Thursday, June 2, 2011

Why does precognition fail? Why does it succeed?


Our world is enclosed in a larger reality, and our consensus reality is manufactured ("co-created") by beings, forces, or even machines external to it. Our focus on a narrow band of sequential time is constricting, and does not take into account the fact that many events are "larger" than they appear to us. Our higher selves are aware of this larger gestalt and cannot translate those perceptions in any meaningful way to us, who insist on perceiving events in a narrow, cause-and-effect format.

(BTW, this is why conspiracy theories have surface plausibility. A mass event--such as the Kennedy assassination, which is touted by many conspiracists--likely has many causes, woven among myriad actors stretching across time. Point to any thread as the primary "cause," and you are likely to be partially correct--while ignoring the greater reality of the event.

Seth mentioned the JFK assassination in passing in one of the Seth books, and his observation is unique; I've never seen it made anywhere else. Basically, he said that the assassination occurred because it was the "best" way that the civil rights movement could be advanced. And, in a peculiar way, this is correct. Lyndon Johnson took advantage of the national mourning over Kennedy to push through monumental civil rights legislation, which would have been stymied under a Northern President. Was the CIA behind the murder? Johnson himself? The mafia? It didn't matter. They were merely actors. The play was the thing.)

So, we often are looking for "parts" of the future while blind to larger causes or trends. Or we mistakenly extrapolate quite valid perceptions of future events and follow them to incorrect conclusions.

An example from my own attempts; in 1987, I dreamed the following:

July 20, 1987. Monday. 5:20 a.m.
I seemed to be outside a house that seemed to be my childhood home in 1969.... Suddenly, a woman stepped out of a car ahead of us and pulled out a large-caliber pistol. She aimed it at the window of an old building and shot it out. She then aimed at something else and shot it also. I kept hoping that someone would come out and stop her. I then began thinking of examples of people being shot by hand guns and how horrible such a death must be. I thought of the Viet Cong spy who had been shot in the head by General Ky in the streets of Saigon.

My interpretation? A health dream, and frustration over my living situation. A few weeks later, I re-read the dream and immediately saw what the scene was describing: the dramatic ending sequence of Full Metal Jacket, a movie that I would not see until August 1. I had interpreted an allegorical event as literal, although my dream had very accurately predicted a "future" experience two weeks in advance.

So, when we perceive (or think we perceive) massive devastation from an asteroid attack, are we seeing a literal future event, or merely some movie we might see next week? Indeed, if we do not know what we are in fact seeing, is it ethical to broadcast such an event as real to thousands, perhaps millions, of listeners or readers? If we can indeed predict the future, as so many Coast To Coast claim to be able to do, does it behoove us to acknowledge a certain moral and ethical responsibility to try to be accurate?

On a larger scale, and perceived outside our time-space consensus reality, our physical world is merely a play; it is an immersion into a world of sharp, vivid perceptions that we co-create, for purposes unknown. Some events will be materialized and perceived as "real" by those participating; others will not. The part of consciousness that exists outside of our day-to-day lives, however, perceives the whole, and occasionally, these perceptions bleed through to consciousness. But what we perceive is a small fragment, and the "bigger picture" is often not recognized for what it is well after the physical event takes place.

So, while predictions often fail for myriad reasons (including outright fraud), how is it that we are able to see any future event at all?

To be honest, I don't know. Mainstream scientific models do not incorporate any mechanism whereby human consciousness can see any future event; it is, scientifically, impossible. This is the "rule." As long as we consciously insist that precognition is not "real," we will marginalize such perceptions and likely never truly understand their origin and purpose. But I have a few hunches, and they all center around flaws that exist in our root assumptions of reality...

*While our physical consciousness interprets experiences and events within an extremely narrow, and sequential time framework, it may be (and is quite likely) that our perception of time is artificial, and that the origin of all major mass events is outside of our physical space-time. While our physical consciousness must interpret reality on a literal time scale (or else, be declared insane), other parts of "us" are not so constrained.

*Our entire perceived physical reality is manufactured. To manufacture something, you must have blueprints and plans. While this does not require our future to be predestined, it does suggest that there are guidelines. In our conscious daily lives, we are ignorant of those plans, but in order for us to play our roles correctly, *some* part of us must be aware of the plan.

To truly grasp the notion that our physical reality may not be quite real, we must step outside of the framework, and this is something we can't do. (Well, we could, but we probably wouldn't be able to come back.) The best we can do is model it. It might mot be a bad idea, at this stage of our planet's evolution, to attempt to do this.

No comments:

Post a Comment