The Paradox

[Paul Kandrah]

Dear David and Group,

This is a very interesting article David. Not being well versed in
the paradoxes of the present cosmological theories I wonder if new
science can help me understand a particular detail within it. The
following is a quote from your article:

Dr. Tegmark and colleagues present the CMB as a sphere: "The entire
observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of
it."

The evidence that is being offered suggests that we are in the very
center of the grand octahedron of the universe. Now I am all for
being at the center of the universe, but something in the back of my
mind tells me that this shouldn't be so. What are the chances that
the earth is presently at the 'initial location' of the big bang
that is suggested by the cosmic background radiation boundary?

My rather simplistic thinking goes like this. The big bang, like
any explosion, would cause an expanding bubble to move outward from
the center event. Outside of this bubble would be nothing, and
inside the bubble would be something, namely aspects of the universe
that travel at speeds less than the rate of the bubble edge. The
cosmic background radiation (CMB) is said to be a trace of the big
bang because it is near the forefront of that edge.

That there are geometries formed within this bubble is truly
astounding and wonderful evidence for sacred geometry, which you
have also supplied ample evidence for in your books and I will be
looking into further. But presently I am still trying to understand
why earth is supposedly at the center of the universe.

When we look out the roughly 15 billion year to this CMB in any
direction we are said to be looking at the beginnings of the
universe. It is "way out there." The only way I can rectify this
in my mind is to say that TIME IS SPACE, indicated by layers of an
onion: the very beginnings of time being the skin of the expanding
bubble, and successive layers being created as space is made from
the expansion within. It is common knowledge that when we look out
in space we look back in time. From this it follows that NOW is
indicated by the very center of that sphere, which is where we are
presently. Further thinking indicates that the future truly does
not exist, for you cannot get any closer to the center than we are,
at least until time takes place, and more is created with the outer
expansion.

That was a bit of a tangent, but one that seems to follow from that
original quote. The paradox that comes about is that if we are the
center of the universe, what about an entity that exists in another
part of the galaxy, or another galaxy all together? Would not they
see the flow of time in the universe in the same way? Would not NOW
be THERE for them?

You see, with my initial thoughts about space within the universe I
had expected the earth to be found at a location some point
different from the center of the CMB bubble. But light doesn't work
that way, does it. Somehow light is playing a crucial role here.

I think it was a quote from one of your books that simple says
that, "Light is." Light does not travel but is a phenomenon of
the "stationary" aether. I have taken this to mean that light and
the aether are one. Light is the wave that travels the ocean.

Again with old thinking, if we were not at the center of the
universe and CMB bubble as I expected then we would have seen that
the CMB was different amounts of light years away depending upon
which direction you looked in the sky, time of day, time of year,
and which hemisphere on earth you looked from. If such were the
case then the age of the universe would be calculated by averaging
those distances (to really determine the center of the big bang).

So why are we HERE, in the center? I hope my paradox is clear, at
least to those who have thought about these things, or who are
willing to. There must be a simple way of putting these things
together.

...

Some more thoughts. I recall a mention of tired light being the
possible cause of the red shift seen by Hubble, where the light
stretches if it travels too far. Some say this may be related to
why we do not see the night sky filled with light from all the
distant stars. I am not so sure however, for even in an infinite
universe (non-big bang model) we still have the diminishing of light
intensity by 1/r^2, which is a powerful feature with finite energy
stars considering the distances. The light from distant finite
stars becomes simply negligible. It reminds me of multiple opposing
limits in calculus still being able to come up with a definite
answer. (Our night light intensity is the result of the relative
low density of light matter in the universe.)

We have further evidence for the big bang too in the CMB itself. We
do seem to be looking back in time to the beginning. (Unless it is
an indication of something else...)

[I apologize for these old thoughts and not being able to reference
other thinkers who undoubtedly have tackled these issues before.
This is poor science I know. This is my weakness and my strength.]

