METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
archives
|
archives |
|
|
Arizona Esotericism - 2003 archives(formerly The Arizona Forum of Esotericism) February-April 2003 sessions (begins series) Question: If you're so smart, tell me who God is. Answer: I won't answer a question unless it has a question mark, besides, you'd have to define 'is' first. Question: In your books (assuming you are the alter ego of A.O. Kime) you often mention the 'true concept' of time but you never fully explained what you meant. Answer: Assuming I am the alter ego of A.O. Kime, I dealt with that issue the best I could. It is not a matter easily understood nor explainable with the limited knowledge I have (or anyone has) about the subject. I only know the commonly held concept is wrong but for several reasons. First, our concept cannot account for or incorporate 'no beginning', secondly, it is too shallow in nature, lacking the dimensional features required and since I just experienced a 'nous disconnect', I'll have to post the other reasons later. However, to the extent possible as I can now explain it, the true concept of time is more like a metabolism within the metaphysical world. It is also a matter one can't comprehend using our earthly logic which is based on earthly (physical) realities. A.O. Kime danced around that subject for good reasons, often eluding to certain things for the reader to take into account. This was done to maximize the possibility that metaphysical phenomenon could be seen under a different light... this characterizes the power of poetry too, nuances having more depth. I'd be happy to expand further when I can but like I've often said, there isn't a hard-wired connection to the Divine Intellect, and often it's only for an instant. I had it for a few seconds, confident I could answer your question adequately when I began but I lost it... sorry. 4/17/03 UPDATE: As I promised, I would add to the above as my connection with the nous allowed. While it hasn't been a strong connection of late (business life interfering), I can add something more. Consider the simplicity our concept of time is as we know it today, then consider that our concept hasn't changed at all since the 12th century. While this may seem of little significance, consider what other scientific observations went unchanged for so long... virtually none. Why hasn't our concept been reevaluated for 800 years? Good question. Our concept is incomplete when it cannot be applied to something that has no beginning. One has to keep looking at it for what it is... merely a measuring stick for relative purposes but with less features than a yardstick, a least a yardstick has a beginning point. What would be more accurate than our current concept then? I cannot put my finger on it just yet but the answer is out there... Question: In STD LEX, there is a lot of interesting verse but much of it was of a political nature, at least the book began that way, what was the reason for this and why such an emphasis on politics when later the verse was more spiritual in nature? Answer: A.O. Kime fretted about this, knowing difficult subjects have few good starting points. However, while often wondering if a better beginning could have been found, he thought if he could only keep a reader past the first three chapters, they would begin to understand the connection between politics and spirituality. Question: While STD LEX oftentimes seems nonsensical, I've also sensed it's on to something... I then question my sanity. How can it be then, both one or the other? Answer: It's a matter of your frame of mind, how in tune you happen to be at the time (while reading) with the spirit world and the depth you're willing to experience. It happens to me too, sometimes something seems shallow then other times brilliant. Question: Whether the expanse of the universe, the creator, our being and all other matters concerning the spirit-world, how can it be that such things can be known? I find it hard to believe that you are more in touch with that world than anyone else. Consider me a skeptic... Answer: That may be the most difficult question to answer, but not one I can't... if you will keep an open mind. One effective way to understand that possibility is shortly after experiencing a devastating loss, like the death of a loved one. It is during those times when it is fully recognized that your mental process is experiencing something profoundly different. You are then in tune with the metaphysical. It is to retain that profoundly different thought process under normal circumstances, to the extent you are able, and to begin thinking under a different light. At those times, while not being overwhelmed and distracted by grief, is when this spirit world opens up. However, there are some factors that have a direct bearing on your ability to do so, generally dependent on your worthiness. Other requirements are spelled out in "Metaphysical Cavemen" soon to be published. If you must know beforehand, ask me here with that specific question and I'll tell you (a teaser until then). Question: Your name 'Tachyon' was not lost to me, it means 'a hypothetical particle believed to be faster than the speed of light'. What say ye, possible? Answer: In relative terms, I'd say it's possible but in determining that I think we need to understand what 'light' really consists of. If you'll ponder this it might make you doubt our current understanding. Consider anything with the ability to travel inconceivable distances for inconceivable amounts of time like 'light' can. All things being equal, or I should say as we would expect, light should eventually peter-out, but it doesn't does it? It's as if 'light' had an immortal soul. There doesn't seem to be much discussion about how light can exist for billions of years, it's only taken for granted it seems... it's strange men would accept incomplete answers from our shallow understanding of physics (in this case, metaphysics). I think 'light' is a candidate for the 'ultimate principle'. Question: Have you any credentials in physics or in what are you 'qualified'? Answer: Nary do I have credential one. As far as qualified, I think my answers should determine that, don't you? At any rate, if I'm too vague in my answers, I don't mind if you try to pin me down with a follow-up. Hey, I don't know everything but I don't feel so bad after I found out God doesn't know how to count. Question: I've often tried making a 'connection' in prayer and I don't feel I ever really did... what can I do? Answer: That is the hardest part, finding the way to open the door. More times than not I have the same problem and that can persist for weeks. It's really a matter of where your head has been recently, you have to condition your mind to think 'spiritually' and do so to the point whereby it dominates. Doing that only for a few days in a row won't work either, it has to be sustained for weeks, sometimes for months, before a 'connection' is recognized. That's hard, I know, especially when trying to make a living and with other social interactions interfering but that's how you demonstrate its importance to you. If you sooner give up, then you are signaling other things are more important. As it should be, it's something only available to those who want it bad enough. I can say this, it's such a comforting feeling to know the spirit world is really there, and how grand and wonderful it is. Question: Are you of a pagan ideology and what are your thoughts about the Bible? Answer: Within this group of ours which consists of myself and the personages of A.O. Kime, the Warrior Poet and a multitude of Illuminati, I don't usually address religious issues. That is usually something only they deal with. However, since they are not here, I can speak for them as well as myself. First of all, it should be recognized what paganism really is and the concept shouldn't be put in a box. Essentially paganism consists of all beliefs outside of organized religions which also includes polytheism. Pagans are