roage.free-forum.net

[sublime_rule]

greetings

attempting to wrap my head around the following piece from A Model Revisited ..."wrap my head"..DOH!
bold formatted lines in particular:

The initial challenge for this SA being was that oblivion did not come equipped with a mirror and the SA had no way of seeing itself and knowing what it was and the properties of the place it found itself.
This is a dangerous time because the SA does not know what it was capable of and did not know to what extent its power could be exerted.
A danger is that the possibility exists that the SA could end it itself if it engaged in expressing power in a way that would end itself.
It requires a test bed or a place to explore aberration without succumbing to it and creating a containment zone for mistakes to be made such that they can run their course within experience without having a negative impact.

these statements just don't give me the warm and fuzzy that most of the text i've read thus far has, roage..
how can this be possible considering the attributes that we perceive Ø to possess? omniscience, omnipotence, etc..
am I asking the right question the wrong way?

also, i understand the fact that time is an illusion for us on this plane of existence.. what of other planes of existence, as in, 4th density & upwards?
for those of you here that have been through the door, having experienced experience through new eyes, would you say that Ø "exists" within "time", or outside of it?
are we allowed to perceive time beyond what this 3dimensional construct simulates once through the door?
is this even possible to discern at our stage in evolution once enlightened?

thank you.

[roage]

I have some new inspiration in this regard passed to me by a 14 year old autistic math and physics savant who is now getting his PHD. I held that Ø operated within and without the physical construct. He noted that the 4th dimension, for him, lies tangential to the physical construct. In that way it would touch space at at least one infinitesimally small point. That would be a point of consciousness or an observational portal. If the physical construct is of high complexity (like a crystalline matrix) it could conceivably offer an infinite number of tangential intersection points where consciousness could be centered at every level and countless in number. Consciousness then can be seen at the atomic, cellular, corporeal, national, planetary, galactic and universal. The only level that matrix would make sense to occur is at the Plank Scale or the Quantum Field. That would put it at the frontier of our imaginings at 10X10^(-34) but probably zero in size because we have no means by way to measure it and thus will remain beyond our ability to prove. There is nothing more supernatural than nature.

As far as discomfort. An eternal being requires no safety or security as those concepts apply only within the physical construct and have no congruency external to that physical construct in eternity. For that part it was merely a thought form and I have found in my experience that only those kinds of usurping "ungroundings" push us into new areas. If it makes one uncomfortable than it is to be noted and appreciated.

An ending only occurs where there is a beginning and only within the illusion of time.

Ultimately, a model is just that, a model. It is only a tool to cause attention in new direction.

Your results will vary.

And that ...is wonderfully OK...

[sublime_rule]

there is no objective evidence of Ø.
How does Ø prove his existence to you precisely?

If Ø is undefinable than why call him Ø?
why call him anything? if we can't attribute any characteristics to him..
that which is undefinable/non-measurable is commonly referred to in science as that which does not exist..

how do i wrap my head around these questions..?
belief in god is placing faith-based belief above evidence-based belief , no?
How is believing in God not a belief?

[roage]

there is no objective evidence of Ø.
How does Ø prove his existence to you precisely?

If Ø is undefinable than why call him Ø?
why call him anything? if we can't attribute any characteristics to him..
that which is undefinable/non-measurable is commonly referred to in science as that which does not exist..

how do i wrap my head around these questions..?
belief in god is placing faith-based belief above evidence-based belief , no?
How is believing in God not a belief?

Does " " help at all?

We measure gravity not by quantifying the force but in observing its effect.

Because we cannot directly measure gravity do we conclude gravity does not exist?

How is it proven? It is proven by knowing the law and watching objects adhere to that law.

Here is a test: Put away your conscience and you guilt and begin continually lying to yourself and others and tell me if your experience gets "easier".

Can you measure what promulgates that discomfort?

Here is the most difficult thing to accept. How does one describe that which cannot be sensed or measured?

It only occurs when one experiences "it" personally but first one must willingly desire that it be "proven" and accept it when it occurs.

One cannot relate to another what another does not yet know.

try this:

http://www.roage.com/default.aspx?PageID=175

[sublime_rule]

wouldn't the perceived happiness from not succumbing to the 'discomfort' be considered the placebo effect in scientific circles?

isn't the perceived happiness just another illusion under our paradigm?
if it is sensed as a false happiness, isn't that sense of fraud still only defined as such by the ego?

why the separation of the separation of the illusion?
why not accept balance, or is this what is intended by 'attenuation'?

[thequestforthequest]

Look. roage made up some laws and rules and tries to relate it to others because he wants to "help".
("help" like in "If you don't do this, I am gonna "help" you!")

How can that which is beyond the mind be explained by psychological/mental concepts.

Yes maybe reading this stuff can give me some insight.

But the truth is not the words on the site (like for example "souvereign", "Law", etc).
Maybe, while reading something resonates and you "get" something beyond words.


Edit: Ok, please read "found out" instead of "made up".

Haha, Ok thats more about my stuff here.

I can almost become "hypnotized" by words, and believe if I memorize a word, I "know" it. But, for example, the reality of Love is so much more than the word love. (quote taken from Abraham/Esther Hicks, Long Beach Workshop Febr. 2012). The reality of Truth is so much more than the word truth. Actually the reality of Truth can not be fenced in a mental concept or word.

[roage]

Look. roage made up some laws and rules and tries to relate it to others because he wants to "help".
("help" like in "If you don't do this, I am gonna "help" you!")

Actually, I answer questions and relate what I am led to.

Whether one is helped or not is not up to me and I have no expectation in that regard.

[thequestforthequest]

Actually, I answer questions and relate what I am led to.

Whether one is helped or not is not up to me and I have no expectation in that regard.

Ah, thank you for the clarification


and thank you for answering questions and relating what You are led to and Everything you are doing here. I appreciate it much.

me gusta mucho :mexicanhat:

[roage]

Actually, I answer questions and relate what I am led to.

Whether one is helped or not is not up to me and I have no expectation in that regard.

Ah, thank you for the clarification


and thank you for answering questions and relating what You are led to and Everything you are doing here. I appreciate it much.

It is fun, is it not?

[sublime_rule]

roage, could you respond to my latest questions here?
thanks