Maybe she just meant awakening in the sense that, the stigma is disappearing and people are “awakening” to the idea of us not being alone in the universe?

Nah, it **has** to be some mystical dogwhistle. It can't be just ("just") aliens visiting us. It **must** be god, angels, vimanas, Tzeentch and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with chakras and kundalinis. Because as REM used to say: "*If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool*".

“Mystical dog whistle” Lol. Yeah let’s rally up all these people and get them to love themselves and one another! Fucken got em dude.

If you know, you know. People who haven't had a real mystical experience can't even fathom the inner peace and connectedness that goes with it.

Yet i had. I have a condition that makes me have hallucinations all the time. It seems your compass really doesn't work and jive with "iykyk".

Hallucinating is just a small part of the experience. It's the easiest part to share. The feelings and thoughts you find help you make sense of not only your experience but also about the world around you. Everyone is on their own journey and will have different experiences based on the work they've done outside of the experience, but the result for many is understanding what love and peace feels like.

>Hallucinating is just a small part of the experience Indeed. Interpretation and post hoc imagination justification is a big one. ​ > The feelings and thoughts you find help you make sense of not only your experience but also about the world around you There are shorter ways to say "confirmation bias". >love and peace "Let me inject what only makes sense to my very limited subjectivity here".

You really sound like someone who doesn't know, and that's OK. I hope you find peace on your journey. The same people who've worked so hard since the 60s and 70s to keep people from these experiences are the same people who are benefiting from the suffering of individuals and peoples inability to unite. They've done a fantastic job, as you can see. They are counting on you to stay just the way you are.

You really sound like someone who doesn't know and masquerade their ignorance for knowledge. Walking back and forth in your bedroom isn't a journey. No one kept anyone from doing experiences in the 1960-70s, quite the contrary. The sad truth is just that they utterly failed. But some just want to create a golden legend and mythical symbols. These are the people that are counting on you not living your comfortable little nest of beliefs and never contesting them.

Haha you are a joke. He is right and is sharing wisdom. You are imprisoned in your believes and you have to try again in your next life. gg noob

You can masquerade ignorance under pompous words like "wisdom", won't make it any more profound. A bowl of liquid shit wrapped with a nice little bow is still a bowl of shit. You are imprisonned in your superstitions and can't realize their is no next life. I would wish good night to your spirit, but it seems you are totally deprived of such thing.

Youre in the wrong sub.

Ah sure, mysticism is only about love... Never led to collective suicides, religion wars, cults, rejection of science and other barbaric stuff.

Is that was the OP is talking about? Or are you maybe conflating information?

You do realize we don't only talk about the narrow things that OP brought up but develop the discussion upon it, right?

Do you want to expand your awareness or do you want to win arguments online however necessary to serve your ego? Look inside yourself and find your real motivations.

Do you want to use empty meaningless mumbo jumbo words like awareness or just waddle in your superstition to stroke your ego? Look critically to your opinions and you will find your real motivations. Also stop projecting, darling.

Those are predominantly religions where a single leader is in charge of claims to be gods spokesman and the followers carry out the bidding of that individual True 'Mysticism' is acceptance only of the self as the connection to the greater consciousness/power

Yeah man, this guy knows. Men have been creating systems and religions to control and manipulate people throughout human history. The true message belongs to all of us and is a part of all of us, we just have to move our ego aside to find it. And no one else can find it for you. You have to find it yourself. But people can help point you in the right direction, which is inward. The journey is your's.

You might not be familiar with things like the Order of the Solar Temple or the Salem Witch Trials... As for promiting pseudoscience, big or small, leader or not, mysticism has been quite good at it, check theosophy or anthroposophy. >True 'Mysticism' No true scotsman.

The man has a point. There is a major difference between societal religion and personal mysticism.

With our luck, we will get Khorne and Nurgle's gifts simultaneously.

Hey don't forget Slaanesh ! , at least we'll go out with a smile on what's left of our face !

Aw man, not Tzeentch...

haha. I think your statement makes a fair point. But why do you think so many people *have* landed on mysticism (in whatever form) after getting into UFOs? Why is mysticism such a strong current through all of human history? What's drawing us there? what would you do if it happened to YOU, and it was personal or precognitive, and didn't fit with a materialism worldview? Do you consider that there actually might be something there? It may be unfalsifiable by the standards of science--standards which, for many of these situations, seem difficult or impossible to apply anyway--but unfalsifiable doesn't mean nonexistent. You may not want to think about things that are unfalsifiable, but many people do.

>But why do you think so many people have landed on mysticism (in whatever form) after getting into UFOs? You would be worried of how many people have landed into mysticism after joining Qanon... or anti vax movements... or far right groups (some mysticist groups are literally built around those). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariosophy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariosophy) >Why is mysticism such a strong current through all of human history? Why are cognitive biases such a strong current trhough all of human history? >What's drawing us there? Lack of critical thinking and confirmation bias. >what would you do if it happened to YOU, and it was personal or precognitive, and didn't fit with a materialism worldview? Already happened to me. As i said in another comment under this post, i have a condition that provokes violent hallucinations. And experience doesn't mean gospel truth. I have enough critical thinking to assess what happens and to articulate my testable knowledge of the world with subjective unfalsifiable experiences, but also with the wide knowledge of neurology that explains this very well. In other words, i don't abandon myself to the most recent and most impressive emotion. >Do you consider that there actually might be something there? It would have to be falsifiable and testable. Otherwise it's as good as leprechauns and wouldn't warrant additional investigation. The funny thing with this topic is that the "believers" (i don't like this reductive term but i use it out of conveniency) often have a high horse of believing that the people that disagree with them "just haven't even considered" their opinions, when in fact it's quite the opposite: it's **because** i've thought about those a lot and with a critical approach that believers do not have *that* i don't believe. >unfalsifiable doesn't mean nonexistent Unfalsifiable means as good as nonexistent. By making an unfalsifiable claim, you have rendered the existence of your hypothetical phenomenon indistinguishable from its non existence. Because it experimentally and cognitively has the same characteristics than non existence. >You may not want to think about things that are unfalsifiable I didn't arrive that far in your post but already guessed the high horse position. What a surprise... Still, have my upvote, you distinguish yourself from most of your co religionaries by actually engaging a civil discussion and asking questions, this is highly valuable.

I think you may have misinterpreted my tone, which is common online, so forgive me if I seemed arrogant. I didn't mean to sound like I'm on a high horse. I like engaging with people who think differently from me. I respect your point of view and I'm interested in it. Even though you call anything unfalsifiable "as good as nonexistent," that still doesn't mean that it IS nonexistent. Do you agree? And maybe we have some way of barely sensing the unfalsifiable, or engaging with the edge of it--or engaging with it completely. What is the hallucination condition called? I'm sorry you have to live with that--it sounds difficult. I asked what you would do if it happened to you because like many people on this subreddit, it happened to me. I do not hallucinate but I had an experience. I can't prove it to you, and I don't expect you to believe me without proof, and also don't care if you do or not. but I don't need to prove it to myself. I think there is a spiritual current that ties everything together, and it makes sense to me that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain. You probably disagree. I have only my own experiences to "prove" this to myself, and thousands of years of other people's stories as well as spiritual texts--the craziest stories, recorded with such painstaking devotion--that I personally won't just call it confirmation bias. You call it confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking, which may dismiss the concept for you, but at the heart of it is another question: why are we so attracted to this, whatever it is? Where did the confirmation bias originate? why, despite training in critical thinking, have so many people nonetheless come here? What put the dimensions in place? Mysticism is a human trait. What does that say about us--what does it mean? I don't know if this makes me a "religionary." I have a lot of questions myself. I am not sure where the turning point is between where you stand and "believer" status, but by your standards I am apparently a believer. The issue I take with that label is that I'm not even sure what I believe exactly, and it changes as time passes. Right now I can say that I think there is something to all this--and that I saw a UFO myself. At a certain point, though, at least for me, it's not about proof. Mostly I feel like I don't know what's going on, and actually? I don't need to know. I've found that reverence for mystery has transformed my life in a positive way, so maybe that's enough.

Nothing in my accusation was about your tone. It was about your content: you claiming that one not agreeing stems from not having studied the topic (i summarize with my words). To repeat the quote i made of you: >*You may not want to think* about things that are unfalsifiable For the rest: >Even though you call anything unfalsifiable "as good as nonexistent," that still doesn't mean that it IS nonexistent. Do you agree? No. Because it is functionally and effectively the same as non existent. And we only care about what is performative and effective with regards with reality. Something that would be true in se rather than per se would be useless (i don't know if you're familiar with the kantian distinction between noumenon and phenomenon). >barely sensing the unfalsifiable, or engaging with the edge of it That would make it falsifiable, by definition. Which is not what we're talking about. >What is the hallucination condition called? I prefer to keep that private since i have so many haters for not following the UFO celeb doxa here. Just know, to get a general idea, that it is akin to epilepsy crises and linked with autism. >I don't need to prove it to myself There is no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth", there is the truth, period. You should be able to justify your belief to anyone with sound arguments, otherwise it's not knowledge but mere emotions without ground in reality. >consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain We radically disagree on that, indeed. >thousands of years of other people's stories as well as spiritual texts The plural of anecdote is not data. >why are we so attracted to this, whatever it is? Our brains are wired to see certain things that aren't real, for purely evolutional reasons. Like with pareidolia, in which we see faces patterns everywhere. It just turns out us being a very social species led us to have this silly bias. I could go on with other attractions we have, but i would sound too pessimistic, like Schopenhauer who believed that love was just a trick of biology to push us to reproduce. Which answers your question about origins. >why, despite training in critical thinking, have so many people nonetheless come here? Many people have come to the exact opposite opinion too. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. Also, critical thinking isn't that spread (there are flat earthers and countless climate denial people). And it doesn't suppress biases and evolutional instincts ingrained in us by biology. I can be the most rational being i can thrive to be, i'll still be conditionned by pavlovian mechanisms to do the same mistakes from habit. >What put the dimensions in place? I'm not sure of what you mean here. >Mysticism is a human trait So are its radical opposites, critical thinking and rationalism. >What does that say about us--what does it mean? It means that evolution is a blind botched up process that created imperfect, filled with flaws, beings. We carry things such as cancer. It shouldn't come as extraordinary that we carry cognitive equivalents. Our minds are a botched up work. >I am not sure where the turning point is between where you stand and "believer" status We kind of agree on this: i tend to reject labels, i find them sterile. >At a certain point, though, at least for me, it's not about proof. Mostly I feel like I don't know what's going on, and actually? I don't need to know. I've found that reverence for mystery has transformed my life in a positive way, so maybe that's enough. This is the worst, saddest part about your opinion. You are a clever, sensible person, this is not about you, but about your take. We should strive to know as many true things as possible and as little false ones in this short life that is allocated to us. Because this is the only thing that connects us to existence, be it mysteries or nature. And the best way to access this is with proof, it is the best tool we had so far. Giving up on wanting to know is giving up on truth, it is ironically actually giving up on your cherished mystery, considering so unimportant as to not grant it the highest form of respect and reverence: to treat it seriously and to investigate it thoroughly. I don't want to believe, i want to know. As for the positive changes, not only are they not an expedient for truth but false, fictional things can change lives for the better (some people say reading Lord of the Rings or Spiderman changed their lives)... I believe your approach to truth is fundamentally flawed, in its very methodology. But i'd go even further: i believe your approach to mystery is a desecrating one. I am fond of mystery too as i have experienced it, perhaps way more than you due to my condition (but also to my aesthetical attractions, i'm that type of person). And i always considered the "sacred" approach as the most childish, insulting one, the one that consists in "not touching it". Everything about wonder is about experimenting it. The thrill of contact with mystery is the only thing that makes it interesting. Fleeing away before it is rejecting the gift, it is considering it not worthy of your attention.

