Loose Strings

[korga@...]

I was too slow to actually get The Great Play before it was deleted so I cannot
really comment on it, but I found
Jeremy's comments rather interesting. The quote you mention Actually keys into
one of the flaws I personally
find with the Ra material (not to say its right or wrong it just doesn't sit
well with me) which is Ra's proclaimation
that "we all can't be geniuses." I just don't buy this. Sure we all won't
recognize our genius, but we all really are
geniuses. I mean this both literally and figuratively. This again ties in to
my whole no free will claim. I haven't
explained this yet which leads into the whole subject line of this. So here we
go. From the start let me say that
though I do believe this rather deeply, by no means do I know it. I am coming
to know it strengthening my
belief in it, as such I will defend it teeth and nail but I will not proclaim it
to be truth.

- There is no free will. Free will is nothing but an illusion.
- The experiential moment we attribute as 'now' facillitates the free will
illusion.
- Time itself is an illusion too facillitated by the 'now.'
- Time only exist in relation to movement and is completely arbitrary.
- Free will only exists with time, with time being an illusion free will itself
must be an illusion.'
- What we commonly attribute to free will is truly just recollection and
analysis of events. When we say that
we are not going to do something we are actually remembering that we are not
going to do something not
deciding not to do something but we perceive it as a decision facillitating the
illusion of free will.
- There is no time when you don't do what you are going to do.
- Your life is for your soul/spirit to experience not neccessarily dictate.

These are actually rather weak premises but hopefully will get conversation
started on this. I promise to be more
concise in future posts.

Incarmations
Korga

[Jeremy Weiland]

David you seem to be attracting everyone with a dogma! <lol> (j/k)
Sorry Korga, not trying to "dis" you, but it seems like everyone wants
to post "their" view of the truth for everyone to accept or reject. Not
that this is right or wrong, just making an observation. It *has* been
happening a lot lately...
When was the last time somebody brought up some of David's work?!?!? I
mean, I have a feeling most people are just lurking here, trying to find out
more about David's work, unwilling to enter into the general debate because
people keep making these manifestos, and then David has to come along and
dispell them. For me, it's not so much the fact of whether you are
soliciting or recruiting for the next cult member drive, but just the fact
that so much more "off topic" conversation appears on this list than "on
topic." Please understand, y'all, I am *not* by any means "slapping anyone
on this wrist" sorry if I'm coming off this way. I'm just trying to give
some food for thought...
The last thing I want is for us to have strict content control on this
list, but remember that it's David's name on the line for everything we say
on here. That's all I'm saying. If everyone would keep that in mind when
he or she posts, I'm thinking we'd have a more consistent dialogue.
I mean, yeah, we could debate about the free will thing, Korga, and you
could end up believing what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. I
mean, that's what I gathered from our last discussion... it ends up being
tied up in sematics and philosophy. How do I even begin to start addressing
this whole theory? I mean, it just doesn't seem to be leaving any sort of
common ground for us to talk about... and in my view stifles conversation
rather than encourages it.
Sorry to be coming across like this to everyone... am I outta line or
does anyone understand what I mean?
Love and light,
Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: korga@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ovcL8kej7e0gg43YUdoLfIc4srXfLQ93Mtmd4V cJzVbF-7tie2g0734aPgSFlXwNvVxYCjrHrcAnR31s) <korga@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ovcL8kej7e0gg43YUdoLfIc4srXfLQ93Mtmd4V cJzVbF-7tie2g0734aPgSFlXwNvVxYCjrHrcAnR31s)>
To: asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=oIO4w2vt_War1HjirNtjUljcFnFWFYBvMMVtSi moa1ZbiWG_0VqPLWRQl6ELgAUDMNkJuMRwXdgL4g) <asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=oIO4w2vt_War1HjirNtjUljcFnFWFYBvMMVtSi moa1ZbiWG_0VqPLWRQl6ELgAUDMNkJuMRwXdgL4g)>
Date: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:31 PM
Subject: [asc2k] Loose Strings


