He Who Was Not

[nina1021]

"In a channeling, for instance, often times many different names will arise as being "speakers"

Yes, and often times what is stated by the 'channeller' as occurring, or will be occurring, is utter bullshit and/or remarkably unoriginal, indiscriminate platitudes. But it is perfect bullshit and everyone is eventually right when given a chance to express what they originally intended in a less distorted manner. So up is down and down is up.

Haha zenmaster I must say I love your straight forward approach in answering questions. Pardon my laughter but as much as you love I find it hilarious how your very cut throat and honest about the topics discussed. I feel like you're talking to me lol sometimes an over explanation can confuse me but when I read your comment a light bulb goes off. Thanks!

[zenmaster]

Good to know I'm contributing in some way to light bulbs going off, thus saving electricity.

[Unbound]

Aha We have to always be careful and gauge the impressions that come to us, for sure. Every thought is a pathway, and when we explore this or that pathway we add it to the tapestry of our lives, so it is meaningful to choose our pathways with care.

So does this mean that creation is not finished?

If we are adding to it at this time by the paths that we explore, is creation not then continuing?

And if it continues, how then can their be a future which has already happened now?

What is "it" that continues? What is the function of "continuum"?

The moment of consciousness continues, and it continues in to perception and awareness of awareness.

You may find this paradoxical, but the contuance of all of Universes is reliant upon the existence of Infinity. All things exist within infinity, and it is Infinity that is potential awareness that awareness becomes aware of.

The duality is, once again, in a linear thought structure which requires a beginning and an end.

If you look at reality, there is really only now, and the past and the future are all thoughts. Those who use the past and the future as linear notions to define their now, are thus restricted by themselves.

Rather, one can think of "past" and "future" as being simply relative associations between thoughts in the Now. That is, in this Moment, which is all moments, how do you know whether you go in to the "past" or the "future"? We have a sense of continuum because the moment CHANGES, there is evolution, and evolution is the primary activity of all motion.

Thus, the ideas of "past" and "future" really have nothing to do with what is reality, but more to do with an individuated experience of a portion of reality.

Let me ask you, where in time lies the imagination?

---

Also, thank you very much for your presence as well Spaced, you are always insightful and thoughtful and I enjoy reading your posts.

[Parsons]

So frankness and a cutthroat attitude is cool now? Ok, I think that most of the comments/arguments against things 'channeled' from a much higher portion of consciousness by TheEternal and godwide_void don't add to the message at all. Some posters seem to argue every detail of these messages to the point of devil's advocacy.

I get if you don't agree/resonate with something, but why split hairs/argue symantics? It seems like odd behavior to literally argue with a channel. I picture myself barging in on a Ra/Q'uo channeling and saying to the entity "nuh-uh, I don't see it that way at all, it's this way." But seriously, where the hell did someone get the impression anyone should worship anyone? That was a completely out of the blue implication/accusation. All this disagreeing and supplying with opinions that are presented as contradictory to the post being replied to seem to muddy the overall waters of understanding.

And believe me, 3D human beings are capable of a lot more understanding than is given credit. Anyone is capable of thinning and/or removing their veil. In each of us is the One consciousness that is compartmentalized from our veiled 3D consciousness. It's like having some other infinitely more functional operating system on a seperate partition from the one being used, to borrow a computer analogy. One only needs find a way to access this partition.

That is one of the very few(only things) I disagree with Q'uo/Ra with on: that this density is not of understanding therefor nobody is capable of understanding. This was likely stated so people didn't learn so much they destabized due to not finding balance in the new knowledge utilized. This goes hand in hand with most people's interpretation of "take only what resonates with you". This is mostly said in the Ra/Q'uo material so beginners to the material won't freak out and not read/listen any further. Just because something may not be what someone doesn't want to hear doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with you. Material can still be scanned for STS influences while using discernment while agreeing whith large portions of it. Once you realize those are disclaimers, you can surpass those seeming hurdles as long as you can remain stable.