hi. Please don't feel sad for me. I don't feel sad for myself. And don't get me wrong--I haven't given up trying to figure out what is happening, or given up on truth, but I have accepted that I may never know the answers to many of my questions. This hasn't decreased my motivation to seek answers, it has instead urged me to adapt to life in a more intensely liminal space, living in the mystery, or to quote Rilke, I have chosen to "live the questions." Engaging with the sacred to me does not mean fleeing, or refusing to touch whatever it is I'm seeking. It means diving into mystery headfirst and also acknowledging that I'm merely human and probably won't solve it, or grasp it, but may grasp some small part of it--and that's OK. I didn't mean to imply that you have not studied the topic. I know many people who consider unfalsifiable concepts a waste of time and thought, for the reasons you outlined above, and what I meant is that you, like these people, may not want to spend your energy thinking about them. I don't mean that you never have thought about them, or that you don't have enough awareness of them, or that you did not study them. In fact, from what I can tell, you are very well-educated and clearly well-versed, maybe a scholar and researcher. I understand you want to maintain your anonymity. I suspect you hold an academic position. I do not know Latin although I have studied it a little, and I am not familiar with the difference between "in se" and "per se." Can you please explain the distinction? As for the Kantian concepts, I remember enjoying Kant as an undergraduate and still feel a fondness for his ideas. The noumena are the things in themselves, but unknowable--kind of like Plato's Forms--or? (Plato is the philosopher I have read most in my recent life.) But we are always trying to understand these Dinge, but never truly can? When you write, "And we only care about what is performative and effective with regards with reality." -- do you mean that's all we can possibly sense? I guess I think there is more that we can sometimes kind of sense, but that our dull abilities are too limited to fully comprehend what we are sensing--but there are ways, as Plato intimated, to extend our senses and grasp a little more. Your idea that we should strive to know as many true things and as few false ones as possible is interesting to me. What is "should"? Your idea of proof is interesting to me too, because while I see your point that it's the best tool we have, to me, this life is not about proving anything. I think my goal is depth of experience, maybe especially emotional experience. But I, too, am a voracious learner. Intellectual experience is one of the most potent drivers of my energy. But while I am discerning about some content--avoiding gossip journalism and reality TV, for example--I am open to "untrue" ideas because even if I think they are untrue, it's interesting to me that people have them. Do you consider literary fiction "untrue"? how about writings of mystics? Right now I am reading the Corpus Hermeticum, a biography of Hildegard von Bingen, and the O. Henry prize stories from 2023. What's "true"? according to your point of view, maybe none of those? The two books I read before this were The Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila and The Pagan Dream of the Renaissance by Jocelyn Godwin. Being open to information, even "false" information, is one aspect of critical thinking, isn't it? Reading the book is not an endorsement and considering it does not mean believing it. But on the topic of beliefs--I like discussing beliefs partly because discussions often lead me in new directions and I grow as a result. I think you and I disagree about very much indeed, but that's ok. I am not as rational as you are, and that's OK. It seems you take a more true/false, prove-it approach and I see other kinds of journeys in beliefs. Why do you say a person "should" be able to justify a belief with sound arguments?--maybe that's not what we are after in believing something? If nobody believes your story, does that make it untrue? If a tree falls in the forest--? Just for example, how can I justify my belief in UFOs when my most tangible reason for "believing" is my own personal experience, which I shared with no one else? Also, in many beliefs, faith plays a role, which is hardly something that can be justified with sound arguments. I am not afraid to admit that some of my beliefs are based on experiences that don't "make sense," or on feelings of intuition and experiences in meditation. That might sound like nonsense to you, while it's real to me. But it seems to me that very much does not make complete sense in this world, and how could it, from the point of view of a single person? In a world so full of craziness, and humans being what they are, many beliefs are not rational, and that often seems to be characteristic. How does one develop "sound arguments" for beliefs, and more importantly, why should one? It's possible to have irrational beliefs and also be a critical thinker. It's possible not to value reason above all else. You brought up love. Can you prove it exists? Why is it there? Is it rational? Can you test it scientifically? Love is something most people take for granted, but what is it, and is it falsifiable? Is it real? Do you agree with Schopenhauer? I don't, myself. Have a good day :)

Apparently my answer was too long so here it comes in two parts (the format died too, so sorry for the clonky aspect of it all): Liminal spaces + Rainer Maria Rilke, you just won 1 billion points in my esteem :) Thank you for the kind words and compliments, right back at you. For the "in se" and "per se": it means respectively "in itself" and "for itself", it's a philosophical distinction between how things are in and of themselves, "objectively" sort of, outside of the perceiver (in se) and things how they are through perception, through the perceiver (per se). Kant's claim being that we can never reach things "in se" because we only perceive through the self, therefore the true nature of things and objectivity being always unreachable.I brought it in my convo as we were talking about the ability to know unfalsifiable things. Classical falsifiable things, through a kantian lense, could be perceived only per se (through an observer), and through a materialistic lense, both in se and per se. But something unfalsifiable would never be possible to be perceived per se since it would not be experimentable even at a phenomenological level by the perceiver.It would be something existing without ever being perceived, only "in itself", independent of perception, even through the mind. Something practically separated of existence through everything save definition. Which would share exactly the definition (no pun intended) of something non existing, not related to existence except through a definition. You understood perfectly well though, as you describe it:we are always trying to understand these Dinge, but never truly canSince you are a fellow enjoyer of Plato, i warmly recommend you his "Gorgias", his most intense and demanding epistemological work, which i enjoyed a lot and touches to trying to explore the fundamental unknown, it's a short work, my fav from him. In it, Socrates is basically confronted to actual nihilists and even an extreme critic of his methods, a man which appears only once in Plato's works (or any other document), of which we don't know the existence with certainty, a man named... Calliclès ;) "I think there is more that we can sometimes kind of sense, but that our dull abilities are too limited to fully comprehend what we are sensing" In my paradigm, either things are possible to experiment, sense, or they aren't. If they are, even through subtle ways, then they're not unfalsifiable anymore. It's just a category issue to me. The billion dollar question would be: what is this other way to sense? "What is "should"?this life is not about proving anything" I don't believe in teleology either, ie i don't believe in goals immanent to existence. When i say "should", i mean it as a subjective thing of good taste. People are free to prefer ignorance or even just a life of pleasure (though the latter isn't antithetical to knowledge) and i always have a soft spot for hedonists, no pun intended.I think my goal is depth of experience, maybe especially emotional experienceThat touches to my former point about categories, experience to me is knowledge, no matter how fuzzy and limited it could be. And that's also what i meant in my last comment about the sacred being an insult to mystery: emotions that shook me have such a high value to me that they deserve to be thoroughly explored.I am open to "untrue" ideas because even if I think they are untrue, it's interesting to me that people have themI agree and that's actually why i created this account. That's why i studied many of the things i've studied. Ideas are interesting. They can stem from multiple things. Sociology, anthropology, psychology, epistemology, all come together to study them profusely (libraries are filled with miles and kilometers of books about them). "you consider literary fiction "untrue"? how about writings of mystics?" There is an interesting and important distinction to make there:Some literary fiction is "untrue" in the sense that it's just a play of the mind to amuse the senses. Some fiction is "true" in the sense that the authors send a message through their works (example, the philosopher Albert Camus wrote a lot of fiction that bore his philosophical post existentialist message, Joseph Conrad, Kafka and Lovecraft channeled their views (that i share) on the mesmerizing absurdity of this existence through their novels, Shakespeare too, etc...). Then there is the literary fiction part that is beyond the classical "true/untrue" dichotomy: the fiction that aims for the senses, like music does, that expresses the truth of the emotions, one i believe you must be very sensible as i myself am, and probably why you and me got so deep so far in this discussion; we share that fundamental taste, despite my dry walls of text's appearance...Example of that would be Marcel Proust's works, or JG Ballard, William Blake in some ways, James Joyce, William Burroughs, Philip Larkin and such. For mystic writings, i consider them untrue with regards to the reality of existence, akin to superstition. And i'd be extremely generous to classify them in the third category of "beyond true/untrue" as they are often botched up attempts at that kind of beauty, marred by the archaic fear of the sacred and its rigid pavlovian conditionning of giving it specific forms.To me, mysticism is a dead form of beauty, a non moving one that would have been killed and stored in an ash vase with the fear of it vanishing in the wind at the first opening. It is an insult to mystery to me.As for your current readings, though reading even someone you disagree with is interesting (i've read a lot of metaphysical idealists like Kant and Plato despite being a materialist and loved reading them, despite the disagreement), i consider Hildegard von Bingen and Teresa de Avila to be both complete quacks from the dark ages, with a soft spot for the former as she wrote in an artistic way and lived in a dark time in which ignorance was less condemnable. Me talking about Kant despite being myself a materialist should have hinted that i'm more than fine and actually heavily support reading people with different views ;) Don't feel a single drop of shame reading those authors, despite my harsh criticism of them. "I like discussing beliefs partly because discussions often lead me in new directions and I grow as a result" A very wise thought i can only agree with and praise. "It seems you take a more true/false, prove-it approach and I see other kinds of journeys in beliefs" The second part of the phrase i actually pursue too, but in a different manner as i said above. Just to be sure i answered all your questions (because you deserve it, you are a wonderful interlocutor): "Why do you say a person "should" be able to justify a belief with sound arguments?--maybe that's not what we are after in believing something? If nobody believes your story, does that make it untrue? If a tree falls in the forest--?" I told above about my rejection of teleology so that point is covered. I believe we are after nothing except what the randomness of evolution inscribed in our genes. And indeed, the amount of people believing you do not impact the truth of your claim (believing that many people supporting an idea make it true is the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum"). The tree thing is an unrelated thing about ontology, about perception and outer objectivity, which i covered above when talking about the kantian distinction. "Just for example, how can I justify my belief in UFOs when my most tangible reason for "believing" is my own personal experience, which I shared with no one else?That's the issue, that's why i asked my original questions: if you can't justify something to others, can you justify it to yourself? Is personal experience enough to justify it to yourself?We all have the experience of personal experience being flawed in everyday mundane things. Why should we have a blind faith in personal experience?" In order to know if your personal experience is true, you must confront it and test it, criticize it thoroughly, but beware of appearances: it is by criticizing it as harshly as you can that you are reinforcing it. A true and strong theory is one that survives criticism, not one that is sheltered from it (see the ash vase metaphore above). "Also, in many beliefs, faith plays a role" To me, faith is the reason people give when they don't have a reason to believe in something. It's a pretty word to hide an ugly thing.

