then this is easier again to understand how everything is connected in some way. :) Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:26:36 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 42 Message-ID: <3A707DEC.1E5E84A9@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> <3A70044E.9F036893@televar.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.118) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980455177 14984227 203.24.252.118 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp118.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62072 Hi Dorothy. :) > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. > > Keeping this thread for sure!!! > > Hey, me too Craig! I think I'm getting it, but my feet are kinda cold > so, like you, I'm having a little trouble concentrating. :-) (say, if > you send a little of that heat over this way, and I send you a little > cold, then we'll both end up just about right, eh? 75 F would suit me > rather well just now... You remember the rain gods responded last time > we did a weather alteration experiment, right? Heh heh) It's a hit I tell you!!! It absolutely poured down here yesterday .... was still 110F, but boy ...... did it rain!!! :) > Anyway, this thread will definitely go into the "notfluffy" file. (not > to be confused with notsnuffy, Ian...) The speculations on Universal > Consciousness may be complicated, as Trish says, but definitely more > interesting than the usual "please provide evidence" blather, or the > late great debate regarding Sheri's alleged verbal obsfucation (which > you missed, lucky you), or even, IMO, the threads on neurobiology and > the geology of the pyramids! Geeeeeeeez. Seems I did miss a bit. :( How bloody long was I gone for ... a few years? ;) > By the way, will try to get that email reply to you sometime before the > next heat wave. :-) LMAO ... still in the last one Dorothy. ;) No sweat, well at least not there any way. :) Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:37:08 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.118) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980455203 14984227 203.24.252.118 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp118.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62073 "The Countess...." wrote: > > The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >Hi William, > > > >William Bliss wrote in message > >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > > > >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was > just > >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > > I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but what > property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the > first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that > something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 45 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> X-Trace: +rhFIs/5DLwMndt2tc1vlgKuuM8dR1QeR9NFY3NohDYncYeuMWugtIsLzTwAbjAfcmTOntzhLqsy!IAZjIT8OkobsZEGNAV9/ab+QEo3MgL3JNaxT8R6FykQMslGKWofPWDcn86OG2jPsRqbliUzzjYqf!39XzMvwg X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:36:50 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:36:51 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62098 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >> >Hi William, >> > >> >William Bliss wrote in message >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > > >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) >> > >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was >> just >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but what >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > >Craig I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we really ask for much more? -- Trish http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> <3A707D2D.78FF2CA4@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 48 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +rUPLvnmgeKMCf41Mp2NJTKSySvz6uyl9WDc6wWLsFLSwGi55ANsFovsvJD8BWC4HyKxMvv96HLH!rksx7/i4mkeOzzXWpVHHZqqOaYsThKI/Xxx6pFRleRgscS7TY270BLP+gPiMYR2J6ERr6tBCNg6K!iMndoRht X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:40:52 GMT Distribution: world Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:40:52 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62104 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A707D2D.78FF2CA4@ozemu.com>... > >Hi Trish. >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com>... >> >Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. >> >Keeping this thread for sure!!! >> > >> >Craig >> >> (Under Craig) >> >> Yes, I do think that you may be making it more complex and difficult than it >> is. Just take a look at the world around you. You are a part of it. And >> so have your ancestors from years before. We are all part of the process of >> living and dying ... a part of the universal state of the universe. > >I understand and agree to a point with you there. But I also >understand how passionate we can become when trying to explain how we >believe things are. Sometimes, in order to explain ourselves, I guess >we go a little bit deeper than we really mean to, I know, I'm guilty >of it myself. ;) Are you kidding? So do I! : ) When I'm on a roll, there's not much that can stop me! > >> Consider the universe itself consciousness, if you will ... it is all the >> same. At least ... IMO. > >VBS .... I like that. If you are of the belief that we all originated >from a single point at one stage, then this is easier again to >understand how everything is connected in some way. :) We are all connected. Every action we do affects someone around us. Every thought we follow through on. Even the ideas that we don't follow through on affect others .... according to our mood and how we feel about it. Even those of us here on the ng have affected each other in so many ways ... and look how far apart we are ... and actually how little we know about each other. ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 47 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: KDcgTm9BdXRoVXNlciBURUxPQ0lUWS1SRUFYRVJTPDY0LjM0MjIzODIyMjU8IFRoaSw8MjUgVmFu!IDIwMDE8MTc6KTQ6MTQgUFNI X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:54:14 PST Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:48:49 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62128 Hi Trish, "The Countess...." wrote in message news:t1Nb6.12310$tV5.306480@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... [...] > Yes, I do think that you may be making it more complex and difficult than it > is. Ahhh! Come-on mommm.. What's wrong with a little complexity. I promise to do my home work. :) Plus, it turns life into a wondrous challenge, for me at least. > Just take a look at the world around you. You are a part of it. And > so have your ancestors from years before. We are all part of the process of > living and dying ... a part of the universal state of the universe. > Consider the universe itself consciousness, if you will ... it is all the > same. At least ... IMO. I like your laid back attitude. But I have a dream... several in fact. Just think, because of a struggling goldsmith the printing press was invented. A little while later millions of people could read and learn instead of only the social elite. Because of a few insecure military geeks the internet was invented. Now, to the world I can declare myself "your friend". Wouldn't it be nice if someday your Jungle-children could learn, in grade school, how to project -as part of the normal curriculum? You said it "we're all connected", and I feel a certain responsibility, as a connection point, to do my personal best, before I too become an ancestor. Wm P.S. Can we all vote for the name you'll use next week? :-) ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 80 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: 9miuhhlnyOZbFpDdSFBo9zWmG0tF6D7vqvFoujSVjDiAfsMENq76qi9Lvhqp0TBQtog6sfehe0Hg!3jBQrb/xbskEw96ONi9fNCH6nK9g/noFIY364rPs57JmGoQyRBQ4tDaEo8eeCr3L4XTuZ150SbDr!nR01PcdYqg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:56:31 GMT Distribution: world Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:56:32 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62113 William Bliss wrote in message ... >Hi Trish, > >"The Countess...." wrote in message >news:t1Nb6.12310$tV5.306480@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... >[...] >> Yes, I do think that you may be making it more complex and difficult than >it >> is. > >Ahhh! Come-on mommm.. What's wrong with a little complexity. >I promise to do my home work. :) >Plus, it turns life into a wondrous challenge, for me at least. Oh all right. Go ahead. Just be home in time for supper. And I mean it! : ) > >> Just take a look at the world around you. You are a part of it. And >> so have your ancestors from years before. We are all part of the process >of >> living and dying ... a part of the universal state of the universe. >> Consider the universe itself consciousness, if you will ... it is all the >> same. At least ... IMO. > >I like your laid back attitude. > >But I have a dream... several in fact. >Just think, because of a struggling goldsmith the >printing press was invented. A little while later >millions of people could read and learn instead >of only the social elite. >Because of a few insecure military geeks the >internet was invented. Now, to the world I can >declare myself "your friend". >Wouldn't it be nice if someday your Jungle-children >could learn, in grade school, how to project >-as part of the normal curriculum? > >You said it "we're all connected", and I feel >a certain responsibility, as a connection point, >to do my personal best, before I too become >an ancestor. Understood. Which is why I have dubbed by our Queen here, the "Countess of Questioning" (And this is why I do enjoy having the skeptics here) I'm not attempting to shift this to the razor or anything, but there does come a point where over-speculation may lead you to overlook a few of the simpler points. I have no example for that. Just a gut instinct. And a realization that all of my OBEs have not included anything physical ... (from this world, at least) : ) >P.S. >Can we all vote for the name you'll use next week? :-) Hmmm ... I've been Skyler386 (a *long* time ago) ... capuchin ... mainly just Trish ... Junglegirl just for fun with Bruce ..... but I think I'll stick with the Countess. I am also the keeper of the infamous RPST and the leather bracelet. Secondary holder of the Royal Not Snuffy. Princess to the Master of Arms. Lady in waiting to the Queen. And now Ken has recalled my old familiar as "Queen of the Verbal Sword". (Though I can't say I've been using that sword quite efficiently lately.) It's been years. Have any other ideas .... ? And what of yourself? :) -- Trish http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 16 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: MTYgTm9BdXRoVW9lbiBURUxPQ1VUWS1SRUFEWVJTPDY0MjM0LjIzOC4yMjUgIFRodSwgMjUgSmFu!IDIsMDEgLjI6MDU6LTEgUE9U X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:05:11 PST Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:59:58 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62137 "The Countess...." wrote in message news:Pz6c6.8263$uN3.389187@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... [...] > And what of yourself? I kinda like just plain "it". Besides being gender transparent, short, easy to spell, easy to remember and 50% dotted, I'd also reap the benefits of having my name turn up on any web search on any topic at any time. No matter how you spell it, it's just good PR. :) Wm ###### From: Gunnar Ljungstrand Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:08:48 +0100 Organization: Telenordia Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3A71E760.67028A37@algonet.se> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> Reply-To: dervak@algonet.se NNTP-Posting-Host: du107-92.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 980543350 4113 195.100.92.107 (26 Jan 2001 21:09:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2001 21:09:10 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: sv,en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-han1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62165 "The Countess...." wrote: > Hmmm ... I've been Skyler386 (a *long* time ago) ... capuchin ... > mainly just Trish ... Junglegirl just for fun with Bruce ..... but I > think I'll stick with the Countess. > > I am also the keeper of the infamous RPST and the leather bracelet. > Secondary holder of the Royal Not Snuffy. Princess to the Master of > Arms. Lady in waiting to the Queen. And now Ken has recalled my old > familiar as "Queen of the Verbal Sword". (Though I can't say I've been > using that sword quite efficiently lately.) It's been years. I think you forgot Monkey-Lady... :-) > Trish See you out there... /Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:47:26 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 58 Message-ID: <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp109.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.109) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980545889 15482880 203.24.252.109 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp109.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62143 "The Countess...." wrote: > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> > >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >> >Hi William, > >> > > >> >William Bliss wrote in message > >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > > > > > > >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > >> > > >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was > >> just > >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > >> > >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but > what > >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the > >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that > >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > > > >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > > > >Craig > > I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a > God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > really ask for much more? Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality in order for this to happen. Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> <3A71E760.67028A37@algonet.se> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 30 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /ba9QfzXAD0rGUSCE0jsO5qnKjET9LNnphJnHVa5kx1zdoCpRtVjtb8pV0PEvmzS2Z+hAlTse+KR!M8NHRFzelQPKUJIzbzI+tDvyz25rKVN/PAM03SijY8SSvz/zEd4RKU1RWeHKRdIfbnh5sNdBgCsr!XdRwM5EJ X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:09:43 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:09:43 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62455 Gunnar Ljungstrand wrote in message <3A71E760.67028A37@algonet.se>... >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> Hmmm ... I've been Skyler386 (a *long* time ago) ... capuchin ... >> mainly just Trish ... Junglegirl just for fun with Bruce ..... but I >> think I'll stick with the Countess. >> >> I am also the keeper of the infamous RPST and the leather bracelet. >> Secondary holder of the Royal Not Snuffy. Princess to the Master of >> Arms. Lady in waiting to the Queen. And now Ken has recalled my old >> familiar as "Queen of the Verbal Sword". (Though I can't say I've been >> using that sword quite efficiently lately.) It's been years. > >I think you forgot Monkey-Lady... :-) > >> Trish > >See you out there... > >/Gunnar Oh yeah! Forgot that one. Bart gave me that one. : ) -- Trish ............................... http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 69 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +LPib63o69EpSLqzGnLqCMKHchWQClZnRwv+Y2xWRp0W8KzLU3EPG+L1IhT+R18Ro9wmB5X1qoOb!oyUJFRGXyLF+3vwgd2WxjVnllwbseoHS4MkIw8J8jnNuJOM58bPi1KfDDFONVx6X3GP3o8G/Wu7I!foiZRF9w X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:12:54 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:12:54 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62457 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >> > >> > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >> >> >Hi William, >> >> > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) >> >> > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was >> >> just >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >> >> >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but >> what >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >> > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >> > >> >Craig >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >> really ask for much more? > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >in order for this to happen. > >Craig And so? It's a hard pill to swallow ... so we give up our individuality. What we gain is far greater. Not only are we a single part of the world/universe .... we *are* the universe. If you think about it, it's a beautiful thing. -- Trish ............................... http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "*** Earl of the RPST ***" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com> <3A707D2D.78FF2CA4@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 104 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:10:54 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.129.215 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 980564901 156.46.129.215 (Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:08:21 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:08:21 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62297 The Countess.... wrote in message ... > >Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A707D2D.78FF2CA4@ozemu.com>... >> >>Hi Trish. >>> >>> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A6F658A.39163C23@ozemu.com>... >>> >Whew, slow down you guys, it's hot here and very hard to concentrate. >>> >Keeping this thread for sure!!! >>> > >>> >Craig >>> >>> (Under Craig) >>> >>> Yes, I do think that you may be making it more complex and difficult than >it >>> is. Just take a look at the world around you. You are a part of it. >And >>> so have your ancestors from years before. We are all part of the process >of >>> living and dying ... a part of the universal state of the universe. >> >>I understand and agree to a point with you there. But I also >>understand how passionate we can become when trying to explain how we >>believe things are. Sometimes, in order to explain ourselves, I guess >>we go a little bit deeper than we really mean to, I know, I'm guilty >>of it myself. ;) > >Are you kidding? So do I! : ) When I'm on a roll, there's not much that >can stop me! > >> >>> Consider the universe itself consciousness, if you will ... it is all the >>> same. At least ... IMO. >> >>VBS .... I like that. If you are of the belief that we all originated >>from a single point at one stage, then this is easier again to >>understand how everything is connected in some way. :) > > (Trish) >We are all connected. Indeed. Every action we do affects someone around us. Yes. Every >thought we follow through on. More than that, though. Every thought....period. Even without follow-through. Even the ideas that we don't follow through >on affect others .... according to our mood and how we feel about it. Of course... everything "not done", has just as much impact as everything that is done. Even >those of us here on the ng have affected each other in so many ways ... and >look how far apart we are ... hehehehe! ; ) and actually how little we know about each >other. > Ahhhh... but we're learning, eh dear? : ) B.D. > > ###### From: "*** Earl of the RPST ***" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 151 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:32:37 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.129.134 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 980609397 156.46.129.134 (Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:29:57 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:29:57 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!newsengine.sol.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62278 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >> > >> > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >> >> >Hi William, >> >> > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) >> >> > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was >> >> just >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >> >> >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but >> what >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >> > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >> > >> >Craig >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >> really ask for much more? > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >in order for this to happen. > >Craig > Hello Craig... Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) You have heard of cellular memory, yes? Cellular communication? So now, imagine each cell in your human body as possessing its' own individual form of consciousness (albeit within its' own primitive boundaries of simplicity). Imagine each cell of the human body, as if it were an individual person. Picture that. Each cell is unique and conscious. Each cell is physically seperated from its' mates, and yet all are a part of the entire unity... (the human being of which they make up.) This entire human being...