Crazy Voicemail
Firstly, that crazy voicemail that I left for Chris Piedade that he made into a movie, I posted it to youtube. It was almost lost forever, but he was able to extract it from the clutches of Facebook. I don’t think I normally speak with that high of a pitch, but I must have been in an odd state.
Two Comics to Consider from xkcd, thanks babylemonade:
El Done
So, some posts back I added a Red Ice Creations interview that Eldon Taylor made. I liked the message, “Who’s thoughts are you thinking?” and thought that it was a meme worth repeating back into the internet machine, which I did dutifully. It’s good that people question themselves for growth opportunities and though his film presentation was a bit hokie (cheap brain tricks are not compelling material) it did at least make one want to ponder the higher questions for themselves.
The way I imagine it right now* an unconscious person is beholden to their habits and needs and reacting to the body’s impulses. (I’m not judging, I’ve got plenty of addictive behavioral traits to keep me humble.) Unconscious people make up the majority of the population’s bell curve and they are like pool balls; if you had technology advanced enough you could measure all the neural inputs and see your balls on an input and output path and ricochet system, your basic laws of physics in action. I need fuck, fuck. I need food, food. I feel mad, mad. Fear. When you advance in consciousness you are able to step up out of the procedural lock-down on behavior choices and you may get the same cyclical emotional triggers as inputs, but you have a bigger menu of responses to choose from. (Oh, I’m getting a video game idea here…)
Suddenly you can do things that pool balls aren’t supposed to do, like swerving to dodge a black hole in the corner pocket in total irreverence to the whack by the cue stick that done set you on your path. Of course, no one is always of a higher consciousness or lower consciousness. Getting to a higher level means facing higher challenges. We all flicker back and forth between the states, some frequencies are higher, some are lower, many have different speeds and spatial bounds. Children and animals can be highly reactive creatures, but can also show amazing explosions of consciousness at times. My cat, for instance, is the ding dang old guru of cats, except when it comes to other cats, then she’s a bitch. I wonder if Eldon Taylor prefers dogs to cats. I don’t wonder it enough to type a question mark, just enough to make a point.
I just watched that French no-talky Babies documentary on the insta-flix. I highly recommend. I took pictures of a newspaper article about it when I was in Napa!
(* Why I say “the way I imagine it…” ~ because I try not to subscribe to belief systems or scientific theories which will eventually be proven wrong or irrelevant, I instead use my imagination to hold a spectrum of scenarios, often at odds with each other. That way if anything seems right and might add to one of the jigsaw puzzles I have going, I can apply it and move on. The imaginative puzzle I like the best that produces the best behavioral results and doesn’t screw up my ability to function in the world is the one that wins at any given moment. I find things to be much more enjoyable this way and the tiny fleeting emanations of hope I see here and there can be construed as part of a larger plan, all of which revolves around refining consciousness into gold, moving it up the evolutionary chain from reactive to creative. Anything less than that is too damn depressing and the cynicism can take root and transform you in terrible ways, make you separate from the whole instead of repairing it, thus becoming part of the problem: a willfully dissonant tone to the center.)
Editor’s Brain: Omg! Where’d all that text come from? I blacked out for a second and when I came to, I was drooling and the page was full of shit. Back to what I was typing originally when I wasn’t cooing my siren’s sermon…
Instead of listening to music at work I often play an audio interview from somewhere on the net and I looked through some of Eldon’s archives and saw that Eldon interviewed Sonia Barrett, who also did an interview on Red Ice Creations.
The Holographic Canvas – The Fusing of Mind and Matter
Her Red Ice interview here.
I’m not vouching for the material and I haven’t read her book, but I enjoyed the interview and intuited that she’s a person who has done a lot of meditation and work on herself. (Some work on houses, some on cars, some on their plastic selfery, whilst some work on refining who they are by removing definitions.)
So it kind of blew me away that Eldon had gotten her on his show just to bully her about gaps in her scientific knowledge (she references scientific advancements, but is not a scientist herself and gets some information from means other than Earthly.) He was Rolodexing philosophers like he’s dropping names at a cock/tale party as if that was some kind of standalone argument that implied that she was not smart or well informed. I guess it is called the Provocative Enlightenment Show, but I thought that meant the ideas would provoke, not the host. I’d listened to a few of his shows and thought he was alright. A little big on himself, like Master Charles come to think of it.