[zenmaster]

Interesting how you'd pair 'agree' with 'resonate'. It is precisely because there is 'resonation' and thus ability to participate in the 'circle', that comment is acceptable. What you call 'arguing', some may call 'learning' - most likely a big difference. Also, the notion that someone merely capable of vomiting something from transpersonal awareness is somehow elevated beyond evaluation is ridiculous. These ideas are framed into *this* density, after all. The more situational or historical the theme is, the more it's subject to discernment, thank you very much.

Regarding the idea that 3D human beings are not being given 'credit' for understanding... The understanding Ra is talking about is noumenal, non-circumstantial, 'understanding'. 3D doesn't offer that, nor would it be appropriate to learning the lessons of the density. Removing the veil has to do with polarization, and inner work, and not understanding (of course).

With regards to channeling, to borrow a computer analogy: garbage in, garbage out. When one recognizes channeled words as simply a rehash of rather banal concepts (even if attention is paid to intricacy) esp. with lack of experience and evident bias, there really is space available for comment (no matter how much elevation or numinosity someone else may feel). I do tend to take a skeptical view, yet from honest considerations, when addressing the spew.

[Patrick]

...
With regards to channeling, to borrow a computer analogy: garbage in, garbage out. When one recognizes channeled words as simply a rehash of rather banal concepts (even if attention is paid to intricacy) esp. with lack of experience and evident bias, there really is space available for comment (no matter how much elevation or numinosity someone else may feel). I do tend to take a skeptical view, yet from honest considerations, when addressing the spew.

Indeed, I can tell you from experience that it is very easy to inject content from your small Self when channeling. It makes me admire Carla, Don, Jim and the Ra material all that much.

[Shin'Ar]

So frankness and a cutthroat attitude is cool now? Ok, I think that most of the comments/arguments against things 'channeled' from a much higher portion of consciousness by TheEternal and godwide_void don't add to the message at all. Some posters seem to argue every detail of these messages to the point of devil's advocacy.

I get if you don't agree/resonate with something, but why split hairs/argue symantics? It seems like odd behavior to literally argue with a channel. I picture myself barging in on a Ra/Q'uo channeling and saying to the entity "nuh-uh, I don't see it that way at all, it's this way." But seriously, where the hell did someone get the impression anyone should worship anyone? That was a completely out of the blue implication/accusation. All this disagreeing and supplying with opinions that are presented as contradictory to the post being replied to seem to muddy the overall waters of understanding.

And believe me, 3D human beings are capable of a lot more understanding than is given credit. Anyone is capable of thinning and/or removing their veil. In each of us is the One consciousness that is compartmentalized from our veiled 3D consciousness. It's like having some other infinitely more functional operating system on a seperate partition from the one being used, to borrow a computer analogy. One only needs find a way to access this partition.

That is one of the very few(only things) I disagree with Q'uo/Ra with on: that this density is not of understanding therefor nobody is capable of understanding. This was likely stated so people didn't learn so much they destabized due to not finding balance in the new knowledge utilized. This goes hand in hand with most people's interpretation of "take only what resonates with you". This is mostly said in the Ra/Q'uo material so beginners to the material won't freak out and not read/listen any further. Just because something may not be what someone doesn't want to hear doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with you. Material can still be scanned for STS influences while using discernment while agreeing whith large portions of it. Once you realize those are disclaimers, you can surpass those seeming hurdles as long as you can remain stable.

What you call argument is what I call discernment.

We could easily avoid discerning anything and just follow whoever sounds the loudest or the prettiest without any consideration at all.

But why not just become a Pentecostal if that is what one seeks.

I thought that here i n this community we were beyond such right hand seductions.

If we do not consider in detail everything that is offered, then we do not even credit those doing the offering with the consideration of taking their efforts seriously.

[Unbound]

So, in that regard, since I am not "channeling" anything, does that mean I am more fallible or less fallible?

[Patrick]

So, in that regard, since I am not "channeling" anything, does that mean I am more fallible or less fallible?

We've discussed this already. ALL of our thoughts are channeled.

[Unbound]

Well, this is kind of the point I am trying to make.

[Parsons]

And here we are arguing symantics once again and also ignoring the part of my post where I said its possible to use discernment while resonating with large portions of material. Some people aren't skeptical to the point of devil's advocacy.