(you)... picture as the UC, if you will. Or for those who'd rather... call it God. Doesn't matter at all what you call it. It is the complete consciousness which is a sum of every individual cell...working together. All a part of the whole. Neither could there be one, without the other. And so: Can the individual cell, with its' limited consciousness, even *begin* to speculate or understand the complex nature of the UC's consciousness? Of course not...for it is only 1 small part! Can the individual cell exist without the UC? Of course not. Can the UC exist without the individual cells? As an entire organized group...no. As individuals, which are renewed and replaced...yes. Are the UC and the Individual Cells all a part of the same consciousness? Of course. Do they interact? Yes. Do they influence each other? Yes. Do they rely on each other for existance? Yes. Can there be one without the other? No. Are they directly, and uniquely, conscious of each other? No. Are they each *alive*? Yes. Individually? Yes. Do they communicate? In their own way...yes. Can the UC directly influence the Individual Cells? Yes, of course! I am doing so everytime I consume a 12-pack of beer! And, at the same time... it is the individual cells, which influence *me*! See? We are part of the same...and are partners in existence! Can the UC intentionally destroy, or banish, individual cells? Of course It can...but it's nothing personal! It is done everytime a wart is removed... or a hair cut... or a cigarette smoked...or a beer drank... See? Consider also, the placebo effect...or holistic healing. The UC definately has influence and power over the individuals...yes? But *not* on an individual basis. Nothing personal, here. The UC has the power to annialate each and every one of its' own Individual Cells...but, at the cost of its' own extinction! *And*, the individual cells...in unity...can definately influence the UC as well. But, at the cost of their own extinction! We are one...we share. Part of the same...and yet seperate. Such is existence. Consciousness. All in Nature is cyclical. To learn about the function of the largest, the Greatest... one need only look as far as the function of the smallest, the Least. They are the same. Built upon the same laws of Nature...they follow the same rules. And so, I would suspect that the cycle is endless! Timeless! We are to the Individual Cells consciousness...as our own UC, or God...is to us! As, I suspect...is He simply an Individual Cell to His own UC! Ad infinitum...until a full circle (or cycle) has come around again, and the very Greatest...is the same...as the very Least! For dimensions of time and space...are merely constructs of the individual, trying to understand that which he has no ability to grasp! (The individual cell, cannot communicate on this NG...nor even begin to grasp the concept!) And shouldn't try. Nor should we. When this entire cycle of Individual to UC, on and on again... is viewed from a point *outside* of time and space, then it is ALL seen as ONE consciousness. And each part totally dependent, yet unaware, of the other...except in concept and speculation. Such is the Nature of Being. B.D. Yager ###### From: Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: 27 Jan 2001 10:32:01 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 39 Message-ID: <94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-014.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Direct Read News v2.65 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62212 In article <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>, Craig says... > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: >> [...] >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >> really ask for much more? > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >in order for this to happen. > You can get a sense of their being a kind of universal conscious, etc, fairly easy in a number of direct manners, often involving some kind of formalistic ritual, sometimes simply by taking a hallucinogenic drug, sometimes by getting a blow on the head or just having a generally tense time of it. There are apparently physiological and psychological markers that point to stimulation of the right temporal lobe. But a single consciousness having no clue as to its existence would be difficult to class as a consciousness. What definitely does exist, and we can be pretty certain of this, is a very complex social animal with highly developed communications, a reasonable amount of empathy, and high intelligence. I don't think we need any more than that to account for what we see. A "universal consciousness" would be misnomer for our social structures, but those social structures do perform the functions that would be carried out by a universal consciousness, if it existed. 3 Northcote Road, London E17 7DT Tel +44 20 8928 1939 ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 14 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: MTQ8Tm9BaXRoVW9lciBURVBPQ0lUWS1SWUFERU5TIDY0LjM0MjIzOC4yLjUgIFNhdCwgMjcgSmFu!IDIwMDEgMTU6NCg6LDYgUFNU X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:44:06 PST Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:38:26 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62534 Very good post Bruce. I love the idea that someday the Human race may become a stable (non cancer prone) singular living entity. Your description definitely describes a mechanical life-form evolving in a preexistent mechanical Universe. What confuses me about Ken's UC is how to think about a containing reality that is nonexistent until the "cells" observe it. Wm ###### From: Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: 27 Jan 2001 16:49:14 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 26 Message-ID: <94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-978.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Direct Read News v2.65 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!165.113.238.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62220 In article , "William says... > >Very good post Bruce. > >I love the idea that someday the Human race may become >a stable (non cancer prone) singular living entity. Surely there are drawbacks. A singular living entity such as you or I routinely conducts, as part of its mechanism, search and destroy missions against members of its corpus that are not considered to be contributing to the good of the whole. Translate that into social terms and it's a rather ugly state of affairs. Surely our brains are there for a purpose, to enable us to form social organisations that permit high levels of autonomy, whilst at the same time providing for the wellbeing of the individual by, for instance, appropriate redistribution and social welfare provision. In that sense, such a universal consciousness exists, and as humans we are all participating in it. Please don't mistake this as a facile and superficial description of the internet; no social organisation, language, communication itself, aided by external mechanisms like books, and latterly newspapers, movies, radio, television and recorded sound, that's the universal consciousness. [...] 3 Northcote Road, London E17 7DT Tel +44 20 8928 1939 ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 50 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: NTAgTm9BdXRoVXNlbiBURVBPQ0lUWTFSRUFYRVJTPDY0Li80LjIzODIyMjUgIFNhaCwgMisgSmFu!IDIwLDEgMTg6KDY6NTUgUFNU X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:46:55 PST Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:31:01 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news.augsburg.net!cyclone.bc.net!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62538 "Sherilyn" <621@sherilyn.org.uk> wrote in message news:94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com... > In article , "William says... > > > >Very good post Bruce. > > > >I love the idea that someday the Human race may become > >a stable (non cancer prone) singular living entity. > > Surely there are drawbacks. A singular living entity such as you or I routinely > conducts, as part of its mechanism, search and destroy missions against members > of its corpus that are not considered to be contributing to the good of the > whole. Translate that into social terms and it's a rather ugly state of > affairs. Surely our brains are there for a purpose, to enable us to form social > organisations that permit high levels of autonomy, whilst at the same time > providing for the wellbeing of the individual by, for instance, appropriate > redistribution and social welfare provision. In that sense, such a universal > consciousness exists, and as humans we are all participating in it. Good point. On the other hand, animal physiology has evolved to promote conservation of energy stores. Cellular "search and destroy", as a strategy is probably more efficient than mediated arbitration. On the social level "search and destroy" probably isn't as efficient at cleansing the "body" as would be the programs and information arteries you mentioned. Then there's the partial definition of all life forms: "waste production". Objectionable social "cells" could be told to...how do you Brits say? Oh, yes "piss off!" > Please > don't mistake this as a facile and superficial description of the internet; no > social organisation, language, communication itself, aided by external > mechanisms like books, and latterly newspapers, movies, radio, television and > recorded sound, that's the universal consciousness. Or at least they are the nerves and memory. ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:36:42 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 75 Message-ID: <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp105.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.105) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980671234 15964864 203.24.252.105 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp105.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62166 Hi Trish. > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > >> > > >> > > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >> >> >Hi William, > >> >> > > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > evolution) > >> >> > > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place > was > >> >> just > >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > >> >> > >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but > >> what > >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in > the > >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that > >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > >> > > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > >> > > >> >Craig > >> > >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it > a > >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > >> really ask for much more? > > > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > >in order for this to happen. > > > >Craig > > And so? It's a hard pill to swallow ... so we give up our individuality. > What we gain is far greater. Not only are we a single part of the > world/universe .... we *are* the universe. If you think about it, it's a > beautiful thing. Oh, I have no doubt. I didn't mean to come across as thinking this was a terrible thing. :) Just asking .... would we lose our individuality in becoming one knowing consciousness. Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:43:18 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 87 Message-ID: <3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp105.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.105) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980671238 15964864 203.24.252.105 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp105.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62162 Hi Bruce. :) You've been quiet lately. > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > >> > > >> > > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> >> > >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >> >> >Hi William, > >> >> > > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > evolution) > >> >> > > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place > was > >> >> just > >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > >> >> > >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but > >> what > >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in > the > >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that > >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > >> > > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > >> > > >> >Craig > >> > >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it > a > >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > >> really ask for much more? > > > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > >in order for this to happen. > > > >Craig > > > > Hello Craig... > > Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) > Such is the Nature of Being. Oh, I follow that very easily, thank you Bruce. I must have been a little misleading in my last post. I'm not confused about the working of this UC .... just wondering what would happen if the individual parts thereof, became *one* with the whole (knowing all the whole knows) if the individuality of the parts would be lost. I mean, if the cells suddenly became conscious of the whole and knew what the whole knew .... would they still be, and function as, individual cells or would they tend to now function differently, knowing more than what is required of them. See? Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:47:16 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 50 Message-ID: <3A73C074.C2600367@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp105.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.105) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980671241 15964864 203.24.252.105 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp105.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62551 Hi Sherilyn, > > In article <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>, Craig says... > > > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> > [...] > >> > >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a > >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > >> really ask for much more? > > > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > >in order for this to happen. > > > You can get a sense of their being a kind of universal conscious, etc, fairly > easy in a number of direct manners, often involving some kind of formalistic > ritual, sometimes simply by taking a hallucinogenic drug, sometimes by getting a > blow on the head or just having a generally tense time of it. There are > apparently physiological and psychological markers that point to stimulation of > the right temporal lobe. But a single consciousness having no clue as to its > existence would be difficult to class as a consciousness. What definitely does > exist, and we can be pretty certain of this, is a very complex social animal > with highly developed communications, a reasonable amount of empathy, and high > intelligence. I don't think we need any more than that to account for what we > see. A "universal consciousness" would be misnomer for our social structures, > but those social structures do perform the functions that would be carried out > by a universal consciousness, if it existed. Understood. :) Certainly makes more than enough sense from a physical point of view. Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 174 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /w3N/30x6orcpkfiI5i6wVgz8xgaGctCCJfYppnyHL0/r1hX0whFhDgPr0y4RZuCxTU7pEvXOQu/!cJyTg24U+sy+MnXDpJJWMMz+5BlNYMQZ73zk6kD22nYpTF5RPcMoyt3QEJgMz+wL/I0DMNAq2Ll+!sNrrKWxTmw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:18:10 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:18:10 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62496 *** Earl of the RPST *** wrote in message ... > >Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... >> >> >>"The Countess...." wrote: >>> >>> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >>> > >>> > >>> >"The Countess...." wrote: >>> >> >>> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >>> >> >Hi William, >>> >> > >>> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >>> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >>> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >>> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated >evolution) >>> >> > >>> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place >was >>> >> just >>> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >>> >> >>> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but >>> what >>> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in >the >>> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that >>> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >>> > >>> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >>> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >>> > >>> >Craig >>> >>> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >>> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >>> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >>> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it >a >>> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >>> really ask for much more? >> >>Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >>conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >>consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >>see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >>the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >>in order for this to happen. >> >>Craig >> > > > >Hello Craig... > >Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) > >You have heard of cellular memory, yes? Cellular communication? So now, >imagine each cell in your human body as possessing its' own individual form >of consciousness (albeit within its' own primitive boundaries of >simplicity). Imagine each cell of the human body, as if it were an >individual person. Picture that. Each cell is unique and conscious. Each >cell is physically seperated from its' mates, and yet all are a part of the >entire unity... (the human being of which they make up.) This entire human >being...(you)... picture as the UC, if you will. Or for those who'd >rather... call it God. Doesn't matter at all what you call it. It is the >complete consciousness which is a sum of every individual cell...working >together. All a part of the whole. Neither could there be one, without the >other. And so: > >Can the individual cell, with its' limited consciousness, even *begin* to >speculate or understand the complex nature of the UC's consciousness? Of >course not...for it is only 1 small part! > >Can the individual cell exist without the UC? Of course not. > >Can the UC exist without the individual cells? As an entire organized >group...no. As individuals, which are renewed and replaced...yes. > >Are the UC and the Individual Cells all a part of the same consciousness? >Of course. > >Do they interact? Yes. > >Do they influence each other? Yes. > >Do they rely on each other for existance? Yes. > >Can there be one without the other? No. > >Are they directly, and uniquely, conscious of each other? No. > >Are they each *alive*? Yes. > >Individually? Yes. > >Do they communicate? In their own way...yes. > >Can the UC directly influence the Individual Cells? Yes, of course! I am >doing so everytime I consume a 12-pack of beer! And, at the same time... it >is the individual cells, which influence *me*! See? We are part of the >same...and are partners in existence! > >Can the UC intentionally destroy, or banish, individual cells? Of course It >can...but it's nothing personal! It is done everytime a wart is removed... >or a hair cut... or a cigarette smoked...or a beer drank... See? > >Consider also, the placebo effect...or holistic healing. The UC definately >has influence and power over the individuals...yes? But *not* on an >individual basis. Nothing personal, here. The UC has the power to >annialate each and every one of its' own Individual Cells...but, at the cost >of its' own extinction! *And*, the individual cells...in unity...can >definately influence the UC as well. But, at the cost of their own >extinction! We are one...we share. Part of the same...and yet seperate. > >Such is existence. Consciousness. All in Nature is cyclical. To learn >about the function of the largest, the Greatest... one need only look as far >as the function of the smallest, the Least. They are the same. Built upon >the same laws of Nature...they follow the same rules. And so, I would >suspect that the cycle is endless! Timeless! We are to the Individual >Cells consciousness...as our own UC, or God...is to us! As, I suspect...is >He simply an Individual Cell to His own UC! Ad infinitum...until a full >circle (or cycle) has come around again, and the very Greatest...is the >same...as the very Least! For dimensions of time and space...are merely >constructs of the individual, trying to understand that which he has no >ability to grasp! (The individual cell, cannot communicate on this NG...nor >even begin to grasp the concept!) And shouldn't try. Nor should we. When >this entire cycle of Individual to UC, on and on again... is viewed from a >point *outside* of time and space, then it is ALL seen as ONE consciousness. >And each part totally dependent, yet unaware, of the other...except in >concept and speculation. > >Such is the Nature of Being. > >B.D. Yager I find your analogy very constructive, but I wonder about a few things. Each of these little cells are not uniquely conscious enough to even know of their own existance, let alone attempt to form some type of communication with the UC (us). So where does the paranormal fit into all of this (remote viewing, OBEs (if such is the case), psychic impressions ... etc.) ? -- Trish ............................... http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: 28 Jan 2001 03:59:57 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 64 Message-ID: <9511jt07cl@drn.newsguy.