>I was too slow to actually get The Great Play before it was deleted so I
cannot really comment on it, but I found
>Jeremy's comments rather interesting. The quote you mention Actually keys
into one of the flaws I personally
>find with the Ra material (not to say its right or wrong it just doesn't
sit well with me) which is Ra's proclaimation
>that "we all can't be geniuses." I just don't buy this. Sure we all won't
recognize our genius, but we all really are
>geniuses. I mean this both literally and figuratively. This again ties in
to my whole no free will claim. I haven't
>explained this yet which leads into the whole subject line of this. So
here we go. From the start let me say that
>though I do believe this rather deeply, by no means do I know it. I am
coming to know it strengthening my
>belief in it, as such I will defend it teeth and nail but I will not
proclaim it to be truth.
>
>- There is no free will. Free will is nothing but an illusion.
>- The experiential moment we attribute as 'now' facillitates the free will
illusion.
>- Time itself is an illusion too facillitated by the 'now.'
>- Time only exist in relation to movement and is completely arbitrary.
>- Free will only exists with time, with time being an illusion free will
itself must be an illusion.'
>- What we commonly attribute to free will is truly just recollection and
analysis of events. When we say that
>we are not going to do something we are actually remembering that we are
not going to do something not
>deciding not to do something but we perceive it as a decision facillitating
the illusion of free will.
>- There is no time when you don't do what you are going to do.
>- Your life is for your soul/spirit to experience not neccessarily dictate.
>
>These are actually rather weak premises but hopefully will get conversation
started on this. I promise to be more
>concise in future posts.
>
>Incarmations
>Korga
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=as72-59FYLEajhWALaEGq3ZRXoyc9e99PMEqVgTdgw5dIem2kNlKNUV 98N81Z7S0Jvd4zKBUMuc_DoQnzb4Z-ooyKFbAQ_E)
>
>
>

[SgtPppr]

As far as I knew, this group's topic was about ascension and the coming
harvest which David writes about, not just David himself. I think it's
vital that people share what they think to further each individual on this
list's own search. Following what someone says blindly is as much dogma
as the dogma you condemn.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jeremy Weiland wrote:

> David you seem to be attracting everyone with a dogma! <lol> (j/k)
> Sorry Korga, not trying to "dis" you, but it seems like everyone wants
> to post "their" view of the truth for everyone to accept or reject. Not
> that this is right or wrong, just making an observation. It *has* been
> happening a lot lately...
> When was the last time somebody brought up some of David's work?!?!? I
> mean, I have a feeling most people are just lurking here, trying to find out
> more about David's work, unwilling to enter into the general debate because
> people keep making these manifestos, and then David has to come along and
> dispell them. For me, it's not so much the fact of whether you are
> soliciting or recruiting for the next cult member drive, but just the fact
> that so much more "off topic" conversation appears on this list than "on
> topic." Please understand, y'all, I am *not* by any means "slapping anyone
> on this wrist" sorry if I'm coming off this way. I'm just trying to give
> some food for thought...
> The last thing I want is for us to have strict content control on this
> list, but remember that it's David's name on the line for everything we say
> on here. That's all I'm saying. If everyone would keep that in mind when
> he or she posts, I'm thinking we'd have a more consistent dialogue.
> I mean, yeah, we could debate about the free will thing, Korga, and you
> could end up believing what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. I
> mean, that's what I gathered from our last discussion... it ends up being
> tied up in sematics and philosophy. How do I even begin to start addressing
> this whole theory? I mean, it just doesn't seem to be leaving any sort of
> common ground for us to talk about... and in my view stifles conversation
> rather than encourages it.
> Sorry to be coming across like this to everyone... am I outta line or
> does anyone understand what I mean?
> Love and light,
> Jeremy

[Jeremy Weiland]

