Quote:


  Just a quick point:  Bruce, i don't think they are a real threat to you.  I think you're spiritually mature and balanced enough to not be influenced by them. Going from the guidance that i've gotten about you, you come from a pretty mature Disk, which is and you as a probe are a retrieval/helper type. You practice attuning to PUL.  All this helps to keep one stronger and less susceptible to unwanted influence.

  But can we say the same about many other humans? What would would happen if say some international banking big wigs, our President, some of our congressmen, some of the CEO's of huge, wealthy corporations were influenced by them, leaders of other countries, etc were focused on?

  What about the average New Age channeler or "spiritual teacher" wannabe?   

What if the "harm" comes more often in subtle and unconscious influencing of perception rather than overt and obvious harm? 

  Such influence could conceivably have a trend towards limiting some humans and humanity in a general sense, couldn't it? 

Quote:


In my view what I call the Interpreter is an inescapable function operating in unison with the Perceiver function that brings information into our conscious awareness.  We are, again in my use of the term "Interpreter function", never consciously aware of anything that is not processed by the Interpreter.  It's not a choice, it is a hardwired component of the process of becoming consciously aware of any and all information.

What I am suggesting is that information is received, but, always through the "preconceived beliefs, fears, or what not, distorted."

I use "Perceiver" to describe the other hardwired component of conscious aware.  In my view the Perceiver's function is to bring information into our awareness at a subconscious level.  We are constantly bombarded with (metaphorically) gigabytes of information that we are not normally going to be consciously aware of.  Things like body hormone levels and internal regulation of the proper levels, ambient light levels controlling iris dilation levels, and all manner of that kind of body function information.  We are constantly receiving information about our physical surroundings.  We are constantly receiving information about our nonphysical surroundings, etc., etc.  Much of this information remains at a subconscious level.

When we chose to focus our attention on something, our consciousness must have a way to sort through all the information coming into the Perceiver.  That's where the Interpreter comes into use.  When we chose to focus our attention of something the Interpreter uses something akin to "pattern matching" to bring information relevant to our choice into our conscious awareness.  The pattern matching "algorithm" appears to work on a principle of the "nearest similar thing within preexisting memory."  The Interpreter appears to operate within every and any "reality" we are in.  This includes physical reality, dream realities, OOBE realities, Higher Realms, etc., etc.

Whatever "nearest similar thing within preexisting memory" the Interpreter selects to bring information to conscious awareness, that nearest similar thing is the Interpreter Overlay.  The thing chosen will be within the context of our beliefs, expectations, and preconceived ideas attached to that nearest similar thing.  It is only that nearest similar thing that we will be consciously aware of.

Sometimes the Interpreter Overlay will be "thin" so to speak.  Meaning that what we "see" will be very close to what is actually being observed.  Sometimes it will be "thick" meaning that whatever is really there is barely recognizable in the nearest similar thing we are aware of.

Symbols and other visual metaphors are excellent examples of an Interpreter Overlay.  They are not the thing that is really there, they only represent the thing that is there.  And, these symbols carry the effects of any beliefs, ideas, fears, etc. associated with them right along with them into our awareness.

The point of all of this is that we most probably never directly see what is there, we only see our Interpreter's Overlay.  We are then left to try to understand and know whatever we are consciously aware of through the distorted, colored and and "not quite in focus" perspective we have of it.

All that said, our perception of aliens, people, rocks, trees, chairs, planets, stars and ... will always be at least one Interpreter Overlay away from what it really is.  And that's assuming we only use our own direct experience.  As soon as we start considering someone elses' version of whatever we are interested in, we now have to deal with our Interpreter Overlay of that persons' Interpreter Overlay.  It's very easy to get lost doing that.  That's why I recommend only ones own direct experience as a basis for changing our beliefs about anything.  That's why I tell people not to believe anything I say, but rather, have their own direct experience.  I appears that your own direct experience of interaction with aliens (assuming you've had such experience) has led you to believe unfriendly aliens exist whose intention is to keep humans spiritually stuck.  As I have never had such experience, I have no basis on which to take on that belief.  Doesn't mean they don't exist, doesn't mean they do exist.  For me it is an Unknown.

Bruce 

  I understand all that Bruce, but i see the issue as relative to the degree that the conscious, personality self is involved in the info.  Again, Cayce is a good example of what happens when you dial that part of self way down. Yes, it still had to be translated into human concepts and ideas, next similar thing, and all that.

  Or for another example, "Ah So" directly speaking through Rosie's body, while she was away doing other things.

   As perception follows beingness, the more expanded, spiritually mature and PUL attuned the Being, the more clear, expanded, accurate, helpful the information from same will tend to be.

  Have you ever directly asked expanded guidance, meaning the most spiritually mature, aware, constructive, etc sources if negative E.T.'s interact with humanity or about the influence of same if they do?  Albert, Becky, and i have, and we've been told in various ways that they do and their influence has a limiting effect.

  When i seek guidance, i'm not content with regular ole helpers, as sometimes your average helper/guide type doesn't always have awareness of certain info, or holistically accurate perception. Perception follows beingness.