I am glad the point of that they aren't actually channeling was brought up since I put that term in quotes because there is no word that exists for what they are doing. It isn't their guidance or the Akashek record. It would appear to be unable to be influenced by STS tricksters the same way a computer not connected to the Internet can not get a virus.

[Unbound]

If I was to give it a word, I would use "translating", because really that's what is being done, is that conceptual impressions which arise in the mental and emotional bodies are being translated in to "vibratory sound complexes", or, words.

Shin'Ar seems to be the one here with the most experience communing with "higher beings", in particular his frequent mention of his contacts with Thoth. While he has asked everyone else about their contacts it seems he has done little to detail his own. Of course, I may be corrected if I am in err with that.

[Patrick]

Some food for thought.

...There are other prejudices or biases which have the same sort of limiting effect upon the self as racial prejudice. By this, we mean prejudice against certain types of music, certain types of written word, certain types of food, certain degrees of intelligence, certain accents, and so forth. These are the small change of prejudice. The damage done by this sort of prejudice is not as great as the damage done by racial prejudice due to the fact that you [are] only hurting yourself and not other people. Since one seldom says to another human, “I cannot speak with you because you are too stupid,” nor can music become insulted because one person will not listen to it, you are therefore limiting and damaging only yourself for the most part. However, it is well to think well enough of oneself to wish not to damage the self by these prejudices, but rather, again to listen once, taste once, see once, hear once, or feel once any new experience before one judges or discriminates...

Wise words...

[Shin'Ar]

I think I managed to get lost somehow with all of these different threads I am in.

I am not sure how, whether it is channeled information, speculative information, or information from whatever source, it makes any difference with regard to thew discerning of it.

Should we not discern every bit of information for its worth and merit, and compare it to information we have already gathered?

What difference does it make whether it is channeled or not?

I was asking Azreal about infinity and his thinking regarding simultaneity and what he had said about the creation continuing even though he says that it is finished.

I would really like to develop a better understanding of their thinking in that regard. I struggle with it immensely.

But with regard to what Parsons said about picking it apart too much, I don't understand how things of such magnitude can possible be picked apart too much.

The more we consider and discuss it, the more we pick at it, the more we learn from it.

---

If I was to give it a word, I would use "translating", because really that's what is being done, is that conceptual impressions which arise in the mental and emotional bodies are being translated in to "vibratory sound complexes", or, words.

Shin'Ar seems to be the one here with the most experience communing with "higher beings", in particular his frequent mention of his contacts with Thoth. While he has asked everyone else about their contacts it seems he has done little to detail his own. Of course, I may be corrected if I am in err with that.

To begin with I do not recall anyone asking me about such things, and secondly, that is not something I have offered freely because such contact in my practice is an intimate matter that we do not share in such ways.

Any connection made during the process of offering thoughts and sharing information where a higher field may influence or govern what is being offered in some way, is not a matter that I would be comfortable exposing as a certain identity. Such connection is sacred and naturally occurring everywhere at all times. It is the Divine Design.

And when such does take place and I am aware of it, I would point that out only if I was also aware that the identification was via strict permission.

What I have to offer here is not affected by the sources I gather the information from, or how credible my speculations may be. Whether my own thoughts, or thoughts shared with another, thoughts are meant for consideration by all.

If sharing was a matter of authority alone, or the fame or notoriety of the sources, I daresay that it would not be sharing, but more of the old right hand path one sided imposition.

[Unbound]

There is only One Source, One Thought, One Motion, One Consciousness.

All within the One are One. Two mates the One. Three sets them all in dance.

[godwide_void]

And here we are arguing symantics once again and also ignoring the part of my post where I said its possible to use discernment while resonating with large portions of material. Some people aren't skeptical to the point of devil's advocacy.

I am glad the point of that they aren't actually channeling was brought up since I put that term in quotes because there is no word that exists for what they are doing. It isn't their guidance or the Akashek record. It would appear to be unable to be influenced by STS tricksters the same way a computer not connected to the Internet can not get a virus.

While I might not be "channeling" some external entity in the traditional sense, I would like to point out that several of the questions posited to me in my thread are questions concerning topics which I do not have any conscious understanding of and all such responses manifest by means of swift automatic typing with very few pauses occurring. All I will say is that my answers are generated by the subconscious portion of my mind, and a very deep region of it at that which may or may not border on the collective. I am also vaguely aware of the music I am listening to as I type or of the general flowing of the words which flow forth from me, thus I am always in a type of conscious trance state.