Whoa, they even look alike and they both do audio entrainment technology! Brainwashing old white men! Oh noes!
Master Charles, at the Shoebox Dialogue (with himself) we attended, was talking shit about Steven Hawking being stupid (who, being a little provocateur himself said purposefully that the universe didn’t need a God to be created or to fire up his book sales (but it helps! -KG) ) and Mia walked out on the Master, not in defense of old Steven, but because she knew that anyone calling anyone else stupid obviously wasn’t one with everything, obviously couldn’t see from another’s perspective and understand why a set of circumstances over time would lead someone to believe exactly the way they do, and therefore Master C.’s judgmental quip had lost her, and to Mia, he was then just another attention- and money-seeking rip off. Or as she concisely put it, “he sounds like an arrogant ****!”
(If that isn’t true and you really are enlightened then I’m very sorry, but know you will forgive me. Whoohoo! Will do dishes for a free week of audio entrainment retreat. Monroe Institute, that goes for you too. Come on, somebody get me on the Gamma train, I wanna go!)
Just zoned out again, here’s where I went:
Gamma Wave -> Distributed Matrix (this page does not exist) +-> “According to a popular 20-year-old theory, gamma waves may be implicated in creating the unity of conscious perception (the binding problem)”
Experiments on Tibetan Buddhist monks have shown a correlation between transcendental mental states and gamma waves. A suggested explanation is based on the fact that the gamma is intrinsically localized. Neuroscientist Sean O’Nuallain suggests that this very existence of synchronized gamma indicates that something akin to a singularity – or, to be more prosaic, a conscious experience – is occurring. This work adduces experimental and simulated data to show that what meditation masters have in common is the ability to put the brain into a state in which it is maximally sensitive and consumes power at a lower (or even zero) rate, briefly. The “Zero power hypothesis” suggests that the lower power states may correspond to a “selfless” state and the more typical non-zero state, in which gamma is not so prominent, corresponds to a state of empirical self.
Recently, attempts to induce gamma waves in mice brains using optogenetics have been successful, leading to possibilities of testing many other implications.
(Part of the Master Charles Synchronicity program is flashing lights in eye-gear, not just audio entrainment. -KG)
The combination problem
The binding problem, as it applies to the “unity of consciousness” is related to the problem of the homunculus—a putative inner “little man” who is the true subject within the brain. The question is how coloured squares and circles can be “experienced together” as a single scene. The implication is that something is experiencing all these data. It has become popular to deny any need to give a physical account of what it is that has the experience, often with the suggestion that it is the “person as a whole” or the “system”. However, to ascribe input to such vague physical domains is not without problems. Such suggestions appear to arise from the common misconception that there cannot be a limited internal physical domain that has access to, for instance, data from blue sensitive and square sensitive cells. This domain is often equated with a “paradoxical” homunculus, but it is often not appreciated that a homunculus is only paradoxical under limited conditions. Sutherland denotes the fear of the homunculus as “homuphobia”: “But if you look inside the brain you can’t find any little green men and this has given rise to a fear of homunculi, agents and Cartesian theatres. All this has resulted in some desperate and flawed attempts to build a bottom-up theory.”
The homunculus concept is often equated with someone “watching a wonderfully integrated internal TV screen” and, as René Descartes noted, nothing is more certain than that there is an internal observer (“Cogito ergo sum“), so the only alternative option to the homunculus is infinite regress (who is watching the screen inside the homunculus?). Some materialists refuse to accept the reality of subjective consciousness and so are led to conclude that infinite regress and homunculi are equally repugnant or absurd and so adopt the third alternative: eliminativism. Daniel Dennett maintains that “homunculi are only bogey men if they repeat entirely the talents they are rung in to explain”. Limited domains within brains supporting percepts based on signals that have undergone several transductive steps almost certainly have to be postulated because much of brain activity appears to be outside consciousness. How signals are finally transduced into percepts in these domains remains a major mystery but there need be no further regress (again the regress/homunculus/eliminativism alternatives). What is much less clear is whether there is one such domain per brain or many, as in Dennett’s “Multiple Draft” hypothesis.
