Here is a pretty and simple graphic from Viktor Schauberger which describes the two:
David Icke was mentioned here somewhere - he's controlled op, but his reptilian nonsense about elites is just shitty covering that they are emotionally arrested (gross understatement), and in that sense are indeed alienated, like most every narcissist/ psychopath.
...it's easy to just turn it off. When they pull the plug on cash, that's a whole different game.
It's a mild one so far, I'm surprised.And I had the notion that Schauberger was studying fluid vortices....
I met a devotee who was on her way to an Icke conference of his once, and she clearly understood that the "reptilian" description is metaphorical. She thought everybody knew that's what Icke meant.
Does everybody but me know that Schauerberger was talking about exoteric and esoteric male and female energy? I couldn't make much sense of his book, maybe I should look again.
Actually I'm a little surprised to see you back. When you signed off last October, you said you were gearing down for a primitive off-grid winter. Did you get a few days of surprise sunshine?
I am so sorry that Richard never got to finish those installments that he intended to write for his "Apocalypse How", and that his own personal "Apocalypse" came "Now".
I am so sorry that Richard never got to finish those installments that he intended to write for his "Apocalypse How"...
I just read Part 1, and realized that was as far as he'd written.
Seeker, whatever Richard's reasons for departing his form, if you will, I feel without doubt he's very much alive.
I do recall that conversation...
So you say, "If 'we' start admitting...,"
...you'll need to give yourself a label as bad as Claude's: "hypocrite."
Over and out.
I know that the last thing Richard would want is for us to turn him into a "Christ" figure, who sacrificed himself for the Postflavian truth (as a "martyr"), but I wonder how far along he got with the idea of a new religion? After all, was he not the son (or stepson?) of a preacher? Perhaps some of that religious environmental upbringing remained ingrained in his subconscious, no matter how much he repudiated the mainstream form of it, and this also might explain his interest in exploring esoteric topics. As far as I am personally concerned, though, Richard "lives" on in the immense, eclectic corpus of work that he left here, I feel no need to try to "channel" him, and of course his own "Apocalypse" timetable was a half a century in the future, that we do know.He did always want to start a religion, he felt that would be the best way to compete with the mega-churches.
I wonder how far along he got with the idea of a new religion?
Richard "lives" on in the immense, eclectic corpus of work that he left here, I feel no need to try to "channel" him ...
My suggestion would have been to be pick a more dignified name, those are childish and ridiculous.Mostly the context was our discussions about Pastafarianism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and so forth. He felt that with those as examples, Postflavians could have their own denomination or sect.
Ditto.I had the sense that he really didn't want to rule out all forms of "woo-woo" and was searching for some scientific, logical and reasonable basis for a broader outlook than just secular humanist atheism.
Not with me.Do I need to defend myself re: Windhorse's charge that I'm a hypocrite?
That's what I thought. Of course I cannot presume to speak for someone else, but my opinion is that Windhorse was new here, and took your statement about Richard's reincarnation literally, whereas I have been here for a while, and "know" you better.Truly, I don't believe in "woo-woo" myself. When I asked the question about whether Windhorse was Richard's reincarnation, I was speaking metaphorically or perhaps ironically, rather than meaning to endorse it. But I don't want to enforce a "groupthink rule" against discussions about natural religion, the nature of consciousness, the origins of the universe and so forth.
I believe you.I don't feel the same way about spiritual discussions based on science and/or personal experience. I don't see that as a hypocritical position.
No, it isn't, but I do believe that you, Richard, and Windhorse are on the same "wave length" in some respects, going by your mutual postings. You share some of the same opinions in this "realm", not necessarily some other one.But did this happen because of "channeling" in a spiritual realm, or because something else Richard said here was sufficient to trigger that train of thought in Windhorse's mind? This is not an easy analysis.
...childish and ridiculous.
No, I never heard of it, Thank You for the link.
Yes, just from memory I am thinking about the Presidential Adams family and Ralph Waldo Emerson. I am truly glad if that works for you.
I am trying to imagine Richard as Joseph Smith running for President the year he was murdered by the mob. Seriously, of course Billy Graham wound up becoming an evangelical icon, and was certainly invited enough times to the White House by a string of Presidents (to be succeeded by his son Franklin), but I don't know if that amounted to political clout, he personally seemed to disdain running for any office himself.I think Rick's main objection to these groups was that they aren't sufficiently evangelical, and as a result they don't have any political clout.