I was very reluctant to even read this book due to some extremely negative reviews on Amazon.com. And I began it fully prepared to mentally debunk it. But I can’t find anything objectionable enough about it to do so. The book attempts to describe the adventures of a scholar of religion with two very twenty-first century, cutting-edge technology wonks, Tyler and James. The adventure begins with a visit to a UFO crash site and ends at the Vatican. Jacques Vallee is heavily cited throughout. Although it reads like fiction, it may well be true. If it’s true, it’s certainly not the most outrĂ© UFO-related document ever published. If it’s true, it’s not as cosmos-shattering as the human abduction accounts of the 1980s, which turned out to be probably not true. Pasulka suggests that visions and encounters with UFOs are indicative of the emergence of a new religion. There may be some linkage between the two, but my personal opinion is that one is not causing the other.
We are probably too close to current events to detect a final outcome, but we can see trends. Technocracy is emerging as a religious-type belief, while traditional religious behavior is declining. A generation that lauded the birth of the Jesus Phone a few years ago might be attracted to the idea of a Jesus UFO. People, quite simply, need to *believe*.
While it’s undeniable that UFOs began buzzing military and nuclear installations only within the past few decades, what is more significant is that ordinary people are able to see UFOs on a daily basis and under circumstances that make little cosmic sense. What purpose would a UFO have to make itself visible to three or four people in the middle of nowhere where there are no nukes, cattle, or even advanced avionics?
Perhaps UFOs have always been “there” in some fashion, but suddenly, we are able to see them. Maybe a shift in consciousness is allowing increasing numbers of people (self included) to see what hitherto had been inconceivable. As a visually-oriented species, the first step in our embracing the reality of a thing is to see it. This isn’t, necessarily, a call to worship the wonder that we are suddenly seeing, but a cause to wonder why.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Thoughts on precognition
I’ve just started reading Eric Wargo’s “Time Loops,” and—I know—I really ought to break myself of the habit of reviewing books until I have actually read them, but I’m already running into stuff that I already know, and I think I know what he’s going to say.
In any case, I thought that it would be useful to establish a baseline of what I believe about time and precognition, and then see if it in any way corresponds to what Wargo says. It’s a subject that I spend a lot of “time” thinking about, for better or worse. And my thinking on it has “evolved.”
To wit:
Our physical brains have evolved to view time and causality in a very specific way. When we are embedded in the physical / material, we are immersed in a specific historical period in order to gain specific experiences in a sequential fashion. It is impossible to meaningfully participate in the physical earth experience without accepting this specific sequencing of time and experience. To reject it, or to significantly step outside of it, “ruins” the experience. It would be akin to playing a motion picture at the wrong speed, with a mismatched audio track. Our earth experience would be a jumble of images and sounds that we would be unable to interpret.
Of course, human consciousness is not just a product of the physical brain, and it is regularly able to glimpse time anomalies that suggest that the larger universe is ordered differently than our strictly measured, single-line timed method of perceiving reality. For some reason, however, the suggestion of a larger universe that does not abide by our currently perceived order is very disturbing to the official order. Science (currently) not only rejects this possibility, but is overtly hostile to it. I think that this is not the result of ignorance but by design—and for now, a prudent safeguard. At this specific historical period, I don’t think that we want a lot of people suddenly realizing that time is malleable and, to some extent, under their control.
The safeguards built into the system are designed to prevent abuse by the unscrupulous. And one of those safeguards is that—as a general rule—we can’t consciously and deliberately foresee and manipulate future events.
A long time ago I blogged about precognition in general, how we have abundant anecdotal evidence that precognition exists, but we seem unable to use this facility consciously. We can get glimpses of the future, but we can’t go into a trance and will ourselves into predicting future events with any accuracy. I realize now that, again, it’s by design. The part of us that is able to see the future is not under our conscious control. And for most of us, it probably ought to stay that way. We can barely manage our physical reality in the now—we should not be tampering with future events.
Unfortunately, science isn’t going to accept anything that we can’t replicate on demand.
As for “my” future, I foresee myself finishing my essay on the electrical nature of the immediate non-physical. But I’m having a hard time with it—mostly because I’m electrically illiterate. And I hate pontificating about a subject that I’m profoundly ignorant about (as opposed to being just marginally ignorant).
In any case, I thought that it would be useful to establish a baseline of what I believe about time and precognition, and then see if it in any way corresponds to what Wargo says. It’s a subject that I spend a lot of “time” thinking about, for better or worse. And my thinking on it has “evolved.”
To wit:
Our physical brains have evolved to view time and causality in a very specific way. When we are embedded in the physical / material, we are immersed in a specific historical period in order to gain specific experiences in a sequential fashion. It is impossible to meaningfully participate in the physical earth experience without accepting this specific sequencing of time and experience. To reject it, or to significantly step outside of it, “ruins” the experience. It would be akin to playing a motion picture at the wrong speed, with a mismatched audio track. Our earth experience would be a jumble of images and sounds that we would be unable to interpret.
Of course, human consciousness is not just a product of the physical brain, and it is regularly able to glimpse time anomalies that suggest that the larger universe is ordered differently than our strictly measured, single-line timed method of perceiving reality. For some reason, however, the suggestion of a larger universe that does not abide by our currently perceived order is very disturbing to the official order. Science (currently) not only rejects this possibility, but is overtly hostile to it. I think that this is not the result of ignorance but by design—and for now, a prudent safeguard. At this specific historical period, I don’t think that we want a lot of people suddenly realizing that time is malleable and, to some extent, under their control.
The safeguards built into the system are designed to prevent abuse by the unscrupulous. And one of those safeguards is that—as a general rule—we can’t consciously and deliberately foresee and manipulate future events.
A long time ago I blogged about precognition in general, how we have abundant anecdotal evidence that precognition exists, but we seem unable to use this facility consciously. We can get glimpses of the future, but we can’t go into a trance and will ourselves into predicting future events with any accuracy. I realize now that, again, it’s by design. The part of us that is able to see the future is not under our conscious control. And for most of us, it probably ought to stay that way. We can barely manage our physical reality in the now—we should not be tampering with future events.
Unfortunately, science isn’t going to accept anything that we can’t replicate on demand.
As for “my” future, I foresee myself finishing my essay on the electrical nature of the immediate non-physical. But I’m having a hard time with it—mostly because I’m electrically illiterate. And I hate pontificating about a subject that I’m profoundly ignorant about (as opposed to being just marginally ignorant).
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Seth’s “electrical” plane
I’m in the middle of writing something up about an interesting discussion in one of the Seth books about a plane that is composed primarily of electricity, and how this plane interfaces with our material one. I think it might explain a lot about “spirit” communications. This follows my reading of one of those popular and spooky sorts of books, “Phantom Messages (Chilling Phone Calls, Letters, Emails and Texts from Unknown Realms).” It’s actually a better book than it sounds and it’s one of only two books on this topic; the other being “Phone Calls From The Dead” by the late D. Scott Rogo (very out-of-print and very expensive). I really wished I had gotten Rogo’s book when it came out, but this wasn’t easy to do in 1979. (Back then, you had to somehow know that a book existed, and then you had to physically travel to a store that carried it. I do have Rogo’s book on astral projection, however.). I should have the entry up in a few days, assuming the world doesn’t end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)