I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and Montaignes that 14 of 15 men are rogues: I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favor of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is too strong for the higher orders... These rogues set out with stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of drawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves. – Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Mason Marquis de Lafayette in 1823.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. – Aldous Huxley
Full Version: Small Minds and Mind Control
remember what Montaigne says about unwarranted arrogance?
Is this thread a confession Robert, maybe a key to your game?
Another gutter-snipe punk with nothing to say. What game would that be - have you looked in the mirror?
How does one address you Robert? do you want a manuscript to show effort otherwise it's not worth your attention?
| QUOTE (Laz @ Apr 23, 06:50 AM) |
| How does one address you Robert? |
he has not shown any credentials.
Hey dude is fine.
Bob works.
The truth is I have been called many things and admired by adepts I value too.
Seeking lables has never been my interest but papers like The Toronto Star compared me to Horatio Alger when I was a millionaire. Inner Sanctum Rosicrucians have called me an alchemist which is their highest pursuit (like Newton).
A Cherokee mystic who wanted to marry me a long time ago - probably before you were born - called me 'the re-incarnation of a Dalai Red-Capped Lama'.
Probably the best handle or label for me that I can recall is 'mind-child' which was given to me by a nympho who had a Property of Hell's Angels brand on her butt. That was when I was 21 and living in Sacramento where a lady with Doctorates in Psychology and Education who was a top psychometrist for the Cal State Dept of Education thought I was controlling her mind. This woman was a top research control study of Dr. Richard Alpert (Baba Ram Dass) as well as a person who attended Eranos and knew the likes of Joseph Campbell. A year or two after that I was involved with one of the top researcher ESPERS in the world according to a Glasgow Doctor I met at a party thrown by the head of The Psychical Research Foundation this was near Duke where she was getting her doctorate - she worked with Rhine at the FRNM. I was offerred a multi-station talk show at that point. It would have been the first such program. I could go on to discuss more adept people I have been intimately involved with since then.
Bob works.
The truth is I have been called many things and admired by adepts I value too.
Seeking lables has never been my interest but papers like The Toronto Star compared me to Horatio Alger when I was a millionaire. Inner Sanctum Rosicrucians have called me an alchemist which is their highest pursuit (like Newton).
A Cherokee mystic who wanted to marry me a long time ago - probably before you were born - called me 'the re-incarnation of a Dalai Red-Capped Lama'.
Probably the best handle or label for me that I can recall is 'mind-child' which was given to me by a nympho who had a Property of Hell's Angels brand on her butt. That was when I was 21 and living in Sacramento where a lady with Doctorates in Psychology and Education who was a top psychometrist for the Cal State Dept of Education thought I was controlling her mind. This woman was a top research control study of Dr. Richard Alpert (Baba Ram Dass) as well as a person who attended Eranos and knew the likes of Joseph Campbell. A year or two after that I was involved with one of the top researcher ESPERS in the world according to a Glasgow Doctor I met at a party thrown by the head of The Psychical Research Foundation this was near Duke where she was getting her doctorate - she worked with Rhine at the FRNM. I was offerred a multi-station talk show at that point. It would have been the first such program. I could go on to discuss more adept people I have been intimately involved with since then.
Hey dude,
So now we've got all the things I know about you out of the way, what else have you got?
So now we've got all the things I know about you out of the way, what else have you got?
When God Becomes a Drug:
This is the title of a book which should be part of any educational curriculum as well as handed out to parents by any interested organization which seeks to stop the Cycle of Violence.
“The heroes. Joyce Davis Bolles is often described as a bull in a china shop. She doesn’t live her life, she explodes into it, commanding attention by her take-charge attitudes and behaviors. The eldest daughter of Jim and Helen Davis, who were described earlier in the fictional profiles, she is extremely obese, dangerously codependent, rigid, perfectionistic, enmeshed both with her family of origin and with her husband and daughter. Her husband, Mike, works for Jim in the plumbing business. Although he claims to be supportive of Joyce’s catering company, he is secretly jealous and fearful that she is more successful than he is. Joyce lives entirely through him; her only means of relating to others is by gauging how Mike would respond, especially to other women.
When she is not trying to live through Mike, she is forever struggling to live by the rules. Entering a new group or organization, Joyce jumps right in, eager to be accepted, to do it right, always wanting to rescue or fix. Her role as family hero has conditioned her to always have the right solution to any problem; for her, the answer comes in learning the rules. She is regarded as opinionated and insensitive; it never occurs to her when she automatically quotes scripture or offers Bible readings that others might not have the same beliefs. {Or that they might have been persecuted throughout history by the deviates pounding Bibles.} Her hurt response to rejection or criticism is that she was only trying to help. Just tell me what the rules are, she says, so I can do it right.