I cannot comment on the possible nature of what TheEternal proposes is actually occurring for him and what might actually be occurring for him, but in my case I am able to provide specific information and particular concepts which do not arise in or were molded by my conscious mind, from a source which I have come to directly understand to be my guiding force/information stored within my own higher consciousness.

It is quite fine if zenmaster chooses to view some aspect or the entirety of either Tanner's or my service as utter bullshit, although I was not the one who was directly accused of this, but if I am included in this accusation or am also the target of this skepticism, I would like to humbly point you to the actual tangible and ongoing results of said "channeled bullshit", unless you would consider the answers I gave to specific questions not of a metaphysical nature as a 'rehash of rather banal concepts', although this is actually assuming that this judgement applies to me as well.

[Shin'Ar]

The difference between what some might call channeling, and the very natural sharing of information between fields which is taking place at all times, whether deliberately or subconsciously, is that the channel deliberately offers their field as a conduit for another field to use as a means of communication to others.

Whereas the natural process, the Sacred Eye, takes place naturally between fields as the Process of Being continues.

All sharing requires discernment by the individual fields involved, unless one is still on the right path of following instructions by faith or need to be attached to a particular dogma or doctrine which they choose to accept as factual.

All can also be ignored and cast aside as unworthy according to what an individual chooses to believe, but regardless of choice the sharing still occurs.

However none of the above sharing can have its truth altered by perceptions and choices to accept or dismiss.

Truth remains truth despite any sharing that takes place. What has happened and has become memory, is truth regardless of what anyone considers it to be. When we know this it no longer matters what anyone thinks of our sharing or the methods we use, or the methods we dismiss, because in the end truth is being shared, accepted, understood, realized, discarded, dismissed and avoided in every second of the Process of Being.

Truth is invulnerable to our ignorance and perceptions.

[zenmaster]

It's very much part of a characterization rather than an accusation. The latter is literally 'a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong'. To be clear it's not only not 'wrong', but acceptable. It's just a spew of more bullshit. And of course it applies to you as well, as if yours or any autopiloted, subconscious bias and delivery was one of absolute illumination and purity.

I find it extremely ironic that semantics is relegated to some petty disagreement, when it is *the* foundation of perceiving and then relating intuitive info.

[Unbound]

I would be very curious to know what is NOT "bullshit"?

[godwide_void]

zenmaster, by all means you have the freedom and liberty to rationalize away and speculate on the invalidity of the claims and circumstances of another, but I am certain that you are aware that the functioning of the minds of others, the spiritual relationship and connectivity one holds, the personal experience of reality of another, and the certain paradigms which govern said reality, even if the particular paradigms present in another's existence do not find inclusion or manifestation in yours, cannot be rationalized away or altered in any manner simply because another cynically muses upon their alleged falsehood.

Out of curiosity, I would also be interested in hearing what your perspective is on the nature of the Law of One Ra Material and its conception? Do you find little credence in it, or is it the prime standard which you place all other "channeled" material against and thus is the only such work which you believe to be valid and situated in truth? If so, what factors provide the basis for your conviction for believing the Ra Material to be truth in regards to it actually being a "channeled" work and what distinguishes it from other "channeled" material, as it seems to be a work which serves as the foundation for your philosophies.

[zenmaster]

The Ra material is certainly not foundational to my philosophies. This forum, however, is largely oriented to the messages therein, so I feel obliged to reference it here. To me, it does provide a significant improvement as far as purity of intention and descriptions of principles. When I say 'bullshit', I'm referring to runaway, autopilot, unbalanced, 'hyper' intuition which is also largely uninformed by experience. With such a communication, there is relatively much less learning potential. That is, one may access the collective or personal 'cloud', but if one is also not actively putting something back there, via this experiential distortion, there is comparatively little growth potential.

[Unbound]

Can you rephrase that?

---

I just didn't quite fully understand what you are getting at.