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-593.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Direct Read News v2.65 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62216 In article , "William says... > >"Sherilyn" <621@sherilyn.org.uk> wrote in message >news:94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com... >> In article , "William >says... >> > >> >Very good post Bruce. >> > >> >I love the idea that someday the Human race may become >> >a stable (non cancer prone) singular living entity. >> >> Surely there are drawbacks. A singular living entity such as you or I >routinely >> conducts, as part of its mechanism, search and destroy missions against >members >> of its corpus that are not considered to be contributing to the good of >the >> whole. Translate that into social terms and it's a rather ugly state of >> affairs. Surely our brains are there for a purpose, to enable us to form >social >> organisations that permit high levels of autonomy, whilst at the same time >> providing for the wellbeing of the individual by, for instance, >appropriate >> redistribution and social welfare provision. In that sense, such a >universal >> consciousness exists, and as humans we are all participating in it. > >Good point. On the other hand, animal physiology has evolved to >promote conservation of energy stores. Cellular "search and destroy", >as a strategy is probably more efficient than mediated arbitration. >On the social level "search and destroy" probably isn't as efficient at >cleansing the "body" as would be the programs and information arteries >you mentioned. > >Then there's the partial definition of all life forms: "waste production". >Objectionable social "cells" could be told to...how do you Brits say? >Oh, yes "piss off!" This is not normally an option in the kind of social structure I'm considering, where the agents are too intelligent to deal with in such a straightfoard manner. The pros and cons of this are really dealt with under game theory, and more specifically under Hamilton's theory of the evolutionarily stable strategy. > > >> Please >> don't mistake this as a facile and superficial description of the >internet; no >> social organisation, language, communication itself, aided by external >> mechanisms like books, and latterly newspapers, movies, radio, television >and >> recorded sound, that's the universal consciousness. > >Or at least they are the nerves and memory. > But at this point it becomes clear that while, functionally, some aspects of a "universal consciousness" are fulfilled, the resemblance is superficial. There is not (as yet?) any consciousness in the network, it's just a prosthetic used by humans. 3 Northcote Road, London E17 7DT Tel +44 20 8928 1939 ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:06:12 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a743ada.7459049@news.lineone.net> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 34 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62271 On 27 Jan 2001 16:49:14 -0800, Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> wrote: >In article , "William says... >> >>Very good post Bruce. >> >>I love the idea that someday the Human race may become >>a stable (non cancer prone) singular living entity. > >Surely there are drawbacks. A singular living entity such as you or I routinely >conducts, as part of its mechanism, search and destroy missions against members >of its corpus that are not considered to be contributing to the good of the >whole. Translate that into social terms and it's a rather ugly state of >affairs. Surely our brains are there for a purpose, to enable us to form social >organisations that permit high levels of autonomy, whilst at the same time >providing for the wellbeing of the individual by, for instance, appropriate >redistribution and social welfare provision. In that sense, such a universal >consciousness exists, and as humans we are all participating in it. Please >don't mistake this as a facile and superficial description of the internet; no >social organisation, language, communication itself, aided by external >mechanisms like books, and latterly newspapers, movies, radio, television and >recorded sound, that's the universal consciousness. I was watching that Michael Crichton movie "Disclosure" yesterday and it led me to wonder about accessing the Internet through some form of virtual reality interface like that shown in the film. I can't see it leading to a "universal consciousness", but could be a step in that direction. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 41 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: NDEgTnNBdXR0VXNlbiBURVBPQ0lUWTFSRUFERVJTPDY0Li80LjIzOC4yLjUgIFN1ciwgMjggSmFu!IDIwMDEgMDg6NDI6NDYgUE9U X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:42:46 PST Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:37:11 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62558 "Sherilyn" <621@sherilyn.org.uk> wrote in message news:94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com... > In article <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>, Craig says... [...] > You can get a sense of their being a kind of universal conscious, etc, fairly > easy in a number of direct manners, often involving some kind of formalistic > ritual, sometimes simply by taking a hallucinogenic drug, sometimes by getting a > blow on the head or just having a generally tense time of it. There are > apparently physiological and psychological markers that point to stimulation of > the right temporal lobe. But a single consciousness having no clue as to its > existence would be difficult to class as a consciousness. What definitely does > exist, and we can be pretty certain of this, is a very complex social animal > with highly developed communications, a reasonable amount of empathy, and high > intelligence. I don't think we need any more than that to account for what we > see. A "universal consciousness" would be misnomer for our social structures, > but those social structures do perform the functions that would be carried out > by a universal consciousness, if it existed. I read two ideas into what you say here. 1) Soon after the big boom, the young Universe would be a lonely place for the first Consciousness. 2) A Consciousness can't fully realize itself until it can detect another (nonself) consciousness, or at least be schizophrenic. Wm ###### From: Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:23:54 GMT Organization: A.S.I./Psi -App/WCS Lines: 22 Message-ID: <3a9c5587.310098544@cnews.newsguy.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-285.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!171.64.14.106!newsfeed.stanford.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62382 On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:37:11 -0500, "William Bliss" wrote: >I read two ideas into what you say here. > >1) Soon after the big boom, the young Universe would be a >lonely place for the first Consciousness. > >2) A Consciousness can't fully realize itself until it can detect >another (nonself) consciousness, or at least be schizophrenic. > >Wm > > Indeed, I may be crazy, but at least I'll always have We. :) -- Knowledge is the Antidote for Fear http://www.whitecrowsociety.com http://www.legendsmagazine.net/pan/rayn/rpm http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/3549/stories.htm ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 97 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: 9/2nmI4snmIYAoHP9avYa5tiuEaf1x/1CqtqgIn5PcmofuPnpAMiSkG28L9qdXEby100cKTTY3wk!qB4L2hXiM+2IT/O8xuOrALpLKd0jdpCIG4bSVWetTaAhITOg+Ia6Zu2H7QxI4WbZo1DLdgAo4vqM!17Upnzjf X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:39:37 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:39:37 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62444 Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com>... >Hi Trish. > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... >> > >> > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >> >> >> >Hi William, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >> >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated >> evolution) >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place >> was >> >> >> just >> >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but >> >> what >> >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in >> the >> >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that >> >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >> >> > >> >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >> >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >> >> > >> >> >Craig >> >> >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >> >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >> >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >> >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it >> a >> >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >> >> really ask for much more? >> > >> >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >> >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >> >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >> >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >> >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >> >in order for this to happen. >> > >> >Craig >> >> And so? It's a hard pill to swallow ... so we give up our individuality. >> What we gain is far greater. Not only are we a single part of the >> world/universe .... we *are* the universe. If you think about it, it's a >> beautiful thing. > >Oh, I have no doubt. I didn't mean to come across as thinking this was >a terrible thing. :) Just asking .... would we lose our individuality >in becoming one knowing consciousness. > >Craig If there is such a thing as one knowing consciousness, it wouldn't matter much if we lost our individuality. This knowing consciousness would have a memory of our being, and in that we would not only recall our being ... and gain the world. In fact, our own individuality probably wouldn't be that interesting very much anymore with so many new ways to "see". But if there is some type of consciousness out there that is vague and not very aware of us or itself ... then chances are we're nil. We simply become part of a process that is not aware of itself. Either way, I'm just happy to be here. I've done some pretty interesting things so far with my life ... some ordinary & comforting ... others a bit on the incredible side. And I've learned quite a bit. So I'm just thankful for the opportunity to be here. -- Trish ............................... (Pollyanna) :) http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 85 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:37:52 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.59 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980710650 216.241.33.59 (Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:37:30 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:37:30 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62531 Craig Shillington wrote in message news:3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com... > > > "The Countess...." wrote: > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > > > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > > >> > > >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > > >> >Hi William, > > >> > > > >> >William Bliss wrote in message > > >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > > >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > > >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated evolution) > > >> > > > >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place was > > >> just > > >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > > >> > > >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but > > what > > >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in the > > >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that > > >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > > > > > >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > > >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > > > > > >Craig > > > > I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > > existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > > experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > > universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it a > > God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > > really ask for much more? > > Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > consciousness as one self aware consciousness. Don't many Eastern religiouns (Buddhist and others) talk about going back to the God-Head implying that eventually, when we as humans have risen to a level of understanding sufficient to do this what we will find is a merging of consciousness, a place where we will all become one in the same? I can't (at this stage) > see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > in order for this to happen. Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving up that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience is *about* individuality. Ken > > Craig > > -- > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > -- > > ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 136 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:45:14 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.59 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980711093 216.241.33.59 (Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:44:53 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:44:53 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62520 The Countess.... wrote in message news:tPYc6.3100$iG3.688105@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com>... > >Hi Trish. > > > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > >> > > >> > > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >> >> >> >Hi William, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > >> >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > >> >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > >> >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > >> evolution) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first > place > >> was > >> >> >> just > >> >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... > but > >> >> what > >> >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in > >> the > >> >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems > that > >> >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > >> >> > > >> >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > >> >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > >> >> > > >> >> >Craig > >> >> > >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > >> >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > >> >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up > the > >> >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view > it > >> a > >> >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > >> >> really ask for much more? > >> > > >> >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > >> >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > >> >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > >> >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > >> >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > >> >in order for this to happen. > >> > > >> >Craig > >> > >> And so? It's a hard pill to swallow ... so we give up our individuality. > >> What we gain is far greater. Not only are we a single part of the > >> world/universe .... we *are* the universe. If you think about it, it's a > >> beautiful thing. > > > >Oh, I have no doubt. I didn't mean to come across as thinking this was > >a terrible thing. :) Just asking .... would we lose our individuality > >in becoming one knowing consciousness. > > > >Craig > > > If there is such a thing as one knowing consciousness, it wouldn't matter > much if we lost our individuality. This knowing consciousness would have a > memory of our being, and in that we would not only recall our being ... and > gain the world. In fact, our own individuality probably wouldn't be that > interesting very much anymore with so many new ways to "see". > > But if there is some type of consciousness out there that is vague and not > very aware of us or itself ... then chances are we're nil. We simply become > part of a process that is not aware of itself. Yes, and you know we may be talking about trying to achieve something that is not desirable. What if it turns out that the UC was the beginning, but it was not much of a beginning. We began proliferating and in doing so we began to experience the human experience. Love, Hate, fear, joy, work, play, intuition, reflection. These things might only be part of the human experience, and we might not be able to take them back with us if the human race were to eventually die out. This may be a one-way trip in order to be successful. No going back. The UC may *need* us to fulfill it's purpose. Ken > > Either way, I'm just happy to be here. I've done some pretty interesting > things so far with my life ... some ordinary & comforting ... others a bit > on the incredible side. And I've learned quite a bit. So I'm just thankful > for the opportunity to be here. Yea, me too. It's tough sometimes, but when you think about the alternative... > > -- > Trish ............................... (Pollyanna) :) Don't break a leg now, hear! Ken > > http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html > ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94vqaa02i0u@drn.newsguy.com> <9511jt07cl@drn.newsguy.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 41 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:15:59 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.44 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980712966 216.241.33.44 (Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:16:06 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:16:06 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.stealth.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62505 Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> wrote in message news:9511jt07cl@drn.newsguy.com... > In article , "William says... > >> Please > >> don't mistake this as a facile and superficial description of the > >internet; no > >> social organisation, language, communication itself, aided by external > >> mechanisms like books, and latterly newspapers, movies, radio, television > >and > >> recorded sound, that's the universal consciousness. > > > >Or at least they are the nerves and memory. > > > But at this point it becomes clear that while, functionally, some aspects > of a "universal consciousness" are fulfilled, the resemblance is superficial. > There is not (as yet?) any consciousness in the network, it's just a prosthetic > used by humans. The combination of this prosthesis, and the humans using it however can be seen as an extension of the old phrase "two heads are better than one" in the sense that as ideas are shared among people, the ideas become melded making them larger than the sum of their parts (Lennon and McCartney for example). In addition they also become everyone's experience. Taken to the extreme we may eventually reach a point where each of us has within us the melded ideas of the population as a whole. This huge increase in personal consciousness projects out to an increase in the consciousness of the organism as a whole. Ken > > 3 Northcote Road, London E17 7DT > Tel +44 20 8928 1939 > ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 131 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /wmTi3ecHOPs4a/6leaZp1spIB7j3U3wDTRLb6PSG7IpAtRqkXjebgY3BHMXOSKSnoWGcIipfpVj!utJ35so/wDJswRq9PUvtwKj/O2EcaJWriLlydxPv6VzOD5wjeG6LGd7iQYdYVFGIjjwa6qbESndG!FfjZzLTzqQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:53:43 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:53:43 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!znr.news.ans.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62461 The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >The Countess.... wrote in message >news:tPYc6.3100$iG3.688105@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com>... >> >Hi Trish. >> > >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >"The Countess...." wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >> >> >> >> >Hi William, >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >> >> >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, >is >> >> >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next >evolutional >> >> >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated >> >> evolution) >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first >> place >> >> was >> >> >> >> just >> >> >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's >existance. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying >.... >> but >> >> >> what >> >> >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious >in >> >> the >> >> >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems >> that >> >> >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >> >> >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >> >> >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >> >> >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up >> the >> >> >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't >view >> it >> >> a >> >> >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could >we >> >> >> really ask for much more? >> >> > >> >> >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >> >> >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >> >> >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >> >> >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >> >> >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >> >> >in order for this to happen. >> >> > >> >> >Craig >> >> >> >> And so? It's a hard pill to swallow ... so we give up our >individuality. >> >> What we gain is far greater. Not only are we a single part of the >> >> world/universe .... we *are* the universe. If you think about it, it's >a >> >> beautiful thing. >> > >> >Oh, I have no doubt. I didn't mean to come across as thinking this was >> >a terrible thing. :) Just asking .... would we lose our individuality >> >in becoming one knowing consciousness. >> > >> >Craig >> >> >> If there is such a thing as one knowing consciousness, it wouldn't matter >> much if we lost our individuality. This knowing consciousness would have >a >> memory of our being, and in that we would not only recall our being ... >and >> gain the world. In fact, our own individuality probably wouldn't be that >> interesting very much anymore with so many new ways to "see". >> >> But if there is some type of consciousness out there that is vague and not >> very aware of us or itself ... then chances are we're nil. We simply >become >> part of a process that is not aware of itself. > >Yes, and you know we may be talking about trying to achieve something that >is not desirable. What if it turns out that the UC was the beginning, but >it was not much of a beginning. We began proliferating and in doing so we >began to experience the human experience. Love, Hate, fear, joy, work, >play, intuition, reflection. These things might only be part of the human >experience, and we might not be able to take them back with us if the human >race were to eventually die out. This may be a one-way trip in order to be >successful. No going back. The UC may *need* us to fulfill it's purpose. > >Ken Then again, we're only thinking mainly of us. There may be other conscious creatures within this world ... and other worlds as well. So if the human race were to die out .. it would be no big deal. It happens all the time to virtually all species. (or am I not understanding you?) -- Trish ............................... http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 86 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: <3_4d6.1282$FA6.322991@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net> X-Trace: 9m5APbiFQZEcuo0YGoEPjYpdRBVbyBoCWyER2Sdqy/48dpHRSyIx9HnKZZvbHR1AZrBBzVXDvy1D!mnwym9dFvwCadEqxHNM5Ri2308F2CohwGZwD4x0c2wUY4S5xT2BYpILmukGUPe2fq39CwuoDUgLE!KUYf8FZ4 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:57:03 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:57:03 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62453 The Original Ken wrote in message <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com>... > >Craig Shillington wrote in message >news:3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com... >> >> >> "The Countess...." wrote: >> > >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >> > > >> > > >> > >"The Countess...." wrote: >> > >> >> > >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >> > >> >Hi William, >> > >> > >> > >> >William Bliss wrote in message >> > >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >> > >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >> > >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated >evolution) >> > >> > >> > >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place >was >> > >> just >> > >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >> > >> >> > >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... >but >> > what >> > >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in >the >> > >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems >that >> > >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >> > > >> > >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >> > >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >> > > >> > >Craig >> > >> > I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >> > existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >> > experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >> > universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it >a >> > God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >> > really ask for much more? >> >> Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >> conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >> consciousness as one self aware consciousness. > >Don't many Eastern religiouns (Buddhist and others) talk about going back to >the God-Head implying that eventually, when we as humans have risen to a >level of understanding sufficient to do this what we will find is a merging >of consciousness, a place where we will all become one in the same? Yes. And if I had a choice, this is what I would want. Definitely. > >I can't (at this stage) >> see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >> in order for this to happen. > >Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving up >that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience is >*about* individuality. I'm still a little confused about the human consciousness thing giving the UC it's life support system ... but I suppose I eventally will catch on. -- Trish ............................... http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: "*** Earl of the RPST ***" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 218 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:58:27 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.129.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 980740567 156.46.129.75 (Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:56:07 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:56:07 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!newsengine.sol.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62316 The Countess.... wrote in message ... > >*** Earl of the RPST *** wrote in message ... >> >>Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... >>> >>> >>>"The Countess...." wrote: >>>> >>>> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >"The Countess...." wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >>>> >> >Hi William, >>>> >> > >>>> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >>>> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >>>> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >>>> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated >>evolution) >>>> >> > >>>> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place >>was >>>> >> just >>>> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >>>> >> >>>> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... >but >>>> what >>>> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in >>the >>>> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems >that >>>> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >>>> > >>>> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >>>> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >>>> > >>>> >Craig >>>> >>>> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >>>> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >>>> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >>>> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it >>a >>>> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >>>> really ask for much more? >>> >>>Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >>>conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >>>consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >>>see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >>>the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >>>in order for this to happen. >>> >>>Craig >>> >> >> >> >>Hello Craig... >> >>Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) >> >>You have heard of cellular memory, yes? Cellular communication? So now, >>imagine each cell in your human body as possessing its' own individual form >>of consciousness (albeit within its' own primitive boundaries of >>simplicity). Imagine each cell of the human body, as if it were an >>individual person. Picture that. Each cell is unique and conscious. >Each >>cell is physically seperated from its' mates, and yet all are a part of the >>entire unity... (the human being of which they make up.) This entire human >>being...(you)... picture as the UC, if you will. Or for those who'd >>rather... call it God. Doesn't matter at all what you call it. It is the >>complete consciousness which is a sum of every individual cell...working >>together. All a part of the whole. Neither could there be one, without >the >>other. And so: >> >>Can the individual cell, with its' limited consciousness, even *begin* to >>speculate or understand the complex nature of the UC's consciousness? Of >>course not...for it is only 1 small part! >> >>Can the individual cell exist without the UC? Of course not. >> >>Can the UC exist without the individual cells? As an entire organized >>group...no. As individuals, which are renewed and replaced...yes. >> >>Are the UC and the Individual Cells all a part of the same consciousness? >>Of course. >> >>Do they interact? Yes. >> >>Do they influence each other? Yes. >> >>Do they rely on each other for existance? Yes. >> >>Can there be one without the other? No. >> >>Are they directly, and uniquely, conscious of each other? No. >> >>Are they each *alive*? Yes. >> >>Individually? Yes. >> >>Do they communicate? In their own way...yes. >> >>Can the UC directly influence the Individual Cells? Yes, of course! I am >>doing so everytime I consume a 12-pack of beer! And, at the same time... >it >>is the individual cells, which influence *me*! See? We are part of the >>same...and are partners in existence! >> >>Can the UC intentionally destroy, or banish, individual cells? Of course >It >>can...but it's nothing personal! It is done everytime a wart is removed... >>or a hair cut... or a cigarette smoked...or a beer drank... See? >> >>Consider also, the placebo effect...or holistic healing. The UC definately >>has influence and power over the individuals...yes? But *not* on an >>individual basis. Nothing personal, here. The UC has the power to >>annialate each and every one of its' own Individual Cells...but, at the >cost >>of its' own extinction! *And*, the individual cells...in unity...can >>definately influence the UC as well. But, at the cost of their own >>extinction! We are one...we share. Part of the same...and yet seperate. >> >>Such is existence. Consciousness. All in Nature is cyclical. To learn >>about the function of the largest, the Greatest... one need only look as >far >>as the function of the smallest, the Least. They are the same. Built upon >>the same laws of Nature...they follow the same rules. And so, I would >>suspect that the cycle is endless! Timeless! We are to the Individual >>Cells consciousness...as our own UC, or God...is to us! As, I suspect...is >>He simply an Individual Cell to His own UC! Ad infinitum...until a full >>circle (or cycle) has come around again, and the very Greatest...is the >>same...as the very Least! For dimensions of time and space...are merely >>constructs of the individual, trying to understand that which he has no >>ability to grasp! (The individual cell, cannot communicate on this >NG...nor >>even begin to grasp the concept!) And shouldn't try. Nor should we. When >>this entire cycle of Individual to UC, on and on again... is viewed from a >>point *outside* of time and space, then it is ALL seen as ONE >consciousness. >>And each part totally dependent, yet unaware, of the other...except in >>concept and speculation. >> >>Such is the Nature of Being. >> >>B.D. Yager > > (Trish) >I find your analogy very constructive, but I wonder about a few things. > Shoot. >Each of these little cells are not uniquely conscious enough to even know of >their own existance, How do we know this? We don't. I am assuming for this analogy, that they *are* self conscious and aware. And I'm not so sure that IRL...that they aren't! [insert severe woo-woo eyeball rolls here] let alone attempt to form some type of communication >with the UC (us). Ahhh, but my dear! Our cells *do* communicate with us! No? Information which is gathered by the cells is communicated to our consciousness all the time...no? If they didn't...I couldn't feel this keyboard, nor see the screen. Or know, when I should eat something. Yes? So where does the paranormal fit into all of this (remote >viewing, OBEs (if such is the case), psychic impressions ... etc.) ? > >-- Well, as I said on the telly... this was not intended to be taken as a literal interpretation, but rather a rough analogy. But, nonetheless...I would say that the paranormal experiences of any given single cell, would be the ability to tap into a small part of the UC network to obtain information about other cells in the network. Since *each* cell is part of the UC, then there should be a route of access there....eh? Cells do receive almost instant information from other cells in the body, as I recall from some of the Chopra books. And of course, I'm not even going to try to figure out (with *this* analogy) how it would be that a cell could obtain future information.... I'm afraid I'd run out of *time*... Hahahahahaaaaaa!!!! ; ) B.D. > ###### From: "The Countess...." Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 247 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: /K0OUnEdFZAdAXQVfnUyGSolRI3IN/lrPov4+45y7d6/qVcyqZb8qcg91luQdvrV4KTlsp5FvDqg!4SsV+OR2S0mo6GCdDvhuFGmYK3CPTVwRvnNyhXZSi5WGQTSnQFRo5KHtHZbs+dZnUEAkhuSd68uB!igBldTvjaw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:44:25 GMT Distribution: world Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:44:25 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!paloalto-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!paloalto-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62447 *** Earl of the RPST *** wrote in message ... > >The Countess.... wrote in message ... >> >>*** Earl of the RPST *** wrote in message ... >>> >>>Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... >>>> >>>> >>>>"The Countess...." wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >"The Countess...." wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... >>>>> >> >Hi William, >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >William Bliss wrote in message >>>>> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is >>>>> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional >>>>> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated >>>evolution) >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place >>>was >>>>> >> just >>>>> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... >>but >>>>> what >>>>> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in >>>the >>>>> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems >>that >>>>> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? >>>>> > >>>>> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and >>>>> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? >>>>> > >>>>> >Craig >>>>> >>>>> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's >>>>> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it >>>>> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the >>>>> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view >it >>>a >>>>> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we >>>>> really ask for much more? >>>> >>>>Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of >>>>conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual >>>>consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) >>>>see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without >>>>the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality >>>>in order for this to happen. >>>> >>>>Craig >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Hello Craig... >>> >>>Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) >>> >>>You have heard of cellular memory, yes? Cellular communication? So now, >>>imagine each cell in your human body as possessing its' own individual >form >>>of consciousness (albeit within its' own primitive boundaries of >>>simplicity). Imagine each cell of the human body, as if it were an >>>individual person. Picture that. Each cell is unique and conscious. >>Each >>>cell is physically seperated from its' mates, and yet all are a part of >the >>>entire unity... (the human being of which they make up.) This entire >human >>>being...(you)... picture as the UC, if you will. Or for those who'd >>>rather... call it God. Doesn't matter at all what you call it. It is the >>>complete consciousness which is a sum of every individual cell...working >>>together. All a part of the whole. Neither could there be one, without >>the >>>other. And so: >>> >>>Can the individual cell, with its' limited consciousness, even *begin* to >>>speculate or understand the complex nature of the UC's consciousness? Of >>>course not...for it is only 1 small part! >>> >>>Can the individual cell exist without the UC? Of course not. >>> >>>Can the UC exist without the individual cells? As an entire organized >>>group...no. As individuals, which are renewed and replaced...yes. >>> >>>Are the UC and the Individual Cells all a part of the same consciousness? >>>Of course. >>> >>>Do they interact? Yes. >>> >>>Do they influence each other? Yes. >>> >>>Do they rely on each other for existance? Yes. >>> >>>Can there be one without the other? No. >>> >>>Are they directly, and uniquely, conscious of each other? No. >>> >>>Are they each *alive*? Yes. >>> >>>Individually? Yes. >>> >>>Do they communicate? In their own way...yes. >>> >>>Can the UC directly influence the Individual Cells? Yes, of course! I am >>>doing so everytime I consume a 12-pack of beer! And, at the same time... >>it >>>is the individual cells, which influence *me*! See? We are part of the >>>same...and are partners in existence! >>> >>>Can the UC intentionally destroy, or banish, individual cells? Of course >>It >>>can...but it's nothing personal! It is done everytime a wart is >removed... >>>or a hair cut... or a cigarette smoked...or a beer drank... See? >>> >>>Consider also, the placebo effect...or holistic healing. The UC >definately >>>has influence and power over the individuals...yes? But *not* on an >>>individual basis. Nothing personal, here. The UC has the power to >>>annialate each and every one of its' own Individual Cells...but, at the >>cost >>>of its' own extinction! *And*, the individual cells...in unity...can >>>definately influence the UC as well. But, at the cost of their own >>>extinction! We are one...we share. Part of the same...and yet seperate. >>> >>>Such is existence. Consciousness. All in Nature is cyclical. To learn >>>about the function of the largest, the Greatest... one need only look as >>far >>>as the function of the smallest, the Least. They are the same. Built >upon >>>the same laws of Nature...they follow the same rules. And so, I would >>>suspect that the cycle is endless! Timeless! We are to the Individual >>>Cells consciousness...as our own UC, or God...is to us! As, I >suspect...is >>>He simply an Individual Cell to His own UC! Ad infinitum...until a full >>>circle (or cycle) has come around again, and the very Greatest...is the >>>same...as the very Least! For dimensions of time and space...are merely >>>constructs of the individual, trying to understand that which he has no >>>ability to grasp! (The individual cell, cannot communicate on this >>NG...nor >>>even begin to grasp the concept!) And shouldn't try. Nor should we. >When >>>this entire cycle of Individual to UC, on and on again... is viewed from a >>>point *outside* of time and space, then it is ALL seen as ONE >>consciousness. >>>And each part totally dependent, yet unaware, of the other...except in >>>concept and speculation. >>> >>>Such is the Nature of Being. >>> >>>B.D. Yager >> >> >(Trish) >>I find your analogy very constructive, but I wonder about a few things. >> > >Shoot. > > >>Each of these little cells are not uniquely conscious enough to even know >of >>their own existance, > > >How do we know this? We don't. I am assuming for this analogy, that they >*are* self conscious and aware. And I'm not so sure that IRL...that they >aren't! [insert severe woo-woo eyeball rolls here] This kinda reminds me that Dr. Seuss book ... you know, the one with the elephant and the fuzz ball world that he was trying to save? Should I shout at my finger and holler, "can you hear me in there and do you understand????" (just kidding with you BD. I understand your analogy) ... (smile) > let alone attempt to form some type of communication >>with the UC (us). > > >Ahhh, but my dear! Our cells *do* communicate with us! No? Information >which is gathered by the cells is communicated to our consciousness all the >time...no? If they didn't...I couldn't feel this keyboard, nor see the >screen. Or know, when I should eat something. Yes? Yes, but this is done by mechanical and materialistic themes. Like one big machine plugging along. One part fits into the next. And the primary parts of the brain that tell these parts what to do are not on the forefront of consciousness. You don't have to tell your heart to beat .. or your feet to walk .. etc. So no .. these cells are not on contact with our consciousness. > So where does the paranormal fit into all of this (remote >>viewing, OBEs (if such is the case), psychic impressions ... etc.) ? >> >>-- > > >Well, as I said on the telly... this was not intended to be taken as a >literal interpretation, but rather a rough analogy. But, nonetheless...I >would say that the paranormal experiences of any given single cell, would be >the ability to tap into a small part of the UC network to obtain information >about other cells in the network. Since *each* cell is part of the UC, then >there should be a route of access there....eh? Cells do receive almost >instant information from other cells in the body, as I recall from some of >the Chopra books. And of course, I'm not even going to try to figure out >(with *this* analogy) how it would be that a cell could obtain future >information.... I'm afraid I'd run out of *time*... Hahahahahaaaaaa!!!! ; ) I gotcha. No need to go into the paranormal. You were roughly schetching how the UC may work. Not a bad effort at all. -- Trish ............................... (Sky) http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:44:14 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 87 Message-ID: <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp129.