Joyce is typical of many blue-collar heroes. She is the one to whom the family looks to keep everyone in line. Earlier, we saw how the inability to doubt or question causes many religious addicts to place people on pedestals. Joyce has placed her husband on a pedestal; her religious training taught her that she must be secondary to him. Yet the reality is that she is brighter and has better business acumen. She covers this up by worshipping him. She never talks about her own feelings, she views everything in terms of Mike or the church.
Heroes in both kinds of religiously addicted families—blue-collar and country-club—manifest this trait of hero worship by finding someone to place on a pedestal and at the same time wanting to be admired and revered. {Do unto others and your prayers will be answered – ego seeks to find like situations and pack dog behavior has evolved to be a useful tool to the Machiavellians who ‘appeal to base human urges’ [The Prince].} Blue-collar heroes will often pursue a white-collar profession.” (10)
This is the title of a book which should be part of any educational curriculum as well as handed out to parents by any interested organization which seeks to stop the Cycle of Violence.
“The heroes. Joyce Davis Bolles is often described as a bull in a china shop. She doesn’t live her life, she explodes into it, commanding attention by her take-charge attitudes and behaviors. The eldest daughter of Jim and Helen Davis, who were described earlier in the fictional profiles, she is extremely obese, dangerously codependent, rigid, perfectionistic, enmeshed both with her family of origin and with her husband and daughter. Her husband, Mike, works for Jim in the plumbing business. Although he claims to be supportive of Joyce’s catering company, he is secretly jealous and fearful that she is more successful than he is. Joyce lives entirely through him; her only means of relating to others is by gauging how Mike would respond, especially to other women.
When she is not trying to live through Mike, she is forever struggling to live by the rules. Entering a new group or organization, Joyce jumps right in, eager to be accepted, to do it right, always wanting to rescue or fix. Her role as family hero has conditioned her to always have the right solution to any problem; for her, the answer comes in learning the rules. She is regarded as opinionated and insensitive; it never occurs to her when she automatically quotes scripture or offers Bible readings that others might not have the same beliefs. {Or that they might have been persecuted throughout history by the deviates pounding Bibles.} Her hurt response to rejection or criticism is that she was only trying to help. Just tell me what the rules are, she says, so I can do it right.
Joyce is typical of many blue-collar heroes. She is the one to whom the family looks to keep everyone in line. Earlier, we saw how the inability to doubt or question causes many religious addicts to place people on pedestals. Joyce has placed her husband on a pedestal; her religious training taught her that she must be secondary to him. Yet the reality is that she is brighter and has better business acumen. She covers this up by worshipping him. She never talks about her own feelings, she views everything in terms of Mike or the church.
Heroes in both kinds of religiously addicted families—blue-collar and country-club—manifest this trait of hero worship by finding someone to place on a pedestal and at the same time wanting to be admired and revered. {Do unto others and your prayers will be answered – ego seeks to find like situations and pack dog behavior has evolved to be a useful tool to the Machiavellians who ‘appeal to base human urges’ [The Prince].} Blue-collar heroes will often pursue a white-collar profession.” (10)
"The Lord Buddha has said that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them; nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."
- Secret Doctrine, Vol. III, page 401. [vii]
- Secret Doctrine, Vol. III, page 401. [vii]
dude, who are you writing to? it certainly isn't anyone on this site. Are you inviting your frineds here to read your stuff? perhaps you like to use Mind-Brains high internet ranking to publicize yourself?
Referencing others opinions and beliefs in your articles does nothing for you, what do you have to say?
Referencing others opinions and beliefs in your articles does nothing for you, what do you have to say?
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 23, 07:56 AM) |
| Inner Sanctum Rosicrucians have called me an alchemist which is their highest pursuit (like Newton). |
hey dude! SOrry to burst your big bubble, but Newton was a great scientist and mathematician too, both of which you are not. There is really no comparison between you and Newton.
| QUOTE |
A Cherokee mystic who wanted to marry me a long time ago - probably before you were born - called me 'the re-incarnation of a Dalai Red-Capped Lama'. |
Big deal. I've been called that by many people I pass by on the street. They also bow to me and kiss my feet and believe I'm the re-incarnated supreme Buddha. Your credentials are still questionable. You've posted elsewhere that you should not put yourself before the Self, and here you are doing just that. Bravo!
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 23, 11:51 AM) |
| "The Lord Buddha has said that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them; nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly." - Secret Doctrine, Vol. III, page 401. [vii] |
why is this a Secret Doctrine? It seems like a statement of self-evident truths that have been in the public domain for centuries, if not millenia.
Bob, you're something of a hypocrite posting that because you're constantly referring to "unquestionable authories" and yet here you are posting about not believing things "on the mere authority of our teachers or masters". How do you explain that?