generally thought to be non-believers, not necessarily so, they can also be extremely religious although more in a spiritual sense, perhaps I should also say exercising their wide range of beliefs in largely untraditional ways. Paganism can range from that despicably evil to beautifully grand and high-minded. Actually this wide latitude exists within the membership of organized religions as well. As for our group, we are all highly spiritual and devoutly believe that an Almighty God was the creator and still lives within everyone, to the extent they allow it. While there is more to it, basically that gives you an idea on which end of the spectrum we strive to be. As to the Bible, I will be frank. There are many passages within the Bible which were spiritually inspired, that is, of a godly nature, but I don't believe all within the Bible was spiritually inspired, especially that within the Old Testament. Even so, the Bible has no equal and is the most incredible book ever written. It has qualified itself because of the multitude of messages from the spirit-world, truths that serves as testimony to its overall veracity. If I were asked to pick something that best demonstrates this, I would have to pick Matthew 7:7 which says "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him that knocks it will be opened." It seems however that while the first parts of Matthew were inspired, that soon changed. It was as if Matthew lost his 'connection' or someone else completed what he began. While I'm not saying the balance of Matthew is in error or misleading, it just lacks the depth that can be recognized in truly inspired works. That can be said of much of the Bible, in other words, most of the authors recognized the profoundness of what they were dealing with but could not maintain a consistent connection to always express it adequately. Question: Beyond a 'connection' to the spirit-world, what is possible? Answer: Assuming you realize how hard it is to get a 'connection', beyond that it seems all things are possible. I say 'seems' because I just sense that there are no limitations but from personal experience, I can't testify to that. Since I haven't always gotten what I strived for, and often times nothing, I don't know if it was me or if what I was asking for was too much to ask. But I also sense that limitations are determined by the extent of one's belief that something is possible but more importantly, the amount of faith that you can obtain it. In other words, I believe you are only limited by your ability to imagine and believe. Incredibly however, there are forces that try to limit what you can imagine and believe. For example, your common sense will dissuade you from believing you can fly like a bird. These forces are powerful and perhaps for some things, too powerful to overcome. Question: Have you had any luck reconnecting with the nous lately concerning the 'true' concept of time? I'd still like to see you expand more on that. Answer: I have to admit I haven't. While it would seem for something like that, I would be trying but honestly I haven't really tried. I suppose since I operate on a first-things-first basis, the true concept of time is still sitting on the back burner. I'll get around to it soon I'm sure. However, I can't say for sure if I'll be able to expand on what I've already said. I'll try, that's for sure, but you must understand that the deeper one delves, the harder it is. Looking at it now, I know I referred to 'time' as really a metabolism and of dimensional qualities and not linear and one-dimensional as our current concept so it will be along these lines I'll need to expand. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you would begin to consider what our current concept really consists of. When you begin to realize how shallow our current concept really is, then you will be open to a new concept. Not only will you be more receptive but will be able to actually sense it as something else. May sessions... Question: On the political side, that is, related, how effective is propaganda and brainwashing these days? It seems that with the common knowledge that it is widely used by every government, its effectiveness would be thwarted. Answer: It would seem that its effectiveness would be thwarted but in reality, only to a small degree. There are many things about human nature that is further understood today, in fact the study of human nature has become a fine-tuned science. What once was considered normal reactions from the public can be manipulated by creating accompanying conditions which effect 'normal' reactions. In the case of blatant propaganda it's a matter of creative saturation, despite one's initial resistance to it, repeated statements can usually overcome one's resistance. It takes a strong person to maintain a belief after years of being subjected to an opposing view. In short, the knowledge every citizen has that they are subjected to it can be overcome by more effective methods of propaganda. This is a sad commentary but consider it a matter of counter-measures one must develop. This would be no different than other situations... in all aspects of life, in business or in war, you have measures taken which demand counter-measures be found. In this case, brainwashing as a result of propaganda, it's a matter of a higher awareness I suppose. One should be aware how proficient governments have become over the past 50 years, making WWII propaganda look like kindergarten stuff. Propaganda has now taken a more prominent place in the execution of war. Question: In manipulating society into one desired by the powers-that-be, morally and socially, will this be ultimately effective and desirable? I don't like being told not to smoke nor being directed to avoid eating this or that (which changes constantly whether something is good or bad). It seems even how one socially interacts is not immune. Answer: I think there are some benefits from this but on the same token, intrusive and so, one would think, outrageous. However, as long as this government 'manipulation' does not go beyond merely trying to 'embarrass' one into conforming, I think it might be considered acceptable conduct on their part. In some cases tho, it has already gone beyond embarrassing, the cost of cigarettes for example. Yet the original purpose (that higher prices would deter smoking) has evolved into a prime source of income for the states, now secretly hoping smoking continues. As to the benefits, with conformity, much of everything can now be anticipated including social interactions and a healthier lifestyle is better known. On the flip side, no surprises and nothing unique anymore means an uneventful, boring life. Once one could travel to a foreign country for a new experience and once, not too long ago, residents of Kansas or Georgia were different those of Oregon or New Mexico and each small town had its own personality. I think one has to ask themselves these questions... Would the experience of shopping in an unfamiliar store add to the quality of life or would the convenience of shopping in a familiar store? The same question could be applied to most everything else, within persons, places or things... so in these, how much do we value convenience? In Uruguay, would you prefer a fast-food outlet be there? On the other hand, for us looking for a unique experience, should we expect the Uruguayans to dispense with convenience? However, since we still try to go places that are different, the woods, the lake, the mountains or some foreign place, different from where we live, what is this telling us? At home, convenience means efficiency and is apparently desirable but almost everyplace is someone's home. How can we expect a new experience then, something different than McDonalds or Walmart elsewhere? In short, we value convenience but it comes at a price... unique experiences. Maybe this is how the mom and pop store can compete... advertising that the quality of life is superior to convenience, so too the local Chamber of Commerce