»Trained to Perception«

My recent mention of Neo being subjected to acupuncture caused me to notice that I could not recall any mention of acupuncture on this board. so I used the search engine to check and found 5 mentions with the last occuring two years ago. BEFORE MY TIME.
Only three of them were really pertinent:

When I saw the Matrix for the first time I was 20 or 21. Somewhere around 12 years old I was taken on a tour of the Scottish Rite cathedral near me, and became obsessed with Freemasons and started to learn everything I could about them. A few years later when I was exposed to Yeats, I was excited to learn about the Golden Dawn (the mystical off-shoot of the Masons). I then poured through everything I could about that group.

Do you know how many new religions borrow from the Masons and Golden Dawn? Here's a quick list-- Wicca, Scientology, Kabalism (Madonna style, not ancient), Mormonism... all those have direct roots in Freemasonry or the Golden Dawn movement.

I took up a regular practice of the The Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, and the Middle Pillar ritual...

If you've read Israeli Regardi's work, you know though that he took the acts of the Golden Dawn in a way very different from the more widely known Crowley ideology. Regardi seems to have seen the work of the Dawn as an attempt to marry mythologized ritual to psychology.

I found that there was a truth to Regardi's interpretation. These rituals and "spells" didn't produce any effect in the world. But they certainly helped to organize my thoughts. In the old days of the Dawn, one had to perform the Lesser Banishing ritual and under go psychological therapy (which was as wild and out there as magic back then) for one year just to get started.

This would not be the first time that I came to understand the relationship between psychology and theology, but it certainly was an eye opener.

After doing it for close to a year, I abandoned all that Golden Dawn-y schtuff (I never took it religiously, it was just a practice, like an exercise routine for the mind).

Along the way I'd also gained heavy exposure to Meister Eckhart and the Free Spirit Heresy. That's where a lot of my pantheistic ideas began to gestate...

Anywho, I dismissed metaphysics because I have never seen any proof of them. I've dug into magic and mysticism of all sorts, and never once have I seen anything that couldn't be explained by even my simple mind in a scientific way (and we all know, I'm not that smart, so if I can figure it out, jeez). But there did seem to be something to all this mystical mumbo jumbo. Would it be possible to marry psychology and mental practice to myth and ritual? Could theology and science grant each other a balance? Could one explain the nonexistence of a soul and align it with reincarnation (a problem that plagued me for years)? Turns out I would find my answer in the same religion that many of the members of the Golden Dawn converted to in their old age.

So you can see where I was at in terms of metaphysics before the first movie even hit my eyes...

There is a way to describe metaphysics in terms of scientific proof AND physical 5 senses style proof. Of course I'm refering to Quantum Physics. An idea that has intrigued me to the point of changing my ENTIRE belief structure in a matter of 2.5 hours.

And it wasn't any type of brainwashing, the information I received wasn't NEW and interesting that made me "wake up". It was more a confirmation of ideas that have been puzzling me since I was around 8 years old. Now it just had a name.

What are you guys' opinions of Mechanism?

Kozar wrote:

What are you guys' opinions of Mechanism?

I think that Karma lies behind everything in Samsara, so on that level I 100% agree with Mechanism. And I think that all five skandhas exist in Samsara and are often the cause and effect of Karma. But, the Buddha sees that all five skandhas are empty...

First of all I just want to say that I really like the thinking I see on the boards lately. And this thread is It goes in the same direction as "7/7". "A question of presentation" is closely related to the spirit behind that thread and "Re-m(atr)ix" goes further into what the W's are doing. Psikey, what you say kinda links some things in those threads together and still makes a separate, yet related point.

Psikeyhackr wrote:

I just drew a diagram to organize my thoughts about where this post is going. It has the word sender with an arrow going to message, then two arrows going from message to two instances of the word receiver. There is a bidirectional arrow pointing both ways between the two receivers. The word reality is off to the side with three bidirectional arrows between it and sender and the two receivers. In our case the message is obviously The Matrix Trilogy, there are a lot more than two receivers and multidirectional arrows on this messageboard alone. The complicated part becomes the bidirectional arrow between each receiver and reality but since we are all contemplating the same message we get to speculate about that arrow between the senders and reality. Of course in this case the senders are the Wachowski Brothers.

Exactly. No way around it. The message is going to be heavily flavored with and stem from the sender's worldview. That is a given. Still, in the 7/7 thread you see early on, a couple receivers disputing with the op's connection with "reality" when the op only claims to express the senders' reality as presented in their "message".

How many interpretations of the movies here in this forum are flavored with a receivers' exposure to "reality"? From computer science to religion to social issues everyone brings their perspectives to the table and toss them back and forth amongst other receivers. I have no problem with that because what it does is it increases the level of exposure of each receiver to other perspectives and to reality and that in turn, helps in interpreting this message that we all come to discuss.