Whoa whoa whoa!
No one is "condemning" anyone's dogma's!!! And please direct my attention
to the dogma *I* am following blindly... ack. Simmuh down!
<lol> = laughing out loud... that thing about dogma was a joke! I was
merely pointing out a trend and sharing how a felt about it.
Yes, I think this should be a forum for open inquiry into the ideas that
David's work encompasses. If you guys are taking this as a call for
censorship, you're reading *way* too much into it... my only concern was
that, not that people not share their views on topics, but people who post
these formulated documentations of their opinions and thoughts in one fell
swoop. How are we supposed to discuss that? Sure we can all share what we
believe and that's great... but the odds are very slim that we're gonna have
our entire thought system changed by one post to the list. Especially when
this one post is a whole prescription for viewing reality.
Notice: I am *not* saying it was wrong to post it, rather that it is
*counterproductive* to post it because of it's nature: it makes a bunch of
assertions about the way things are, bam bam bam, and what am I supposed to
do, start dissecting the thing and get into a whole discussion on that? And
why would somebody post something for which there is little chance of
conversation developing? All I was saying was, ask yourself will this
contribute to the conversation on asc2k and if so, feel free to post it
without paying any attention to what I say. Seriously.
Obviously the point I was trying to make was completely missed, and I'm
truly sorry that you took offense to it. I apologize if I caused you any
grief.
Love / light
Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: SgtPppr <spdevrie@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=MnuGpd4YESFqq03lfEjZ0ro5IqSzovH68N7Cx8 Cy3OmYsxRNMxIyqNILDmYwaWua_S0I4FtC_F-2tW6VnfRe3PXVPtMR-u9YLfk)>
To: asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=HqEdzYdwnNa_iLgZoqiGIFD-c4IMiElyelwY-AFqQ12-MqPS9Z94h77Oq55FFzA_8W6a4ySGWCOC31P-) <asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=HqEdzYdwnNa_iLgZoqiGIFD-c4IMiElyelwY-AFqQ12-MqPS9Z94h77Oq55FFzA_8W6a4ySGWCOC31P-)>
Date: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [asc2k] Loose Strings


>As far as I knew, this group's topic was about ascension and the coming
>harvest which David writes about, not just David himself. I think it's
>vital that people share what they think to further each individual on this
>list's own search. Following what someone says blindly is as much dogma
>as the dogma you condemn.
>
>On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jeremy Weiland wrote:
>
>> David you seem to be attracting everyone with a dogma! <lol> (j/k)
>> Sorry Korga, not trying to "dis" you, but it seems like everyone
wants
>> to post "their" view of the truth for everyone to accept or reject. Not
>> that this is right or wrong, just making an observation. It *has* been
>> happening a lot lately...
>> When was the last time somebody brought up some of David's work?!?!?
I
>> mean, I have a feeling most people are just lurking here, trying to find
out
>> more about David's work, unwilling to enter into the general debate
because
>> people keep making these manifestos, and then David has to come along and
>> dispell them. For me, it's not so much the fact of whether you are
>> soliciting or recruiting for the next cult member drive, but just the
fact
>> that so much more "off topic" conversation appears on this list than "on
>> topic." Please understand, y'all, I am *not* by any means "slapping
anyone
>> on this wrist" sorry if I'm coming off this way. I'm just trying to give
>> some food for thought...
>> The last thing I want is for us to have strict content control on
this
>> list, but remember that it's David's name on the line for everything we
say
>> on here. That's all I'm saying. If everyone would keep that in mind
when
>> he or she posts, I'm thinking we'd have a more consistent dialogue.
>> I mean, yeah, we could debate about the free will thing, Korga, and
you
>> could end up believing what you believe and I'll believe what I believe.
I
>> mean, that's what I gathered from our last discussion... it ends up being
>> tied up in sematics and philosophy. How do I even begin to start
addressing
>> this whole theory? I mean, it just doesn't seem to be leaving any sort
of
>> common ground for us to talk about... and in my view stifles conversation
>> rather than encourages it.
>> Sorry to be coming across like this to everyone... am I outta line or
>> does anyone understand what I mean?
>> Love and light,
>> Jeremy
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=sOYdKFALO8TCMuIRYYU5FSEdQKaTSIz9oUkVYi ZGh15WKzgN9KTN9XiQHfjg2arsenJjolpDkzisLqe2PO7epFCh Dh2Gulax)
>
>
>

[David Wilcock]