by outlawing chain stores. It's up to you tho, which you value more and that determines whether conformity in persons, places and things is better. Question: What, if anything, has happened to human understanding? Answer: It was from a dream I had, most appropriate, that I was a man being forced, as a ritual, to eat my brain. Like a head of lettuce it was, of little blood and weight, and with each bite I took I sadly knew there were memories being erased, essential primordial knowledge being lost. But this (effectively a ritual) didn't begin until somewhere around 200 B.C., when leaders began to manipulate the thoughts of the multitudes. Of course that was just a dream yet fitting to this matter, illustrated by frightful symbolism. In 5,000 B.C., the thoughts of man were free, empirical in all respects, which identifies him as a different creature from those of today. Fortunately they did not have this ritual of, once having their brain reprogrammed, being forced to publicly demonstrate it. As to human understanding in general, the process of determining what that means became regulated... confined to manmade rules. To discuss or significantly advance human understanding sometimes one has to dispense with the idea of 'due regard for system and theory'. Question: I've read your question and answer 'sessions' you've posted so far and I'd like you to address and/or expand on immortality. Answer: While I thank you for your email, I'm asking people to ask a particular question here, being as specific as possible. You are requesting something that would require an extensive response to give it justice. I suggest you buy "STD LEX" which addresses this issue in some detail. If you have already read the book, then I would say to read it again. As a hint, there is no chapter or heading that says 'this is about immortality' but rather the matter is answered in creative ways, scattered about and mostly within the verses. If you try, you'll find what you are looking for but if you don't... it may be a matter of not delving into the verse. One can't just 'read' poetry, you really have to immerse yourself into it and feel the message. Practice doing that and with success, you'll gain a real appreciation for poetry. Until then, a brief synopsis is that immortality is up to you but obtaining it is not a simple matter and may involve more than we have been conditioned to imagine. To a great extent, STD LEX tries to unshackle the thought processes of society to realize our God-given potentials. The matter of immortality is also addressed in "Metaphysical Cavemen", soon to be published. Question: Globalization is a concern of many these days as A.O. Kime addressed in STD LEX. In light of recent events (Afghanistan and Iraq), where does this put things? Answer: While generally critical of the globalization efforts by the controlling powers, primarily because of my fears of what that could lead to (a straitjacket scenario), I have adjusted my thoughts recently. Thanks to George W. Bush, I now see it's a matter of priorities. Since we must first rid the world of religious radicals such as those in the Middle East primarily because of the danger they pose, and their intolerance for other religions and lifestyles, it will take globalization policies to do that so the process has some advantages. It comes as no surprise that America is leading the effort and is demonstrating that in military superiority, one aspect necessary for globalization to proceed. As I have said before, globalization doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, it could be a very good thing, it's all a matter of how it is ultimately structured. For the current times, it all boils down to this... there are some horrible conditions in the Third World that need to be corrected first and that will take policies of a 'globalization nature'. We need to finally rid the world of the Dark Ages, still existent in the Third World. In order to succeed however, the Western powers have to cede something, they need to outlaw the practice of exploiting these countries (slave wages) by the transnational corporations. A worldwide minimum (living) wage has to be implemented. Since the cost-of-living varies within each country, it can be adjusted as necessary to reflect that for each country. I applaud the foresight of the current administration concerning the Middle East and I have to admit, they were a step ahead of me on this. I, like many others, may have underestimated George W. Bush. His current policies (and tactics) in dealing with the Middle East are historically bold, gutsier than ever I would have proposed. In summary, while I failed to see the absolute necessity, or earlier appreciated the timeliness of it, I now understand how his Middle East policy could prove to be the necessary and timely step for a better world. I therefore hope a post-war Iraq and Afghanistan turns out for the good of all. However, I still hold tight to the necessity for a worldwide minimum wage. At any rate, dependent upon the post-war outcome, it looks like George may have outsmarted this wizard and outmaneuvered the entire world. I hope that won't damage my reputation too much but it could be explained if George has his own wizard, meaning I may be competing with another wizard. If that's the case, that is, wizard vs. wizard, I can't be expected to win every round. If true, someone should have told me about this other wizard... Question: While originally turned-off by A.O. Kime's book "STD LEX" when I first began reading it, I suppose because it seemed unprofessional in structure mainly, that soon changed. I was totally impressed with the rest of the book. Also in my opinion, even though A.O. Kime stated up-front that he fretted over his beginning, I think he could have done better. So my question is, why didn't he? If it was me, I would have completely revamped the first three chapters or just started over. Probably I would have just revamped because they contained some excellent material. As for the rest of it, I thought most of his poetry was indeed inspired and awesome (3-4 of them sucked though). Other than these few disappointments, it was a phenomenal book! Oh yeah, I loved the story within too!! The Warrior Poet, the other characters and the looming battles... wow!!! Answer: While he obviously struggled to find a good beginning, he still had to have one. In a way, it seems, the first three chapters were meant to serve as shock treatment, conditioning, if you will, for the rest of the book. I do agree that the beginning was very strange and, I think, somewhat disjointed. The reason why he couldn't find a better beginning is very curious but I think he was wrestling with human nature at the same time. In other words, he was trying to factor-in how to 'hook' the reader, get them in the right frame of mind for the rest of the book. Perhaps he over-applied psychology when he should have worried more about continuity but surely he must have recognized that. By continuity I mean a smoother entry, slowly building his case in a more traditional way and sticking to a subject instead of jumping around. Yet, in reflection, a traditional structure may have failed to bring to light the essence of the book. I suppose it will always remain a matter of opinion whether a traditional method could have been found that would have been better. Question: What can we make of our dreams? Answer: Without question, dreams best portray the awesome power of the spirit world in a most personal way. We do know dreams are manifestations of the subconscious and seemingly have forewarned some people of events, but that's a gift extremely rare. However we should direct our attention to the overall purpose for dreams, not the gift, despite this interesting psychic connection. This rarity, being off on a tangent, has another face so let's concentrate on the general purpose for dreams for the average person. We must first conclude there is a purpose for dreams, an assumption of course but based on the fact that few, if any, portions