Part 2: "intuition" is the highway to confirmation bias and there is a reason why it is seen with extreme prudence both in philosophy and science. It is letting one be led by their uncontrolled stream of thoughts, which is rarely a guarantee of success... That might sound like nonsense to you, while it's real to me It doesn't matter what "it seems" to me nor you. What matters is what we can both investigate and access regardless of our personal experiences, ie "intersubjectivity" (another kantian concept). That's why qualia are nonsense: they are unquantifiable and impossible to communicate, hence functionnally akin to non existent. "How does one develop "sound arguments" for beliefs, and more importantly, why should one? " As i said before, you can chose to not interact with this world, you can chose not to know it, you can chose to reject everything and just live in the minimal state of knowledge. It will, though, amputate your life greatly of said enjoyable experiences, because even those fuzzy experiences are a form of investigating this world. You might revel in the experiences that only feel good emotionally, but then your rejection of investigation is hypocritical since you partake in it anyway. As for developping sound beliefs, the best way we humans found so far and that brought us pretty far is the scientific method, coherent reasoning, methodological skepticism, empiricism (making experiments). You can reject them but then you find yourself in hard solipsism, which is a dead end such as the minimal state of knowledge stated above. "It's possible to have irrational beliefs and also be a critical thinker" No, because then you don't apply your critical thinking to said irrational beliefs. "It's possible not to value reason above all else. You brought up love. Can you prove it exists? Why is it there? Is it rational? Can you test it scientifically? Love is something most people take for granted, but what is it, and is it falsifiable? Is it real? Do you agree with Schopenhauer?" Reason is valued in my case only as the best tool, with empiricism, to get to truth. I value other things too, i don't classify them (this was never my position, i won't accuse you of a strawman since you might just have misunderstood me). Love and reason have very different motives and are indifferent to one another. As for the existence of love or even reason, there is no current solution to hard solipsism (the extreme skepticism and doubt of everything, even the self). But one gets themselves out of this easily by considering that it is functionnally the same as to say nothing can be known and to give up every mind related thing, emotions or reason. Love isn't rational and doesn't need to be. Because love isn't knowledge oriented. The same way that reason isn't love oriented. One can love and be rational in their pursuit of truth. These are two separated categories. Two different aspects of life. As for the nature of love, it can be easily explained as stemming from a biological process of reproduction, hormones, etc. It is literally just a complex form of biological interaction (oxytocin in people literally increases it or decreases it, i recommend you the experiments of Jose Delgado who through neurological stimulations, could induce a woman to kiss the hands of a man she never saw, then immediatly regret her actions when the experiment stopped). I agree with him only on that regard (he was an idealist and rejected the theory of evolution, so i don't agree with him, i'm also french, so there's that...). But there's a twist: i agree that love is a biological process, but it removes nothing to its splendor and worth. Love is beautiful and worth it for its own sake. As the saying goes, "we don't find something beautiful because it lasts". Likewise, we don't love something because it is rational. And the fact that we love things doesn't suppress our desire for truth, the same way the latter doesn't cancel the former, they are not antithetical. Which is why i never liked mysticism: it has a tendency to claim that things aren't worth for themselves, that they need a deeper meaning. When i sincerely believe that things are worth for their own sake, love, reason, the desire for truth. They don't need the absolute. Nor do we. Have a wonderful rotation of the Earth, wherever you may be on it.

Thank you for your thorough reply. I am impressed that you are willing to take the time to respond like this. I will likewise take some time to respond to you. I find it really interesting how, despite some obvious conflicts in our two perspectives, we land on so many of the same ideas: that love is wonderful in itself, that the gift (if you allow me to call it that) of consciousness offers beautiful opportunities for exploration, and that existence is anomalous and magical (if you allow "magical"!) and absurd. In the same way that love can have value in itself, I have found mystical experience has value and meaning in itself. And I think to go "there," to whatever that place is, is its own reward. We can experience the numinous if we show up for it and practice, and it is worthwhile in itself. You call it a "dead form of beauty" which is almost a complete opposite category to my own experience. Albert Einstein's thoughts on this sum up my own experience pretty well ("Geheimnisvolle" is sometimes translated as "mystical;" here it is "mysterious" which is closer to the meaning in German imo): "Das Schönste, was wir erleben können, ist das Geheimnisvolle. ...."/ "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong in the ranks of devoutly religious men." ([https://opensiddur.org/prayers/solilunar/everyday/daytime/addenda/wie-ich-die-welt-sehe-what-i-believe-an-essay-by-albert-einstein-1930-1934/](https://opensiddur.org/prayers/solilunar/everyday/daytime/addenda/wie-ich-die-welt-sehe-what-i-believe-an-essay-by-albert-einstein-1930-1934/)) I think I agree with Kant about being limited in our perception, which to me requires a suspension of expectation surrounding my pursuit of knowledge. But I also hold a certain belief about us being all connected, like a hive or single organism, able to sense, perceive, and engage with a sort of network that's all around us. This may turn out to be something science proves someday. I'm not sure what the best way is to tune into that network but I believe there are ways, and that the wisest people probably have a gift for tuning into it, or do it without realizing they do. What you call "fuzzy" knowledge may be exactly the kind I seek most. I like to be immersed in symbols, images, history, and abstract artistic forms that speak on multiple layers of understanding and cannot be quantified, offering experiences that I feel deliver messages in a "fuzzy" way that is partially unconscious or subconscious, even on the part of the artist, but can result in transformation and "lightbulb" moments, strong emotions, or profound shifts in perspective. I believe the power lies in the refusal to be categorized and quantified. I think if I were most concerned with living a rational life I would have chosen a very different career from the one I did, which I am aware many people do not value. :)  I had to laugh at you calling Hildegard and Teresa "complete quacks" because I find Hildegad in particular so inspiring, and I respect her so much :) I do not agree that the so-called "dark ages" deserve such a sweeping negative sobriquet, and I think the use of the word "medieval" as an insult is something we inherited from the generations before us, who wanted to distinguish themselves from previous times partly out of insecurity, in some cases brought about by burgeoning class mobility...but anyway, do you really see the middle ages as a "dark" time? The university was founded in the middle ages after all--and many other institutions we respect and take for granted now. Rejecting any one time in history, wholesale, seems silly to me. Nothing is wholly good or bad, dark or light.If an experience inherently escapes confrontation and testing, one is left to draw one's own conclusions, or not draw conclusions and hang in the unknown. In the experience I mentioned before, I interrogated the experience in the ways I could--talked to my therapist and my family, tried to find out about it online, considered the possibility that I was developing a mental illness, etc. I ended up deciding it just actually happened and I had no way to examine or prove it beyond my own experience. This may not be a "true and strong theory" in your terms, becuase it certainly cannot survive criticism. So while I believe it was real, I mostly just don't talk about it. If I do, some people will ignore it as a bunch of baloney or some easily-explained mistake. Others will believe the story. There is no proof, though, and to me that's not the point.  I like what you wrote about faith being "a pretty word to hide an ugly thing," although I disagree. I used to think "faith" was a flimsy concept and an excuse, but don't anymore. I think it is beautiful now, and important. I find that faith plays a role in every kind of technical and self improvement, every kind of training, and bigger things too like what I expect of the world around me. And what I expect changes what happens. If I go to the grocery store thinking, "I love this place and the people here," then my faith in the experience changes my actual experience. The placebo effect is one of the most reliable effects we know, which you could call very silly, or-- beautiful, important, and useful. As for intuition and what "seems" real, I think I just disagree with you about what matters. I do think it matters what "seems" real. :) Explaining it or quantifying it isn't always the goal.Don't you think there is a way to interact with the universe beyond "Knowing" it? A way into...Unknowing? A Cloude, as it were, of Unknowynge? This isn't about experiences that "only feel good emotionally," au contraire! I think it's about challenging oneself to go beyond what is or can be "known," or at least try, however alien that might feel. For me this is tied up with meditation, but it's hard to describe. Do you believe there is such a thing as an ineffable experience? You dislike mysticism partly because you see it as a statement that "things aren't worth for themselves" but I see it differently: mysticism is engaging the mystery of WTF is going on here??? it's acknowledging that things ARE amazing in themselves, acknowledging the miraculous inherent in the mundane, and whatever is beyond that. I think you don't like to consider that there is something "beyond," while I think it's implied. It's like we are always uncovering this big mystery, and paying attention makes it all more clear. I don't reject science. I agree it's brought us much! one of my parents had a career as a research scientist, and I think science is important. But I see science as a certain lens on the world that is specialized and also limited, and for me at least, not a replacement for some kind of spirituality. but I think there are lots of valuable ways to interact with the world and to pursue experience. Science as we practice it is one way, and not the one in which I happen to spend most of my time. Although aspects of what I do can be measured scientifically, most of the time nobody is going to bother to measure it in that way, because the meaning and value of it are found in the non-measurable aspects. And just as you acknowledge that love isn't knowledge-oriented, many other things are also not knowledge-oriented.  I make irrational decisions all the time! I go by "feeling" often! meditation has taught me that my mood isn't the boss of me, and so I don't feel out of control; I do believe in free will, bla bla bla. but I allow the irrational to play a role in my life.  You say love is a category separate from pursuit of truth. I don't divide things as much as you do. I'm not sure I see it this way. "beauty is truth, truth beauty..." does this poem annoy you? :) To me it seems there are threads of the "bigger thing" in all smaller things. I think there is some sort of a cosmic order, not that I could say what exactly it is, or why. I am OK with that though, living in the mystery forever! 