Dear Guest
You say:
why is this a Secret Doctrine?{Because that is the name of the book as noted with volume and chapter} It seems like a statement of self-evident truths that have been in the public domain for centuries, if not millenia. {Indeed it was the way of the world long before the myth-makers got control of people which accelerated starting with Tuthmosis II and the re-organization of the Mystery Schools. I think Blavatsky is a myth-maker too.}
Bob, you're something of a hypocrite posting that because you're constantly referring to "unquestionable authories" {Those are words you are putting into my mouth. I do refer to the best authority available but never call them 'unquestionable'.} and yet here you are posting about not believing things "on the mere authority of our teachers or masters". How do you explain that? {See above: but also ask yourself if ever the growth of knowledge is stagnant and what would creativity and purpose be if that were the case.}
You say:
why is this a Secret Doctrine?{Because that is the name of the book as noted with volume and chapter} It seems like a statement of self-evident truths that have been in the public domain for centuries, if not millenia. {Indeed it was the way of the world long before the myth-makers got control of people which accelerated starting with Tuthmosis II and the re-organization of the Mystery Schools. I think Blavatsky is a myth-maker too.}
Bob, you're something of a hypocrite posting that because you're constantly referring to "unquestionable authories" {Those are words you are putting into my mouth. I do refer to the best authority available but never call them 'unquestionable'.} and yet here you are posting about not believing things "on the mere authority of our teachers or masters". How do you explain that? {See above: but also ask yourself if ever the growth of knowledge is stagnant and what would creativity and purpose be if that were the case.}
No I am answering a question posed by you or someone like you. As to Newton - he said in a foreword to his Principiae (one of only two books he did) that it was more than he should say and less that there is. I am sure my knowledge far exceeds his. Yours probably does too. However that may be - those who are in the know who have called me that are not as much in the know about these things as they should be. I would not label myself an alchemist - I am a Baird - which is more than an alchemist and the alchemists like Pythagoras were taught by Bairds. I would say Pythagoras far exceeded Newton who really is not much more than a Rosicrucian although Mark Haeffner's Dictionary of Alchemy gives him the credit of calling him an alchemist.
Dear Laz
It is confusing to see this post and I guess I was mistaken about you requesting a copy of my book. If you were addressing that to me - you have some very strong character issues relative to confusion you have which may be part of why you can not find your attention point (Castaneda) or perhaps you are stuck on his first two books which used mescalin to break down the paradigm thinking he was afflicted by while still an anthropology student.
It is confusing to see this post and I guess I was mistaken about you requesting a copy of my book. If you were addressing that to me - you have some very strong character issues relative to confusion you have which may be part of why you can not find your attention point (Castaneda) or perhaps you are stuck on his first two books which used mescalin to break down the paradigm thinking he was afflicted by while still an anthropology student.
| QUOTE (Robert the Bruce @ Apr 23, 02:45 PM) |
| As to Newton - he said in a foreword to his Principiae (one of only two books he did) |
he might have published only two books but that was because he was always hesitant about publishing and preferred keeping his discoveries to himself. His private notes and records were immensely volumous and so you cannot gain an estimate for the quantity and quality of work that he did by noting that he only published two books. His Principia was ground-breaking. There is no other book in history that you can compare it to. It marked the beginning of modern science. Furthermore, Newton discovered the law of gravitation, the calculus, and the spectral nature of light. You can't shrug off Newton by saying he only published two books and then go on to say that you know more than him. Newton is the father of modern science and is one of the biggest giants in the history of science. You can't really compare Newton to anyone, least of all yourself or anyone living today.
Robert, i'm feeling for the edges!
Nice to see that you too are prepared to look beyond your nose
Nice to see that you too are prepared to look beyond your nose
Newton is credited with some things that the alchemists had developed and as he said he was giving only a little of it. In fact his alchemical papers found 25 years after his death are evidence for what you say but also evidence for what I am telling you. He was a lesser alchemist and did not achieve many of the goals of alchemy. I consider him an upper Rosicrucian type and he needed to be within the bowels of the Stuart (BEE) system (The Royal Society) for protection.
Your work on Castaneda is closer to the real thing.
Your work on Castaneda is closer to the real thing.
Robert, I don't understand why you posted the "When God Becomes a Drug" article above. What does the story of an obese codependent woman have to do with anything?
It has to do with the abuse of soulful knowledge employed by the churchians. For example Father Leo used to teach catechism classes and he now sees and apologizes for the misuse or outright abuse of spirit and soul in the believers. But if there is a soul and such a thing as the 'oneness' then it is a far worse thing they do - to 'appeal to base human urges' through the mind or emotions which the story illustrates she (and to some extent all true believers) fell into. The people who believe they are allowed freedom of education or freedom of the electoral process and most of the beliefs we live among are similarly impacted by these social engineering sophisticated gambits. Hegel is a master at mixing metaphysics into the Dialectic. They have left no stone unturned.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.