of our body or mental faculties exist for no reason. To some degree, I believe, a mind must remain active to remain healthy and to some extent, the mind determines what the mind is lacking in that regard. In that dreams seem to arbitrarily select a scenario based on our memories, something from this, something from that, and puts them in some order to create a 'story', however short, is phenomenal. Oftentimes however dream contains things 'out of the blue', seemingly not drawn from our memory banks, so in those cases the 'dream machinery' may be feeding off our imaginative powers. I really can't expand any farther on the mechanics so let's see where dreams might fit in the 'big picture'. Along with the multitude of other miracles of life, that which constitutes a living being, dreams represent one of the most bizarre. Of miracles such as body organs, our circulatory system, those more physical... our five senses stand out, so do dreams and the sixth sense. These five senses serve us in ways that connect us to the physical world while the sixth sense connect us to the spirit world. While dreams have not been commonly considered a 'sense', they have a relationship to the sixth sense as often evidenced. In divergence, dreams are more personal in nature whereas transcendental psychic abilities generally are not. Dreams are a way to personally experience the spirit world. In other words, without dreams, or even nightmares, evidence of the spirit world would be further removed making its existence even harder to recognize. However I don't believe it was never purposed that the spirit world should be easily recognizable either. Largely the message in dreams are saying "we're here, we love you, we even like to entertain you so check us out". That's mainly the purpose for dreams... >TOP June sessions... Question: It's always been curious to me that in observing people, as a group, interacting with each other, they all seem to be quite normal but if you were to know them all personally, individually, and with each of their unique idiosyncrasies, one wonders how groups can possibly get along. How can you explain this? Answer: That may be an easy question for a sociologist or psychiatrist and I don't know how they would answer it so I'll just give you my opinion. As you may be aware, I did not study these fields in a human classroom. At any rate, it is curious, but a simple matter of trying to look and act normal so to be more-or-less accepted, knowing full well to do otherwise one would get treated like a pariah. The exception of course are the kids with purple hair and over-sized pants, long ignored as a child by the public, they're letting you know they've arrived. As to the adults that finally grew-up, and some don't until they're 50, many still wear a mask in public. In most all human social systems, conformity is the key to success and it doesn't take humans long to learn where the parameters are for acceptable conduct. These parameters can vary depending on the environment, whether in church or in a nightclub where you have more latitude. The differences in people are actually quite varied, and that is remarkable given the pressure to conform. While the pressure to conform works because conforming serves their self interests, their individual idiosyncrasies not only comes from a different outlook, however influenced over time, but demonstrates the latitude available. To look at it in this way, 'the latitude available', tells us that humans were not destined for normalcy, nor were they cut out with a cookie-cutter. How far one strays from 'normalcy' depends on how deeply influenced they were to conform and their individual mettle. The direction one can take is limitless, multi-dimensional, has no boundaries and contains no rules. Question: I've read what you believe is the reason for dreams in the May sessions but it seems somewhat lacking, surely there is more to it than just a process to know the spirit world exists. Can you expand on that? Answer: You're right, perhaps my answer did fall short but at the time, nothing more was available to me. As I've said before, the connection to the Divine Intellect is not hard-wired and the Muses also need to be participating (available). While not the complete answer you might be looking for, I do have something more to add although only describable in the most vaguest of terms. Actually it seems it might only open another door. The fact that we can dream seems to be directly connected to our spirit, in that we are experiencing our spiritual self when we dream. I don't really want to expand further because I need much more information but I am suspecting where this might lead could be absolutely profound. I'll say this anyway although I may have to retract it later... it seems as if we are actually living life in two dimensions simultaneously, within the body and as a spirit. In other words, we don't need to die to experience this other world, we already are but to the degree we're aware of it may vary greatly. Another clue which might help substantiate this at some point is our very need to sleep. Sleeping seems to be a very curious need, beyond the physiological reasons put forth by science. I think this other reason is spiritually related. While the tendency is to jump to conclusions, it's too early for that even though one could possibly find logic by extrapolating this. Question: After reading your articles, I often disagree because I have a problem with a need to look at things any differently than the way mankind collectively does, that is, most of the time. Often, in observing and listening to other people, humans really seem to have their act together. Then, as if someone flipped a switch, all of a sudden the world seems totally chaotic, our social system just became insane and in reflection, I'm reminded of my awareness that most people aren't that stable. How can you explain this? Answer: Typical I think, but reflecting that man is still in a lower stage of social development, in other words, he hasn't gotten where he needs to be yet. In a sense, but under the circumstances and in many ways better than expected, mankind does have it together somewhat when you consider the huge world population. Considering that, it requires a multitude of layered efforts to maintain order and some measure of justice, that is, within rules, regulations and social systems but of course, some are far outdated and continue to foster dysfunctional thinking. If you can look at things in the context that societies are still under development, it may calm your nerves but at the rate they've progressed, it may take 3-4 more centuries before many can take down the 'under construction' sign. The primary reason that man can't progress faster is his overall fear of change, still, most folks could handle a faster pace because they are intelligently capable and emotionally stable enough. Feeding on this fear, and from their own fears, the pace is set almost exclusively by the bureaucracies, and since they're always trying to justify everything they do, keeping old concepts alive hinders progress. The dysfunctional side of individuals is largely a reflection of how dysfunctional their society is as a whole, this varies between cultures. The conditions within a country, in all areas, is directly related to their level of social sophistication, measured in freedoms and justice primarily. The reason humans usually tolerate dysfunction is because they have little choice. What is the alternative? None, really, other than suicide. They have to go on as if nothing was amiss, sane people coping with insanities but not without being somewhat affected themselves. I've been saying this for a long time, governments can get from their people the best, or the worst, it's largely up to the individual governments. America in the early days an example although some other countries also had a 'golden age', albeit all often short-lived. Always, it seems, one step backwards for every two forward, as if a dance. So in answer to