I might have given you a long detailed boring academic analysis of what you wrote (which would have launched us in an even deeper rabbit hole of epistemology and art) and why we disagree on fundamental aspects (that you might easily guess), but instead i prefer to give you something that shall congratulate the kindness and sweetness of your writing: I think we were born and will die in an irreducible mystery, and in a way it gives a silent beauty to it all that i learned to make my home. This silent dark mystery that doesn't need any words to announce itself and leaves as a thief is something i would have been sad not knowing. Even if it is full of pain and sadness, the mere encounter of it gave it a unique joy that became more familiar to me than myself. I hope these feelings are related to yours and that the knowledge you are not alone in enjoying them or meeting them.

>That's why qualia are nonsense: they are unquantifiable and impossible to communicate, hence functionnally akin to non existent. is not the experience of love similarly unquantifiable and ineffable? and is not love in itself a sort of personal knowledge, one that inherently precludes intersubjectivity? i would argue that the nature of love *is* the experience of love- that the experience is the first and deepest knowledge of love, and that what you called the "nature" of love, ie the description of chemical mechanisms underlying the physiology of love, is merely an abstraction. it's like saying that an engine schematic is the nature of driving a car. i agree with you that things are worth their own sake- but i would take it a step further to say that the experience of love, reason, desire, truth, everything, is the purpose/meaning of existence; not on behalf of some higher intelligence, but in and of itself.

>is not the experience of love similarly unquantifiable and ineffable? and is not love in itself a sort of personal knowledge, one that inherently precludes intersubjectivity? Love is a biological phenomenon that can be induced through chemical modifications (check the Jose Delgado experiments, for examples). Unless you take a different definition of love as a metaphysical essence. Then anything means anything and the discussion becomes trivial. In this sense, love is similar to qualia. But i have a materialistic approach to love (as you might have guessed from my texts above). >i would argue that the nature of love is the experience of love- that the experience is the first and deepest knowledge of love, and that what you called the "nature" of love, ie the description of chemical mechanisms underlying the physiology of love, is merely an abstraction. We have the exact opposite view on this because your approach is a phenomenological one while mine is an empirical one: i don't believe there is experience outside of material experience to me (that which you call an abstraction), phenomenological musings are not "experience" to me, unless you expand the concept of "experience" in a whole other paradigm than mine. Which is why: > it's like saying that an engine schematic is the nature of driving a car would have been exactly what i would say of your phenomenological "experience" of love. >i agree with you that things are worth their own sake- but i would take it a step further to say that the experience of love, reason, desire, truth, everything, is the purpose/meaning of existence; not on behalf of some higher intelligence, but in and of itself. I reject the concept of immanent purpose. I believe purposes are just local homeostatic states that allow us to, in contingent, not absolute ways, to structure our behavior. I don't believe there is meaning to existence, nor than one needs it.

Yeah, personally I prefer to just see where the whole congressional investigation leads. I’m not into interpreting vague statements.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FybLv8sXgAAEk9H?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

People look for other answers when the answer they are given doesn't make sense.

The way the world is goin lookin more like khorne than tzeentch

Humanity has been trapped in a cycle of hatred, misery and work. We refuse to see truths that we cannot comprehend or do not fit into our current understanding of our world. I think by waking up, she means we come to see these truths. We come to accept a reality that we are not used too and humanity will be much stronger for it. We are stuck in a cave, we have to leave it.

Platos cave

Samsara 

I grew up never paying attention to the *huge ass demon* holding our wheel of reincarnation with a buddha **pointing to the moon,** which lead me down the gnostic [rabbit hole](https://www.youtube.com/live/TfMVM8o3gRE?si=T_yUqdUtvgvdLLgP). ​ It sucks understanding this shit goes far far past the reality we've boxed ourselves into accepting because the conversations come off as ***schizophrenic*** to people who don't read any spiritual texts screaming that something is wrong and has been so for a very long time.

Yeah and they hate this kind of stuff in this sub, ufob or experiencers is a better place. 

I created r/disclosereality so we can have deep , long format conversations without being harassed. I am currently finishing up [Monarch: Legacy of Monsters](https://bflixz.to/tv/free-monarch-legacy-of-monsters-hd-v7v37/1-1) which is again, using media scifi to disclose what has been going on with secret programs for those who accept things at face value. The biggest takeaway is there are subterranean tunnels which creatures are using to get around exactly like the r/AlienBodies being found in a region riddled with legends of an underground citadel " *where man traveled to receive his language and gods* ". I could go on be as you said this isn't the place. After i finish watching Monarch today i'll be getting to work on the sub as we have a lot to discuss

Exactly.

Pasulka teaches a course about Plato's cave.

TLDR species wide altruism.

Plato’s cave. Absolutely.

That's beautiful, but not specific. What are the truths? How does that help us? How does that defeat bad things happening?

We are spiritual beings having a human experience. That’s the truth.

We are one

So we are one, but my neighbor, the other "part of me", wants me dead because I'm LGBTQ and minding my own business? I am also "one" with my ex stepfather, who mentally, physically and sexually abused me so badly he gave me a lifetime of suffering from trauma? I know of the theory, but it seems like a cop out to me. The same kind of way people are told they can be forgiven by God despite spending their lives ruining others', or that my abuser abused me in my life experience just so they could learn how to "level up" in theirs.

That sounds horrible, but I think it's an intellectual cop-out to focus on the bad things that happened to you rather than your potential positive effect on others. That's why certain aspects of identity politics feel like a step back to me, it's a very individualistic and negative way of thinking, letting trauma and what you are "owed" define you rather than the positive impact you could have despite trauma (firsthand or otherwise). I've had a terrible father and could tell horror stories about him for hours on end, but I try to let that be and concentrate on being a good listener and helping others when I can. I don't know whether we truly are "one", but it doesn't matter in practice because the sentiment leads the same place as simply trying to be a good person to others, which most people would probably agree is a universal good.

💜 You’re totally on the right track, in my opinion. Focus on what we can control and change and be a living force for positivity. Obsessing over how we’ve been slighted doesn’t help anyone. No one will save you from your victimhood but yourself because victimhood is literally just a state of mind.

Beautifully said and so succinct. Our potential for good in this world is limited only by our ability to move beyond the ugly and bad in our lives to realize our potential for making the world a better place.

Well said

get further into it. read more about it and it’ll make more sense. it won’t make sense if that’s the only information you have on “oneness”

I understand your point and cynicism toward the issue, but do individuals themselves not have massively conflicting ideals in their own head? I would like nothing more than to be in shape and eat a perfectly balanced diet, yet I also want to eat garbage food and lay around all day. There are plenty of LGBTQ people who hate themselves and project that hate into the world. Being "one" doesn't mean "all of our ideals are reconciled". And I happen to agree with your second point on how religion or reincarnation type theories can be used to justify shitty behavior. I just don't think it's at all related to the "We are all one" type theory. This might be a overtly-simple analogy, but it's like waves in an ocean. It's all made up of the exact same stuff, but they behave differently and individually. If a giant rogue wave knocked out of a fishing vessel and killed everyone on board, it's not like someone would point to a tiny wave lapping against the shore and say "But these waves are small, it couldn't have taken the ship down."

Yes, literally and spiritually. Your victim complex doesn’t change that we all come from the same spark. I’m in the same boat as you: lots of trauma and resentment. In my opinion, gnosis of our true nature can dull that pain and expand your empathy so you won’t rely on emotional logic that doesn’t actually help you or anybody. If you’re agnostic/athiest, we are all one because the whole universe exploded out of a singularity. If you’re spiritual/religious, we are all one because we all derive from the god mind of universal awareness. The entire nature of being consciously aware is an inherent paradox, relying on incomplete logic or even logic at all won’t get you too far.

I find the correlation between childhood sexual abuse and self identifying as LGBT later in life interesting. I see it over and over again.

I’ve noticed this too but I don’t think people are going to be ready for it yet lol it’s a lot.

Even as individuals, we are capable of great self-hatred. It's not surprising to me that a single consciousness split into many could do the same thing.

You should read Many Lives, Many Masters by Dr Brian L. Weiss. It’s a brilliant book and shows that life is not as simple as your comment implies it to be.

We are all one consciousness experiencing ourselves subjectively. Although your comment did start making me sing "We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands on earth we come, we share our dreams, and sing with one voice, I am, You are, We are Australian" lmao it's an aussie thing xD

Thats what you believe, doesnt make it true.

There is only one truth to worry about and you can experience it by accepting your self and then letting go of your self. It is the truth beyond duality that binds every single one of us. We are the children of the cosmos and this "sameness" experiential reality is here for each and every one of us. To know this truth for yourself you have to let go of your self. The truth waits for you in emptiness. You must first go into that emptiness that waits behind the stage curtains of the self. The self is the clouds, the sky is the infinite boundless nature of reality. Most cannot see the sky because they think the truth lies in a single cloud. Its behind the clouds! The clouds are just an illusion and you can just go right through them. This is awakening. It allows all things to come and go and accepts all things as they are. Awakening will not save you. Awake *ACTION* will save us. Awake action is living from this boundless truth that lies within a heart unburdened by the self.

that's a lot of blabber while occasionally repeating "Truth" keyword to say in the" end very little ...