  If we go straight to the Source and those consciously fully at One with same and with PUL, these have a much wider and more accurate perceptual field. 

  Yes, we still have to translate and interpret the information.  This is probably why in Becky's first guidance message about this issue (that dream that i mentioned earlier), she had a hard time perceiving and labeling the nature of these beings, and the closest thing she could come up with was "upright, intelligent, Dinosaur looking" like beings.  However, what was obvious, was their negative intent.

  Feelings Bruce, are more a primary and direct way of perceiving, because we have always had the feeling sense of perception, way before we ever started to incarnate in places like Earth. Hence, while even feelings can be skewed to some extent at times, there is less probability of, as a trend, skewing that info than say perceiving something like what an E.T. looks like or certain more specific aspects, because as you say, we have to connect it to the most similar thing in our data bank. 

  If you really want to know the truth of the matter, i would suggest asking to directly connect only to those most expanded etc that i talked about and communicating with that level about same.

   Thank you for the dialogue.  I've pretty much said all i could say on this subject, and have been beating a dead horse to some extent, so i don't plan on talking about it anymore anytime soon.   

recoverer wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 3:19pm:

Recoverer,

   In my view everything that exists within Consciousness is accessible and available to our conscious awareness.  You focused your attention on validating your retrieval experience.  Since ALL that exists within Consciousness is accessible your Perceiver is capable of gathering validating information from wherever it exists into your subconscious awareness.  Since within your preexisting memory you have stored images of books, pages and numbers your Interpreter had a pretty easy task of presenting the information to your conscious awareness in those forms.  You "saw" the book, the pages, and page number.  In my lingo the information wasn't in your imagination so much as you used imagination as a means of perceiving the information stored within Consciousness.

Then, when you checked that page number, in that book, you received the verification of your retrieval experience you requested.

I agree that the issue of Interpreter Overlay, or rather, our understanding of the of it, can mislead us.  I believe Interpreter Overlay is the direct cause of most of what is labeled inaccuracy in nonphysical perception.  But, in the experience you describe it is clearly accurately validated.  On previously unread pages of an unread book you received your validation by the chapter title and probably from the chapter itself.

There are ways around the "pickle" you describe.  For example in the final exercise of the first level workshop I teach, participants have the opportunity to validate their nonphysical contact and communication with a person known to be deceased. 

Every participant writes on a small slip of paper the name of a person they personally know who is deceased.  All these papers are folded and put into a basket.  Then each participant takes one of the slips of paper.  Each participant now has the name of an unknown deceased person provided by one of the other participants whose identity is also unknown to them.  Then during a guided meditation exercise participants visit with the deceased person and gather specific information from the deceased.

In the debriefing session after the exercise the visiting participant learns from the person who knew the deceased what is accurate and what is not.  Even with the issue of Interpreter Overlay distortion, typically 75% to 95% of participants have their visiting the deceased experience validated.

Bruce

Quote:



Since this thread starts by quoting me I thought I'd butt back in; looks like a variety of topics were mixed together.

The quote is taken out of the context of the thread.  Yes, the ETs did say we are as ants to them.  I also explained in that thread I believe, that later those beings did apologize for not being high functioning in "our" language/thought process.  Therefore their comment didn't come off right to my point of view.  And I explained "we" may be insulted by such a comment, but it is still a fair description of us.  That whole "reaction" is do to man's ego reacting to bluntly stated truths. 

Those same beings explained their role in creation of this region and in that sense since they "encoded parts of us - intellect" did not consider themselves as ETs because they are actually part of our roots.

Moving on, I also acknowledged that there are dark forces, forces that are oppositional and that I have encountered them too.  I simply don't dwell on them or that.

My sarcastic comment made while bashing Tom Campbell's Big TOE was made to suggest that if one actually buys into his ideas then when questioning the origin of the great computer in the sky, one has to consider that the whole virtual reality of Campbell may be a deception, or manipulation. And we all "know" from the Internet that the Reptilians are the greatest suspects as deception originators.  After all, we've all seen YouTubes of Reptilian shape shifters AND Reptilians do look scary, so they must be bad.

Again my sarcasm pertaining to what one may learn from the Internet public bathroom.  Are the Reptilians real?  WHO KNOWS?  Are they bad because they look different from us?  Is our reality "actually" a virtual reality and the real reality is a big computers?  Of Course Not.  That's like saying your life in some TV channel's sitcom isn't real, the real channels are in some broadcasting control station, but no one has actually seen the control station and none of the laws of physics promoting that transmitter science of the electrical engineering behind the station and your TV have been specifically explained, demonstrated, or proven - another analogy.

What can one say about other evolved forms of being and consciousness?  That they are there?  Why not.  Otherwise it simply the whole universe and man.  Does that really seem sensible? No.

What and who are the ETs?  Well I think there are other organic life forms in this plane, or level, or frequency, or dimension, or whatever hijacked technical word is used to describe something we can really describe, BUT I believe that there are also other beings that are simply forms of consciousness with various species residing at different levels.  Are they ETs?  If they don't have physical bodies are they counted as ETs?