your question, when things look as if they are generally okay, it's coming from the side of you that, for your own sanity, would whitewash the negative aspects. When those times occur when you notice dysfunction in society more, it's merely a reality check and a healthy process to do that occasionally. In order to change things, to speed up mankind's maturity, everyone should try to contribute someway. While often what people can do may seem insignificant, and it probably will be, but collective efforts eventually add up. Looking back at how the greatest of men positively affected humankind, and while noteworthy and grand by comparisons, their deeds were effectively just a bigger drop in the bucket./p> Question: I've thought about how you and A.O. Kime try to come across and it seems ridiculous. While I agree with most of what you say, much of it is obvious, are you both underestimating the intelligence of the public? Answer: The intelligence of a person is really secondary, it's more about how you direct what you have that counts. Besides, the level of intelligence is based on a superficial and flawed system but if I've been speaking beneath you, congratulations. Perhaps people like you will boost man's chances to eventually succeed in truly civilizing himself. Is next week okay with you to begin? You tell me, if all people are as intelligent as you 'come across', what's the problem then? You see, that's just it, it's not just a matter of intelligence, most people seem to have enough, it's more about overcoming one's inherent weaknesses and understanding the bigger picture. The bigger picture is difficult to bring into focus and that's where we can help, I don't see anything 'ridiculous' about that. Besides, in making a case, many obvious things must be said to create the foundation upon which to build it. If you've noticed that but didn't notice anything deeper, then I'd have to doubt your intelligence for better reasons than you doubt mine. Ridiculous you say? Well, let me give you some names who also acted 'ridiculous'... Walt Whitman, Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Joan of Arc, Jesus Christ, Samuel Adams, Mother Theresa, Mohandas Gandhi, Confucius, Nelson Mandela, Moses, George Washington, Martin Luther King, Robert the Bruce, Caesar Chavez, Socrates, John the Baptist, Robert E. Lee, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Chief Crazy Horse but my especial thanks to all the 'ridiculous' cavemen that struggled so hard to make this all possible. >TOP July sessions... Question: From your previous answers, the role dreams may play in the scheme of things has really piqued my curiosity, have you ascertained anything new? Answer: Not too much except that perhaps the 'depth' of a dream could mean something, I'm speculating that it does. For the reasons I mentioned before, however vague that I was, I think dreams represent our spiritual side and now, as a later thought, the depth represents the degree one experiences their spiritual essence. I think you know what I mean, some dreams are so shallow you even know you're dreaming. If this is true, and while I'm not sure yet if it will 'fit' with my overall concepts, so far it looks like it might. What could this possibly mean? Well, I'm not ruling out a lot of things but it could be a way to gauge how spiritual we are. In a further stretch of my imagination, it could be a developing process to set the stage which would later serve as the portal we enter as a spiritual being. I know that sounds far-fetched but I think it has some merit as being possible. I think it would be beneficial to take a few minutes upon awaking to reflect upon dreams, not so much what it was about but more the phenomenal nature of dreams, how they can be choreographed with logical continuity. While most often dreams are garbled... there are enough logical sequences, however short, to solicit wonder. Question: There is a worldwide furor over how the United States is trying to undermine, indeed kill, the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, what do you make of it? Answer: Well, it certainly looks like the leadership in the U.S. has sunk to a new low. The type of arm-twisting and bullying going on to get other countries to exempt Americans from prosecution is pitiful, outrageous. I've never seen anything quite like this, it's a particularly insidious policy and one that reflects horribly on America. It was my hope that the U.S. wouldn't try to take advantage of being the only 'super-power'... at least not in this way. It smacks of how the Romans did business. It is being said around the world that America is shooting itself in the foot but a more gracious depiction. Meanwhile, the old guard of the USSR must be smiling, America's actions of late has done more damage to itself and NATO than Russia, short of war, ever dreamed. While I supported Bush's war on Saddam Hussein, and did so because of Saddam's overall threat to western civilization, I still applaud the action to go to war even though evidence of a clear and present danger has not been found. On this I think Bush will be eventually vindicated. The problem now lies with the inept bureaucrats that have since taken over, typically underestimating the psyche of a people in one way or another. In the aftermath of the war, America's blundering bureaucrats are trying to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory once again... the Boy Scouts of America could do a better job, or the secretarial staff of IBM, even the ranch hands from the Lazy J. No occupying policy can ever be successful if you try to strip pride from a people but our bureaucrats have become so robotic they can't comprehend pride so they can't recognize how that happens. Sorry, I strayed. The reasons why Bush opposes the ICC may be more egregious. From all appearances it must be his fear that war-crime charges, justified or not, will be brought against certain American military officers, cabinet members (Colin Powell), George Bush Jr. himself or his father. Obviously, the possible makeup of the court may have heightened these concerns. Well, as to any possible charges... "bring 'em on" (using a phrase George likes), if no war-crimes were committed they've got nothing to worry about except the embarrassment of facing such charges. I think 'embarrassment' is the key issue here as I doubt if any war-crimes charges would stick, although there could have been small scale incidences whereby, in the strict sense of the word, war-crimes could be established. But in the strict sense of the word, probably half the killings in any war would qualify as war-crimes. The short of it is, our leadership should not be allowed to sacrifice America to avoid personal embarrassment, besides transferring that embarrassment to the entire country, they've ruined America's trustworthiness for decades to come. On the verge of achieving greatness, instead by effectively violating his oath of office to protect America, it's time for Bush to reverse course on the ICC, apologize to the world or resign. You see, offering immunity to the part is not immunity for the whole...the idea of protecting the 'honor' of an office in order to protect the honor of a country is hogwash, the results are quite the opposite as history has proven. If there were war-crime charges, it would be a healthy process to hear them... if true, a good time to stop problems is to nip them in the bud. Question: I disagree with you about the Iraq war so how can you still justify it in absence of finding any WMD? Until they are found, how long can probable cause serve as justification, a year or ten years? As the search goes on, and if in vain, at what point will a mistake be admitted? Answer: While we both know a mistake will never be admitted, whether WMD are ever found is really an academic question, Saddam still posed a threat to western civilization. If he did actually dispose of them, he did so as a prudent action for the time being. The man, left unchecked, would eventually put something back in