The synchronisation of oscillating cellular potentials has also been invoked as a solution to the combination problem. Thus it was never very clear whether Francis Crick was trying to solve the segregation or the combination problem in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis. However, one criticism of the synchronisation idea is that experiential combination of information in separate neurons is incompatible with any standard biophysical explanation of the brain, whether or not there is any synchrony. One possible explanation for binding is that the information is integrated in each of many individual downstream neurons. This requires that percepts exist in multiple complete copies. This difficulty has led many to suggest unconventional physical explanations for percepts, often invoking quantum theory (e.g. the approach of Freeman and Vitiello). Also, multiply experiencing neurons seems to make no sense if their experience is not pooled in a “global workspace” (see Bernard Baars or Cartesian theatre). And indeed they may be another example of a “desperate and flawed attempt” to build a bottom up theory.
Whoa. That was cool.
So anyway, I sent Sonia a letter on Facebook apologizing for Eldon’s behavior:
Her response was gracious.
Then Eldon Taylor posts this article “Are we living in a Hologram?” on Facebook about universe being a hologram, but of course from approved scientific sources, which is apparently ok. When Sonia talked of the universe being a matrix he’d hear none of it. In fact, the audience didn’t hear any of it because most of the interview was him bloviating. Maybe this was his way of humoring the idea, maybe he just stumbled on it and thought it afro’pos. Here are the comments that were there before I posted anything. One person mentioned The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot (which I’d read ages ago and loved) and other people were talking religion and I figured if the universe dangled this out in front of me, I had to put my two cents in about Sonia.
This was my comment. I don’t know why I do these things:
Eldon’s response further down the post wasn’t exactly directed at me, but I’m damn sure he felt the reverberations, and then guised a general statement to the crowd:
Which is nicely played because it is kind of an insult to my crazy rant (saying I’m just being “creative”) and also an innocent clap from the enlightened persona. Best o’ both worlds!
This morning the smoke alarm went off due to the Heat Pump trying to go into ***Emergency Heat!*** Ahhhhh!!!! Smelled like burnt ass. So I launched the cat out of bed and then we ran around uselessly until it stopped. I checked my phone and it got a ding from “InnerTalk” and there was Eldon’s Newsletter for my groggy eyes, flying in at 3:33AM:
1.) You don’t even know this {and you don’t click my links anyway you bastards} I protected you all from getting his newsletter. When I linked to the video I jumped on the grenade and signed up in order to get the unadulterated link to the movie that doesn’t force you to sign up, which was the one I gave you. Newsletter free living!
2) At the Jon Stewart rally for Sanity I didn’t bring a poster, but I thought of one whilst I was there. It was a foreground iconic person sitting in meditation wired to a background network (silver cord from the back of the neck, right?) with a circle of other iconic people in meditation wired into a network around a framework of the Earth. It has a big label “Log on to the Inner-net” and a smaller caption at the bottom: “Wireless free hotspots available everywhere!” Dude, that is badass. See, most people think of it as a solitary venture; what if we started to reach out to each other in practice? Harmonize? Even if it wasn’t people actually connecting we’d think it was and that would make all the difference in how we saw other people which would make us more harmonious. I need someone to make that poster for me and I’ll give it away in .pdf format for college bulletin boards. Not that anyone would be motivated by a poster to do much of anything except eat a hot dog.
Edit: Whoa, my buddy Noah posted this on Facebook. He’s got a nose for innernews. Have you seen his site?
@ 7:35 Robert talks about the “Going on the Innerstate…” 9:27 “… to meet your maker.”
That’s very similar to “Log on to the Innernet” even stylistically. Information super highway.
Also, Master Charles worked with Robert Monroe (founder of the Monroe Institute, mentioned above) back in the day.
Synchy!#7 Robert Monroe Out-of-Body – Transformation of Human Consciousness
So here is the first chunk of Eldon’s newsletter:
Guiding Thoughts:
“That’s not a lie, it’s a terminological inexactitude. Also, a tactical
misrepresentation.”