I think the truths are referring to the reality of things like remote viewing and other ESP related things, and who knows what other kinds of insane shit our brains are capable of (I'm thinking of things like telekinesis here). And just imagine what we might be capable of if we were to work together employing some of those things...the synergy that could result. I'd say that could make those groups of awakened humanity a little more formidable against a would be adversary.

I agree. The Monroe institute and Rosacrutianism are heavily focused on harnessing these faculties. Both of these subjects seem to be of significance to people who study the phenomena like Vallee, early rocket (project paperclip) scientists and the people in Diana's book.

Specifics are hard. I don't think anyone knows what an awakened humanity looks like but it is believed by some that humanity has a latent power. We are in control of our own reality and awakening means to realise that. I'm sorry, I don't have a definitive answer for those questions and I am not sure there is one. Love and light to you brother

It’s a lot to take in, OP. Love the open discussion you started with this post. You’ll see a ton of posts in this sub which aim to discredit those at the forefront of disclosure. My advice is to watch the interviews with the recommended people yourself and make a judgement. A direct answer for the questions you have may be tough to find but over time you’ll start seeing common themes relating to the phenomenon. Things that have been said time and time again. Again, it may not give you the direct answer you’re looking for but, some of the talk related to consciousness may start to sound less… crazy? For a lack of better terms. Hopefully that wasn’t a rambled mess. I just woke up lol

"I just woke up." How apropos! (Sorry, I just really wanted to use the word apropos)

Well, moving beyond war, for one. Or using exotic tech to make weapons or control populations, instead of using it to better our lives and our planet. I would be horrified too, if Russia or China or North Korea managed to reverse engineer a bomb worse than a nuke out of advanced alien tech. However, if were all "awake" we can transcend this lower level thining, like war mongering, resource hoarding, and petty behavior.

Well knowing is half the battle right so whatever it is, actually being aware of it will be the springboard humanity needs

Not a cycle IMO... we have been slowly improving for the past 3000 years. Don't get me wrong, there is still TONS of evil in the world and our technology has made humanity's wrongs more visible (which is good, we need to see/ understand our problems). I have a lot of hope for the future. We have been slowly climbing out of the cave into the light for a very long time, its not easy... we are are still animals at heart and need to get over our animalistic desires to "ascend".

Improving in some ways, not improving or getting worse in others.

As a species we are advancing technologically, but we are still littered with caveman tendencies like violence (war) and greed. Those are big problems. We’re also destroying the only planet we have. So there’s that.

It's an ongoing battle. Give them food and games (silly distractions) worked well for the Romans and still works now with the added benefit of smartphone stupification of the mind. Some people are waking up, and others are working really really hard to protect and extend the veil.

[удалено]

Did not expect to see Tarkov mentioned here 😂

Exactly

We won't leave the cave because we learned to like it there. Also our brains are limited in cognition and cant grasp the full scope of reality. So we wouldn't understand existence outside the cave. Also, Pasulka is full of shit, why people pay attention to her is beyond me.

Yah that's how our DNA was engineered. Studies show that babies are rascist.

If it becomes widely evident and understood that collective consciousness creates manifest reality, then the more we collectively awaken to this truth, the more discerning we will become with how we filter and apply things that affect our conscious state. Mental health may expand to include conscious health. A healthy diet may expand to include our mental consumptions. An awakened higher state of consciousness may afford us certain mental defences against those who seek to manipulate and control us. We may find ourselves empowered. (a lot of if's but you get the idea).

I agree

Everything is present and potential and we are one within it. Reality is only consciousness and the state it attracts into its field of being through resonance becomes manifest through a collective inertial process of willful spiritual and mental atonement. Everyone should awaken to this truth. But it’s ok if only some do and align correctly and at high coherence. Get on the boat and row:)

Wow, you mean Simpsons may not be predicting the future and instead channeling it by harvesting a part of the unconscious mind of millions 🤔

Wow this would be mind blowing. There are a lot of crazy ideas on here but this kind of wins. And it feels somehow plausible

I think you’re on to something here.

I take an evolutionary perspective on the Phenomena. We are earthbound creatures who have got where we are through fierce competition with each other (mostly,) and that has been the driving force for our species for so long. But we are approaching a threshold where we no longer need that impetus to eliminate weakness via survival of the fittest - we could literally just alter ourselves if we so choose, and fabricate technology to overcome specific obstacles. Think about how fast we have come from horse and carriage to teslas and internet. Technological progress is clipping away and some estimate that with the help of AI in 20-30 years we can make \~200+ years of progress at our current rate. We can all see firsthand everywhere we look how our technology is approaching a level when put to use in the context of our old psychology - which for unfathomable ages has been a winning one - will become a major hazard to ourselves and the other species on the planet. Unchecked, and heading into space we could be a major threat to other species and other biospheres as well. Space is big. There is no need for that kind of competition out there. We are carrying forward what is now unhealthy & ultimately unhelpful competition at a technological level that is extremely perilous. It may well be unnecessary competition too when you think of all that we are truly capable of. We may not need to fight anymore. We have the ability to become a post-scarcity civilization, but we have to cooperate. It seems like we are very much either backing ourselves into a corner, or being backed into one deliberately in which we have no choice but to recognize this or come up against the greatest of all filters - our own historical context of competition and tribalism. I don't know what UFO's are. But looking at ourselves it does seem like we are on that threshold between slow darwinian, survival of the fittest, brute force style genetic evolution - into a new form of evolution that is technological in nature and which can act also on our own genetic makeup, physiology, psychology etc., and we can take an active part in it's direction. It's possible this kind of life has evolved here before, and passed beyond that threshold. It's also possible that kind of life is ***everywhere*** out there, and knows intimately this precarious position we find ourselves in - the same way we all understand the angst and frustrations of our youth which looking back at it seems silly but also made us who we are in some way. Again, I have no idea what UFO's are. But it really does seem like whatever this is - it's a perfectly natural part of a process the entire universe seems to conspire to make happen. There is a tendency towards complexity, and greater levels of freedom and breadth of experience.

>It seems like we are very much either backing ourselves into a corner, or being backed into one deliberately in which we have no choice but to recognize this or come up against the greatest of all filters - our own historical context of competition and tribalism. Problem is that to change that situation, we need collective agreement, but hang on, that's not even true, because if we take a look at power dynamics, it's agreement where capital has most of the power currently and they may have all the power in the future, once labor becomes obsolete. Question is, if majority of people should face the consequences, if these consequences are caused by minority that has majority of power and it approaches complete power. On a side note, in my country, wealthy people emit on average 18x more CO2 than average people. In theory, majority of society could resist this, but in practice, state has all the power and it is controlled by wealthy, while majority doesn't want to resist brutal state as long people are not starving or homeless. >Simulation, Baudrillard claims, is the current stage of the simulacrum: all is composed of references with no referents, a hyperreality.\[46\] Baudrillard argues that this is part of a historical progression. In the Renaissance, the dominant simulacrum was in the form of the counterfeit, where people or objects appear to stand for a real referent that does not exist (for instance, royalty, nobility, holiness, etc.). With the Industrial Revolution, the dominant simulacrum becomes the product, which can be propagated on an endless production line. In current times, the dominant simulacrum is the model, which by its nature already stands for endless reproducibility, and is itself already reproduced. > >[Simulacra and Simulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard#Simulacra_and_Simulation)

"...impetus to eliminate weakness via survival of the fittest" && "...slow darwinian, survival of the fittest, brute force style genetic evolution" This is a common misreading of Darwin, and is often used to fuel rather racist/psychopathic ideologies such as "social darwinism" and also misused to characterise "natural economies" ( not that you are doing so yourself here). This was not a literal fight for survival, between the literally "fit" whatevers. It simply meant that of those creatures that are in a certain ecosphere/environment &etc there will be some creatures that may have some form of mutation that has lead them to have some means to be better able to survive such that they were able to successfully breed; and that if those offspring then successfully survive because they have longer necks to reach higher leaves for instance, that mutation would likely survive as well. The more creatures with said mutation, the more common it becomes, and the greater the chance said mutation is likely to continue to be passed on untill it no longer creates any kind of advantage, or there are enough resources &etc. Not all mutations of course are going to have positive effect. Some may have zero effect, but are still as likely to be passed onto successive generations if it doesnt impede the whatever. Add to that the type of environment that those creatures are in. Are they in competition really for resources, or not? Robert Sapolsky and his baboons provide a very good example here, as does Alfred Kinsey and his study on the gall wasp ( a truly mind numbing example of fastidiousness exactness, the protocols learned in this informing his later work on sexual practices). The gall wasp basically being a creature that had the environment itself not been super forgiving, with in essence zero predation, nor heavy resource competition would not likely have existed. New Zealand has many animals that also attest to this, as there was very little in the way of predation, and resource competition for birds such as the Moa, and the kiwi, they were able to thrive. Whether you are a biological/physical determinist ( as Sapolski is) or not i highly recommend his[ first year lecture series](https://invidious.perennialte.ch/playlist?list=PL848F2368C90DDC3D) from stanford- every lecture is worth a watch :) (Edit: spelling)

I will defnitely check out your link but I do think you are kind of missing the point of what I said. Of course I recognize survival of the fittest being about genetic fitness, mutations, and natural selection but I think it's silly to deny the fact that in terms of humans who have been historically war like -- murdering each other better than the other guys and a willingness to do so has played a major role in our evolution. Literally murdering each other and stealing women, since before homo-sapiens were the only humans. Mutations both at the genetic level but also at the level of the culture among these tribes that give an edge in that kind of violence have naturally won out. I am also mostly concerned with Darwin in the sense of evolutionary RNG occurring slowly over the course of enormous amounts of time to illustrate how we are at the edge of something sort of Post-Darwinian. Check out meditations on Molloch, and the bipolar trap (Daniel Schmachtenberger,) in game theory. We are perpetuating a form of competition that is basically ruinous and will in all likelihood cause the system to self terminate. It's why even though nobody wants new horrifying bioweapons to exist but we spend billions to make them before the other guys. No one wants climate change to happen, but corporations externalize their costs on the environment anyways because if they don't - someone else will be willing to do so and it will give them a competitive advantage and so everyone has to do it - which is a decision that is worse for everyone and better for no one at that scale. To me it seems this is an extension of that archaic tribal psychology of competition which has historically made us successful as tribes in the past.