his arsenal when the time was right. You can't let a psychopath wander around in a gun shop. Bush did the right thing, he kept the man from pulling any trigger. I think such may become standard policy and I think justified, the weapons of war have become too powerful to take a chance. I don't think one should wait until a major U.S. city is in ashes before adopting this policy. As weapon evolve so to must countermeasures evolve, an age-old process since the crossbow and catapult. While I continue to support his decision to go to war, it seems he's chosen some lousy administrators for post-war Iraq. To make matters worse, his recent opposition to the International Criminal Court reflects badly on him and America. From hero to goat. While an occupation force cannot expect things to be a cake-walk, many problems are exacerbated because our bureaucrats simply don't know how to handle people, much less foreign cultures. They can piss people off just sitting behind a desk. Why? It's their smug attitude. Don't think for one minute that other Arab countries like Iran wouldn't love to destroy us either, if only they could get the upper hand. As long as Arabs endear their 12th century mentality, they will remain our greatest enemy. Worldwide though, so much death in the name of religion is pure insanity... King Solomon would suggest we nuke everybody's religious sites whereby there's nothing left to fight over or defend. Leave them all radioactive wastelands, uninhabitable for centuries, especially Jerusalem and maybe even the Vatican... Jesus and Muhammad could then rest in peace, he'd say. Question: An ancient planet called "Methuselah" was recently discovered some 5,600 light-years away and is said to be about 13 billion years old. I thought the universe was only 8 billion years old, or did I nap too long today? Answer: In many of the sciences today, those not considered 'perfect' sciences like mathematics or perhaps chemistry, the public is bearing witness to every evolutionary thought. In a sense, it's like sitting in the grandstands watching them work, learning about the latest revelations in 'real-time'. I like that, it's freedom of information in its finest form. Generally speaking, nothing is being filtered like what happens on the political scene. This also reveals something about the individual sciences that do this, be it in genetics, medicine or astrophysics. In genetics or medicine, progress is slow with seldom a quantum leap but steady and methodical, a boring game to watch if from grandstand seats... not so with astrophysics. This reveals the stage of development within astrophysics, they aren't fine-tuning much of anything like the other sciences which indicates the other sciences are further along. In other words, astrophysics is still in its infancy. Well, we can't fault anyone for this, after all, their playing field is light years away and only recently was the Hubble telescope launched to help them further their studies. This freedom of information reveals something else though, how quick they are to accept something as fact. On the other hand, astrophysicists are fluid thinkers, always willing to trash a previous conclusion for a better one. There are some sciences that aren't willing to do that however, holding on to old conclusions no matter what, like within anthropology for example... still holding on to Darwinism in spite of the mounting evidence that his theory of evolution, as it pertain to humans and perhaps reptiles, was largely flawed. Swept-up in Darwinism during the 1850's, delighted to see any advancement in thought within biology, Darwin immediately became a darling to the scientific community. Left shivering outside in the cold was the theory of 'persistent types', which in light of recent discoveries, should be back in favor... but alas, these are anthropologists, not astrophysicists. >TOP August sessions... Question: How might one characterize intelligence? Answer: Well, I think most people have a clear understanding of the general meaning so I suspect your question is begging an answer from another perspective or requires it to be broken down. I'll do the latter this time, from a worldly perspective. So, in other words, what does intelligence really mean, beyond that which is the common understanding. If someone were asked to further define intelligence, and after thinking about it, I think the first thing they would ascertain that their answer would have to revolve around the area of expertise one could be referring to. That would be my first thought. So I would have to ask them to further define this question. Are they talking about a scientist, housewife, truck-driver or a preacher? Their intelligence would be quite different you know, comprised of many quite different things, so its not a comparable matter. It's apples and oranges. While you didn't ask for me to compare the intelligence of one against the other, only to characterize intelligence, this still must be recognized first. There would be profound differences between those four I mentioned, the same would be true if I added all other professions. Therefore, intelligence cannot be based on what you know, but how much of what you should know you do, and how well you know it... for your purpose or profession. It would also include the amount of information you know about your surroundings, or about anything remotely related to being able to function in an effective manner. Beyond the basics we should all know, the amount and type of knowledge you possess can often determine just how effective you might be and in a competitive world, that's crucial. This intelligence would vary greatly because there is often little need to have knowledge that otherwise wouldn't normally serve you. A dentist surely doesn't need to know about the weight restrictions for a semi truck. Since intelligence is really a very vague term, it has also evolved to mean a quick wit. It is also perceived that if a person knows things beyond what is necessary, that person is considered intelligent. Well, having knowledge that is well-rounded, but not particularly necessary, would be, should be, and is, considered intelligent, but that can be dependent on the value of this knowledge. A fisherman that understands his profession, and holds much knowledge about marine biology plus a lot about ancient Egyptian history would seem to be an intelligent person, there's value there. Another case might be an excellent plumber who had previous training as an engineer and was also an art critic, he too would be consider intelligent. Yet, without exception, the type of knowledge held in each case, and the amount, would be vastly different. Surely it should be based on the value of this knowledge, yet value is in the eye of the beholder. In this respect, what constitutes intelligence is further confused. One must also factor in the capacity to learn complex things, although the fisherman and plumber have already demonstrated that not only do they have the capacity, but also the desire. I think the capacity of most humans is roughly the same, with exceptions of course, that leaves desire. Why is it that some people want to be intelligent and other don't seem to particularly care? Often it is a case whereby intelligence is misunderstood... knowing a lot of disconnected trivia is not intelligence. Also it's the case with many people that they believe with all they know, albeit what the dumbest knows would be a lot, they consider this vast amount of knowledge they possess, however lacking, constitutes intelligence and therefore consider themselves intelligent. In other words, thinking 'everything I know, I know' means intelligence. There is an old adage that remains true, that only smart people consider themselves dumb. That could lead to a question an apparently intelligent person might ask themselves... if I am dumb, how dumb might I be? Sufficiently pondering that will open a door into a different dimension, that of the spirit-world. Question: In the book Metaphysical Cavemen which your