~Alexander Haig
__________________________
Clutter and False ClaimsRecently I had a guest on my radio show that took liberties with
science–so much so that her statements were often misrepresentations of
the science they purported to represent. I took issue with this and did
so on the air.Here’s the problem, if you call on science as your authority, then
please do so but do so correctly. Don’t try to explain something like
an escalating Schumann resonance when you don’t understand how it is
calculated in the first place—because doing so is likely to embarrass
you and your associates. If you want to use physics as your basis for
spirituality, then don’t just quote bits out of context that fit your
use, take the time to understand what the principles are and how they
apply.There are word users who embellish their claims by adding jargon or
using some heuristic they simply don’t understand. They often also
defend their positions by referring to some expert. They quote the
expert but often misquote the meaning by portraying the context
erroneously. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that they necessarily do this
with any evil intent. No, some of these people have the highest of
intent so when they do this they both betray themselves and their
message.Look–if I meet someone, and they tell me they see angels and that the
angels tell them things, I will listen. I will make my discernment
about the individual and their message based on what I witness.
However, if a person begins by telling me about some principle in
science and they take liberties with their application or
interpretation of the science, then I dismiss them and I believe you
should as well. Indeed, in my view, this kind of abuse only gives the
entire field of spiritual enquiry or the so-called new age a bad name.
Think about it, how many times have you heard someone attack the field
by attacking some individual who has made a ludicrous statement.So here is the problem in the proverbial nutshell. In the world of
experts, a physicist writes about physics, a chemist about chemistry, a
behavioral scientist about behavior and so forth. If you have a
hypothesis, you test it. You set up studies and allow the chips to fall
where they may. Science is not about coming up with some idea and then
rushing that idea out into the public as fact without any verification.
Indeed, someone who calls themselves a scientist but has not tested
their own hypothesis and yet presents these hypotheses as though they
are factual, is anything but a scientist. The scientific method insists
on verifiability– replication!Now, when a chemist writes about paleontology, you have every right to
question their credentials. If they make statements that are false,
then you simply dismiss the person as lost–perhaps well intentioned,
but not up to par with the subject of their choosing. The real problem
is with certain members of the public. We can be so anxious to have
someone with credentials validate our beliefs, that we sell ourselves
down the drain by latching onto our so-called authority with an
arrogated attitude of, “See–I was right all along.”Please don’t just swallow what you read or hear especially nowadays,
for there are altogether too many who want to own your thoughts and
many others selling you something that is often a lie. It may sound
good, but as political scientists have long noted, a good lie begins
with a truth. And remember, the area of the brain responsible for
discernment shuts down in most people when an authority is present. So
it behooves all of us to pay attention to whom we accept as our
authority. And this is a subject I know something about, because when I
designed the InnerTalk system and entered the subliminal arena, there
were many who ridiculed and criticized the entire field. So to that
end, I practiced what I preach. We conducted studies and we had other
independent researchers conduct their studies, many of which employed
the most rigorous of scientific methods–the double blind study. When
the research repeatedly demonstrated efficacy, the naysayers in the
field equivocated by saying something like, “What Taylor does is not
truly subliminal.” As for me, I filed the patent.Now I received a few letters in dissent to my actions on the radio
show. One Listener wrote, “I haven’t read the book, but from the
interview you conducted I learned more about your desire for
intellectual validation than I did about her actual beliefs. Whilst you
are right that her stated facts might not be so, the same could be said
for the conclusions of your philosophical heroes and ‘scientifically
validated’ champions. The underlying structure of the argument that
needed to be probed was ‘does the universe show signs of being a type
of matrix?’”My answer was short, “Whether the earth is a matrix or not is
irrelevant!” (em-PHAsis mine -KG.) It’s Election time so let’s just create a timely example.
Assume I said that democracy was not the best form of government, nor
was it the favored method of government by the truly great thinkers of
Greece. Assume then that I went on to say this. “Plato argued for a
philosopher king to rule and his student Aristotle insisted that this
would lead to corruption–absolute power absolutely corrupts. For
Aristotle, the polis should be governed by the middle class and they
should be the only ones with a vote. Neither of these great thinkers
believed a democracy, such as ours, was the best form of government.”Okay–here is the relevance. Should I make these statements to you and
were you to know or discover that they were false, then my assertion
that democracy was not the best form of government, an assertion I made
on the basis of two Greek thinkers, would be erroneous on the principle
of its false foundation. Maybe democracy is not the best form of
government after all–but when I insist that this is true based on false
statements attributed to Aristotle and Plato, then my entire argument
becomes a spoof. (And by the way, just for the record, the positions I
attributed to both men are indeed accurate).So once again, if you are going to make foundation statements and you
do so incorrectly, expect that someone will take you to task! I just
don’t see my role as a redeemer of bad arguments committed to exploring
their potential for possibilities.Thanks for the read and I welcome your opinions.