Some final questions. If the CMB octahedron evidence is a valid
indication of the beginning structure of the universe, then we are
seeing the original geometry that started it all (or something
close). What does this say about the octave of geometries that is
supposed to breath in a fractal universe? I suppose a safe answer
would be other densities or parallel universes, but it would have
been nice to see it here, somehow, in these traces from our
beginning, in time. Do you think there is any hope of a pathway for
the precepts of observable science to see into these other
densities? How do we have to look?

Please forgive my ramblings. I ask the world and expect nothing.
Your article was very well written. Thank you for your wonderful
work.

With Respect,

Paul

[Tony P.]

To see what I am replying to, go up a threat on the message board.
Look at it this way. There can be said to be three things. God, the
One, which is All That Is. There is the entity observing. And then
there is the observed. God is both the observing and the observed.
God set up the observing and observed with certain rules and
situations, in a cause and effect fashion. God is learning from this
giant virtual reality game. God is experiencing itself this way. So
eseentially the observer or observering is the center of the
universe, and the universe is the observed. Oberserver/observing is
the prime creator has been said, and the secondary creator is what is
being looked at. It's all cause and effect. The prime creator, or
observing/observer, is causing things to happen, which affects the
observed, and the observed does stuff and affects the observer back.
Rules and situations.

[David Wilcock]

From: "Paul Kandrah"

> Dear David and Group,
>
> This is a very interesting article David. Not being well versed in
> the paradoxes of the present cosmological theories I wonder if new
> science can help me understand a particular detail within it. The
> following is a quote from your article:

DW: Wow... a lot of things in your letter here. I'll try to hit highlights,
as this is the kind of post that we need more of... the scientific side of
the spectrum is often under-represented and some people unsubscribe because
that's the main reason why they joined...

> Dr. Tegmark and colleagues present the CMB as a sphere: "The entire
> observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of
> it."
>
> The evidence that is being offered suggests that we are in the very
> center of the grand octahedron of the universe. Now I am all for
> being at the center of the universe, but something in the back of my
> mind tells me that this shouldn't be so. What are the chances that
> the earth is presently at the 'initial location' of the big bang
> that is suggested by the cosmic background radiation boundary?

DW: None whatsoever. With such vast distances involved, the distension of
the sphere in a given direction that we are closer to could be nearly
imperceptible with the current crude instrumentation that we now have.
Remember that we've only been able to pick out the CMB for a little over a
decade now... this is by no means an exact science yet. It does mean that we
are not in the hinterlands of the Universe, but closer to the center,
meaning that we are also closer to re-unifying with the One Creator than
other regions.

Also interesting is the fact that we are right at the central intersection
point between our two local octahedrons, not along one of the lines.

> My rather simplistic thinking goes like this. The big bang, like
> any explosion, would cause an expanding bubble to move outward from
> the center event. Outside of this bubble would be nothing, and
> inside the bubble would be something, namely aspects of the universe
> that travel at speeds less than the rate of the bubble edge. The
> cosmic background radiation (CMB) is said to be a trace of the big
> bang because it is near the forefront of that edge.
>
> That there are geometries formed within this bubble is truly
> astounding and wonderful evidence for sacred geometry, which you
> have also supplied ample evidence for in your books and I will be
> looking into further. But presently I am still trying to understand
> why earth is supposedly at the center of the universe.

DW: Standard anthropocentric bias.

> When we look out the roughly 15 billion year to this CMB in any
> direction we are said to be looking at the beginnings of the
> universe. It is "way out there." The only way I can rectify this
> in my mind is to say that TIME IS SPACE, indicated by layers of an
> onion: the very beginnings of time being the skin of the expanding
> bubble, and successive layers being created as space is made from
> the expansion within. It is common knowledge that when we look out
> in space we look back in time. From this it follows that NOW is
> indicated by the very center of that sphere, which is where we are
> presently. Further thinking indicates that the future truly does
> not exist, for you cannot get any closer to the center than we are,
> at least until time takes place, and more is created with the outer
> expansion.

DW: These are some very cool ideas. Have you read the Reciprocal System
Theory of Physics by Dewey Larson? This sounds similar to Larson's concepts.
I don't have an opinion at this point.