<table bgColor="#ffffff">
><font face="Arial" size="2">I'm not here to enforce, merely to guide. However, Jeremy has a point. Those who join this group (and we're getting about one new person a day) are probably interested in hearing more discussion about the content of Convergence, et cetera. Since we have a boatload of people who have yet to participate, they are probably testing the waters; and I have already received personal reports of people being surprised and disappointed that there were no active discussions regarding the physics, et cetera. Conflict does make things lively, but there are those mining for data and coming up 'dry' - even though I do think we've done a nice job in many ways already.</font><font face="Arial" size="2">
>
If people don't want to discuss this material, that's fine too - but the site does say "to discuss the issues raised on this website."
>
>Where I will make the clear distinction is with spam. If someone comes on board with intent to proselytize and preach division and separation, this isn't the proper place. Existential philosophies that say "you're on your own" and "humanity sucks" don't accomplish much. Discussion, yes, conversion no. I don't charge forany of the materials on the site, and anyone who reads the site or joins this list does so by their own free will. No force is implied or involved.
>
>I also don't want there to be a trend where negative, pushy posts are seen as getting "the attention" and positives are ignored. I don't want to be a policeman but as time progresses, we'll find healthy consensus that supports the greater good of those who join this list because of their intent to learn more about the issues of Ascension, the physics involved, and the beings who are helping us along.
>
>Peace be with you -
>
>- David</font>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: SgtPppr (spdevrie@sunset.backbone.olemiss.edu)
style="FONT: 10pt arial">To: asc2k@egroups.com
style="FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:42 PM
style="FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: Re: [asc2k] Loose Strings
>
<tt>As far as I knew, this group's topic was about ascension and the coming
harvest which David writes about, not just David himself. I think it's
vital that people share what they think to further each individual on this
list's own search. Following what someone says blindly is as much dogma
as the dogma you condemn.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jeremy Weiland wrote:

> David you seem to be attracting everyone with a dogma! <lol> (j/k)
> Sorry Korga, not trying to "dis" you, but it seems like everyone wants
> to post "their" view of the truth for everyone to accept or reject. Not
> that this is right or wrong, just making an observation. It *has* been
> happening a lot lately...
> When was the last time somebody brought up some of David's work?!?!? I
> mean, I have a feeling most people are just lurking here, trying to find out
> more about David's work, unwilling to enter into the general debate because
> people keep making these manifestos, and then David has to come along and
> dispell them. For me, it's not so much the fact of whether you are
> soliciting or recruiting for the next cult member drive, but just the fact
> that so much more "off topic" conversation appears on this list than "on
> topic." Please understand, y'all, I am *not* by any means "slapping anyone
> on this wrist" sorry if I'm coming off this way. I'm just trying to give
> some food for thought...
> The last thing I want is for us to have strict content control on this
> list, but remember that it's David's name on the line for everything we say
> on here. That's all I'm saying. If everyone would keep that in mind when
> he or she posts, I'm thinking we'd have a more consistent dialogue.
> I mean, yeah, we could debate about the free will thing, Korga, and you
> could end up believing what you believe and I'll believe what I believe. I
> mean, that's what I gathered from our last discussion... it ends up being
> tied up in sematics and philosophy. How do I even begin to start addressing
> this whole theory? I mean, it just doesn't seem to be leaving any sort of
> common ground for us to talk about... and in my view stifles conversation
> rather than encourages it.
> Sorry to be coming across like this to everyone... am I outta line or
> does anyone understand what I mean?
> Love and light,
> Jeremy

</tt>

<tt>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com

</tt>
</blockquote>

[SgtPppr]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jeremy Weiland wrote:

> Whoa whoa whoa!
> No one is "condemning" anyone's dogma's!!! And please direct my attention
> to the dogma *I* am following blindly... ack. Simmuh down!
> <lol> = laughing out loud... that thing about dogma was a joke! I was
> merely pointing out a trend and sharing how a felt about it.
> Yes, I think this should be a forum for open inquiry into the ideas that
> David's work encompasses. If you guys are taking this as a call for
> censorship, you're reading *way* too much into it... my only concern was
> that, not that people not share their views on topics, but people who post
> these formulated documentations of their opinions and thoughts in one fell
> swoop. How are we supposed to discuss that? Sure we can all share what we
> believe and that's great... but the odds are very slim that we're gonna have
> our entire thought system changed by one post to the list. Especially when
> this one post is a whole prescription for viewing reality.
> Notice: I am *not* saying it was wrong to post it, rather that it is
> *counterproductive* to post it because of it's nature: it makes a bunch of
> assertions about the way things are, bam bam bam, and what am I supposed to
> do, start dissecting the thing and get into a whole discussion on that? And
> why would somebody post something for which there is little chance of
> conversation developing? All I was saying was, ask yourself will this
> contribute to the conversation on asc2k and if so, feel free to post it
> without paying any attention to what I say. Seriously.
> Obviously the point I was trying to make was completely missed, and I'm
> truly sorry that you took offense to it. I apologize if I caused you any
> grief.
> Love / light
> Jeremy