[Shin'Ar]

It's very much part of a characterization rather than an accusation. The latter is literally 'a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong'. To be clear it's not only not 'wrong', but acceptable. It's just a spew of more bullshit. And of course it applies to you as well, as if yours or any autopiloted, subconscious bias and delivery was one of absolute illumination and purity.

I find it extremely ironic that semantics is relegated to some petty disagreement, when it is *the* foundation of perceiving and then relating intuitive info.

That is because you believe that human intelligence is the only thing being shared in communication of information, and in that regard being able to speak a language without confusion over terms and definitions is essential for such a transfer of thoughts to be accurately received and transmitted.

What we are discussing goes far beyond human intellect and ability of perception.

We are discussing the designs built into creation that encompass much more than mere human communication and capability.

[zenmaster]

Can you rephrase that?

---

I just didn't quite fully understand what you are getting at.

The utility of pre-rational info in general.

---

It's very much part of a characterization rather than an accusation. The latter is literally 'a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong'. To be clear it's not only not 'wrong', but acceptable. It's just a spew of more bullshit. And of course it applies to you as well, as if yours or any autopiloted, subconscious bias and delivery was one of absolute illumination and purity.

I find it extremely ironic that semantics is relegated to some petty disagreement, when it is *the* foundation of perceiving and then relating intuitive info.

That is because you believe that human intelligence is the only thing being shared in communication of information, and in that regard being able to speak a language without confusion over terms and definitions is essential for such a transfer of thoughts to be accurately received and transmitted.

What we are discussing goes far beyond human intellect and ability of perception.

We are discussing the designs built into creation that encompass much more than mere human communication and capability.

What you fail to realize is that what is being discussed are not things in themselves. Therefore the intuition is used to point in, what is perceived to be, their vaguely general direction. Prerational or unevaluated signposts are not part of conscious experience - it's still unconscious info - and therefore is a relatively poor aid in polarization. Don't mistake 'getting it' with 'reaching for it', or mere apprehension with comprehension.

When Ra talks about the planetary mind informing the conceptualizations of each entity, they are talking about prior and extant experience (actual memory or knowledge). That 'pool' is what provides the significant options here.

[Shin'Ar]

Can you rephrase that?

---

I just didn't quite fully understand what you are getting at.

The utility of pre-rational info in general.

---

It's very much part of a characterization rather than an accusation. The latter is literally 'a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong'. To be clear it's not only not 'wrong', but acceptable. It's just a spew of more bullshit. And of course it applies to you as well, as if yours or any autopiloted, subconscious bias and delivery was one of absolute illumination and purity.

I find it extremely ironic that semantics is relegated to some petty disagreement, when it is *the* foundation of perceiving and then relating intuitive info.

That is because you believe that human intelligence is the only thing being shared in communication of information, and in that regard being able to speak a language without confusion over terms and definitions is essential for such a transfer of thoughts to be accurately received and transmitted.

What we are discussing goes far beyond human intellect and ability of perception.

We are discussing the designs built into creation that encompass much more than mere human communication and capability.

What you fail to realize is that what is being discussed are not things in themselves. Therefore the intuition is used to point in, what is perceived to be, their vaguely general direction. Prerational or unevaluated signposts are not part of conscious experience - it's still unconscious info - and therefore is a relatively poor aid in polarization. Don't mistake 'getting it' with 'reaching for it', or mere apprehension with comprehension.

When Ra talks about the planetary mind informing the conceptualizations of each entity, they are talking about prior and extant experience (actual memory or knowledge). That 'pool' is what provides the significant options here.

And WHAT do you suppose that pool was filled with and from what was it filled?

All information stored in the One consciousness is memory and experience of past being.

All signposts are available as past experiences, and anything that makes itself aware of such is consciousness. how it discerns it is a matter of degree of evolved understanding and ability.

[Unbound]

As in, you are saying it lacks utility or has utility?

---

I'm just not sure who defines the parameters of "an experience" to the extent that they can judge the "rationality" of another's experience.

---

I'm also confused at what point "pre-rational" info, thus becomes rational? How does that change the information itself?

[zenmaster]

As in, you are saying it lacks utility or has utility?