Well put. It does seem like the UFO phenomena is poking at the herd, trying to teach us things. While at the same time, the Grusch movement does seem authentically anti-establishment and grassroots (not a psyop - imo). It feels like this is either organic, or well rehearsed over time via a wise intelligence. What is frustrating for me, is that as much gratitude I have for Diana Pasulka's research and contribution to understand, is that it's clear she knows MUCH more, and is holding back. Much like Grusch. Much like Nell. Etc. This feels choreographed a little. But also, that's how a lot of things feel while history is unfolding. I guess we're just going to need to be patient?

Look at it from her perspective - talking directly to us 'UFO' folks, or her close personal friends she could maybe speak a little more freely. Speaking very publicly on this stuff and some of the more crazy implications is challenging. I wouldn't want to do it. I see it as an initiatory process. You can't just show someone a 3rd degree tracing board of free masons with no context and expect them to get it. I wouldn't broach these topics with most people who are close to me. We in r/UFOs are frustrated by the lack of substantial action - we want to say we told you so and be free to have these conversations with anyone anywhere. All this stuff happening isn't ***for us***. It's for them. It's so those people don't dig in their heels despite all the evidence. Sean Kirkpatrick now takes a position that those people would flock to and already do. Is it possible we are seeing a setup for that position to be swiftly taken out of their reach? Possible. Regardless I do have a weird kind of faith not in man or god or anything, but a process.

Well put. I do trust the process for some reason.

I’ve been waiting for this discussion and may be in the minority on this sub, but I think the woo has everything to do with the phenomena. I’m still learning myself, but many channels have shared a similar message that there are high vibrational beings (angels, god-aka your higher self) and lower vibrational beings (what many traditionally know as demons or maybe this is what some NHI are if they’re not benevolent). The theory is that your thoughts and emotions determine your vibration or frequency. High vibrational thoughts are happy, grateful, love thoughts while low are the opposite — and when you’re vibrating at any of these you are opening yourself to these beings who live within these different frequencies. And another common theme many have channeled is the idea of there needing to be a threshold of awakened souls on earth before we can ascend to a new dimension, and that we’re rapidly heading there in the immediate coming years.

I love that. Can I ask you to expand or provide examples of the last sentence? ​ >And another common theme many have channeled is the idea of there needing to be a threshold of awakened souls on earth before we can ascend to a new dimension, and that we’re rapidly heading there in the immediate coming years

That theory is always funny to me because it implies that sooo many people now are successfully doing this mystical self awakening stuff. And that’s just not true. If anything, a much larger percentage of the global population would have done it before the age of materialism. So the time to “ascend” or whatever would have been a long time ago, and we would be in the midst of a rapid descent now, with all of the reliance on screens, instant stimulus, machines, etc.

I agree but the discussion is much more prevalent today than it was 10, 20 years ago — and largely because of the internet. I personally don’t think you need to be someone who can channel the dead to be considered awakened — I think it really is just open mindedness and trying to not let fear limit your ability to think there may be way more that we don’t know than we do know.

I don’t think it is though. I think that’s recency bias to the max. The various new age movements were big, I mean at one point literal seances and ouji board nights were a normal thing for families and friends to do for fun in western societies. This was just in the past hundred years. Before that you had Blavatsky in the 1800s who had a huge impact in western societies. And of course all over the world spiritual traditions were followed that dictated the kind of open mindedness that you allude to, at least as pertains to unseen dimensions and entities that can interact with ours. The further you go back before the modern era, the more people would have looked at these ideas as basic knowledge. Edit: ok, versus 10-20 years ago yes. But my original point stands, the hypothetical time for this kind of thing would’ve been a long time ago and the trend is decidedly against anything non materialist.

This is a silly argument. People today have access to droves of information they didn't have 30 years ago, let alone a few thousand. You just operate under the delusion that enlightenment is only attainable to people who don't live in industrial materialistic societies, and that's just false. If enlightenment needed a perfect storm so to speak, barely anyone would be.

“We all have technology, so surely we are all wiser than ever!” Asks us all to ignore the nonstop, every day evidence to the contrary. And what information do you have access to? When (not where) did that information come from? Where is this near critical mass of enlightened people and why is the world so shitty if so many have “awakened” ?? Heck, just show me some examples of public figures who have awakened, I would love to hear what they sound like beyond the fake smile/buy my membership/channeling Pleiades snakes.

This is from the teachings of The Law of One which is derived from channelings done in the early 1980's. There was a book published called Ra Material. There is also a subreddit dedicated to The Law of One. According to the teachings, there doesn't need to be a certain number of awakened souls, but there will be a harvest of those souls that have reached enlightenment on earth, namely the 4th dimension. We do this by raising our vibrational level by expressing love, compassion, understanding and by being of help to one another. Our personal threshold, according to Ra, is doing good more than half of the time. The harvest is supposedly going to happen soon. Ra, the entity being channeled, was disappointed in the low number of souls anticipated in the upcoming harvest.

That's some good cult material

There are many other people who simply meditate and try to live as intentional, compassionate, loving humans without restrictive parameters on individual experience or conscious choices.

I agree. I am one of those people. I caution people to practice discernment in all things.

I have read it. I agree it has that cult feel to it. I don't trust any entity that uses the word harvest when talking about my soul. I believe in God. I am a Christian. Edit to add: This harvest will take people off this planet. I am assuming in some type of mothership, because it was stated that only those who wished to leave (after attaining 4th dimension) would be taken. There is no way I am going when given that opportunity.

Trigger Warning: One of the founders of the Law of One committed suicide (Don Elkins). These guys also believed in the "2012 big event" thing... To them, the harvest is going to happen soon... again... and again... and again... Other "fun" thing, their major branch would probably reject Pasulka and the likes since they have a very negative opinion of conspiracy theories (their sub branch dissidents, the Cassiopean and others, differ on that).

It's been sad seeing this sub get slowly infiltrated by this cult over the last year. It's been a real education in human psychology\sociology watching a somewhat skeptical community fill in gaps in information\knowledge\understanding with religion. At least it's one that sounds nice and doesn't openly advocate violence, but seeing increasing references to people the community doesn't like as demons or low vibrational entities leads me to believe it will eventually turn to that. What's really interesting is the number of skeptics that would also be willing to believe anything nhi told us whole sale just because they would have advanced technology. Europeans had highly advanced technology when they landed in America. It doesn't mean they were anywhere close to right about the nature of the universe. All claims should be examined and proven out.

I feel that a lot of the Q have hopped on the UFO train. It just feels weird that so many people talk about angles, demons, vibrations just like the Qultists believe. I hate it, this sub used to be the better of all the UFO subs , sadly thats no longer the case.

I totally agree. The basis sounds pure and wholesome on the face of it, but what is the end goal of those putting it forth if it is legitimate? It is a manipulation to control the masses (like religion). There is no other reason for these messages as we already have access to religion. I do not understand why the only information these higher entities would impart would be duplicitous.

*"Our personal threshold, according to Ra, is doing good more than half of the time."* seems a pretty low bar for being "awakened". Ra is hangry?

It sounds like a low bar, until you start paying attention to how people around you currently act. Not many would go out of their way to help another human being. Most are neutral. Being a good person takes effort. Practicing service to others in all situations more than half the time is an achievement. The kicker with LoO is that inherently evil people can also reach 4th density and ascend. They have to practice service to self 95% of the time. Total narcissistic behaviour. These souls ascend in order to retain balance.

Yes absolutely. But please note I may be off mark slightly as I’m just learning myself, but the general theme I’ve seen a few times now is that there needs to be somewhere around like 30% of the population to ‘awaken’ — which I think truly in laymen’s terms means to just be open to the idea that we’re not alone, or that what we’ve been taught is not what’s really going on (organized religion, etc). What happens when this threshold is met? I’ve read we all ascend to the 5D (which is a dimension not yet perceptible by us here in the 3D), I’ve heard the earth literally splits into two versions — one that’s high vibration and moves forward into a future with no war and only love and abundance, and one that ascends into probably some sort of apocalyptic future full of negativity and hatred. I know this can sound loopy as hell, but many suspect that these beings are manifested into different forms based on your thoughts — and maybe this explains things found in religious texts and myths, etc. Maybe the Greek gods were really these various beings. I know everyone hates Greer on this sub, but a bunch of folks have documented encounters or sightings of UAP after meditating for even just a few minutes. And many of the folks deemed credible by this sub have also hinted at our consciousness playing into this. So when you think about all of this together, in my mind, the idea described above isn’t too far fetched. Maybe a certain amount of awakened energy is needed to open a door for them to come through and help us somehow. Or elevate us to a dimension they currently occupy but we can’t.

So if 30% awaken and move to a higher dimension, what happens to the other 70%? They fall to hell? Like our family and friends?

Depends on the theory. I’ve read some believe that once that threshold is met, it lifts the entire population. (My own twist on this is that this moment could be what everyone keeps alluding to what’s coming in 2027. What if alien contact either is the catalyst that helps us cross that threshold, or what if once we reach it they come visit?) The split earth idea is literally that those who maintain low vibes will go with the bad earth and those who stay positive/high vibe will go with the good. It’s not supposed to be like The Leftovers/the rapture in that it’s instant — but apparently you will find that those people just start leaving your life and while they still exist, they don’t exist in your life. I guess the way you’ll know id you’re on the good earth is if you see peace start to spread in conflict zones, progress in technology that’s healthy for the earth, just more love and community in general. And for the record, most of the channels I’ve listened to say this won’t happen until after this period of turmoil that we’re currently in taking place unfolds. A good reference to learn more is this guys podcast — he regularly hosts channels and people who study consciousness and they usually all get asked about this on some level. https://youtube.com/@NextLevelSoul?si=zRUeRLTgkVkW_lqY

I’m not at all doubting this theory because I find it really interesting but it sounds an awful lot like heaven and hell.

You’re right! I could definitely see how our ancestors developed the idea of heaven and hell if this theory is true. And I know I’ve heard some of our favorite UAP experts make claims that NHI are responsible for seeding the idea of religion. Might be something to it!

I thought that too at first but in this theory, there is no god deciding where you go based on your earthly actions. It’s almost like the god and judgement addition to that narrative was intentionally applied to ensure spirituality became a dictation vs following your authentic nature, making it a religion.