> That was a bit of a tangent, but one that seems to follow from that
> original quote. The paradox that comes about is that if we are the
> center of the universe, what about an entity that exists in another
> part of the galaxy, or another galaxy all together? Would not they
> see the flow of time in the universe in the same way? Would not NOW
> be THERE for them?

DW: Ra does say that there is no space and no time, and in the fractal model
all centers are the center of the Universe - including the human heart. This
definitely gets into brain-twister territory...

> You see, with my initial thoughts about space within the universe I
> had expected the earth to be found at a location some point
> different from the center of the CMB bubble. But light doesn't work
> that way, does it. Somehow light is playing a crucial role here.

DW: I still think that even if we were 1/3rd of the width away from the
center, the sphere would look pretty much the same, given how huge and dim
it is.

> I think it was a quote from one of your books that simple says
> that, "Light is." Light does not travel but is a phenomenon of
> the "stationary" aether. I have taken this to mean that light and
> the aether are one. Light is the wave that travels the ocean.

DW: This is indeed correct.

> Again with old thinking, if we were not at the center of the
> universe and CMB bubble as I expected then we would have seen that
> the CMB was different amounts of light years away depending upon
> which direction you looked in the sky, time of day, time of year,
> and which hemisphere on earth you looked from. If such were the
> case then the age of the universe would be calculated by averaging
> those distances (to really determine the center of the big bang).

DW: This implies that our long-term measurements for the velocity of light
are accurate. Redshift is the primary means of measuring this, and it is of
limited use for measurement due to the fact that it may not represent
light's velocity at all. Since we have no relative point of reference for
the distance of the CMB, all measurements related to its distance must, by
nature, be gross approximations.

> So why are we HERE, in the center? I hope my paradox is clear, at
> least to those who have thought about these things, or who are
> willing to. There must be a simple way of putting these things
> together.

DW: I hope I have done so.

> Some more thoughts. I recall a mention of tired light being the
> possible cause of the red shift seen by Hubble, where the light
> stretches if it travels too far. Some say this may be related to
> why we do not see the night sky filled with light from all the
> distant stars. I am not so sure however, for even in an infinite
> universe (non-big bang model) we still have the diminishing of light
> intensity by 1/r^2, which is a powerful feature with finite energy
> stars considering the distances. The light from distant finite
> stars becomes simply negligible. It reminds me of multiple opposing
> limits in calculus still being able to come up with a definite
> answer. (Our night light intensity is the result of the relative
> low density of light matter in the universe.)

DW: One could say that the "tired light" is caused by the presence of the
aetheric medium. In a true void there would be no theoretical limits on the
distance that light could travel. This is one of those simple questions that
most physics students never think to ask and for which answers are generally
insufficient.

The question of redshift is briefly touched on in section 8.4 of Divine
Cosmos. Eventually I may write a longer, separate and fuller essay on the
redshift data. It is an inherently flawed model, but it has surprising new
use in our theory.

http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/08.htm#0804

> We have further evidence for the big bang too in the CMB itself. We
> do seem to be looking back in time to the beginning. (Unless it is
> an indication of something else...)

DW: I do think that it represents the original flourishing of the Universe,
and that we are in a section more recently ejected, hence closer to the
center - but this also means that when the Universe begins contracting, we
will return earlier as well.

> [I apologize for these old thoughts and not being able to reference
> other thinkers who undoubtedly have tackled these issues before.
> This is poor science I know. This is my weakness and my strength.]

DW: Don't worry, no one's going to take you outside and kick your @$$.

> Some final questions. If the CMB octahedron evidence is a valid
> indication of the beginning structure of the universe, then we are
> seeing the original geometry that started it all (or something
> close). What does this say about the octave of geometries that is
> supposed to breath in a fractal universe? I suppose a safe answer
> would be other densities or parallel universes, but it would have
> been nice to see it here, somehow, in these traces from our
> beginning, in time. Do you think there is any hope of a pathway for
> the precepts of observable science to see into these other
> densities? How do we have to look?