Disadvantages
Some posters are so concerned about that arrow between them and reality, that they disregard others' arrows to reality. And this leads to -> receivers gravitating to other receivers who have arrows of similar length (strength) and then to -> "groupthink" in which a poster exchanges his own arrows for the clique's collective viewpoint. The disadvantage in this is that the sender's intent often gets disregarded as well. LOL.

Muddying up the waters
Let's put some new arrows on the chart, shall we, Psikey? The Wachowski's are not really the senders of the "message". They are "messengers" so the senders' arrows to reality is once removed. Then you also have receivers with arrows to the messengers and you have receivers with arrows to the senders to try to account for. And some of these may be bi-directional as well.

Well I hope I didn't confuse anyone too much

Psikeyhackr wrote:

The same applies to everyone here though the less information someone has the less they will see.

COMPARE:

Gina Rink wrote:

Intuition is highly dependant on experience.

and

Gina Rink wrote:

Perspective depends highly on context.

intell wrote:

Still, in the 7/7 thread you see early on, a couple receivers disputing with the op's connection with "reality" when the op only claims to express the senders' reality as presented in their "message".

Claims being the operative word there

captpostmod wrote:

I dismissed metaphysics because I have never seen any proof of them.

Means, "I dismiss what I have never seen."

Operational word: I, as in ego(tism).

When the five senses are still, then begins the path supreme.

If you were deprived of all five senses, what would you think is real, then?

intell wrote:

If you were deprived of all five senses, what would you think is real, then?

Much better work, intell. I'm proud.

Quote:

The Wachowski's are not really the senders of the "message". They are "messengers" so the senders' arrows to reality is once removed.

OK, I'll bite. Who are you accusing of being the sender(s)?

psik

psikeyhackr wrote:

OK, I'll bite. Who are you accusing of being the sender(s)?

According to Gina, it's apparently Kryon! kryon.com...

Psikey... wrote:

OK, I'll bite. Who are you accusing of being the sender(s)? psik

Gina Rink wrote:

Some people would call it integralism. Or, as I call it, the repackaging of ideas for a new generation.

But you've gotta have Freemasons and time lines in the pyramid of Cheop's (which is misnamed of course), otherwise you're not cool.

Here is a review of The Ultimate Frontier by Eklal Kueshana

Quote:

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars - Highly Recommended I first picked this book up in a public library on a whim, and started reading it. I noticed about 30 minutes later that I was getting uncomfortable. That was when I noticed that I was still standing in the same place and had read several chapters without moving. Facinating. The subject matter is laid out in a story format that captured my attention and fired my imagination. Whether you agree or disagree with the assertions that the author makes about the universe as a whole, your mind will have been exposed to some very interesting ideas and you will never be the same.

There are 7 pages of reviews starting here:

What if The Exorcist, the Loa and this biblical incident are simply variations of the same phenomenon and these entities are simply decarnate humans. Objects are levitated in The Exorcist like Neo lifting knives off the wall in the Merovingian's castle. The possessed man in Mark 5 broke chains like Neo pulling a pole out of the ground during the Burly Brawl. How could these hypothetical entities have super human powers?

Another peculiar experience of mine a couple of years before reading TUF was a freshman joining our fraternity who claimed that his fmily lived in a haunted house. I was told about this by another blabber mouthed freshman and it took me a couple of weeks to get this kid to tell me the story. He was mad at the blabber mouth. He said that a workman had died in the house they had built and that he had seen windows open and close by themselves and the entire family had been sitting down to dinner and seen a broom move from one corner of a room to another. They named the ghost Harry. At the time I regarded myself as an agnostic and figured that the probability was 99% that this was bullshit, but if that 1% happened to really be the case then this was real important. There was also a kid in the fratwho was into the occult and read a lot about the stuff but he came across to me as a lot more flakey than the dude with the haunted house.

Now suppose for a moment that this ghost story is actually true. That means this entity without a body can sense physical reality and move objects without a body. But if a ghost is simply a human being without a body then a normal human being i just a ghost attached to a body. Might a normal human being be able to develop the ability to extend his ghost, or chi, or life force beyond his body and move things without touching them?

UH OH! This is getting long again. BREAK TIME!

(to be continued)

psychohackr

Keep going. This is getting interesting.

What? You read the 7 pages of reviews already?

*emerges from the shadows*

psikeyhackr wrote:

I decided to do a statistical analysis of the reviews: 4,2,1,1,5,2,1,1,5,4,1,3,3,5,1,5,4,5,1,5,5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 33 reviews with an average of 3.7 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 7 ones, 2 twos, 2 threes, 4 fours, 18 fives The mode is 5 and the median is 5. There are more 1's and 5's than anything else.

Hehe. Several statisticians called to let me know that they were blowing their brains out tonight over your analysis. Of course, I'm just kidding.

It's kind of clear here that there aren't enough records for a decent sample, and I believe that website doesn't give dates so you don't know when you're pulling this info, and who you're pulling it from (some of those 5s could be by the author and his friends).