Eldon
__________________________
Humorous Side:
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
~Arthur McBride Bloch
__________________________
This puts me in a bind because I want to share it with you for you to react to as you will. If I take a position and respond, well then I’m going to come off sounding as defensive as he sounded to me and the point is not to mount a defense, but to find the common slice of ground where we can both stand. I mean, he says right there his own audio stuff was not blessed by the pastors (Pastuers) of science, the ‘humorous’ quote afterward references the exhaustion of people that have restricted their own abilities to progress beyond any single idea, and I know from the first interview I linked to that he is personally forced to believe in a God due to an incident that didn’t fit the mold (as my telepathy did me), one where he somehow was projected from a train wreck into a grassy field unharmed right after the car had stopped on some train tracks because he tried to scare (authoritarian) his date as if the car was running out of gas on the tracks. Had this not happened I doubt he would have given up that little atheistic slice of superiority so easily, and nor would I have given up mine.
Anyway, more fun on the web. I get in these little scuffles sometimes here and there, taking my lance to arrogant positions, not people. Why? Because irony is stronger than gravity and if I created a universe I damn sure would make sure that anyone who thought their idea was the shit got shown it to be blowhard bullcrap in the end. I mean, how you gonna wow anyone at the end of the movie if they can’t see their own folly for thinking it would end up some other way?
Is it just movie programming that has done this to me or does humility really seem like a genuinely “godly” trait if there ever was one and arrogance the lamest kind of self-salesmanship? I’d chalk forgiveness to self and fellow in the same godly column. Both of those admirable qualities seem to be centered around finding love where you thought it wasn’t before. Raising someone’s level of respect by lowering your own, or accepting your own or other’s faults as by a complex design by which you can learn and make growth towards harmony.
(Just spit-balling for fun: Why was the Old Testamint such an arrogant jerk? What if God really was kind of an ass before and he grew on his path as well? What if anyone giving enough consciousness to the idea of a God manifests that idea as a reality within the operations of consciousness and imbues it with its own independent individuality, like we do when we make children. And what if that God may have dominion over us within consciousness even though we are the ones that unconsciously hold it in place and allow it being. Hmm… no, that can’t be right. If we are the parents we need to grow up a hell of a lot faster and learn to discipline our children. If we are the kids, we need move out of the nest and start acting like co-creating adults. Not co-creating for individual wealth or selfishness, but for all. 1)
So disappointed by the elections.
Voted for the first time as an American today.
The American Hero
I swear my Blackberry said that Eldon Taylor had ‘Liked’ this video on youtube and then when I went to look on his page the message was no longer there, but still showed up on my phone. At the end it says, “time to send the hippies home.” It tries to make out like the dems are the elite corporate lackeys cuddling poodles on jet planes; uh, project much guys? You’re always accusing us of the shit you’re doing. Get some better script writers.
It bothers me when I see people that are smart enough to manipulate other people, do so, and then blame them for being “stupid enough” to get manipulated as their own personal justification. “I’m taking advantage of you, but you should have stopped me therefore it’s your fault.” Like this quote about L. Ron Hubbard: “I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money – he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult.” The Fox news brigade has basically done that. The moneymakers keep singing that song and the followers have no idea they’re the butt of the joke. You really think that old white bankers and oil executives care about you and helping you with your problems? Why the hell is the guy on TV selling you a guide on how to be rich? Hasn’t he read his own guide?
I do not endorse this message. In fact, it makes me ill it is so disingenuous. Here’s what you just voted for as a remedy. You took the same damn pill that made you sick in the first place. At least if the Republicans get the house, I wont have to be disappointed later by the spineless actions of the Dems. Oh noes! Be strong angry little inner guru! The flowers of compassion and universal justice will take root somewhere… it gets darkest before the dawn!
Why are Democrats going to lose when they are more popular? – Cenk Uygur