DW: First of all you have to realize that just because we see a matrix of
octahedrons, that doesn't mean that this is all that is there. You can
connect the matrix together to form star tetrahedrons, cubes, dodecahedra
and icosahedra. The octahedral coordinates are those which are structuring
our local area. As we get further away all we see are clusters at the node
points. Those clusters may connect into other geometries in other regions.

However, I am more inclined to think that the octahedral matrix holds true
throughout the Universe. Each density has its place. Third density is
structured on the octahedron, so that is what we see when looking at
superclusters of galaxies of third-density material. It is possible that the
actual spatial / temporal position of these galaxies fluctuates in the
matrix depending on what density you look at it through. Thus they would
appear to move - the matrix would appear to bend. However, this is no
different than Spilhaus' discoveries of the major Grid shifts in Earth's
evolution.

They all exist simultaneously... the octahedral and other levels. This new
finding does give strong evidence to back the Hindu assertion that the
octahedron is the prime geometry of our density, which we have also co-opted
in our literature. I would be less inclined to think that there are any
"invisible galaxies" that we don't already see... just that their matrix
positions may be defined by the density through which we view them.

> Please forgive my ramblings. I ask the world and expect nothing.
> Your article was very well written. Thank you for your wonderful
> work.

DW: Thanks... I feel really good about this one.

Peace be with you -

- David

> With Respect,
>
> Paul

[Paul Kandrah]

Thanks for the comments David. I have a lot more reading to do, but
in the meantime a question came up upon reading Section 8 of Divine
Cosmos. Two quotes from the book:

---In the book Seeing Red, the respected and controversial
astrophysicist Dr. Halton Arp has shown rigorous, voluminous
evidence to prove that "redshift" has nothing to do with the
distance of a celestial object, as is currently believed.

---Simple common-sense knowledge of our position in the Galaxy would
tell us that the Earth is not the center of the Universe; the major
problem that we then face is that redshift is the primary method
that astrophysicists use to calculate the distances of celestial
objects.

The question is twofold. Of the higher order: When it is found that
knowledge is built upon a house of cards, what then can you
reference from that knowledge base without encountering circular
reference anomalies? And in the mundane: I was wondering at how the
distance to the star/galaxies where measured to generate the
octahedron matrix pattern you referenced in the Matrix article (Fig
6)? That is, was this redshift technique used to calculate the
distances required to generate this interesting map?

If this is so, and the distances were calculated with redshift
techniques, then it would only be expected that there would be blank
space between different galaxies, since as you mentioned in the book
these redshift vibrations are not continuous, but discrete
harmonics. Unfortunately, if this is so, and redshift is not an
indication of distance, then those maps are maps of imaginary space,
constructed by our own false premises.

Again, I don't have the background, so please forgive my uninformed
questions. I am hopeful that the distances were calculated with
another method.

With respect,

Paul


> The question of redshift is briefly touched on in section 8.4 of
> Divine Cosmos. Eventually I may write a longer, separate and
> fuller essay on the redshift data. It is an inherently flawed
> model, but it has surprising new use in our theory.
>
> http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/08.htm#0804
>
> - David

[David Wilcock]

From: "Paul Kandrah"

> Thanks for the comments David. I have a lot more reading to do, but
> in the meantime a question came up upon reading Section 8 of Divine
> Cosmos. Two quotes from the book:
>
> ---In the book Seeing Red, the respected and controversial
> astrophysicist Dr. Halton Arp has shown rigorous, voluminous
> evidence to prove that "redshift" has nothing to do with the
> distance of a celestial object, as is currently believed.
>
> ---Simple common-sense knowledge of our position in the Galaxy would
> tell us that the Earth is not the center of the Universe; the major
> problem that we then face is that redshift is the primary method
> that astrophysicists use to calculate the distances of celestial
> objects.
>
> The question is twofold. Of the higher order: When it is found that
> knowledge is built upon a house of cards, what then can you
> reference from that knowledge base without encountering circular
> reference anomalies? And in the mundane: I was wondering at how the
> distance to the star/galaxies where measured to generate the
> octahedron matrix pattern you referenced in the Matrix article (Fig
> 6)? That is, was this redshift technique used to calculate the
> distances required to generate this interesting map?