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.129) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980797459 16587555 203.24.252.129 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp129.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62560 Hi Ken, > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > news:3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com... > > > > > > "The Countess...." wrote: > > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > > > > > > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > > > >> > > > >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > > > >> >Hi William, > > > >> > > > > >> >William Bliss wrote in message > > > >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > > > >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > > > >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > evolution) > > > >> > > > > >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place > was > > > >> just > > > >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > > > >> > > > >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... > but > > > what > > > >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in > the > > > >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems > that > > > >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > > > > > > > >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > > > >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > > > > > > > >Craig > > > > > > I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > > > existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > > > experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > > > universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it > a > > > God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > > > really ask for much more? > > > > Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > > conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > > consciousness as one self aware consciousness. > > Don't many Eastern religiouns (Buddhist and others) talk about going back to > the God-Head implying that eventually, when we as humans have risen to a > level of understanding sufficient to do this what we will find is a merging > of consciousness, a place where we will all become one in the same? Yeah sure. Plus Monroe also touched on this type of *progression* as well. I guess in a sense, Xians do the same in a way, becoming one with the Father etc. > I can't (at this stage) > > see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > > the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > > in order for this to happen. > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving up > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience is > *about* individuality. So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be able to become. Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Sherilyn <621@sherilyn.org.uk> Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:33:45 GMT Organization: Deja.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <954k39$e5t$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.222.158.29 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 29 20:33:45 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i586) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x66.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 194.222.158.29 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsutrice Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62193 In article , "William Bliss" wrote: > "Sherilyn" <621@sherilyn.org.uk> wrote in message > news:94v4710312j@drn.newsguy.com... [...] > A "universal consciousness" would be misnomer for our social > structures, > > but those social structures do perform the functions that would be carried > out > > by a universal consciousness, if it existed. > > I read two ideas into what you say here. > > 1) Soon after the big boom, the young Universe would be a > lonely place for the first Consciousness. As it is for us, at the moment, unless and until we find other beings that we can recognise as both conscious and communicable. > > 2) A Consciousness can't fully realize itself until it can detect > another (nonself) consciousness, or at least be schizophrenic. > No, I don't get that implication. Although there are some who have formulated the hypothesis that conscious thought in humans may be a consequence of language, I suspect the story is much more complex than that. -- Email handle is time-encoded to foil spammers. Use recent handles only. Filter on domain name only. http://www.sherilyn.org.uk/ 3 Northcote Road, London E17 7DT Tel +44 20 8928 1939 Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 32 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:16:30 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.104 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980820966 216.241.33.104 (Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:16:06 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:16:06 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62528 Craig Shillington wrote in message news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > > > > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving up > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience is > > *about* individuality. > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > able to become. Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. It might just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. Ken > > Craig > -- > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > -- ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 169 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:29:06 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.104 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980821723 216.241.33.104 (Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:28:43 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:28:43 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62530 The Countess.... wrote in message news:XW4d6.1271$FA6.321824@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net... > The Original Ken wrote in message ... > > > >The Countess.... wrote in message > >news:tPYc6.3100$iG3.688105@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net... > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A73BDFA.822DFE68@ozemu.com>... > >> >Hi Trish. > >> > > >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > >> >> >> >> >Hi William, > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > >> >> >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, > >is > >> >> >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next > >evolutional > >> >> >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > >> >> evolution) > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first > >> place > >> >> was > >> >> >> >> just > >> >> >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's > >existance. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying > >.... > >> but > >> >> >> what > >> >> >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious > >in > >> >> the > >> >> >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? > Seems > >> that > >> >> >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct > and > >> >> >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Craig > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > >> >> >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > >> >> >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up > >> the > >> >> >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't > >view > >> it > >> >> a > >> >> >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could > >we > >> >> >> really ask for much more? > >> >> > > >> >> >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > >> >> >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > >> >> >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this > stage) > >> >> >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > >> >> >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > >> >> >in order for this to happen. > >> >> > > >> >> >Craig > >> >> > >> >> And so? It's a hard pill to swallow ... so we give up our > >individuality. > >> >> What we gain is far greater. Not only are we a single part of the > >> >> world/universe .... we *are* the universe. If you think about it, > it's > >a > >> >> beautiful thing. > >> > > >> >Oh, I have no doubt. I didn't mean to come across as thinking this was > >> >a terrible thing. :) Just asking .... would we lose our individuality > >> >in becoming one knowing consciousness. > >> > > >> >Craig > >> > >> > >> If there is such a thing as one knowing consciousness, it wouldn't matter > >> much if we lost our individuality. This knowing consciousness would have > >a > >> memory of our being, and in that we would not only recall our being ... > >and > >> gain the world. In fact, our own individuality probably wouldn't be that > >> interesting very much anymore with so many new ways to "see". > >> > >> But if there is some type of consciousness out there that is vague and > not > >> very aware of us or itself ... then chances are we're nil. We simply > >become > >> part of a process that is not aware of itself. > > > >Yes, and you know we may be talking about trying to achieve something that > >is not desirable. What if it turns out that the UC was the beginning, but > >it was not much of a beginning. We began proliferating and in doing so we > >began to experience the human experience. Love, Hate, fear, joy, work, > >play, intuition, reflection. These things might only be part of the human > >experience, and we might not be able to take them back with us if the human > >race were to eventually die out. This may be a one-way trip in order to be > >successful. No going back. The UC may *need* us to fulfill it's purpose. > > > >Ken > > > Then again, we're only thinking mainly of us. There may be other conscious > creatures within this world ... and other worlds as well. So if the human > race were to die out .. it would be no big deal. It happens all the time > to virtually all species. (or am I not understanding you?) > Yes, you are understanding me. I was being specific but acknowledge that we are just a small part of this concept. I can say the same thing about bugs or plants. There is some kind of sensation on the leaf of a plant when the mist from the lagoon sprays across it. It's not something that stimulates language, or visual images, but I would need some severe proof that a plant wasn't feeling *something* during that time. Of course it is not really the plant that is feeling anything, but the UCs response to what the plant was sensing. Just another UC sense organ. Ken > > -- > Trish ............................... > > http://www.geocities.com/fl_simian/welcome.html > ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 129 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: <7Xpd6.1627$5s2.56808@wormhole.dimensional.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:47:25 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.87 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 980822851 216.241.33.87 (Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:47:31 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:47:31 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62519 Craig Shillington wrote in message news:3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com... > Hi Bruce. :) > > You've been quiet lately. > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > > > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > > >> > > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > > >> >> >Hi William, > > >> >> > > > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > > >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, is > > >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > > >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > > evolution) > > >> >> > > > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first place > > was > > >> >> just > > >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's existance. > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... but > > >> what > > >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious in > > the > > >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems that > > >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > > >> > > > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > > >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > > >> > > > >> >Craig > > >> > > >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > > >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > > >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up the > > >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view it > > a > > >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could we > > >> really ask for much more? > > > > > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > > >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > > >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > > >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > > >in order for this to happen. > > > > > >Craig > > > > > > > Hello Craig... > > > > Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) > > > > > Such is the Nature of Being. > > Oh, I follow that very easily, thank you Bruce. I must have been a > little misleading in my last post. I'm not confused about the working > of this UC .... just wondering what would happen if the individual > parts thereof, became *one* with the whole (knowing all the whole > knows) if the individuality of the parts would be lost. I mean, if the > cells suddenly became conscious of the whole and knew what the whole > knew .... would they still be, and function as, individual cells or > would they tend to now function differently, knowing more than what is > required of them. See? Maybe this can be broken down a little bit. First, it's my gut feeling that there probably isn't a whole lot of difference in what we are right now and what we might expect when returning to the so called "God Head". And perhaps if there is a difference it would be a negative one. A lesser existance rather than a greater one. I come from this angle because I'm thinking along the lines a more primitive time, when maybe there was the UC and a single individual living somewhere on the planet OneNess. The UC is like a potential. It is certainly involved in the creation of matter and of life, although without conscious thought as the religions would have you beleive. Instead it is a baby, with lots and lots of power. But it is a baby that cannot see, or hear, or taste, or even feel love. And it cannot think. But it does find a way to create a human, and a plant, and a rock, and a Platypus. And it comes to find that this causes a stimulation, a rocking of the boat so to speak in the nature of the UC. So the process continues, and soon, these creatures of creation begin to feel things, and learn things. The UC is still unaware of what is going on, but the creations are the cells (as in B.D. analogy) of the UC. The UC is really nothing but pure power an potential, and with this power it becomes a living breathing entity through it's creations, *but it is unaware of it's self this whole time*. The creations are the spokespeople for the UC. The thoughts of the UC. The emotion and sensations of sense for the UC. But the UC never knows it's own existance, because all that it can feel, all that it can sense, it can only feel and sense within the real of the physical creation in which it manifests. As us, the individuals. Ken > > Craig > -- > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > -- > > ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:26:01 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 129 Message-ID: <3A7882E9.40249C06@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com> <7Xpd6.1627$5s2.56808@wormhole.dimensional.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp110.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.110) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980979267 17212474 203.24.252.110 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp110.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62900 Hi Ken, > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > news:3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com... > > Hi Bruce. :) > > > > You've been quiet lately. > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > > > > > > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > > > >> >> >Hi William, > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > > > >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, > is > > > >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > > > >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > > > evolution) > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first > place > > > was > > > >> >> just > > > >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's > existance. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... > but > > > >> what > > > >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious > in > > > the > > > >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems > that > > > >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > > > >> > > > > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > > > >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > > > >> > > > > >> >Craig > > > >> > > > >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > > > >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > > > >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up > the > > > >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view > it > > > a > > > >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could > we > > > >> really ask for much more? > > > > > > > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > > > >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > > > >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > > > >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > > > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > > > >in order for this to happen. > > > > > > > >Craig > > > > > > > > > > Hello Craig... > > > > > > Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) > > > > > > > > > Such is the Nature of Being. > > > > Oh, I follow that very easily, thank you Bruce. I must have been a > > little misleading in my last post. I'm not confused about the working > > of this UC .... just wondering what would happen if the individual > > parts thereof, became *one* with the whole (knowing all the whole > > knows) if the individuality of the parts would be lost. I mean, if the > > cells suddenly became conscious of the whole and knew what the whole > > knew .... would they still be, and function as, individual cells or > > would they tend to now function differently, knowing more than what is > > required of them. See? > > Maybe this can be broken down a little bit. First, it's my gut feeling that > there probably isn't a whole lot of difference in what we are right now and > what we might expect when returning to the so called "God Head". And > perhaps if there is a difference it would be a negative one. A lesser > existance rather than a greater one. I come from this angle because I'm > thinking along the lines a more primitive time, when maybe there was the UC > and a single individual living somewhere on the planet OneNess. The UC is > like a potential. It is certainly involved in the creation of matter and of > life, although without conscious thought as the religions would have you > beleive. Instead it is a baby, with lots and lots of power. But it is a > baby that cannot see, or hear, or taste, or even feel love. And it cannot > think. But it does find a way to create a human, and a plant, and a rock, > and a Platypus. And it comes to find that this causes a stimulation, a > rocking of the boat so to speak in the nature of the UC. So the process > continues, and soon, these creatures of creation begin to feel things, and > learn things. The UC is still unaware of what is going on, but the > creations are the cells (as in B.D. analogy) of the UC. The UC is really > nothing but pure power an potential, and with this power it becomes a living > breathing entity through it's creations, *but it is unaware of it's self > this whole time*. The creations are the spokespeople for the UC. The > thoughts of the UC. The emotion and sensations of sense for the UC. But > the UC never knows it's own existance, because all that it can feel, all > that it can sense, it can only feel and sense within the real of the > physical creation in which it manifests. As us, the individuals. Hmmmmmm. Maybe we have it all mixed up and around the wrong way. Maybe we came from the UC and are evolving away from it to individuality!! LOL, shit, I need sleep I think. ;) Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:29:59 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 44 Message-ID: <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp110.