What difference does it make.  The lurking question is are they "bad", dangerous, or manipulating us.  If one removes all religions overtones, one would simply have to acknowledge at least that our own experience shows us that there are oppositional forces that have their own agendas in nature; creatures occupying different ecologic niches.   

Kinda like people that presume the whole planet is for their personal exploitation, like people free to disregard the well being of every other species on the planet while promoting man's or some individual's own self interest, free to enslave those other species on the planet to experiment on in tormenting ways, or simply enslave them for consumption.  Now I'm confused who's the dark menacing force on Earth? 

If one doesn't like the notion of encountering an animal spirt such as a dragon, one should throw out all the mythology of various cultures, throw out Rudolph Steiner, throw out everything that so call modern sensibility snickers at.   

Throw out all the alchemy of early spiritists, that became the alchemy of Isaac Newton that lead to F=MA, throw out all the religions of the world including paganism including Hinduism. And then throw out this whole forum because modern sensibility snickers at this too.

Do I believe oppositional forces are involved in our minds and lives?  Yes.  Do I believe their are aliens on Earth?  Sure, why not.  Can we talk about that?  Well, if ya throw out all the traditions in our cultures that addressed this topic because you think these have wrongfully conditioned us, what are you going to replace that with?  The say-nothings of somebody's rambling changelings on the Internet says?  Well I guess we would still have all the above top secret documents of the government on which to build our new understandings of life.  Wait, we'll keep Bob Monroe's book as the corner stone of truth.  We could keep Bruce's books too. 
 
So if this thread is "about" Aliens, what exactly is the question? 

- Bill

It's hard to say what unfriendly means.  Are the animals in the forest unfriendly?  Maybe they just don't need people's company.  Maybe they've learned to steer clear of people.

Maybe there are lots of species out there that just aren't interested in humans.  Who could blame them...

BillB wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 10:06am:

Bill,

Have you ever considered doing metaphysical standup in ashrams and Buddhist temples?  In your way with words and turn of a phrase I feel the spirit of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Robin Williams.  Seriously.  If you stood on a stage, solo, and did your post as a monolog people would get such incredible knowledge and insight, packed in a humorous, entertaining way!  I guess you can probably tell I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

Your description of your contacts and thoughts on the matter resonate so well with my own  experiences with intelligences from other areas of consciousness (aska (Also Sometimes Known as Aliens)).  Realities being what they are, their inhabitants appear to be just adaptations to niches within consciousness.  One's just about as good as any of the rest, as long as I understand I perceive them from within my perspective as a human (still learning what that is).  Sometimes some, dare I say species(?), tend toward believing their reality is the real one, and the realities of other species are often viewed as less than real and sometimes threatening.

I remember meeting a nonphysical guy years ago and I said something to him that must have implied that my reality was physical (real) and his was nonphysical (not real).  He got a funny look on his face and he said, "Bruce, you've got it all wrong!"  'Where I come from, my reality is solid and real.  When I hit a wall in my reality it's solid.  But Bruce, here in your reality I can walk right through your walls.  Bruce, the reality you live in is the nonphysical one!'

My first thought was to argue with him.  Fortunately, I let a few seconds pass before I spoke, and I thought about what he'd said. After a few more seconds, I smiled at him, nodding my head, and kept my yap shut.  I gotta admit, he had a point.

Thanks again Bill for a thoroughly entertaining post filled with wisdoms' pearls.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,  Interesting thoughts about telepathy and a need for lack of emotion.  Is it also possible that the emotions are more readily regulated then as in our case?

Also, I could never do stand-up comedy because I start to laugh at my own jokes before I get to the punch line.  What can I say, it's a birth defect.

About Reptilians:  I should clarify I use the Reptilians as a joke.  I have no idea whether there is any truth to them.  Rather, I see them seem largely as an Internet creation.  Wait, does that make them real?  Now I'm really worried.

About Emotionless Beings:  Again I think the problem with this issue is largely a matter of human's expectation that all beings have the same emotional composition as us and that they project warm fuzzy peaceful emissions of cuddly love.  As an aside, if an ant were to talk to you how much emotion would that invoke in you - as opposed to a lion talking to you?  My thought here is just because a being appears to not have emotions doesn't mean it doesn't.  Perhaps an emotional response is not illicit in them by the encounter with us.  Like the ticket taker at an airline boarding gate saying, Have a nice day.  How much emotion is in that?

To clarify the jab at cuddly love:  I recently wrote a blogger that writes about her personal thoughts.  In her blog she commented on this special "place", that is warm peaceful loving...full of friendship, etc.  So i wrote her "what" or "Where" is that place and whether she knew the purpose of that place.  Nothing in return.  My point here is many people key in on those themes - feelings - and are satisfied with job done.  We've confirmed our need for emotional affirmation that we are safely tucked in bed; everything is completely wonderful.  My beef with such things is that they don't go beyond the cuddly "feeling" and I never learned to like poetry.

I'm gonna go have more coffee...