DW: Upon reading Astron. Astrophysics 338, 383-385 (1998), "Magnetic fields
and large scale structure in a hot Universe" by Battaner and Florido, we see
that the measurement systems involve more than just redshift. The data that
seems to be the clearest comes from the Broadhurst pencil beam laser survey,
which noticed periodic walls of superclusters in 128 Mpc increments...
whereas the Las Campanas 2D redshift survey saw 100 Mpc increments.

Redshift isn't COMPLETELY useless, but it is distorted, as we see above. I
might want to alter the writing to that effect. Other measurements mentioned
in the article are QSO absorption-line systems, the CMB spectrum and
"observational evidence" mainly after the works of Tully et al. (1992) and
the Tartu group (Einasto et al. 1997a,b,c), as well as a "sharp maximum on
the power spectrum of galaxies and clusters of galaxies"... as well as "the
interpretation of the peak by Einasto et al. (1997b).

If you'd like to do some reconaiassance work on those measurement systems
and share them, you or anyone else here, that would help us out... like
exactly how a pencil-beam laser survey is conducted. As far as I can tell,
the "observational evidence" part means that if you've mapped these clusters
out as best you can in 3D, based on looking through telescopes, etc, and
then you have everything but the redshift data pointing at the 128 Mpc
distance, then you've got a pretty good case.

> If this is so, and the distances were calculated with redshift
> techniques, then it would only be expected that there would be blank
> space between different galaxies, since as you mentioned in the book
> these redshift vibrations are not continuous, but discrete
> harmonics. Unfortunately, if this is so, and redshift is not an
> indication of distance, then those maps are maps of imaginary space,
> constructed by our own false premises.

DW: That would be true if redshift were the only method... thankfully it is
not.

> Again, I don't have the background, so please forgive my uninformed
> questions. I am hopeful that the distances were calculated with
> another method.

DW: Your hopes were correct! These papers, what few there are, can be
downloaded online. Some are PDF and some are Post Script. To read Post
Script files you have to download GhostScript and GSview and install them
first... they can be found on any search engine.

> With respect,
>
> Paul

Peace be with you -

- David

[Paul Kandrah]

Dear David,

You are very strong. That is good. Much better than you sounded in
the 3/3/3 letter where you described your trip to Japan. Your new
abode must be fitting nicely.

> If you'd like to do some reconaiassance work on those measurement
> systems and share them, you or anyone else here, that would help
> us out... like exactly how a pencil-beam laser survey is
> conducted. As far as I can tell, the "observational evidence" part
> means that if you've mapped these clusters out as best you can in
> 3D, based on looking through telescopes, etc, and then you have
> everything but the redshift data pointing at the 128 Mpc distance,
> then you've got a pretty good case.

Thank you, but I will pass this task onto another. I am still
trying to finish your books while keeping up with the other links
that are supplied here. And I am doing research of my own - on the
dynamics of consciousness. I am trying to ascertain a simple
methodology to pacify the fear reflex in an environment where
dissonance is reflected. It is very personal. My STO.

We are all potential agents until we are unplugged from the matrix.
It seems we know not what we are... until we DO.

Thank you for your example. The Light of the Spiral is now on You.

L&L,
Paul

[Lesley Schultz]

Dearest Paul, L/L and Peace to All:

--- Paul Kandrah <essent321@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ys_STMoo2xD_kIflPaIxRPmt0RvR4EC9LL6t8u UL1fR8RSRf1CS94I_Nsvz5wZuexi90LcwKLWqz-DdH_g)> wrote:
[snip>
> We are all potential agents until we are unplugged
> from the matrix. [snip]

I realize that this is nit-picky, but if this
statement were true, there would be no such thing as
free will. I don't think you meant to imply that.

