Understanding "ARC", What It Really Is All About

[Gadfly]

Long time no see, Bill.

It is interesting to see what all different ways some people find to invalidate others.

"Perceiving directly as a spiritual being..." Ha! A person can't express it (maybe he doesn't even know it), yet he uses it to show how developed he is.

How do you perceive directly a table if you have no idea what a table is?

Excllent point Vin-dude. Unless one actually "creates" a table, in some way, how does one perceive it? How CAN one possibly perceive it? But, that idea can be difficult for some to grasp.

Also, at what level is one perceiving the table? At the level of electrons? At the level of atoms? Molecules? A "table" has no meaning or value outside of the framework of a human body experiencing the "table" through the five senses. A common "meaning" for a table is as a place to sit down and share dinner. Or, a place under which a pet dog can sleep. But, what is a "table" really? Meaning is entirely defined by the CONTEXT.

There is no such thing as "perceiving" directly as a "spiritual being". The ONLY thing a "spiritual being" might "perceive directly" is itself. Otherwise some "organ of perception", or mockup of the same, existing on the SAME level as that which is being perceived, is necessary. Thus, "astral bodies" can perceive "astral realities". And, "etheric bodies" can perceive "etheric realities". And, "mental bodies" can perceive "mental realities". And, "physical bodies" can "perceive physical realities". The "imagination" can perceive and experience "imaginary realities".

But, a "static" perceiving any of them on some "theta level"? What a stupendously dumb idea. I just pointed this out on another thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=13238&page=25

But then, people who tend to enjoy thinking with and about invisible things (minds, intentions, spirits, aims, theta universes, statics, etc), also tend to easily fly off into often amazingly strange concatenations of logic and convoluted explanations based on these many strange ideas about what are for the most part NOT able to be observed in any way (outside of ones vivid over-busy imagination). Scientology very much DOES appeal, covertly and subtly, to ones "imagination". It involves trickery of a most adept kind.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

If a meat ball, I mean a real meatball, started talking to you and asked you not to eat it, would you think for a moment that that meatball was possessed by a spirit? It amazes me how people question their spirituality when with out it they wouldn't be able to question anything at all.
You do not have a spirit. You are a spirit. It is your very life essence. It is all that you see, all that you hear, all that you experience. It is you. For a talking meatball to say it is just a talking meatball is, at least to my ears, silly.

Weeellll, I wuz just making a point in my usual screwball way.

Since I'm goaded into it: I do consider myself a 'spiritual being'.. But I jump to no conclusions re. what I am as a spirit. I don't think we, or I, neccesarily are undying spirits who can roam freely when we're dead and not gone anyway..

Or put another way, it looks more likely to me that we really are a sort of 'spirit', self aware and conscious, that lives because we have a living brain supporting the setup... A mortal spirit.

It IS an intensely interesting question however. It's is a beautiful mystery. I don't expect to ever have the answer or be certain.. I'm fine with that.

But IF we live on as spirits I will know when I die. A pleasant surprize.. Albeit a freaky experience I'm sure.. OTOH, if we truly are meatballs, I won't care for obvious reasons.

 

[nexus100]

Long time no see, Bill.

It is interesting to see what all different ways some people find to invalidate others.

"Perceiving directly as a spiritual being..." Ha! A person can't express it (maybe he doesn't even know it), yet he uses it to show how developed he is.

How do you perceive directly a table if you have no idea what a table is?

.

There's an additional perceptic when viewing without the refective technology of the eye, somewhat as viewing with the naked eye is a different experience than looking through a telescope. We are seeing through a series of perceptic lenses and as they are peeled off association with creation becomes more apparent.
Nothing "is" an "is", it is as we each create it. I'm in your corner on spiritual being, we all are spiritual beings no matter what the viewpoint. The difference is stricly consciousness of create, which amounts to perspective. My opinion.

 

[Gadfly]

Totally off-topic here, but Vin, who and what is the new picture you use as an avatar? :confused2:

Personally, and this is entirely my own opinion, I much better liked the young Indian boy, with the innocent gazing eyes!

 

[RogerB]

So . . . .

So, I see some here do not believe direct spiritual vision and/or perception is possible, real, or that it exists

No wonder they are blind to it Switched off on it, so to speak

Ah well, I did my best to enlighten

R

 

[Vinaire]

So, I see some here do not believe direct spiritual vision and/or perception is possible, real, or that it exists

No wonder they are blind to it Switched off on it, so to speak

Ah well, I did my best to enlighten

R

Just saying that one can perceive directly is just saying one can perceive directly.

These are just words. Recognition of that is the only enlightenment one can get here.

You certainly did your best!

From my point of view, one simply perceives what one puts there, and that is perceiving directly.

It means that one knows one is putting it there. There is no mystery here.

