3D to 4D: Sudden or Gradual? A great read...(David Wilcock interview)

[zenmaster]

The funny thing about it is that you must believe the source of the quote, then the quote itself, then reapply the quote back unto itself, and then repeat. 'sounds right' 'is it true' 'let me apply what it says' 'sounds made up' 'is it true' 'let me apply what it say' 'sounds okay' 'is it real' 'let me try it out' , etc.

Seeing the principles underneath thought, which has always been, there is freedom and non-attachment.

The 'skeptic' and 'believer' are the same. The same in 'purity', the same in 'polarity'. People will ever continue to project the opposite of their (purely ego-centric) personality bias, unless and until they accept what they themselves are doing to 'balance'. The are essentially looking for others for guidance, while pretending to see the way.

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/...lieve.html Both would claim 'open-mindedness'. You'd have to be close-minded not to see that.

Are the open minded skeptic and open minded believer ultimately the same thing? I think so, if the belief and the skepticism originate from an honest approach. However, I feel there are two specific attributes that keep either from being as effective in their claims as they could be. That is, naivate and lack of discernment.

These are two different things: naivate, is due to a worldview (weltanschauung) which has not incorporated certain experiences. While discernment, is an active skill that does draw upon such experience, but also informs one when the limits of knowledge are reached.

If there is lack of discernment (which seems to be tied to honesty), bias for what one wants to see tends to substitute for knowledge. However, with more discernment, the boundaries of one's knowledge are more visible and what is known is not as likely to be overextended or misapplied.

The "believer" and "skeptic" may actually be the same thing, ultimately, if discernment is available. However, in their dishonest forms, we have the phenomena of the "fanatic" and the "debunker". These are heavily biased devotees who tend to raise mere bias and speculation, in the form of insubstantial or incongruous claims, to the status of fact. A characteristic difference in approaches is that the fanatic tends to be rather uncritical and seemingly open-minded , but only in regards to the perceived promotion of a particular cause or agenda to which they have identified ("everything is possible, if I like the idea"). While the debunker, similarly, applies his/her skepticism only to promote a particular cause of agenda ("everything is explainable and within my worldview"). Both approaches are effectively close minded.

I've also noticed that, if it serves to synthesize a pleasing story, many fanatics tend to correlate and connect disparate things and ideas. Whereas, many debunkers tend to mis-attribute causality to perception. This suggests unbridled use of the intuition and lack of reasoning in the former and over thinking or lack of intuition and false attributions or reductionism in the latter.