Keep in mind, these type of attitudinal studies (and metrics) will only tell you the attitudes of the people who bought the book. The numbers say nothing of the book itself. Furthermore, the comments are a waste to read unless they were structured a certain way.

*lurks back into the shadows*

- George Harrison

You have to take the internet for what it is worth.

For all you know I could be the author and I could have written all of the reviews.

I could only give the book a 4.5 because it claims to be non-fiction, but even if most of the important information is correct it cannot possibly be verified. Unless you alreaady know how to read the Akashic Record. In which case, why are you paying attention to a lowly being like myself?

Quote:

Keep in mind, these type of attitudinal studies (and metrics) will only tell you the attitudes of the people who bought the book.

Ha, ha, gottcha! When I first read the book I hadn't bought it. In the review I quoted the individual said he was in the library reading it. He hadn't bought it. Teach you to nit pick with me. Testicles indeed!



psikey

psikeyhackr wrote:

Ha, ha, gottcha! When I first read the book I hadn't bought it. In the review I quoted the individual said he was in the library reading it. He hadn't bought it. Teach you to nit pick with me. Testicles indeed! psikey

You're confusing buying with purchasing.

I'm confusing obtaining with aquiring

*plotting tonight's burglury of Barnes and Nobles dictionary section*

intell has become a Ferengi!

acquire intell acquire!

Got me! Exposed.

The Ferengi culture: a semi-satiric snipe at capitalism.

Good one.

That's pretty funny.

I guess you'll need the Eyes of Heisenberg to hit those quarks.

Quote:

Whereas I started reading about the occult in the early 70s. So our perspectives on reality were significantly different before we ever received the Wachowski message. So most likey we would have different ideas about what might be going on in the Wachowski's minds and what they were trying to communicate would be different from the start. The same applies to everyone here though the less information someone has the less they will see. I actually find it difficult to imagine what I would have thought if I had seen The Matrix when I was 15 years old. I was an agnostic and regarded the occult and metaphysics as total bullsh!t. For eample the whole Matrix Within a Matrix concept never crossed my mind until I saw it on this board. (I have thought about a lot of other stuff to add but this has taken too long to compose already and I'll wait) psikeyhackr

The recent (pre-forum shut down) conversations bring this topic back up. Perception is basically the act of "picking up" something. Like Max314 has pointed out repeatedly that he picks up the different references to religious symbolism in the movies. Indeed, they smack you in the face. But perception is one thing. Even an amnesiac has perception. That person's problem, though, is in RECOGNITION, which is basically identifying or "making out" what you are picking up.

This makes the difference in whether you see the movies as a sci-fi piece with religious references scattered about in it to serve as the Wachowski's version of sending "shout outs" to all their peeps in the Greek philosophy and mythology, the peeps in the Judeo-Christian world, the peeps in Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age thinking, etc. Or you can endeavor to recognise what they are doing with each reference and see the movie as a spiritual journey ("exploration of consciousness"-Larry W.) put to a sci-fi setting.

Is that about right?

intell,
the spiritual symbolism has smacked you in the face and still, until last summer, your prefered approach was from the "real world perspective" -> the social:

intell at matrix-explained.com... wrote:

Tozy is going to address this from mostly the spiritual perspective, so I will mainly stick to the real world perspective

intell at matrix-explained.com... wrote:

Vive le real world perspective!

It is my understanding that there are two factors to art: the piece of art... and the person experiencing it. These two are a union.
Whatever the intentions of the creators may have been, you can't separate the piece of art from the person experiencing it. And each person will bring in a different background; that is a prerequisite to how a person perceives the art.
Thus, I believe, in how far our interpretation does meet that of the creators, and what a piece of art means to each of us, does not necessarily have to do with recognition but - to some extent - with where we come from and... what we care about.

Larry: It seems hypocritical for us to go out and tell everybody what it's supposed to be about (...) because, by the very nature of us being the creators of it, it becomes, you know, law (...) it becomes THE interpretation, and anyone else's interpretation is just... some crazy individual that really doesn't get it.

tozy wrote:

It is my understanding that there are two factors to art: the piece of art... and the person experiencing it.

From an interview with JZ Knight--
GS: How do you answer the question, and I’m not being facetious here, “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

JZK: If no one is there to hear it, then it doesn’t make a sound. Everything is relative to the person experiencing the falling of the tree. The person asking the question hears the tree falling because they have the memory of it in the conscious brain. But the rest of the people in the world won’t hear it fall, only the person asking the question hears it.

From What the Bleep Do We Know--
"If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is that the tree does not exist until someone creates the tree by experiencing it.

Now, if... two people experience a tree falling to the ground...:

One person, a tree-lover, might experience it as a tragic moment, the death of a tree.
The other person might feel exitment because the falling tree might mean timber for the hut it is building as a new home.