No offense taken. I was just being sure that the group actually talked
about many different pertinent issues reguarding ascension and harvesting.
I was not meaning to attack you neither. Sorry for the miscommunication.
:)

Steve DeVries

[Jeremy Weiland]

Well, I wanted to make sure I didn't step on anybody's toes, since I plan on
conversing with you guys for a while on this list
:-)
Oh, and on a lighter note, does "simmuh down!" ring a bell with anyone? I
got rid of my TV earlier this year, but that SNL skit was hilarious... "ya
need ta simmuh down!!!"
Sometimes we all need to simmuh down.
That's a quote from the Ra material :-)
Later,
Jeremy

"This isn't who it would be if it wasn't who it is"
- another brainy song
quote

-----Original Message-----
From: SgtPppr <spdevrie@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=Fyxau5Xo4Hja3mlYEsq0dEJ01H3QSoyO1MupqT K_lpqYdnhCCcU7h-b68D69zUQU7_-rvpJFcnuVn6IDJAnISGdTi1x0fQ7OQumHOxU)>
To: asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=B5rz9sXiIITMOJa2ugPxbIANetpLEoXiK_wCSW 2JqTwRCPEtmIIs3gCdxYU3jvAbzKu5s1IR7MGUCg) <asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=B5rz9sXiIITMOJa2ugPxbIANetpLEoXiK_wCSW 2JqTwRCPEtmIIs3gCdxYU3jvAbzKu5s1IR7MGUCg)>
Date: Friday, December 15, 2000 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [asc2k] Loose Strings


>
>On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Jeremy Weiland wrote:
>
>> Whoa whoa whoa!
>> No one is "condemning" anyone's dogma's!!! And please direct my
attention
>> to the dogma *I* am following blindly... ack. Simmuh down!
>> <lol> = laughing out loud... that thing about dogma was a joke! I was
>> merely pointing out a trend and sharing how a felt about it.
>> Yes, I think this should be a forum for open inquiry into the ideas
that
>> David's work encompasses. If you guys are taking this as a call for
>> censorship, you're reading *way* too much into it... my only concern was
>> that, not that people not share their views on topics, but people who
post
>> these formulated documentations of their opinions and thoughts in one
fell
>> swoop. How are we supposed to discuss that? Sure we can all share what
we
>> believe and that's great... but the odds are very slim that we're gonna
have
>> our entire thought system changed by one post to the list. Especially
when
>> this one post is a whole prescription for viewing reality.
>> Notice: I am *not* saying it was wrong to post it, rather that it is
>> *counterproductive* to post it because of it's nature: it makes a bunch
of
>> assertions about the way things are, bam bam bam, and what am I supposed
to
>> do, start dissecting the thing and get into a whole discussion on that?
And
>> why would somebody post something for which there is little chance of
>> conversation developing? All I was saying was, ask yourself will this
>> contribute to the conversation on asc2k and if so, feel free to post it
>> without paying any attention to what I say. Seriously.
>> Obviously the point I was trying to make was completely missed, and
I'm
>> truly sorry that you took offense to it. I apologize if I caused you any
>> grief.
>> Love / light
>> Jeremy
>
>No offense taken. I was just being sure that the group actually talked
>about many different pertinent issues reguarding ascension and harvesting.
>I was not meaning to attack you neither. Sorry for the miscommunication.
>:)
>
>Steve DeVries
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=FwVM-dbDbFTlSFfMuHiXSEIuVnkFv-KwdwBNjxWTUWO1zWCLydjg-wP_QxE9UboMjYsQYOKZz1EE9gX8m8Ul8OXyu404)
>
>
>

[korga@...]

Jeremey,

First of all I must say that I propose no dogma, no belief, no religious group,
no affiliations, etc... In fact I
don't even propose that what I propose contains any truth. If I were to
catagorize what I am proposing is
consideration. Admitedly saying that free-will doesn't exist may sound
dogmatic, that is true only under the
blanket of dogmatism that exists in the world today. Again admitedly (and this
was in my post) what I've said is
rather weak and like the ramblings of a child trying to hold on to the belief in
santa clause, but that's because it's
hard to speak directly about that which we don't usually consider directly.
Free-will is a point of taboo. How do
you honestly talk about it. And if your position is contrary how do you explain
that when most don't even want to
think about it.