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.110) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 980979271 17212474 203.24.252.110 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp110.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62565 Hi Ken, > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > up > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > is > > > *about* individuality. > > > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > > able to become. > > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing less/more? > It might > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever be a possibility? I would think not. Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### Message-ID: <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800 From: dorothy X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1029.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser1029.bossig.com X-Trace: 31 Jan 2001 22:16:25 -0600, sanduser1029.bossig.com Lines: 41 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser1029.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62621 Craig Shillington wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > > up > > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > > is > > > > *about* individuality. > > > > > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > > > able to become. > > > > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. > > And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, > just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing > less/more? > > > It might > > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. > > Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply > *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the > idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever > be a possibility? I would think not. Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the ocean? We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. ###### From: not-me@not-here.net (Janice) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Message-ID: <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 61 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:05:50 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-BO2qGY6f8tkT/J6gsdYwpybfs0VV2joLd34Ym3Gs7ojyl+ZnSNhty2NZjKOb/ARmN90Tkba6osD1ROB!fsmNWVQ3YwQchKmIVOcJ0Q5DYmI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:05:54 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62721 On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy wrote: >Craig Shillington wrote: >> >> Hi Ken, >> > >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >> > up >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >> > is >> > > > *about* individuality. >> > > >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >> > > able to become. >> > >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >> less/more? >> >> > It might >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >> be a possibility? I would think not. > >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >ocean? > >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. ------- There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. --Despair, Inc. ------- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong ###### Message-ID: <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:16:09 -0800 From: dorothy X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2039.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2039.bossig.com X-Trace: 1 Feb 2001 01:00:46 -0600, sanduser2039.bossig.com Lines: 57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!kanja.arnes.si!news-hub.siol.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news-out.uswest.net!uunet!chi.uu.net!arb.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2039.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62601 Janice wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy > wrote: > > >Craig Shillington wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ken, > >> > > >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message > >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > >> > up > >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > >> > is > >> > > > *about* individuality. > >> > > > >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > >> > > able to become. > >> > > >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. > >> > >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, > >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing > >> less/more? > >> > >> > It might > >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. > >> > >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply > >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the > >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever > >> be a possibility? I would think not. > > > >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for > >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the > >ocean? > > > >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. > > I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into > this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and > pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To > be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most > people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time > keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com> <7Xpd6.1627$5s2.56808@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A7882E9.40249C06@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 172 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:20:37 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.76 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 981012010 216.241.33.76 (Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:20:10 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:20:10 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62861 Craig Shillington wrote in message news:3A7882E9.40249C06@ozemu.com... > Hi Ken, > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > > news:3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com... > > > Hi Bruce. :) > > > > > > You've been quiet lately. > > > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com>... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"The Countess...." wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Craig Shillington wrote in message <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com>... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >"The Countess...." wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> The Original Ken wrote in message ... > > > > >> >> >Hi William, > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >William Bliss wrote in message > > > > >> >> >news:NUGb6.49$nf.31943@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net... > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> I sometimes wonder if maybe the purpose of Mankind, actually, > > is > > > > >> >> >> to design and manufacture a "platform" for the next evolutional > > > > >> >> >> step for the manifestation of consciousness. (accelerated > > > > evolution) > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >Oh man are you good! The whole human experience in the first > > place > > > > was > > > > >> >> just > > > > >> >> >to set an initial platform so the UC could realize it's > > existance. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> I'm not really following the rest of what you both are saying .... > > but > > > > >> what > > > > >> >> property would cause the UC to realize that it was not conscious > > in > > > > the > > > > >> >> first place ... or that it was "missing out" on something? Seems > > that > > > > >> >> something would have to give a clue ... and what would that be? > > > > >> > > > > > >> >And if this did happen, would not the UC then become a distinct and > > > > >> >separate consciousness? Or is that the next step? > > > > >> > > > > > >> >Craig > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm still wondering how the UC would have a clue at all as to it's > > > > >> existance. I don't really think it does. I'm more with Ken ... it > > > > >> experiences it as a whole, through the different parts that make up > > the > > > > >> universe, but it has no separate consciousness itself. I don't view > > it > > > > a > > > > >> God. Just simply the natural and wonderful world around us. Could > > we > > > > >> really ask for much more? > > > > > > > > > >Yeah, I tend to agree. I was just wondering if maybe the next step of > > > > >conscious evolution would be the melding of all individual > > > > >consciousness as one self aware consciousness. I can't (at this stage) > > > > >see how the UC could actually become a knowing consciousness, without > > > > >the individual conscious parts needing to give up that individuality > > > > >in order for this to happen. > > > > > > > > > >Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Craig... > > > > > > > > Try seeing it more like this: (just for kicks) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such is the Nature of Being. > > > > > > Oh, I follow that very easily, thank you Bruce. I must have been a > > > little misleading in my last post. I'm not confused about the working > > > of this UC .... just wondering what would happen if the individual > > > parts thereof, became *one* with the whole (knowing all the whole > > > knows) if the individuality of the parts would be lost. I mean, if the > > > cells suddenly became conscious of the whole and knew what the whole > > > knew .... would they still be, and function as, individual cells or > > > would they tend to now function differently, knowing more than what is > > > required of them. See? > > > > Maybe this can be broken down a little bit. First, it's my gut feeling that > > there probably isn't a whole lot of difference in what we are right now and > > what we might expect when returning to the so called "God Head". And > > perhaps if there is a difference it would be a negative one. A lesser > > existance rather than a greater one. I come from this angle because I'm > > thinking along the lines a more primitive time, when maybe there was the UC > > and a single individual living somewhere on the planet OneNess. The UC is > > like a potential. It is certainly involved in the creation of matter and of > > life, although without conscious thought as the religions would have you > > beleive. Instead it is a baby, with lots and lots of power. But it is a > > baby that cannot see, or hear, or taste, or even feel love. And it cannot > > think. But it does find a way to create a human, and a plant, and a rock, > > and a Platypus. And it comes to find that this causes a stimulation, a > > rocking of the boat so to speak in the nature of the UC. So the process > > continues, and soon, these creatures of creation begin to feel things, and > > learn things. The UC is still unaware of what is going on, but the > > creations are the cells (as in B.D. analogy) of the UC. The UC is really > > nothing but pure power an potential, and with this power it becomes a living > > breathing entity through it's creations, *but it is unaware of it's self > > this whole time*. The creations are the spokespeople for the UC. The > > thoughts of the UC. The emotion and sensations of sense for the UC. But > > the UC never knows it's own existance, because all that it can feel, all > > that it can sense, it can only feel and sense within the real of the > > physical creation in which it manifests. As us, the individuals. > > Hmmmmmm. Maybe we have it all mixed up and around the wrong way. Maybe > we came from the UC and are evolving away from it to individuality!! > LOL, shit, I need sleep I think. ;) I know what you mean. Hey why not? It's not such a ridiculous thought. The whole world is talking about going back to the God Head, but what's it based on? Maybe the direction we are going is the direction we are *supposed* to be heading. I think I'll get some sleep myself. Ken > > Craig > -- > The sure way to make a thing impossible- > -is to think it so. --- Franklin > -- > > ###### From: "The Original Ken" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 54 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:22:36 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.241.33.76 X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 981012133 216.241.33.76 (Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:22:13 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:22:13 MST Organization: Interlink Advertising Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!wormhole.dimensional.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62862 dorothy wrote in message news:3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com... > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Hi Ken, > > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > > > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > > > up > > > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > > > is > > > > > *about* individuality. > > > > > > > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > > > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > > > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > > > > able to become. > > > > > > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > > > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. > > > > And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, > > just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing > > less/more? > > > > > It might > > > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > > > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. > > > > Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply > > *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the > > idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever > > be a possibility? I would think not. > > Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for > the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the > ocean? > > We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. Hey wait a sec. Can we do this at our own rate?! Ken ###### From: "William Bliss" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <3A73BF86.DADB6741@ozemu.com> <7Xpd6.1627$5s2.56808@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A7882E9.40249C06@ozemu.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 38 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-Trace: MzggTm9BdXRoVXNlciBURVBPQ0lIWS1SRUFYRVJTPDY0Li80LjIvOC4yMjU8IFRodSwgMC0gRmV+!IDIwMDEgMS46Mzg6MSggUFNU X-Abuse-Info: Please forward ALL headers when reporting abuse. X-Complaints-To: abuse@telocity.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:38:14 PST Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:32:55 -0500 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!newsrump.sjc.telocity.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62902 "The Original Ken" wrote in message news:K68e6.1663$5s2.58726@wormhole.dimensional.com... > Craig Shillington wrote in message > news:3A7882E9.40249C06@ozemu.com... [...] > > Hmmmmmm. Maybe we have it all mixed up and around the wrong way. Maybe > > we came from the UC and are evolving away from it to individuality!! > > LOL, shit, I need sleep I think. ;) > > I know what you mean. Hey why not? It's not such a ridiculous thought. > The whole world is talking about going back to the God Head, but what's it > based on? Maybe the direction we are going is the direction we are > *supposed* to be heading. Hey, I like those kinds of ideas. At the very least they make good brain exercises. Here's another little one.... If we make the assumption that higher dimensional entities are reincarnating because, in some way, they need the energies that become available to them. And if we also make the assumption that as these entities evolve they learn to require less and less of these "physical flavored" energies. Then one might wonder if reincarnating as a lower, smaller, animal might be a good thing. I.E. might be the normal progression. A really advanced soul may only needs the physical energy resources of, say, a bug, so that becomes their last and only contact with the Earth, before they stop reincarnating altogether. Remember, if we all live forever then there should be lots and lots of old souls (bugs) out there. :-) Someone should write a book... "Ideas That Will Drive You Mad!" Wm ###### From: midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:56:12 GMT Message-ID: <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 64 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.152.169 X-Trace: 981064663 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 16385 198.142.152.169 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-hub.siol.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mel.connect.com.au!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62780 dorothy wrote: >Janice wrote: >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >> wrote: >> >> >Craig Shillington wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> > >> >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >> >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >> >> > up >> >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >> >> > is >> >> > > > *about* individuality. >> >> > > >> >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >> >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >> >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >> >> > > able to become. >> >> > >> >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >> >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >> >> >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >> >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >> >> less/more? >> >> >> >> > It might >> >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >> >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >> >> >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >> >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >> >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >> >> be a possibility? I would think not. >> > >> >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >> >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >> >ocean? >> > >> >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. >> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some just don't have physical bodies anymore. ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:10:34 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a79e1d9.1223604@news.lineone.net> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 62 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.online.be!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62680 On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:05:54 GMT, not-me@not-here.net (Janice) wrote: >On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >wrote: > >>Craig Shillington wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ken, >>> > >>> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >>> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >>> > up >>> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >>> > is >>> > > > *about* individuality. >>> > > >>> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >>> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >>> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >>> > > able to become. >>> > >>> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >>> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >>> >>> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >>> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >>> less/more? >>> >>> > It might >>> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >>> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >>> >>> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >>> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >>> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >>> be a possibility? I would think not. >> >>Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >>the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >>ocean? >> >>We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. > >I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. And don't we all have thoughts that we'd rather keep private. I'm not sure I like the idea of some Universal Consciousness bugging my brain. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### Message-ID: <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:09:55 -0800 From: dorothy X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2022.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2022.bossig.com X-Trace: 1 Feb 2001 23:54:36 -0600, sanduser2022.bossig.com Lines: 70 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!propagator!propagator!feed2.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!news-in-austin.nuthinbutnews.com!news-feeds.jump.net!uunet!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2022.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62615 eve oak wrote: > > dorothy wrote: > > >Janice wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Craig Shillington wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Ken, > >> >> > > >> >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message > >> >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > >> >> > up > >> >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > >> >> > is > >> >> > > > *about* individuality. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > >> >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > >> >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > >> >> > > able to become. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > >> >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. > >> >> > >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, > >> >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing > >> >> less/more? > >> >> > >> >> > It might > >> >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > >> >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. > >> >> > >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply > >> >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the > >> >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever > >> >> be a possibility? I would think not. > >> > > >> >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for > >> >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the > >> >ocean? > >> > > >> >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. > >> > >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into > >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and > >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To > >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most > >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time > >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > > > >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or > >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything > >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) > > I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of > their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half > their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some > just don't have physical bodies anymore. I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to be a kind of dreamtime also... ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:06:01 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a7b39bc.10104327@news.lineone.net> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 81 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.online.be!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62695 On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:09:55 -0800, dorothy wrote: >eve oak wrote: >> >> dorothy wrote: >> >> >Janice wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Craig Shillington wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >> >> >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >> >> >> > up >> >> >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > > > *about* individuality. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >> >> >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >> >> >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >> >> >> > > able to become. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >> >> >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >> >> >> >> >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >> >> >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >> >> >> less/more? >> >> >> >> >> >> > It might >> >> >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >> >> >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >> >> >> >> >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >> >> >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >> >> >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >> >> >> be a possibility? I would think not. >> >> > >> >> >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >> >> >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >> >> >ocean? >> >> > >> >> >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. >> >> >> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >> > >> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) >> >> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of >> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half >> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some >> just don't have physical bodies anymore. > >I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to >imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to >be a kind of dreamtime also... I read that they consider the dreamworld to be more real than the real world. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: not-me@not-here.net (Janice) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Message-ID: <3a7bd722.17968774@news.starlinx.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 74 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 04:01:49 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-F8bLA3MtEC4pSIN+C2yBM+MXWZ1oumXLxwbDSYfNKOG3kTRHUdhNc0i1Ai5Kuv5R83Tw6x9gVALdXst!V0pFWUxMsMuEywHJ3DroIGbPMmA= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:01:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.flash.net!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62742 On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:16:09 -0800, dorothy wrote: >Janice wrote: >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >> wrote: >> >> >Craig Shillington wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> > >> >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >> >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >> >> > up >> >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >> >> > is >> >> > > > *about* individuality. >> >> > > >> >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >> >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >> >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >> >> > > able to become. >> >> > >> >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >> >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >> >> >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >> >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >> >> less/more? >> >> >> >> > It might >> >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >> >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >> >> >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >> >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >> >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >> >> be a possibility? I would think not. >> > >> >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >> >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >> >ocean? >> > >> >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. >> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) You're probably a positive thinker, focusing on the cosmic harmony angle. But what if your mystical experience should tap into the depths of fear, or something equally horrible? ------- There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. --Despair, Inc. ------- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong ###### From: not-me@not-here.net (Janice) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Message-ID: <3a7bd80f.18206592@news.starlinx.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3a79e1d9.1223604@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 79 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 04:08:26 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-ae5lDwdRX+J4tNZeUoKFN3COrAbbIpaqw6XQQykCVbVXVWaKcTtrYKwOXAHXrIvNtahRNuMT/JYHfKq!pIJlgwdRit6qyTtLn4xgZtLCrYs= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:08:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!wn4feed!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!207.207.0.27!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62760 On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:10:34 GMT, ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) wrote: >On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:05:54 GMT, not-me@not-here.net (Janice) wrote: > >>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >>wrote: >> >>>Craig Shillington wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ken, >>>> > >>>> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >>>> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >>>> > up >>>> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >>>> > is >>>> > > > *about* individuality. >>>> > > >>>> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >>>> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >>>> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >>>> > > able to become. >>>> > >>>> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >>>> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >>>> >>>> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >>>> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >>>> less/more? >>>> >>>> > It might >>>> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >>>> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >>>> >>>> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >>>> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >>>> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >>>> be a possibility? I would think not. >>> >>>Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >>>the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >>>ocean? >>> >>>We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. >> >>I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >>this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >>pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >>be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >>people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >>keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > > >And don't we all have thoughts that we'd rather keep private. I'm not >sure I like the idea of some Universal Consciousness bugging my brain. Yes. Something that has long troubled me about psychic experimentation is that its enthusiasts tend to think rather one-sidedly about it - how fun and interesting it would be to "pick up" miscellaneous tidbits about other people. But there's a lot that one really wouldn't want to be picked up, and it couldn't possibly be very pleasant to tap into other people's negative emotions etc. ------- There is no greater joy than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. --Despair, Inc. ------- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 20:27:43 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a7c4e1f.1579376@news.lineone.net> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3a79e1d9.1223604@news.lineone.net> <3a7bd80f.18206592@news.starlinx.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 97 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62690 On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:08:26 GMT, not-me@not-here.net (Janice) wrote: >On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 23:10:34 GMT, ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H >Spedding) wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:05:54 GMT, not-me@not-here.net (Janice) wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Craig Shillington wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ken, >>>>> > >>>>> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >>>>> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >>>>> > up >>>>> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >>>>> > is >>>>> > > > *about* individuality. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >>>>> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >>>>> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >>>>> > > able to become. >>>>> > >>>>> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >>>>> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >>>>> >>>>> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >>>>> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >>>>> less/more? >>>>> >>>>> > It might >>>>> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >>>>> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >>>>> >>>>> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >>>>> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >>>>> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >>>>> be a possibility? I would think not. >>>> >>>>Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >>>>the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >>>>ocean? >>>> >>>>We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. >>> >>>I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >>>this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >>>pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >>>be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >>>people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >>>keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >> >> >>And don't we all have thoughts that we'd rather keep private. I'm not >>sure I like the idea of some Universal Consciousness bugging my brain. > >Yes. > >Something that has long troubled me about psychic experimentation is >that its enthusiasts tend to think rather one-sidedly about it - how >fun and interesting it would be to "pick up" miscellaneous tidbits >about other people. But there's a lot that one really wouldn't want >to be picked up, and it couldn't possibly be very pleasant to tap into >other people's negative emotions etc. I've always thought that was a problem when people speculate blithely about telepathy. They seem to assume that it would be like speaking: you only hear something when some one chooses to say something. But the brain is working all the time, even when you are asleep. If we were all telepathic wouldn't it be more likely that, if other people were around, it would be like being at a party with dozens of conversations going on around you simultaneously. And the hubbub would be there all the time there were other people around; there would be no escape. Worse, we can distinguish one voice from another but could we distinguish other peoples thought from our own? If some one else felt hungry and you picked it up how could you know it wasn't you feeling hungry in the first place? In fact, take it to its logical extreme and you might find that in telepathic species there is no individual identity at all. The thoughts of an individual brain are entirely subsumed in a specific super-consciousness. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:18:33 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 57 Message-ID: <3A7D4899.55C00B8F@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp105.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.105) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 981301843 18958291 203.24.252.105 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp105.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62569 dorothy wrote: > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > Hi Ken, > > > > > > Craig Shillington wrote in message > > > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > > > up > > > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > > > is > > > > > *about* individuality. > > > > > > > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > > > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > > > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > > > > able to become. > > > > > > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > > > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. > > > > And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, > > just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing > > less/more? > > > > > It might > > > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > > > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. > > > > Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply > > *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the > > idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever > > be a possibility? I would think not. > > Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for > the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the > ocean? > > We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. Oh, but how the river rushed down and became the clouds that rained down on the mountain top and froze at the start of the glacier to start the cycle once again. :) Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:20:39 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 81 Message-ID: <3A7D4917.FF570717@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp105.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.105) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 981301848 18958291 203.24.252.105 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp105.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62566 eve oak wrote: > > dorothy wrote: > > >Janice wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Craig Shillington wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Ken, > >> >> > > >> >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message > >> >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving > >> >> > up > >> >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience > >> >> > is > >> >> > > > *about* individuality. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in > >> >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious > >> >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be > >> >> > > able to become. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to > >> >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. > >> >> > >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, > >> >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing > >> >> less/more? > >> >> > >> >> > It might > >> >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the > >> >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. > >> >> > >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply > >> >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the > >> >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever > >> >> be a possibility? I would think not. > >> > > >> >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for > >> >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the > >> >ocean? > >> > > >> >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. > >> > >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into > >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and > >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To > >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most > >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time > >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > > > >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or > >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything > >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) > > I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of > their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half > their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some > just don't have physical bodies anymore. Hi Eve, I didn't realize you were a fellow Aussie. *G'day mate*. ;) Where are you from? Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:07:18 GMT Message-ID: <3a7dd26f.2231999@news.dingoblue.net.au> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 74 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.152.129 X-Trace: 981324525 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 16379 198.142.152.129 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!msc1.onvoy!ply1.onvoy!onvoy.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62992 dorothy wrote: >eve oak wrote: >> >> dorothy wrote: >> >> >Janice wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:31:49 -0800, dorothy >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Craig Shillington wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Craig Shillington wrote in message >> >> >> > news:3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com... >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Yes, and as long as there are human beings roaming this planet, giving >> >> >> > up >> >> >> > > > that individuality may be next to impossible, since the human experience >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > > > *about* individuality. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > So ..... I wonder if being sceptical about such things .... would in >> >> >> > > effect slow down the process in the long run? Much like unconscious >> >> >> > > self hypnosis can debilitate us becoming the people we really would be >> >> >> > > able to become. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Now there's a thought. Indeed, the populace in general is designed to >> >> >> > accept individuality as the given state of the human condition. >> >> >> >> >> >> And how much of the populace actually even ever thinks about this, >> >> >> just assuming subconsciously that we ARE individual and nothing >> >> >> less/more? >> >> >> >> >> >> > It might >> >> >> > just be part of the whole plan to prevent us from ever getting back to the >> >> >> > "God Head" with the intention being to prevent it at all cost. >> >> >> >> >> >> Or, maybe it's just that the timing isn't right .... that we simply >> >> >> *aren't ready* yet. There needs to be an universal acceptance of the >> >> >> idea, before anything is even possible. In that case ... would it ever >> >> >> be a possibility? I would think not. >> >> > >> >> >Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for >> >> >the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the >> >> >ocean? >> >> > >> >> >We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. >> >> >> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >> > >> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) >> >> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of >> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half >> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some >> just don't have physical bodies anymore. > >I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to >imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to >be a kind of dreamtime also... Bingo! It's all one place... ###### From: midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:14:50 GMT Message-ID: <3a7dd2d7.2336594@news.dingoblue.net.au> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7D4917.FF570717@ozemu.