website is selling, I haven't bought it yet because the claims seem a bit much. Do you really think cavemen were as intelligent as modern man? Answer: I certainly do, but the book means the intellectual capabilities, not that they had the same quantity of knowledge of the same type. In many ways they were more intelligent, but forced to be in order to survive. In that I mean they were forced to think, resourcefulness requires a lot of thinking. If you consider what it took to learn the basics and each step upwards, these were monumental feats. To enable civilization to exist was so difficult it is almost inconceivable with all the necessary steps it took, and the first steps were the most difficult. While conceiving a better idea was one thing, making it happen was another. You have to understand that in order to make tools, you need tools, and that is a long drawn out process and a Herculean feat unto itself. A modern day steel-mill was born in a mud pot. Look at it this way, if you were transported back to the stone-age, even knowing about tools, what they should look like and the purpose they could serve... how many of these would you be able to make? If you were there for 50 years, you'd never have the simplest tools made yet. Sure, maybe a few makeshift tools, those of bone and stone, a knife, shovel or pick. People just have it in their mind that cavemen were dumb because of the way they lived... in the same situation modern man wouldn't do any better. A PhD in the same situation would be living like a savage within a week, and if he survived, his situation would hardly improve even with his technical knowledge. Besides, he wouldn't spend time devising tools which had no practical purpose yet. To progress beyond wood and stone, he'd have to scour the hills for ore to smelt, then build a kiln, beat something into shape with a rock, etc., etc.. Now, with that understood, consider the challenges of everyday survival. There is no way a stupid person could survive, in fact, you'd have to develop a lot of knowledge on a multitude of things... and cavemen did it starting from scratch. It some areas of knowledge they were way ahead of what is commonly known today. If their survival was dependent upon their knowledge of nature, and it would have to be in order to survive, a deep understanding of nature would develop. It would continue to grow until it became a spiritual relationship, we know that from how the American Indians viewed nature. In effect, nature and the spirit-world are one in the same. While most people understand the value of a spiritual relationship, the eternal need of the soul, serving that purpose... but is there a practical value whereby it can be associated with intelligence? Well, one should ask that today because humans have long forgotten there is a connection between intelligence and a spiritual relationship. It's metaphysical knowledge. This is what every caveman and Indian knew that few people know about today. Believe it or not, the spirit-world will speak to you, it makes you realize important things otherwise to remain unknown, and knowing these important things is intelligence of the highest order. However it is not the type of intelligence wherefrom one would want to build a better machine necessarily, it is the type of intelligence that gives one a more complete understanding of life. If someone would rather tinker with a machine, well, that's their choice... seeing nothing more important. Yet machines are useful, they ease the burdens of life, add comfortable and convenience, but they should be looked upon as that only. Being surrounded by modern conveniences creates an atmosphere around which one's life can easily become centered, forgetting about nature. Men are now intoxicated by gadgets and has forsaken nature as no longer important. While they may appreciate the obvious roles nature plays, they don't look at nature in a spiritual way anymore and thus, are really missing out. Question: Since it looks like August is the month for intelligence, I have a dumb question. I still can't see how you can consider metaphysical knowledge as intelligence. Can you expand on that? Answer: For those folks who still can't see this type of knowledge as being 'practical', that is, in a way that could be considered 'intelligence', here's another way to look at it... I think everyone agrees that the Creator is a pretty smart fella, or if you prefer, whatever caused creation was supremely intelligent. In either case, much smarter than man. Well, as far as I know, no one in the spirit-world owns any machinery so I would suppose, in their wisdom, they decided they have no need for it. Animals have no need for machinery either, only humans see the need for machinery. Well, there may be a reason why men were made capable and animals weren't, and, it seems, man's inventions have served him well. At least it is believed so until you recognize that technology is a double-edged sword. The reason man was given the physical the intellectual capabilities to go in any direction, and was given the capacity to make choices, perhaps will remain forever unknown. We all have our ideas of course but in each case it has to do with the purpose of life. When you speak of the purpose of life you'd be talking outside the realm of practical intelligence yet to know something about these things, isn't that intelligence? To know anything at all about the purpose of life or the spirit-world would seem to me as higher intelligence, even though it wouldn't be seen as the practical type. In other words, not serving a useful purpose on earth. This matter is really apples and oranges in logical disposition. What would be practical in one world, wouldn't be in the other. What is intelligence in one world isn't in the other, yet it's intelligence. The latest technology of today would have no practical value in the spirit-world, conversely, spiritual knowledge has no practical value on earth. These differences have to be recognized. It is often said when speaking of wealth "when you die, you can't take it with you", well, even if you could, you wouldn't need or use it. Question: Why is there anything instead of nothing? Answer: What makes you think there is anything? Some say reality is only a concept, a manifestation, besides, if there was anything then nothing could exist. Nothing would no longer have a meaning, but it must, otherwise anything couldn't exist. That would be one perspective, the other isn't about anything really... which means nothing. Seriously though, it is commonly assumed that before there was anything there had to be nothing. Why do people assume that? Frankly because man's concept of time is faulty, reliant on a beginning point. People can relate to 'no end', but not to 'no beginning'. There was no beginning and that probably means if there is something now, there always was something. I can't comprehend the possibility of 'always nothing'... it doesn't make sense. Consider this question the ancient mystics once posed... "Does our language assist or create our understanding?". This is why metaphysics has been so baffling for so long... because language largely creates our understanding and causes us to think in preconceived terms. If you really want to understand the universe and the meaning of life... let your mind flow naturally and forget those damned words. Our book Metaphysical Cavemen explains much of this. Question: Do sundials run backward in the Southern Hemisphere? Answer: If a sundial was placed upside-down atop a mirror, then yes, it could be seen running backwards. On the other hand, if one was placed right-side-up, then it could be seen moving in the proper direction. >TOP September - December 2003 sessions... Question (12/03): I've read your earlier thoughts on dreams, anything new? Answer: Well, several times I began to doubt myself, that dreams may not really be reflecting one's spiritual side but I'm back to thinking it does. The reason I had my doubts was because of the 'fuzziness' of dreams, that if dreams