With regard to David's material, and David I mean absolutely no disrespect by
this, but I read the site and
there hasn't been much in the way of updates for quite sometime and so there are
no direct things for me to
speak about, I'm waiting for his completion of the new book (which incidently
David the number of recent posts
may indicate a bit of a distraction in this forum). In the meantime, my topics
of discussion for this list while not
directly about David's material, deal with it very seriously. If there is
something missing from what has been
proposed by David it is the philosophical consideration. This also seems to be
what is absent in most discussions
on Ascension. I'm biased, but the philosophy to me can become more important
and indeed explain more than
the scientific information (though science is definitely my guilty pleasure).
It's one thing to have the scientific
proof but how do you know? That's where the philosophy comes in.

Maybe this is where I am guilty. My inquiries and indeed participation on this
group are primarily to engage
the philosophical consideration of ascension. To raise those questions which I
think rather important to the topic
of Ascension. I mean if there is no free-will, 'who' or 'what' ascends. Even
better (I haven't even raised this) if
there is no beginning how can ascension be any sort of an end. I think in an
old post I mentioned this, but to
say it again, I am not a direct person, I never say what I mean, I say what will
hopefully help others to say what I
'mean'.

I don't know what more to say though there is plenty more to say. I feel that
i'm defending myself more
than I should. Especially considering that no one seems to want to engage these
questions. I don't do well
talking to myself, I don't believe a word i say.... At any rate, I hope there
will come to be some honest replies to
what I have proposed because otherwise I don't think that there will be much
more for me to say.

Incarnations
Korga

[Jeremy''s mail]

Hey Korga,
I'm sorry that you feel that you have to defend yourself; I really
didn't mean this as an attack, nor was I talking just to you. I was kinda
just making an observation about what I see as a trend. I just think that
we should have more focus on, not neccessarily every little thing that comes
out of David's mouth, but the general direction of his work, encompasing the
physics, the spirituality, the Ra material, the UFO stuff, because that's
why this list is here. This should be a place where people who want to talk
about that area of work can come. I found your post very interesting, but
as I was reading it I found myself unable to respond, because a response
would have very little context to the entire reason I'm on this list.
I'm not closed minded (I don't think) and I am open to other ideas
("truths" if you will) but my fear is that we get caught up in a
philosophical catfight that doesn't solve anything or do anyone any good.
And again, if you honestly believe that something you want to post
contributes to the discussion about ascension and everything (which your
earlier posts about ascension absolutely were) then you certainly don't need
my permission.
I'm on a few other lists, and always the rule of thumb is: think before
you post.
I appreciate all the contributions you have made and hope they continue!
Are you already finished with the massive amounts of information on David's
website?! Whew, you've got a better attention span than I do!
Peace,
Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: korga@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ccJ9KpF31Or0EXb6J6QdElgS6-vjjcFv35ClRwogsPPM24ONcpKmWicPxz-fUc19lKv70qoTelM) <korga@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ccJ9KpF31Or0EXb6J6QdElgS6-vjjcFv35ClRwogsPPM24ONcpKmWicPxz-fUc19lKv70qoTelM)>
To: asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4IFLEf6DZ0_kpUzJQZD8ehm0iOBcNS0ZJnYKXI FyhrTYPL09xDTmKESjvs943c3AtTdXnTL3ADo1Yw) <asc2k@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=4IFLEf6DZ0_kpUzJQZD8ehm0iOBcNS0ZJnYKXI FyhrTYPL09xDTmKESjvs943c3AtTdXnTL3ADo1Yw)>
Date: Saturday, December 16, 2000 1:31 PM
Subject: [asc2k] Re: Loose Strings