It obviously provides utility. The point is that info perceived using the faculty of intuition may be related, suggestively, even when it has not yet been grasped - that is, integrated into experience. Because the intuition, on its own, merely points toward something, it may not add to experience unless digested or 'grasped' using rational faculties. Things actually added to experience are those which provide infinitely more utility.

I'm just not sure who defines the parameters of "an experience" to the extent that they can judge the "rationality" of another's experience.

I must not have been clear. It's not the rationality of experience that is being judged. Right now, here in 3D, the worldview which is called "experience" is due to the rational processing of perception. That's "rational" in the Jungian sense (i.e. feeling/thinking dichotomy).

I'm also confused at what point "pre-rational" info, thus becomes rational?

Pre-rational perception (i.e. from intuition) becomes responsibly "owned" as rational experience when there is some conscious act of evaluation exercised. This experience, as memory, is inheritable for those searching in the direction offered by that view.

How does that change the information itself?

The info that intuition was pointing at only ever existed as something which might be subject to discernment. The more vague the info, the less there is which changes. i.e. "all is one", and (obviously) therefore the less offered for balancing particular imbalances.
What is newly created in the form of experience is what changes, the basic info is going to remain the same (as, unsurprisingly, principles of evolution itself).

[Shin'Ar]

It obviously provides utility. The point is that info perceived using the faculty of intuition may be related, suggestively, even when it has not yet been grasped - that is, integrated into experience. Because the intuition, on its own, merely points toward something, it may not add to experience unless digested or 'grasped' using rational faculties. Things actually added to experience are those which provide infinitely more utility.

Experience is not a matter of accurate translation or rational interpretation Zen. How is experience integrated into experience? Experience does not require integration, it is integration. What you are suggesting here is that an experience is not an experience unless it is rationalized and in the case that it was the result of intuitive direction, that the intuition was meaningless unless the experience is somehow deciphered for its worth and merit.

That is like saying that road sign is only a road sign if someone actually uses it and gets to the destination that it says it is direction you to. Whether the sign is accurate or followed to destination is not what makes it a road sign.

The same can be said of intuitive guidance.

All is experience.

I must not have been clear. It's not the rationality of experience that is being judged. Right now, here in 3D, the worldview which is called "experience" is due to the rational processing of perception. That's "rational" in the Jungian sense (i.e. feeling/thinking dichotomy).

Does the second sentence in this paragraph not contradict the following one? Is rational processing not the same as judgement?

Pre-rational perception (i.e. from intuition) becomes responsibly "owned" as rational experience when there is some conscious act of evaluation exercised. This experience, as memory, is inheritable for those searching in the direction offered by that view.

And here is the actual point which you are trying to make, hidden in a lot of busy wording and interpretation. you are declaring that intuition is pre-rational and not worthy of its guidance until its merit is validated by the success of achieving the destination to which it points. What you are missing in your determination to make intuition responsible for its direction, is the fact that intuition is always at the mercy of its recipient. Intuition is the very decision making process of an individual. To follow what one thinks is accurate direction or not. The degree to which the recipient challenges that direction does not define the direction source. What you are trying to do is dismiss the intuitive process as worthless based upon your definition of it as existing only after the recipient has successfully managed it.

The info that intuition was pointing at only ever existed as something which might be subject to discernment. The more vague the info, the less there is which changes. i.e. "all is one", and (obviously) therefore the less offered for balancing particular imbalances.
What is newly created in the form of experience is what changes, the basic info is going to remain the same (as, unsurprisingly, principles of evolution itself).

Of course information is not altered by intelligence trying to decipher it. Information is either accurate or inaccurate. Because some information may be vague, or that information my not be sufficiently discerned, has nothing to do with the intuitive process that directed intelligence to it.

Let me ask you Zen, are you trying to suggest that intuition is not worth following or considering for its offerings?

Or are you simply stating that when one is considering intuition that it is only validated by their success of utilizing it?

In either case, it is not the intuitive process that fails, but the ability of the one following it.

[Unbound]

What about physical information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Is this ever accurate or inaccurate?

---

I like this:

"Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another".[citation needed] The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language."

[zenmaster]

It obviously provides utility. The point is that info perceived using the faculty of intuition may be related, suggestively, even when it has not yet been grasped - that is, integrated into experience. Because the intuition, on its own, merely points toward something, it may not add to experience unless digested or 'grasped' using rational faculties. Things actually added to experience are those which provide infinitely more utility.

