Andrew wrote:This leads me to believe that one can reap the cosmic benefits of honor so long as they actually believe they are honorable and the notion is reinforced by others even if through fear and coercion. Is the "light side" really stronger then, because of its genuineness?
"Belief" is personal and transitory; no "cosmic benefits" can be obtained from it. What I am speaking of is what the Ra Material defines as a 5th density consciousness, the Density of Honor.
This sounds like Yaldabaoth that ensnares the Earth, but maybe that's just what we call the phenomenon, because of their presence here. This octopus with tentacles that connects all those non-individualized consciousnesses is just how a hive mind looks like in 3D time.
From the last Olympic finale:
The Octopus reaching out its tentacles, as the NWO laughs at the muggles cheering for them.
Would it look somewhat similar cosmically in other species, like ants?
Yes. In psychology, it is referred to as an "archetype."
Could you elaborate? ... Or is there something more devious physically in them than just the metaphysics of unconscious hypnotism?
I was referring to something beyond social programming. We are carbon-based life. If you look at Larson's Periodic Table (page 132 of
Nothing But Motion), carbon is the center of the lower group, on the left side. On the right side of the lower group, we have silicon as the center. What this says is that there are two building blocks of life--carbon, and silicon. Organic life is based on carbon. Our technology, however, is based on
silicon, the substrate of the millions of billions of transistors and microchips now covering the surface of Earth. All AI (Artificial Intelligence) are based on silicon technology simulating carbon-based neurons. Technology has manifested a "new order" of life, which is bigger, smarter and faster than us carbon-based life, and is slowly assimilating us, very much like the plot of the film,
The Matrix.
I know people in the semiconductor industry and many of them are "freaked out" by some of the research labs that produce silicon wafers for experimental semiconductor research. They say that looking into the shiny, pure silicon substrate disk feels like a portal pulling you directly to the center of Hell.
Skynet is becoming a reality.
One friend sent me some of those silicon wafers to examine. One surface is very shiny, like a perfect mirror. When I look into it, all the hair on the back of my neck stands up, because I can feel that there is something behind my reflection, looking back at me. If you get the opportunity, try it. It is one of the most unsettling experiences I've ever had.
Or are you saying that the amount of time people spend absorbed in their phones is a thing in itself in 3D time that can be used for power?
The soul exists in 3D time. If you control the person, you control the soul, indirectly. How many people will stop whatever they are doing and grab their phone, the moment it beeps at them? It is
conditioning... people have completely forgotten
Pavlov's dog.
Is knowledge of how the system works the only requisite of ethics, since they are definite in their actions and not fighting themselves, per se? I understand true ethics takes other life into account and requires care for them.
Knowing how the system works is only a part of the equation, as you are still removed from it. The other part is an
integration into that system, which is what the ancient rituals were designed to do. You can understand how a light bulb works, but it won't do anything until it gets plugged in.
Where you plug in will determine how you can effect change to the system. As long as you are in harmony with the flow of the system where you are plugged into it, it is "ethical" in a natural sense.
I understand that life eats other life, but it is not that simple when it comes to becoming Homo Ethicus. I come across this bogus argument all the time that just because a plant is living, that justifies the mass slaughter of animals.
I've not heard that justification before. Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Plants are alive, but display no sense of consciousness. Animals do, however.
I'd have to disagree with you on that. I've had some great conversations with old trees, and have been around cows that are dumber than turnips.
So they are not equal. Killing an animal is more unethical than eating something you pulled from the ground.
So, is there a difference between hunting an animal for sport, and cutting down all the trees in your front yard because it blocks your view of the lake?
I've spent a LOT of time around animals in my life. The "food animals" KNOW they are food animals, which is why Nature makes them prolific. I have no problem with eating a steak, because I understand that man and cow have an inter-species agreement. That agreement is that mankind will guarantee the survival of the cow species, if they provide nourishment to keep us alive. If you've ever been to cowboy country, you know that if cows were left to the wild, they would be extinct in a week. They have no natural defenses. Heck, most of the time they cannot even have calves without assistance. If cattle were not a food source for man, they would be right up there in museums with the dinosaurs. It is not an issue of ethics, but of inter-species cooperation.
Now I do have a BIG problem with hunting for sport, as that is a violation of our inter-species agreements.
(Paraphrasing here: put an apple and a baby dog in a cradle with a baby. Find me a baby that eats the dog and plays with the apple, and I'll buy you a steak dinner with cheese on top. Meaning that it is not in our nature to consume animals, it is something we are programmed with since birth to accept by our parents and culture. It is in our DNA to recognize, however, fruits and vegetables as a source of food.)
And after the baby has eaten the apple and gets hungry again? The baby will be eaten by the dog, since humans, like cows, have few natural defenses and have to resort to tools to make up for the deficiency (e.g. knives instead of teeth and claws).
Look at "ethics" as a system of harmony, sympathy and discord, not "right and wrong conduct" as it is currently defined. It would be unethical to ignore our agreement with cattle, because the consequence would be that two species would suffer greatly, inhibiting the evolution of consciousness. Most people cannot understand this concept; I think you are intelligent enough that you will.
