cosmiccell
02-08-2004, 02:24 AM
Hi Jeremy,
you wrote:
> What I mean is, we are not experts - and we don't have
> definitive answers for you. As I touched on before,
> we have little need for definitive, black and white
> answers, as this forum is designed to be a place where
> we can share our experiences and understandings.
CC: At this point I donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t seek for "definitve answers" neither (e.g.
you will never hear me say: "period!"). Complete knowledge includes
knowledge of the phenomenal world, the spirit behind it, and the
_source_ of both of them. This is transcendental knowledge, gained by
spiritual practice, with a mind concentrated on God. What we should
use besides, is our power of discrimination.
So, why not follow a simple strategy: You have your hypothesis of
reality, I have mine. The one, which explains the observed phenomena
of our world _more consistently_ and with _less effort_, is -
scientifically spoken - superior to the other one. I really donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t have
a problem replacing my model through yours, if yours meets above
criteria better - do you?
Applied to the contradiction between David`s out of body experience
(where he experienced hierarchically higher dimensions or densities as
being _upwards_, thus farther away from Earth`s surface) and Ra`s
definition ("There is a center to infinity. From this center all
spreads."), there is another possible scenario, which you probably
were never thinking of, but which resolves this apparent discrepance
with ease.
> I would simply chalk that up to two things: confines
> of thinking and language, and subjective experience.
CC: Sounds a bit like admission of having no idea.
> It's like the story of the Sphere who visits the two
> dimensional triangle who's whole world is a plane.
> The triangle only understands width and depth, not
> height. When the sphere moves up and down through the
> plane, all the triangle sees is a circle growing and
> shrinking.
CC: This picture is commonly used, but it is off topic to the problem.
Why? Because the "triangle" (David) _did_ see the higher planes of the
"Sphere" and could even describe them _in detail_. So, even
"triangles" can experience "spherical" reality, by "simply" rising
their frequency.
> Similarly, in the veiled, 3D experience, it's
> difficult to work directly with higher experiences.
CC: Another veiled insinuation of "blissful ignorance"? :)
> They are not per se scientific, empirical endeavors,
> but rather highly subjective.
CC: You are bound to claim that, as long as you are not aware of
consistency. But thatÃà‚‚Â ´s what our intellectual search is all about.
> We may be able to
> explain certain aspects via models, but these models
> don't take things like extra dimensions and subtlties
> of existence into account.
CC: Sure they do! Only recently, I came across a phantastic web site
named "The Divine Cosmos", offering a stunning documentation of the
connection between _higher dimensions_ and _3D shapes_ on EarthÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s
surface. You may have heard about it! :>
> In short, I would not be
> inclined to use David's characterization of a
> subjective experience as any sort of proof of a
> scientific model.
CC: I bet you guys were the first to use DavidÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s more "bizarre"
experiences as proof (or at least as a hot indication), if you only
had the slightest idea of how a consistent model could look like! =o)
> "Up" and "in" are just two
> shorthand ways of trying to tackle the concept of
> interdensity or interdimensional motion, both of which
> don't have their own prepositions yet. :-)
CC: Is this an example for the unwillingness of common mind to take
anything serious, thatÃà‚‚Â ´s beyond its "dirt track"?
Ok, all jokes aside, I kept you long enough on tenterhooks, letÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´s
unveil the "enigma"!
A consistent model for Davids description of higher dimensions
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dimensions (densities) are spheres or shells, centered around a
core like onion skins, the dimension closest to the core (7th or 8th
dimension) being logically the most similar and therefore highest one.
2. It was never determined whether the habited surface of the shells
(including 3D density) is _convex_ or _concave_. This is a
specification which nobody in this forum thought of - until now.
3. On a CONCAVE shell surface, travelling upwards, away from the
surface, would mean: travelling towards the center, thus "popping in"
in higher and higher dimensions, the closer and closer you come to the
core.
4. Davids description of the highest plane as a relatively small
space, a space ship cockpit, from which the lower (outer) dimensions
are controlled and manipulated ("The Matrix" is greeting!) is another
strong evidence of the highest dimension being proximate to a "core
cockpit".
This resembles very much like "swapping the view of a picture puzzle"
but opens substantially new perspectives and a broad discussion field.
It would be very interesting what you - David - and also Ra (is he
still channeling?) have to say to the hypothesis of a concave
universe. I couldnÃà‚‚à‚´t locate so far any hard evidence (e.g. reference
to physical experiments etc.) which would support an convex universe,
neither in the Ra material nor in the work of DW. I herewith ask for
the combined effort of the group to help clarify this crucial,
multi-implicational question.
Check out this:
QUESTION: Has Ra experienced or does Ra have knowledge of any of
these other galaxies? Has Ra traveled to, in one form or another, any
of these galaxies? (B4, 59)
RA: WE HAVE OPENED OUR HEARTS IN RADIATION OF LOVE TO THE ENTIRE
CREATION... ALL [...] ARE ONE. This is the type of contact which we
enjoy rather than travel. (B4, 59)
http://ascension2000.com/Ra-section3.htm
What does this tell us? Nothing more than what we already know: That
the hypothesis of an infinite universe has "yet to be proved or
disproved" - even in 3D!