It's true that we are imbedded into the entire
social/cultural/educational matrix on every level
until we begin to see that 'there is no spoon,' but I
would argue that motivations for moving beyond the
confines of the matrix can be both STS and STO. Both
are legitimate methods of 'unplugging', but the matrix
itself isn't evil, nor are agents of the matrix. The
matrix serves a purpose in 3D. Let's acknowledge that
one has to begin somewhere before one can advance, and
the matrix was out beginning.

Anyone remember their Plato from college days, in
particular the 'Last Days of Socrates'? The citizens
of Athens ordered the death of Socrates because he was
an irritant, he asked too many uncomfortable
questions, was 'unplugging' the Athenian youth.

Socrates drank the hemlock willingly, refused all
offers to sneak him out of the city and spare his
life. He did it because he knew that the Athenian
matrix had a important function. He wanted to change
the function, and change some of the manners in which
it functioned, but he didn't wish to destroy the
entire thing. Anarchy is not better in 3D than a
republican democracy [however imperfect] or even a
dictatorship [however benign], for humans find
disorder more disquieting than almost anything else.
This is what 3D is, it hungers for a matrix and if the
human 3D isn't born into one, it makes one for itself.


My point here is that the matrix is neither good nor
bad, but good and bad use may be made of it. Hopefully
if we are agents sometimes, we are either STS or STO
agents and if we mess up, so be it. The matrix can
protect others, in some ways, from extreme STS and STO
agents doing too much, too soon. We're at a point now
where the matrix will be dismantled for good and all
on this world.

A new one probably awaits, about which we know very
little. You and David and many others are studying
it, Carla and her helpers are intuiting it's nature.

And now that I've beaten the matrix topic to death,
I'll shut up and get back to work.

Blessings,
~lesley




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

[Paul Kandrah]

Hi Lesley,

(All work and no play... ;)

It is truly wonderful to be able to have such deep intelligible
conversations. Thank you.

I loved the movie The Matrix. In an unprecedented move for me I
ended up watching the movie 15 times or so, each time seeing more
and more about the deep synthesis that it portrayed.

> > We are all potential agents until we are unplugged
> > from the matrix. [snip]
>
> I realize that this is nit-picky, but if this
> statement were true, there would be no such thing as
> free will. I don't think you meant to imply that.

For the general situation, the fact that an agent (word for
something else) can move into any of us does not necessarily
infringe upon our free will. To understand this understand the
mechanism that is utilized. Over time and development the
individual is convinced he or she is a certain way. Therefore the
free will that this individual utilizes remains in the confines of
the paradigms that were set up. One essential ingredient in this
paradigm for the matrix to work as it does is one of the
weakness/susceptibility of the individual. You can exercise all the
free will you want within these confines. The "agent" then has the
freedom to move throughout.

What the agents actually are is a complex issue. Basically they can
be seen as distinct thought forms that help us keep each other in
line. When somebody steps out of line others react negatively to
that. There are many levels to this of course, and the in the more
potent negativity constructs, however temporary, we find aspects of
the agent moving through each one of us.

> It's true that we are imbedded into the entire
> social/cultural/educational matrix on every level
> until we begin to see that 'there is no spoon,' but I
> would argue that motivations for moving beyond the
> confines of the matrix can be both STS and STO. Both
> are legitimate methods of 'unplugging', but the matrix
> itself isn't evil, nor are agents of the matrix. The
> matrix serves a purpose in 3D. Let's acknowledge that
> one has to begin somewhere before one can advance, and
> the matrix was out beginning.

The Matrix that Neo battles in the movie is the one controlled by
agent thought forms. Generally these thought forms reside heavily
in places of power, where STS is strong and there is little concern
for the people that they are controlling, often including the host.
(Agent Smith was not enjoying himself with the smell.)

It is true that when we unplug we end up in another type of matrix;
this will likely always be so until perhaps 7 or 8th density. There
are always confines in the laws of nature and of course this is...
natural. Unnatural confines resulting from distorted will upon
others, for whatever reason - even the apparent good willing STO
individual who hasn't completely unplugged from negative (temporary)
influences - do still occur within the natural realm. However, in
these cases the recipient of the controlling forces agrees on some
level to let the control in, therefore free will is never thwarted.