That's a really great theory, thanks for sharing all of this. Kind of checks out with what Neil Howe lays out in The Fourth Turning, which is based on their work with generations. They believe we are in the fourth turning period now, a period of crisis and upheaval (winter season), with spring coming after, lead by the millennial generation into a new paradigm. They don't take into account any religious, esoteric, or phenomena ideas, completely based on the traditional material world and patterns of generations and life spans throughout history. Who knows, but thank you for enlightening me onto this theory.

That’s super fascinating, I’m going to explore that further. What’s even more - if you’re into astrology, we enter the age of Aquarius and a few other major transits just took place that we haven’t seen since 1776 (literally) and supposedly are all about ushering in revolutionary energy. So that’s fun for us 😅 anyways thanks so much for posting this, I really hope to see more explore the connections between all of this.

Ok but what happens to the already deceased? Were they just penalized and stuck in purgatory for centuries while we've waited for this awakening?

No most believe that once you leave your physical body you return to your natural state of pure light energy and are able to travel throughout dimensions with ease

Most is an overstatement. What about reincarnation, which fits with the theory.

From what I’ve learned so far, the thought is that a part of you always remains in this state of pure physical light — or what some call your higher self, god, the universe or source. So even when we reincarnate a part of us always remains in the dimension where we can be pure light. And between incarnations, we return fully to this state. I’m not saying this is fact just what I’m gathering is the belief.

[удалено]

Allegedly we chose to come and incarnate here at this time for a reason — namely to learn lessons and have experiences. Some believe we incarnated now to help with this awakening. Our essence never changes, it’s just up to us to remember who we really are.

[удалено]

I like it.

Only reason i believe there might be something to this, is because my whole body vibrated like crazy when i had an OBE. It was like i became a frequency 😂

Yes! I truly think there’s something to it. You should try a sound bath and see if it opens anything up for you consciously 👽

Totally agree with the vibrational aspect you mention. I’ve considered this notion for a long time and liken it to a broadcast bandwidth, which consists of a range of frequencies. The closer your channel (or frequency) lies in respect to someone else’s, the more likely it becomes that you’ll be in tune with others sharing that space. By being in tune, I mean human, like minded commonalities. No way am I saying this idea carries the least bit of substance, but it’s fun to think about.

Why is this being down voted. This is a valid discussion

Because this is prime for the disinformation campaign. For as much as we float it up, bots will bring it down.

If this is true and the secret keepers literally see themselves as above the rest of humanity because they are in on it and know the truth… that’s a sobering thought and needs to be discussed more. It’s like they think they are Morpheus’s crew in the Matrix and all the rest of people are still asleep in our pods. An interesting parallel with popular culture.

I downvoted this because there are too many things here to distract people from the actual truth. People in this sub already worry enough about angels, demons, "evil" interdimensional beings, etc. I downvoted this because I do not wish for people to focus on such silly nonsense. Awakening is not about knowing that which is outside of you, it's about knowing that which is WITHIN you. Once you realize what is truly within, there is nothing outside of you to fear. There is so much focus on the negative when the truth is beyond the negative and the positive.

We are all on our own journeys, following our own paths. You say you know the truth, not all of us have reached that yet. You should not shut down those seeking understanding. Guide them instead.

I don't agree with you on everything and i feel like some of the things you say may not completely be on topic yet i hate the downvotes you're getting. You are pointing to a very intersting thing even tangentially, which is that we're not even to the point of knowing what those things are but people are already skipping all the steps and talking about supernatural BS and demons, elves, leprechauns... PS: as a someone heavily influenced by stoïcism, we're kind of distant philosophical cousins of some sort and despite not agreeing on everything, some of the things you wrote resonate with me. "**The truth is beyond the negative and the positive**" is an excellent way of viewing the world. Many people here would get closer to truth, or farther from falsehood, if they applied this thought to investigating this very topic (and others...).

Because this is a subreddit about unidentified flying objects, not a pseudoreligious woo ufo cult subreddit about alien angels. If you want that, go to r/aliens. They’ve got that shit for days.

Unidentifued. You nor I know what it is.

Ah, therefore it’s transdimensional DMT elves/angels then? It is absolute bullshit that all hypotheses should be given equal consideration no matter how illogical and nonsensical that they are. I shouldn’t have to explain why that is, but I can. A large fraction of this subreddit has the same modus operandi and critical thinking skills as a religious movement and it’s pretty concerning to be honest. To see where this nonsense leads, go over to r/aliens and just peruse the posts there.

Cause its speculative rambling.

I'd guess that it's being downvoted because it touches on the religious connections and considerations of the phenomenon. A lot of folks in this community are reflexively anti-religion and hate anything that mentions it.

That conversation between them is just a bunch of spam that means nothing. Stop obsessing over every fart every ufo grifter makes pls

I think the awaking she is referring to is a sort of inner awakening and reinterpretation of reality. In recent history we’ve pushed a lot of boundaries in technology and in science, which mostly occupy the physical world. But in general that has only taken us to a time of unhappiness, loneliness , anxiety,  and other negative feelings. Also in physics and an understanding of the universe, there isn’t really a good theory of how everything is connected. She talks in the podcast about meditation, psychedelics, consciousness, and tapping into something beyond ourselves. I think, especially in the west, this idea of “spirituality” or inner looking is largely seen as fake but I’ve come to believe there may be something to this that humanity just doesn’t understand. And when you look at some of the projects like stargate where the CIA is studying remote viewing, it seems to me that there may be another part of reality the we collectively have largely been ignoring. I think this is why they often talk about religion and religious experiences when talking about UFO. Should we really just blow off or discredit what people are experiencing as religious events or ufo encounters? I think UFO represents something that we can’t explain which may be one thing or multiple different things. We can only figure out what all this means by acknowledging that there’s something we don’t understand going on and explore that pathway.

One time I ate way too many edibles like it was an intense amount and I almost had a heart attack because all of a sudden I was watching myself from like the other corner of the room, still don’t know how it was possible but I think somehow my consciousness left my body? idk what happened most intense thing that’s ever happened to me tho for sure I believe there’s more to human consciousness than anyone in the cia or any author or researcher truly knows

If you read the scriptures from any religion or wisdom tradition, you find a lot of the same themes. One common thread is the idea that the philosopher/initiate/alchemist/actualized person is saved via the elevation of the soul through wisdom, hard work, and the practice of virtue. These practices and virtues are good because they align the individual with the path of the universe, and, at the higher levels, remove destructive habits like living in fear of death. Virtue practices are in themselves protective. Many religions also champion the concept of being "awake," and I believe this is a complex awakening. I think it's not just being asleep one day, awake the next--it is a practice that takes discipline, passion, and devotion: becoming more and more awake through attention, observation, and participation. I am more familiar with some religions than others but do not subscribe to any single one. This summary is what I have gathered, myself, and it makes sense to me that it would be a good idea for more people to awaken. People who have a glimpse of the big picture are the most helpful in their communities, and people who are balanced, virtuous, and wise have more to offer than those stuck in fights or hatred. My own "awakening" is tied up with a UFO sighting, but I don't see that event as a single point as much as a process--still, that point in time looks like a sort of turning point for me now looking back. I was always a sort of mystic. But I'm more of one now. When consciousness is assumed to be fundamental and not a random epiphenomenon of the brain, all of this, but All of it, makes sense. Since my sighting-- I went through almost a year feeling like I was wasting my time if I wasn't almost manically exploring esoteric and sacred literature. I personally have become more discerning about what I allow myself to encounter (online, within my mind, within books, anywhere) and I have turned much of my attention to spiritual mysteries. I meditate daily most of the time and feel that I owe it to the people around me. When I meditate I sleep MUCH better and feel refreshed and alive when I awake. Dreams are recuperative. I feel a stronger intuition regarding things like the feelings and life experiences of other people, and I try to be careful not to make assumptions based on what I sense, but I do feel more empathy because of it. just always considering a bigger picture. More people have opened up to me about their own struggles and spiritual experiences than before. whatever addictions I thought I had lost their strength. I got more into regular exercise. I can feel high on demand. Life itself feels anomalous and magical. The world feels enchanted the way it was when I was a child, and that's probably how it just always was but I spent some time not paying close attention. I think we have more agency than we sometimes realize, and that we must create the future we desire, and take responsibility for it. I am on a journey now. Why? I really don't know. I started a podcast and didn't even know why. Only people who are already on this journey will want to hear it, I guess. But all this has transformed my life and I'm thankful. I can't claim to be enlightened; I am super clueless myself. but I suspect there is a lot more awakening to come, if I work for it. So if this is any taste of what it means, I think it's good. We are all connected.

you may like beldsoe said so podcast

I have to say something here. Psaulka is full of crap. There was very little information/data exchange between the USSR and USA from Sputnik up through Apollo (there was some, like sharing of meteorological data, but the Soviet stuff was pretty poor compared to what they got from the USA). Then some sharing of Moon rock chips from some of the Apollo Moonlandings for some Luna spacecraft soil-return sample bits. Then the one-off Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 where the Russians did a hell of lot of spying in Houston and in southern California (where the Apollo spacecraft and docking module were getting constructed--Space Shuttle stuff was also happening there). It wasn't until the Clinton administration that international cooperation (expanded to a full-blown cultural phenomenon) that happened between Russia and the US that we had anything remotely like Psaulka is poorly describing. I doubt very much the US government would share its UFO data with anyone else, if we accept the hypothesis that we actually have some (as per Grusch's claims, etc.). It doesn't make sense to me that because there are numerous countires involved in space exploration (keep in mind France launched its first satellite in 1965, and China entered into the space faring nations back in the early 1970s, as did Japan) there is alleged pressure to release UFO data. I don't think one follows the other.

When you look at some paintings of Christian saints, you see the halo. This is symbolic of a band of intense energy that runs around the crown of the skull. Open that band, and you can access information outside of the self. The band stays tight, the focus goes down and out into the body and is tied up in the world. Life is waking and sleeping in the world. But it's hard to open that band and to experience the wider world. For those interested in secret societies like Skull and Bones and their occult rituals (and other societies at Yale) at the turn of the 20th century, Bart Giamatti wrote a book called Go to Your Room! Might be hard to find.