Love and light,
CC
you wrote:
> What I mean is, we are not experts - and we don't have
> definitive answers for you. As I touched on before,
> we have little need for definitive, black and white
> answers, as this forum is designed to be a place where
> we can share our experiences and understandings.
CC: At this point I donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t seek for "definitve answers" neither (e.g.
you will never hear me say: "period!"). Complete knowledge includes
knowledge of the phenomenal world, the spirit behind it, and the
_source_ of both of them. This is transcendental knowledge, gained by
spiritual practice, with a mind concentrated on God. What we should
use besides, is our power of discrimination.
So, why not follow a simple strategy: You have your hypothesis of
reality, I have mine. The one, which explains the observed phenomena
of our world _more consistently_ and with _less effort_, is -
scientifically spoken - superior to the other one. I really donÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´t have
a problem replacing my model through yours, if yours meets above
criteria better - do you?
Applied to the contradiction between David`s out of body experience
(where he experienced hierarchically higher dimensions or densities as
being _upwards_, thus farther away from Earth`s surface) and Ra`s
definition ("There is a center to infinity. From this center all
spreads."), there is another possible scenario, which you probably
were never thinking of, but which resolves this apparent discrepance
with ease.
> I would simply chalk that up to two things: confines
> of thinking and language, and subjective experience.
CC: Sounds a bit like admission of having no idea.
> It's like the story of the Sphere who visits the two
> dimensional triangle who's whole world is a plane.
> The triangle only understands width and depth, not
> height. When the sphere moves up and down through the
> plane, all the triangle sees is a circle growing and
> shrinking.
CC: This picture is commonly used, but it is off topic to the problem.
Why? Because the "triangle" (David) _did_ see the higher planes of the
"Sphere" and could even describe them _in detail_. So, even
"triangles" can experience "spherical" reality, by "simply" rising
their frequency.
> Similarly, in the veiled, 3D experience, it's
> difficult to work directly with higher experiences.
CC: Another veiled insinuation of "blissful ignorance"? :)
> They are not per se scientific, empirical endeavors,
> but rather highly subjective.
CC: You are bound to claim that, as long as you are not aware of
consistency. But thatÃà‚‚Â ´s what our intellectual search is all about.
> We may be able to
> explain certain aspects via models, but these models
> don't take things like extra dimensions and subtlties
> of existence into account.
CC: Sure they do! Only recently, I came across a phantastic web site
named "The Divine Cosmos", offering a stunning documentation of the
connection between _higher dimensions_ and _3D shapes_ on EarthÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s
surface. You may have heard about it! :>
> In short, I would not be
> inclined to use David's characterization of a
> subjective experience as any sort of proof of a
> scientific model.
CC: I bet you guys were the first to use DavidÃÃÂà ‚‚‚à‚´s more "bizarre"
experiences as proof (or at least as a hot indication), if you only
had the slightest idea of how a consistent model could look like! =o)
> "Up" and "in" are just two
> shorthand ways of trying to tackle the concept of
> interdensity or interdimensional motion, both of which
> don't have their own prepositions yet. :-)
CC: Is this an example for the unwillingness of common mind to take
anything serious, thatÃà‚‚Â ´s beyond its "dirt track"?
Ok, all jokes aside, I kept you long enough on tenterhooks, letÃà‚‚Âà ƒÂƒÃ‚ƒÃ‚‚´s
unveil the "enigma"!
A consistent model for Davids description of higher dimensions
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Dimensions (densities) are spheres or shells, centered around a
core like onion skins, the dimension closest to the core (7th or 8th
dimension) being logically the most similar and therefore highest one.
2. It was never determined whether the habited surface of the shells
(including 3D density) is _convex_ or _concave_. This is a
specification which nobody in this forum thought of - until now.
3. On a CONCAVE shell surface, travelling upwards, away from the
surface, would mean: travelling towards the center, thus "popping in"
in higher and higher dimensions, the closer and closer you come to the
core.
4. Davids description of the highest plane as a relatively small
space, a space ship cockpit, from which the lower (outer) dimensions
are controlled and manipulated ("The Matrix" is greeting!) is another
strong evidence of the highest dimension being proximate to a "core
cockpit".
This resembles very much like "swapping the view of a picture puzzle"
but opens substantially new perspectives and a broad discussion field.
It would be very interesting what you - David - and also Ra (is he
still channeling?) have to say to the hypothesis of a concave
universe. I couldnÃà‚‚à‚´t locate so far any hard evidence (e.g. reference
to physical experiments etc.) which would support an convex universe,
neither in the Ra material nor in the work of DW. I herewith ask for
the combined effort of the group to help clarify this crucial,
multi-implicational question.
Check out this:
QUESTION: Has Ra experienced or does Ra have knowledge of any of
these other galaxies? Has Ra traveled to, in one form or another, any
of these galaxies? (B4, 59)
RA: WE HAVE OPENED OUR HEARTS IN RADIATION OF LOVE TO THE ENTIRE
CREATION... ALL [...] ARE ONE. This is the type of contact which we
enjoy rather than travel. (B4, 59)
http://ascension2000.com/Ra-section3.htm
What does this tell us? Nothing more than what we already know: That
the hypothesis of an infinite universe has "yet to be proved or
disproved" - even in 3D!
Love and light,
CC