>Jeremey,
>
> First of all I must say that I propose no dogma, no belief, no religious
group, no affiliations, etc... In fact I
>don't even propose that what I propose contains any truth. If I were to
catagorize what I am proposing is
>consideration. Admitedly saying that free-will doesn't exist may sound dog
matic, that is true only under the
>blanket of dogmatism that exists in the world today. Again admitedly (and
this was in my post) what I've said is
>rather weak and like the ramblings of a child trying to hold on to the
belief in santa clause, but that's because it's
>hard to speak directly about that which we don't usually consider directly.
Free-will is a point of taboo. How do
>you honestly talk about it. And if your position is contrary how do you
explain that when most don't even want to
>think about it.
>
> With regard to David's material, and David I mean absolutely no disrespect
by this, but I read the site and
>there hasn't been much in the way of updates for quite sometime and so
there are no direct things for me to
>speak about, I'm waiting for his completion of the new book (which
incidently David the number of recent posts
>may indicate a bit of a distraction in this forum). In the meantime, my
topics of discussion for this list while not
>directly about David's material, deal with it very seriously. If there is
something missing from what has been
>proposed by David it is the philosophical consideration. This also seems
to be what is absent in most discussions
>on Ascension. I'm biased, but the philosophy to me can become more
important and indeed explain more than
>the scientific information (though science is definitely my guilty
pleasure). It's one thing to have the scientific
>proof but how do you know? That's where the philosophy comes in.
>
> Maybe this is where I am guilty. My inquiries and indeed participation on
this group are primarily to engage
>the philosophical consideration of ascension. To raise those questions
which I think rather important to the topic
>of Ascension. I mean if there is no free-will, 'who' or 'what' ascends.
Even better (I haven't even raised this) if
>there is no beginning how can ascension be any sort of an end. I think in
an old post I mentioned this, but to
>say it again, I am not a direct person, I never say what I mean, I say what
will hopefully help others to say what I
>'mean'.
>
> I don't know what more to say though there is plenty more to say. I feel
that i'm defending myself more
>than I should. Especially considering that no one seems to want to engage
these questions. I don't do well
>talking to myself, I don't believe a word i say.... At any rate, I hope
there will come to be some honest replies to
>what I have proposed because otherwise I don't think that there will be
much more for me to say.
>
>Incarnations
>Korga
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=9NVnlyTBUM6wf3LrgDuybuNEtiJqhaL0Y1-gyONIMZNzqmVk2uZUUuGRii80n3FyVpXJ1Zil5dIBaKqEnyMHA h_mABsH1A)
>
>
>

[Rod Johnson]

<table bgColor="#ffffff">
><font face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">
align="left" class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma">
><font size="2"><font color="#0000ff"><font face="Arial">I'm not here to enforce, merely to guide. However, Jeremy has a point. Those who join this group (and we're getting about one new person a day) are probably interested in hearing more discussion about the content of Convergence, et cetera. Since we have a boatload of people who have yet to participate, they are probably testing the waters; and I have already received personal reports of people being surprised and disappointed that there were no active discussions regarding the physics, et cetera. Conflict does make things lively, but there are those mining for data and coming up 'dry' - even though I do think we've done a nice job in many ways already.<span class="850093307-17122000">...</span></font></font></font>
>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="850093307-17122000">David</span></font>
>
<font color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></font><font color="#0000ff">If this is a forum for discussing the physics, et cetra, then you have my full attention. What is the connection between physics and ascension, spirituality, oneness and harvest?</font></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">What do you think?</span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">To me, the sequential physicist, it is very simple. We are un-learning a physical model of separateness interactions, (particles) in closed systems, (3-space) and comprehending matter and space as connective fields in finite qualities that are contiguous throughout and between infinitite universes.</span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">When my mind saw the picture it now holds of the specifics of those concepts it resonated with the idea of an Elohim field. In the deepest and simplist meaning of the ancient language the word Elohim, as the name of God, means field. Is it sacrelige to seeGod as a field and souls as the flux components of that field. No, that is just grasping for the pure spiritual aspects of physics.</span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">David asked me in our first telephone conversation how the Ra application of the word density applied to my physics. I paraphrase my answered;</span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">If matter and space are field events the greater refinements of the fields are in terms of their closeness ie. density. If taking part with creation is refined to a more composing fit then then a greater measure of the field must be encompassed ie. density. </span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">In this discussionyou do not need to be a physicist. To work in the mind with those ideas does not take a knowledge of physics but just embracing a greater more connective picture, ie density..</span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">Rod DeBokonon</span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000"></span></font>
><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span class="850093307-17122000">As a note: In the vinacular of the the Island of San Lorense the word Boko means the beloved. In Bible<font face="Tahoma" size="2"></font>reference it is the name John (The Beloved). The afix nan means daugther and non means son. So, Bokonon can mean the beloved son or the name Johnson. My given middle name isDee and I qualify for both meaning for Bokonon </span></font>