do in fact represent the activities of the soul, but without clarity often, and as erratic and illogical as they can be with an ever-changing picture, it didn't seem as if a soul would do this. A soul, one would think, would have the ability to conduct itself logically, with purpose. In other words, after death and in the event our soul is allowed to live on, we would expect it would have intelligence. If the activities within dreams was what the soul wanted to do while we're asleep, then dreams should have some logical order. Although some dreams have more 'order' than others. As I always analyze dreams upon waking and after some thought, I began to believe dreams may only be giving us a preview of what our soul may do after our death. In other words, dreams may only be giving us mere glimpses, representing a tiny fraction of what the soul does when we are asleep or what it would likely do after our death. Since I believe the matter of salvation is automatically determined, that our own subconscious mind determines this, memories, upon which dreams largely draw from, will largely influence the future activities of the soul. After death, the entire makeup of the soul may be based in whole, or in part, on the memories of an individual. In this, how humans conduct themselves on earth, the memories they have of it, may determine how much joy or pain one would have in the afterlife. Religions would say it differently but in essence, it's the same message. Question: For no particular reason often, I occasionally have bouts of depression. It only happens once or twice a month, not enough to consider a shrink, any thoughts? Answer: I think it's simply a case of failing to maintain an attitude that usually works to cope with the world. For some reason it was temporarily abandoned. Early on in their life, humans create or adopt an attitude that serves them best. The most successful of these seems to be a cheery attitude, always trying to look at the best side of things, finding humor. In a way, it is also like burying your head in the sand but I think those people with that attitude realize it. In other words, they know this world also has a dark side but knowingly refuse to let that ruin their day. I think in order to enjoy life such an attitude is absolutely necessary but only up to a point. I also think it may be a healthy process to get a reality check once in a while, as unpleasant as that may be. When depression comes, I believe the subconscious mind creates it to keep someone from wandering into 'la-la' land. You've probably seen a few people like that who wandered nonetheless, always oblivious to reality. I think it's a balancing act humans must perform everyday and if they distance ourselves from reality too far, the fall is harder. I believe depression is a sign they aren't balancing their mental attitude just right. The frequency of depression is directly proportionate to the degree one is out of balance. However, most people seem to be able to pull themselves out of depression by simply willing it. Since changing circumstances can often throw it off balance, attitudes require adjustments. Sometimes it only requires patchwork until the negativity has been removed then one can go back to utilizing 'old faithful'. As far as those people which have frequent bouts of depression are concerned, the medical field claims it is a chemical imbalance and while apparently true, I've often wondered if it's not self-induced. In other words, most people have the ability to 'will' depression away, they'll force themselves to think of something positive, take a walk, watch a funny movie or turn the radio on to listen to their favorite music. It makes me wonder if those people are, for some reason, allowing this torture. Just like adrenaline is increased from excitement, perhaps this chemical imbalance is due to this mental torture they may be allowing. Perhaps the medical profession realizes that but still, for whatever reason, they'd rather just tell the person their problem is a 'chemical imbalance' and prescribe pills. If doctors don't believe that is the cause then I would remind them that science has not progressed far enough to be sure. One should try to envision an attitude as a 'shield', a way to protect oneself from a multitude of evils. Upon deep reflection, one begins to realize an attitude is much more than a simple matter. It is absolutely crucial to maintain sanity and is actually spiritual. To consider attitudes being spiritual will give it a whole new meaning. Think about it. Question: After reading some of your articles it seems as if you have declared war on science. True? Answer: I like that. I've never quite looked at it that way but it looks like that's what it amounts to. Increasingly I'm discovering how far off base they really are on metaphysics. Of course, what should be considered metaphysical is often the question. While science may not agree that the human psyche is metaphysical, it is. It is in this arena where I probably disagree with science the most. While everyone has the right to their opinion, but with science being science, their opinions can affect civilization for centuries. You may have read where I compared today's scientists with the Medieval priesthood, everyday I find that increasingly true. As far as science recognizing the human spirit (soul) as metaphysical, they haven't even acknowledged it exists yet. When it comes to a point whereby establishments won't give a millisecond of consideration to an outsider's opinion... then they deserve the Medieval comparison. Copernicus could relate. Question: The war in Iraq (still a war, it seems) further dampens my spirits, will mankind ever stop killing each other? Answer: The prospects for a lasting peace aren't very good since wars have established themselves as the final solution. Historically, we've known nothing but wars and killing... so much so, it became a habit. Because of this, we should probably expect an endless parade of wars... at least for the next five hundred years. While men talk of peace, often it only means 'time out' while positions are strengthened. Without getting into all the particulars as to the rationale for war, but largely over the dominance/survival of an ideology, extending or protecting positions for control, in the end it is a matter of the choices made. By 'choices' I mean the matter of brutality and killing has spiritual connotations... we tend to forget that. However, oftentimes when leaders engage their countries in war they themselves may not be 'evil' but were sucked into this established process (war) for survival. Even aggression can have defensive characteristics, primarily because of the continual distrust as to the motives of others. In a sense, potentially contentious situations serve a purpose, forcing a choice in the matter that reveals one's true nature... a natural process perhaps as God intended. Even if it wasn't intended, nonetheless a way to separate good seeds from the bad. Perhaps to look at it this way, war being a natural process for identifying evil (whether by design is immaterial), is to see a greater purpose. In other words, while it is sad and depressing to see the killing... expect it. Whether 500 years is optimistic or pessimistic is curious in itself for several reasons but nonetheless it depends upon when a world organization (UN) is willing, as the first step, to quickly and aggressively take out dictators, monarchies (effectively dictatorships) and trouble-making leaders. Following that step is to outlaw armies... no armies, no wars. Idealistic? Of course, for now, and why it may take 500 years. Actually war has three (3) dimensions, the first (most shallow) is comprised of the men, materiel and combat; the second tier is the system of reasons and of leaders allowed to conduct wars; and the third (the deepest) is spiritual. END of 2003 sessions For information about this website and its contents (about us), see Introduction >TOP >HOME ... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