From this it should be clear where we hold our power.

> Anyone remember their Plato from college days, in
> particular the 'Last Days of Socrates'? The citizens
> of Athens ordered the death of Socrates because he was
> an irritant, he asked too many uncomfortable
> questions, was 'unplugging' the Athenian youth.
>
> Socrates drank the hemlock willingly, refused all
> offers to sneak him out of the city and spare his
> life. He did it because he knew that the Athenian
> matrix had a important function. He wanted to change
> the function, and change some of the manners in which
> it functioned, but he didn't wish to destroy the
> entire thing. Anarchy is not better in 3D than a
> republican democracy [however imperfect] or even a
> dictatorship [however benign], for humans find
> disorder more disquieting than almost anything else.
> This is what 3D is, it hungers for a matrix and if the
> human 3D isn't born into one, it makes one for itself.

I kind of agree with RA on the martyrdom of Jesus not maximizing the
potential for good towards others. Socrates could have withdrawn
from his influence if he felt as you stated, allowed himself to be
smuggled and so he could work as he saw fit from the background, or
on a very select few people that chose to be their themselves. At
the very least he could have lived the remaining years of a good
life.

I rather suspect that myths such as that of Socrates and Jesus that
things are portrayed in a certain way for certain reasons. What you
stated as a story fits will with the Matrix Mind ideal. Just
remember who writes history, and even who writes the stories we see
about incidents such as the Iraq war in the present day. Take
millenia and you have a completely different story.

> My point here is that the matrix is neither good nor
> bad, but good and bad use may be made of it. Hopefully
> if we are agents sometimes, we are either STS or STO
> agents and if we mess up, so be it. The matrix can
> protect others, in some ways, from extreme STS and STO
> agents doing too much, too soon. We're at a point now
> where the matrix will be dismantled for good and all
> on this world.

Many people are offering their intent on the eve of the transition
that you speak of. It is within their free will to do so. Any
force that infringes upon their free will can be considered an
agent, and the majority of the time it will come from regular people
who are just not ready to wake up. This too is a natural reflex and
within their rights, for the regular people too have made their
choice within the confined paradigm that I spoke of above. And
there are some people who are agents through and through, and as
Neo's cohorts often did when facing them, the only thing you can do
is run.

> A new one probably awaits, about which we know very
> little. You and David and many others are studying
> it, Carla and her helpers are intuiting it's nature.

The new paradigm that David is studying is actually the way things
are, naturally. He is having to battle with forces that want things
to stay as they are in our minds - sort of an altered set - for an
assortment of reasons. The transition that is occurring is coming
from the free will of very powerful entities: namely the sun, the
earth, and even the movements of our galaxy. And there are also
powerful entities that are communicating to us now, and even some
that have decided to offer their serves by manifesting themselves
here physically. What will result is the summation of all the
Intent that is offered by each player in this movement, according to
the power that they hold. What is beautiful is that the Intent
itself is aligning things, and each element is playing their
essential part. Even and especially Bush is a part of this, as you
stated previously.

This power, whether it is STS or STO Intent based, moves through
each one of us. With the free will that you speak of you can align
with either side. Then once the cards are drawn a battle will
ensue, which will result in the leveling of that power. The world
and matrix that we have on the other side will be the result.

I do appreciate that sometimes there can be too much knowledge, too
quickly. I myself have lived through crisis, when the world
dismantled around me and I didn't know what was what. This
paradoxically is exactly what our new scientists such as David
expect. It therefore makes ample sense to prepare ourselves, and be
supple in the way we look at things, for the transition that will
come whether we want it to or not. There are many ways to do this
preparation. In the movie they had the training room.

Love is an essential ingredient. Any force that does not offer it,
or only offers it sporadically, or uses fear to get reactions, is
not something that will serve you as you thought... no matter how
much power is offered.

I can't wait to see the next movie. Those brothers who wrote and
directed the series have something going on. The framing they are
supplying is priceless.

L&L,
Paul