Experience is not a matter of accurate translation or rational interpretation Zen.

Of course experience is a matter of interpretation, for without interpretation it would not exist. Not sure what you mean by 'accurate translation', however.

How is experience integrated into experience? Experience does not require integration, it is integration.

That's right, experience is integration resulting from evaluation.

What you are suggesting here is that an experience is not an experience unless it is rationalized and in the case that it was the result of intuitive direction, that the intuition was meaningless unless the experience is somehow deciphered for its worth and merit.

No, that is not what I'm suggesting. Back to what I am suggesting: experience is the result of conscious evaluation. The perception from intuition is indeed meaningless unless supported by experience. Not sure what you mean by 'deciphered' - there is no code.

That is like saying that road sign is only a road sign if someone actually uses it and gets to the destination that it says it is direction you to. Whether the sign is accurate or followed to destination is not what makes it a road sign.

Ironically, this is sort of like arguing with a road sign. Again, I have no idea what you mean by accuracy.

The same can be said of intuitive guidance.

All is experience.

Yes, all is experience. All is ultimately One. Meanwhile, back to third density.

I must not have been clear. It's not the rationality of experience that is being judged. Right now, here in 3D, the worldview which is called "experience" is due to the rational processing of perception. That's "rational" in the Jungian sense (i.e. feeling/thinking dichotomy).

Does the second sentence in this paragraph not contradict the following one? Is rational processing not the same as judgement?

No, it does not contradict. It was a direct response to "to the extent that they can judge the "rationality" of another's experience." Rational processing is indeed a form of judgement. Experience is the result of that. Judging the rationality of another's experience is really beyond the scope of what I'm talking about.

Pre-rational perception (i.e. from intuition) becomes responsibly "owned" as rational experience when there is some conscious act of evaluation exercised. This experience, as memory, is inheritable for those searching in the direction offered by that view.

And here is the actual point which you are trying to make, hidden in a lot of busy wording and interpretation.

(pot-kettle-black)

you are declaring that intuition is pre-rational and not worthy of its guidance until its merit is validated by the success of achieving the destination to which it points.

Not exactly. I'm indeed declaring the intuition is pre-rational, but its value or utility to evolution is significantly enhanced with conscious evaluation.

What you are missing in your determination to make intuition responsible for its direction, is the fact that intuition is always at the mercy of its recipient.

The recipient exists in an 'experiential nexus' (as Ra would say) which is shared, and does change with respect to 'subdensity'.

Intuition is the very decision making process of an individual.

No. Intuition has nothing at all to do with decisions, it has to do with perceptions.

To follow what one thinks is accurate direction or not.

Which is, again, called 'evaluation'.

The degree to which the recipient challenges that direction does not define the direction source. What you are trying to do is dismiss the intuitive process as worthless based upon your definition of it as existing only after the recipient has successfully managed it.

No, this is not what I'm trying to do. The 'intuitive process' can be (and tends to be in many cases of 'channeling') imbalanced with respect to rational evaluation. The result of such imbalanced intuition is material which is much less useful to evolution, because experience is not gained.

Let me ask you Zen, are you trying to suggest that intuition is not worth following or considering for its offerings?

No. Not sure why you would think that. I have been trying to suggest the complete opposite.

Or are you simply stating that when one is considering intuition that it is only validated by their success of utilizing it?

No. I am stating that intuition may be, and often is, related without consideration. This is the imbalance. To me it's automatically 'successful' if there is rational balance.

In either case, it is not the intuitive process that fails, but the ability of the one following it.

Whether something fails or succeeds, or someone is able to follow or not follow, is truly outside of the scope of what I'm talking about.

Remember that intuition is always reaching into the unconscious, from the framework of conscious experience. The unconscious is a plenum of potential which may ultimately only be utilized only from 'integrated and distilled experience' (hence evolution). However, the intuition can be pressed to overreach, thus not extending the current worldview but rather over extending it with vague, ambiguous and tenuous connections lacking accountability.

At best, what such vagary suggests can inspire, at worst it can impress a false frame through its necessarily biased, untempered suggestion and innuendo.