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.152.129 X-Trace: 981324978 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 16379 198.142.152.129 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!panix!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62991 Craig Shillington wrote: > > >eve oak wrote: >> >> >> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of >> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half >> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some >> just don't have physical bodies anymore. > >Hi Eve, > >I didn't realize you were a fellow Aussie. *G'day mate*. ;) Where are >you from? > >Craig G'daaay maaate! I was born in Sydney and have lived in Melbourne, Cape York, Cairns, Parkes (central NSW) and various places in Northern NSW. Right now I'm in Lismore, which just flooded. My place is about 50 metres from where the water stopped rising! I've had a couple of friends staying whose places got flooded. Next week I'm moving to the country about 25 k's from here. Where are you? Seeya round like a rissole! (Hey, I don't actually say stuff like that -- just had to put an Aussie-ism in!) Eve ###### From: midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:19:11 GMT Message-ID: <3a7dd486.2767691@news.dingoblue.net.au> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> <3a7b39bc.10104327@news.lineone.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.152.129 X-Trace: 981325238 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 16379 198.142.152.129 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lmu.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.stealth.net!24.30.200.2.MISMATCH!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62989 Ian H Spedding wrote: >On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:09:55 -0800, dorothy >wrote: > >>eve oak wrote: >>> >>> dorothy wrote: >>> >>> >Janice wrote: >>> >> [snip] >>> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >>> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >>> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >>> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >>> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >>> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >>> > >>> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >>> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >>> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) >>> >>> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of >>> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half >>> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some >>> just don't have physical bodies anymore. >> >>I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to >>imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to >>be a kind of dreamtime also... > >I read that they consider the dreamworld to be more real than the real >world. > Yes, to our way of thinking but to them it's inseparable. They are the same thing. I guess we'd see it as superimposed or something. Of course, these days many of them are as blind to it as we are. ###### From: ian_spedding@lineone.net (Ian H Spedding) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:56:12 GMT Organization: Not really Message-ID: <3a7ddff7.580559@news.lineone.net> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> <3a7b39bc.10104327@news.lineone.net> <3a7dd486.2767691@news.dingoblue.net.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 50 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!195.224.25.10!sn-uk-xit-01!sn-uk-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.co.uk!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62953 On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:19:11 GMT, midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) wrote: >Ian H Spedding wrote: > >>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:09:55 -0800, dorothy >>wrote: >> >>>eve oak wrote: >>>> >>>> dorothy wrote: >>>> >>>> >Janice wrote: >>>> >> >[snip] >>>> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >>>> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >>>> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >>>> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >>>> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >>>> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >>>> > >>>> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >>>> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >>>> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) >>>> >>>> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of >>>> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half >>>> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some >>>> just don't have physical bodies anymore. >>> >>>I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to >>>imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to >>>be a kind of dreamtime also... >> >>I read that they consider the dreamworld to be more real than the real >>world. >> >Yes, to our way of thinking but to them it's inseparable. They are the >same thing. I guess we'd see it as superimposed or something. Of >course, these days many of them are as blind to it as we are. In a way, of course, they're right. Our experience of the outside world and the bizarre imagery of our dreams are both played out in the same arena - that of the mind. Ian Ian H Spedding ============== ###### Message-ID: <3A7E6D58.F9D7AAFD@televar.com> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 01:07:36 -0800 From: dorothy X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> <3a7b39bc.10104327@news.lineone.net> <3a7dd486.2767691@news.dingoblue.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2023.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2023.bossig.com X-Trace: 5 Feb 2001 02:52:49 -0600, sanduser2023.bossig.com Lines: 43 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2023.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62940 eve oak wrote: > > Ian H Spedding wrote: > > >On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:09:55 -0800, dorothy > >wrote: > > > >>eve oak wrote: > >>> > >>> dorothy wrote: > >>> > >>> >Janice wrote: > >>> >> > [snip] > >>> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into > >>> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and > >>> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To > >>> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most > >>> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time > >>> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > >>> > > >>> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or > >>> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything > >>> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) > >>> > >>> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of > >>> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half > >>> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some > >>> just don't have physical bodies anymore. > >> > >>I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to > >>imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to > >>be a kind of dreamtime also... > > > >I read that they consider the dreamworld to be more real than the real > >world. > > > Yes, to our way of thinking but to them it's inseparable. They are the > same thing. I guess we'd see it as superimposed or something. Of > course, these days many of them are as blind to it as we are. I've heard them described as 'interpenetrating', rather than superimposed. ###### From: Craig Shillington Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 06:46:04 +1100 Organization: Deja Vous Lines: 68 Message-ID: <3A7F02FB.CBBA9018@ozemu.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7D4917.FF570717@ozemu.com> <3a7dd2d7.2336594@news.dingoblue.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp101.horsham.ozemu.com (203.24.252.101) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 981402813 18702354 203.24.252.101 (16 [27978]) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ja Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp101.horsham.ozemu.COM!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62914 eve oak wrote: > > Craig Shillington wrote: > > > > > > >eve oak wrote: > >> > > >> > >> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of > >> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half > >> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some > >> just don't have physical bodies anymore. > > > >Hi Eve, > > > >I didn't realize you were a fellow Aussie. *G'day mate*. ;) Where are > >you from? > > > >Craig > > G'daaay maaate! > > I was born in Sydney and have lived in Melbourne, Cape York, Cairns, > Parkes (central NSW) and various places in Northern NSW. Geez Eve, what are you .... a Leyland Sister or something? ;) You've been everywhere man! LOL > Right now I'm > in Lismore, which just flooded. My place is about 50 metres from where > the water stopped rising! I've had a couple of friends staying whose > places got flooded. Boy, that was a close call for you! Not so lucky for your friends. :( Funny how you have floods up there, SA has bad fires, and down here we have this terrible stinkin' heat (plus, waiting for the fires) You wouldn't think we both lived in Australia. > Next week I'm moving to the country about 25 k's > from here. Where are you? I was raised in Ballarat, Vic. Lived there till I was 18 or so, then moved here to Horsham and have been here ever since. Hate the place. ;) Would much rather live in a place that has hills and green grass. ;) AND .... rains every now and then. LOL > > Seeya round like a rissole! Okay, I'm off like a bride's nightie too. ;) > (Hey, I don't actually say stuff like that > -- just had to put an Aussie-ism in!) Oh, I'm sure you say a lot of stuff that is unique to this country Eve. :) We all do, just don't realize it ( Like: Where ya off to? There and back to see how far it is. ;}) Craig -- The sure way to make a thing impossible- -is to think it so. --- Franklin -- ###### From: midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 01:13:31 GMT Message-ID: <3a7f4f4d.12177251@news.dingoblue.net.au> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7A4F33.F06207AD@televar.com> <3a7b39bc.10104327@news.lineone.net> <3a7dd486.2767691@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7E6D58.F9D7AAFD@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 47 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.152.131 X-Trace: 981422108 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 16403 198.142.152.131 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62995 dorothy wrote: >eve oak wrote: >> >> Ian H Spedding wrote: >> >> >On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:09:55 -0800, dorothy >> >wrote: >> > >> >>eve oak wrote: >> >>> >> >>> dorothy wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >Janice wrote: >> >>> >> >> [snip] >> >>> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >> >>> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >> >>> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >> >>> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >> >>> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >> >>> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >> >>> > >> >>> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >> >>> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >> >>> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) >> >>> >> >>> I've heard from local aboriginal elders that they believe only 20% of >> >>> their thoughts are their own. The rest are half ancestors and half >> >>> their close family. Everyone exists at once in the dreamtime, some >> >>> just don't have physical bodies anymore. >> >> >> >>I can understand those without bodies living in dreamtime; Harder to >> >>imagine it for those *with* bodies, unless we consider this reality to >> >>be a kind of dreamtime also... >> > >> >I read that they consider the dreamworld to be more real than the real >> >world. >> > >> Yes, to our way of thinking but to them it's inseparable. They are the >> same thing. I guess we'd see it as superimposed or something. Of >> course, these days many of them are as blind to it as we are. > >I've heard them described as 'interpenetrating', rather than >superimposed. That's a better word for it. ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3A7D4899.55C00B8F@ozemu.com> <3A7F468A.D7239A5@Home.com> Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Lines: 32 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:13:02 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.241.45 X-Trace: news1.atl 981469139 216.78.241.45 (Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:18:59 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:18:59 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news1.atl.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62922 "Tien Yen" wrote in message news:3A7F468A.D7239A5@Home.com... : Craig Shillington wrote: : > : > dorothy wrote: : > > : > > Oh, I don't know why not. Does the water in the river have to wait for : > > the water in the glacier to join it before every drop can reunite in the : > > ocean? : > > : > > We all come to it at our own rate, IMO. : > : > Oh, but how the river rushed down and became the clouds that rained : > down on the mountain top and froze at the start of the glacier to : > start the cycle once again. :) : : : Deep, brother, deep. : : TY : (tongue *partially* in cheek :) Ha! Did he just describe the hydrological system? :Þ ###### Message-ID: <3A80312B.5342781D@televar.com> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:15:23 -0800 From: dorothy X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a7bd722.17968774@news.starlinx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2115.bossig.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: sanduser2115.bossig.com X-Trace: 6 Feb 2001 11:00:22 -0600, sanduser2115.bossig.com Lines: 36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsnerds.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!uunet!osa.uu.net!dfw.uu.net!news-out.newsnerds.com!sanduser2115.bossig.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:62929 Janice wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:16:09 -0800, dorothy > wrote: > > >Janice wrote: [snip] > >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into > >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and > >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To > >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most > >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time > >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. > > > >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or > >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything > >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) > > You're probably a positive thinker, focusing on the cosmic harmony > angle. But what if your mystical experience should tap into the > depths of fear, or something equally horrible? Well, first off I wouldn't call it a 'mystical' experience - more like a nightmare! While I've never had a horrifying OBE, if I did I would have to ask myself what it was in my own thinking or attitude that might cause such an occurance. I'm guessing that, in general, if you think the "Universal Consciousness" is just some noisy cacophony then that's probably exactly what you're going to hear when you try to tune in. The drummer drums differently for each of us, eh? ###### From: midnight@the.oasis (eve oak) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:39:57 GMT Message-ID: <3a806ce8.3227667@news.dingoblue.net.au> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a79db79.4994182@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7D4917.FF570717@ozemu.com> <3a7dd2d7.2336594@news.dingoblue.net.au> <3A7F02FB.CBBA9018@ozemu.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 66 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.142.152.46 X-Trace: 981495686 news01.syd.optusnet.com.au 16403 198.142.152.46 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news.tele.dk!204.94.211.44!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news1.mpx.com.au.MISMATCH!news01.syd.optusnet.com.au!nnrp01.syd.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63064 Craig Shillington wrote: > >eve oak wrote: >> >> Craig Shillington wrote: >> [snip] >> > >> >Hi Eve, >> > >> >I didn't realize you were a fellow Aussie. *G'day mate*. ;) Where are >> >you from? >> > >> >Craig >> >> G'daaay maaate! >> >> I was born in Sydney and have lived in Melbourne, Cape York, Cairns, >> Parkes (central NSW) and various places in Northern NSW. > >Geez Eve, what are you .... a Leyland Sister or something? ;) You've >been everywhere man! LOL > Hahaha, well I did love that show as a kid. I've only covered the eastern half so far... >> Right now I'm >> in Lismore, which just flooded. My place is about 50 metres from where >> the water stopped rising! I've had a couple of friends staying whose >> places got flooded. > >Boy, that was a close call for you! Not so lucky for your friends. :( >Funny how you have floods up there, SA has bad fires, and down here we >have this terrible stinkin' heat (plus, waiting for the fires) You >wouldn't think we both lived in Australia. > I was wishing we could send our excess water to SA. This flood wasn't as bad as the 87 & 89 ones but they say we're in for more... >> Next week I'm moving to the country about 25 k's >> from here. Where are you? > >I was raised in Ballarat, Vic. Lived there till I was 18 or so, then >moved here to Horsham and have been here ever since. Hate the place. >;) Would much rather live in a place that has hills and green grass. >;) AND .... rains every now and then. LOL I've been to Ballarat but I can't recall where Horsham is and I've packed my atlas. I guess it's western Vic by your yearning for greenery. We have an almost perfect climate here, that's why I decided to stay, although my block of land is a little further west than here and so a little dryer. >> >> Seeya round like a rissole! > >Okay, I'm off like a bride's nightie too. ;) > >> (Hey, I don't actually say stuff like that >> -- just had to put an Aussie-ism in!) > >Oh, I'm sure you say a lot of stuff that is unique to this country >Eve. :) We all do, just don't realize it ( Like: Where ya off to? >There and back to see how far it is. ;}) > Yeah, true... Oh well, I'm off like a bucket of prawns in the midday sun... (gotta go see a man about a dog...) ###### From: not-me@not-here.net (Janice) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Universal Consciousness: Was: Re: Let there be light :) Message-ID: <3a82a23f.1407475@news.starlinx.com> References: <94dbt0$14n$1@neptunium.btinternet.com> <_L_a6.14497$C2.4390768@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net> <1hqb6.1472$5s2.51872@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A708E74.AD27FECC@ozemu.com> <6U1c6.4912$uN3.236366@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net> <3A71F06E.D3228793@ozemu.com> <_x_c6.1578$5s2.55914@wormhole.dimensional.com> <3A75C80E.B9610062@ozemu.com> <3A7883D7.146A920F@ozemu.com> <3A78E6B5.1AB05B77@televar.com> <3a78fc77.5634364@news.starlinx.com> <3A790D39.173AC401@televar.com> <3a7bd722.17968774@news.starlinx.com> <3A80312B.5342781D@televar.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 07:40:19 CST Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing X-Trace: sv2-BtzGRFxuy7DdOcHIC+1jIPW/5VpTNO65J+obGI/ZsVoBBlb2ICQXAPDLgw3NJXpSopA+3xJR+eLgcDI!0zC8QkNWiZqUFcwk72jKucnr58I= X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:40:19 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!207.207.0.27!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!news4.aus1.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:63178 On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:15:23 -0800, dorothy wrote: >Janice wrote: >> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:16:09 -0800, dorothy >> wrote: >> >> >Janice wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> I've talked with two people on Usenet who claim to be able to tap into >> >> this Universal Consciousness thing. One's good-humored about it and >> >> pretty well balanced, I think, but the other is a regular raver. To >> >> be honest it sounds to me like the sort of thing that would drive most >> >> people nuts if there were anything to it. I have a hard enough time >> >> keeping my own mind stable without partaking of everyone else's. >> > >> >I'd imagine it more along the lines of listening to a symphony or >> >something like that. What was that line in the Zappa tune? - "Everything >> >in the Universe is a big note" (From "Lumpy Gravy", I think) >> >> You're probably a positive thinker, focusing on the cosmic harmony >> angle. But what if your mystical experience should tap into the >> depths of fear, or something equally horrible? > > >Well, first off I wouldn't call it a 'mystical' experience - more like a >nightmare! > >While I've never had a horrifying OBE, if I did I would have to ask >myself what it was in my own thinking or attitude that might cause such >an occurance. > >I'm guessing that, in general, if you think the "Universal >Consciousness" is just some noisy cacophony then that's probably exactly >what you're going to hear when you try to tune in. The drummer drums >differently for each of us, eh? Or we hear him differently. ------- The downside of being better than everyone else is that people tend to assume you're pretentious. --Despair, Inc. ------- http://sites.netscape.net/jayavogelsong