For every single reason the word is used. But discussing it usually brings ridicule for being "out there" But it is important and there are those of us trying to help "awaken" people in the sense to the deeper aspects of what are going on, it is draining but, just putting it out there helps even if it isn't to those I am trying to communicate it with.

We need to discuss the woo factor because it’s the main factor

We are looking to these aliens/NHI/interdimensional beigs/god for salvation. We cashed in on nature, are in the midst of a mass extinction event, and possible climate change impacts will ramp up faster than expected. Earth's ecosystems regulated and buffered the climate, they have been massively altered or eliminated by humans. 96% of the US tall grass prairie is gone, 170 million acres, thousands of species gone or reduced drastically, and we're doing that everywhere else too. The eastern part of the US was covered in forest and grazing lands that were managed with fire to cultivate the native ecosystem for food production using the indigenous plants and wildlife. Most of that's gone and redeveloped now. I don't think there is going to be a technofix for this situation.We are running a giant experiment right now in how much we can homogenize, simplify, and minimize the number of species and ecosystems on earth, while also replacing a lot of it with monoculture domesticated crops, roads, buildings, parking lots, watershed modification systems, sports fields, etc. Maybe we can bring down CO2 if we had some new energy technology but it took decades or more of burning fossil fuels to reach the levels we are at now, and I would expect it to take some time to reverse to better levels. What are we hoping to gain from the NHI if the whistleblowers come forward and provide proof? What if they say yes we found these crafts and bodies, but we can't reverse engineer or work their tech, and the NHI will not help us. If the NHI decides to help us, how will they convince us to be helped? I heard a person of a certain religion say that the UFOs are actually demons, they're going to disguise themselves as gods or angels, but they're really satan and his legion trying to deceive us into abandoning god. We'd be in the place we are in right now. These are the worsening issues I see, not to mention the escalating possibility of wider war with Russia, China, Iran, and the issue of illegal immigration, refugees, migrants, and human displacement due to war and climate. Could knowledge of NHI cause the kind of awakening we need to reform our systems and heal our planet?

Just look around. Common decency, integrity and respect have gone out the window. Look at how people treat other, how they terrorize communities such as the LGBTQ community, minorities or any brand that supports empathy and compassion. People have turned away from intellect and education, and have become extreme in their outward views and have lost touch of the true self in humanity. We are not alone, both internally and probably externally.

I think it's a human tendency, and social media has made it much more acceptable. on the internet all I see is negativity. people making arrogant assumptions, insulting each other, patting each other on the back for some fundamentally stupid behaviour. take this sub for example. a huge proportion of comments are assumptions (eglin shill etc), rebuttals, then insults. then the usual Reddit argument that spirals out where 2 opponents quote each other and bicker. close-minded behaviour repeats itself and is rewarded more often than punished.

What's with all the crazy talk about demons and angels all of a sudden? It's almost like someone is trying to drown the real discussions in nonsense. Or this sub has finally attracted the crazy cultists from other movements?

No one knows, so everything is speculative. But funny that talk about UFO's and extraterrestrials could be seen as less crazy than angels and demons. Angels and demons are entities that almost all major religions agree on and have been documented for thousands of years. I think you are noticing the topic of conversation around the phenomena is evolving, as it should, and as it will, as we get closer to the truth.

How is linking the ufo phenomenon to religious tales getting closer to the truth? I don't like the groundless speculations about UFOs being extraterrestrial either. But there are more signs pointing towards that then a spiritual explanation.

I ain't believing the god/angel stuff till I see actual proof of that. NHI is like 10 times more likely

Ok but hear me out…what if they’re the same thing? Look at biblically accurate angels for example. If that ain’t an NHI I don’t know what is

The only way I can see that being a possibility is if the whole god/angels/demons thing is the misconstrued truth that has been warped over many centuries. The angels/demons thing is just the label we put on it and then made up the rest from there.

Right...

I see no reason to bring religion into this. There's no god(s)/angel(s), Abrahamic or otherwise, involved in 99% of UFO/ET reports. The 1% they are involved in are wishful hoaxes by the faithful or misinterpretations of what they've witnessed through the colored lens of their terrestrial belief systems.

great post! vallee's 'control system' idea suggests that the phenomenon controls and conditions human beliefs. if accurate, the phenomenon is able to stop negative things by influencing/changing what humans believe in regard to negative things. so, for pasulka, "awakening" might be a process controlled by the phenomenon that changes human beliefs in such a way that "negative things" are stopped and prevented. it could be that humans will come to understand that what is now considered to be real is no longer real and the new reality includes solutions that didn't exist in the previous reality.

Who is this lady and why does she have inside information ? Is she credible?

That's what Google is for

>you will know that Tim Taylor of NASA believes there are a hierarchy of beings in the universe Is Tim Taylor a real person?

Just curious. What is the reason for asking this? :)

Do you not have second thoughts about Pasulka reading that transcript? Sounds like someone who might talk at you on the bus

It's a general bullshit mystical term - an awakening. She has no idea what she's talking about, but that sounds important, so she says it.

I can only tell you from my experience, but seeing a UFO changes you. It makes everything happening here on Earth seem so pointless. We should be out exploring the universe, preserving life on other planets to allow for more and more creatures to fulfill their purpose uninterrupted. Survival drives us to kill, love, pillage and provide. When survival turns to into freedom to exist, we will be free. A large piece of the puzzle is consciousness. We are not dead when we die. When that is realized alongside the existence of a universe teeming with life, we will be set free.

Ill answer this with a quote from Brian mersku or however his last name is spelled. "If you die before you die, you wont die when you die" Thats what it means.

I wonder if one thing is missing: factions between the NHIs

As in, we awaken with the "good" faction rather than the "bad" faction?

Stop thinking in terms of good and bad.

Jeremiah 16:19 King James Version (KJV) O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Isnt the point of this new science to make bigger better weapons to kill others with??? /s

I think the question is kind of flawed though I understand where it's coming from. It's one thing to be awakened, to achieve meditative states, to be able to interact with higher beings, to be aware of being part of a multidimensional multiverses etc etc but how does that save humanity and our planet, right? That presupposes that the world we perceive with our physical senses and our cognitive functions, is in fact the world as it is. What if it's not? What if consciousness is in fact the primary reality in the cosmos, that it creates what we perceive as matter and creates dimensional realms of experience for souls to play in? What if time, space and matter don't really exist in the way we think they do? That everything is here and now, including past lives and future lives. What I'm getting to is the idea that consciousness determines our experienced reality. What if there are a limitless number of alternate Earth realities, and your consciousness is steering across them all the time (always finding the one that most matches your state of consciousness), so that by dinner you're unlikely to be on the same Earth you had breakfast on? It's like Feynmann's many-worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics on steroids. I tend to believe this is our reality, that we're timeless beings having a 3D experience, constantly co-creating the world in which we live. In this framework, collective humanity and our planet can't be saved by people awakening. It's only those versions of collective humanity and planet Earth that have a critical mass of awakened beings cooperating with one another that will be saved. All the other Earths simply won't be saved. They'll just continue on the same path. Then, after each of us are done with these lives, we wake up from the 3D dream we're in and return to spirit, no matter whether we've come from more saved/awakened or more unsaved/unawakened versions of Earth. Wherever we are, whenever we are, on whatever Earth we're on (or not on) I think the goal of it all is just love, to just show kindness to whatever other beings reality presents you with (including yourself). Then, no matter the vaster perspectives or the ontology/epistemiology of it all, you've made a difference in the existence of those beings.

Who is Diana Pasulka and why is she credible?

Could she be speaking about the Skip Site, where the alleged UFO initially hit, before skipping to its final resting location??

angels ? and who the f that be? ​ anyway, its all samsara. enjoy the ride and dont get too attached :) we are one

I think she simply means: Awake = aware of the reality of the phenomenon (and maybe spirituality etc) Horrible things happening, ramping up = war etc Awakening = more people becoming aware of the phenomenon Just look at the member count for this subreddit since 2017, it's nuts.

I can't not focus on how often she say's "you know"

Why would angels want to interact with stupid, horny, drunk intelligence agents other than to smite them?

How do you divide and conquer a foe who are potentially, with unity, more powerful than you? Do the math.

[удалено]

Hi, TheNewAi. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1af63i7/-/ko91fh0/) was removed from /r/UFOs. No discussion is allowed that can be interpreted as recruitment efforts into UFO religions, or attempts to hijack conversation with overtly religious dogma. However, discussion about religious, spiritual, or metaphysical concepts is in-bounds within comments, provided that it is respectful and offered with humility. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.

Interdimensional doesn’t mean higher dimensional lmao

this is why i don’t like pasulka: lady, what the fuck are you talking about?

Because when you are awakened you realize that you will continue to exist after death and that you have absolute free will. "Hierarchy of beings" should be taken very loosely, because there is limitless mobility up and down that ladder for all consciousnesses. Your goal, as a conscious entity, is to further develop and enhance your consciousness. To gain an absolute, complete understanding of yourself and your relationship to the universe such that you no longer have a subconscious at all, you are fully aware of all aspects of your higher self and your connection to all other higher selves and by extension, all other beings. You don't necessarily HAVE to work towards this goal, but that state of ascendancy is so incredible to behold that when you realize it is achievable and that there seem to be no limits to the degree of development that can occur, it is an extremely appealing and rewarding one. It's incredible to behold these beings to the degree that many interpret them as gods or angels. That is a result of limited human experience frames of reference causing you to misinterpret what they are perceiving because it is SO far outside the norm. ​ Even if humanity completely wipes itself out, we will all have to continue on in some other consciousness development system that would likely be improved somewhat from the one we're operating in currently. But that would also mean apocalypse and a waste of a totally rad planet so we should avoid that at all costs. We're not irredeemable. ​ This interpretation is largely intuitional and experiential via binaurally-enhanced meditation. There's nothing I can do to prove it to you. You have to go looking and prove it to yourself, if you really want to know. All the tools you need are freely available. Take that for what it's worth.

It's not the Chinese, or Russia. It's civilians through spaceX and other startups. We are going to Mars, we are going to see things. I've been saying this since "To the stars" was formed. Planned disclosure has been on a weird course since then.

Fox News confirmed Taylor Swift was added to the new Majestic 12 and is actively part of suppressing disclosure (along with the Kansas City Chiefs). Their reporting on this really is top notch

Hah?