I wonder what kind of people like to make a mystery out of it.

No matter what kind of stimulus is out there, one creates one's perception of it. One's perception is the "interpretation" of that stimulus, which one then puts out.

There is no more mystery.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Totally off-topic here, but Vin, who and what is the new picture you use as an avatar? :confused2:

Personally, and this is entirely my own opinion, I much better liked the young Indian boy, with the innocent gazing eyes!

Ah! That is how Alanzo views me as... :confused2:

So, I use it once in a while.

That young Indian boy is now old and fat, though still innocent.

.

 

[Vinaire]

So, I see some here do not believe direct spiritual vision and/or perception is possible, real, or that it exists

No wonder they are blind to it Switched off on it, so to speak

Ah well, I did my best to enlighten

R

You really want to know what direct spiritual vision and/or perception is?

Here you go. The following is the best route to it. Walking on it will make you understand.

LOOK & RECOGNIZE

EXPERIENCE

.

 

[Vinaire]

Totally off-topic here, but Vin, who and what is the new picture you use as an avatar? :confused2:

Personally, and this is entirely my own opinion, I much better liked the young Indian boy, with the innocent gazing eyes!

I think your eyes are just as innocent.

.

 

[Gadfly]

I think your eyes are just as innocent.

.

Cool! Thanks for replacing the pic!

Is the guy in the bow tie you? The picture seems familiar, but I can't place it exactly. It almost looks like a young Groucho Marx! :confused2:

I downloaded the "new" picture. I find it to be such an amazing combination of "wise and innocent", at the same time. Like in the concept of "an old soul". Someone who has been around for awhile. Also, the young picture shows a kid with some "attitude". That kid in the picture is NOT putting up with any BS!

Is that actually you? As a little fellow? It doesn't have to be. Just wondering alound here. Either way, this picture, of the young Indian child has so much "depth". I am not trying to blow smoke up your ass, not that you would fall for it anyway if I was, but I am simply describing what I myself see (read into) the picture!

 

[Gadfly]

Ah! That is how Alanzo views me as... :confused2:

So, I use it once in a while.

That young Indian boy is now old and fat, though still innocent.

.

Alanzo sees you in which way? As the young Indian boy, or as the "straight fellow" in the bow tie?

 

[Vinaire]

Cool! Thanks for replacing the pic!

Is the guy in the bow tie you? The picture seems familiar, but I can't place it exactly. It almost looks like a young Groucho Marx! :confused2:

I downloaded the "new" picture. I find it to be such an amazing combination of "wise and innocent", at the same time. Like in the concept of "an old soul". Someone who has been around for awhile. Also, the young picture shows a kid with some "attitude". That kid in the picture is NOT putting up with any BS!

Is that actually you? As a little fellow? It doesn't have to be. Just wondering alound here. Either way, this picture, of the young Indian child has so much "depth". I am not trying to blow smoke up your ass, not that you would fall for it anyway if I was, but I am simply describing what I myself see (read into) the picture!

Well it is me all right glaring at my brother who wanted to snatch my car from me.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Was thinking mebbe that ARC promotes understanding and may include it but would not be synonymous with it.

 

[Vinaire]

Here I am with my brother THEN (1949) who succeeded in getting that car from me, and left me sulkng...

And here I am with my brother 60 years later... NOW (2009) during a recent trip to India, and very happy to see him...

SO, WHAT IS REALITY?

.

 

[Gadfly]

Here I am with my brother THEN (1949) who succeeded in getting that car from me, and left me sulkng...

And here I am with my brother NOW (2009) during a recent trip to India, and very happy to see him.

SO, WHAT IS REALITY?

.

Ah, it's all good. Reality, just as it is, right now. WHAM! I like it ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I look into each photo and see a "thousand worlds"! :dance2:

And, he did GET the car! That rascal! I was lucky, because in MY family, I WAS the older brother. I was the one who always ended up with the car - well at least until my brother turned 14, and was suddenly BIGGER than me! Gasp! The I stopped taking HIS car, and quickly! :confused2:

 

[at3ist]

That ARC stuff sounds pretty much the same as in NLP pacing and leading, To pace you need to gain rapport which sounds like Affinity, then with the rapport or affinity is difficult for the person to not agree, cuz it require to break the rapport or the affinity.

Cool thread

 

[Sane Person]

Weeellll, I wuz just making a point in my usual screwball way.

Since I'm goaded into it: I do consider myself a 'spiritual being'.. But I jump to no conclusions re. what I am as a spirit. I don't think we, or I, neccesarily are undying spirits who can roam freely when we're dead and not gone anyway..

Or put another way, it looks more likely to me that we really are a sort of 'spirit', self aware and conscious, that lives because we have a living brain supporting the setup... A mortal spirit.

It IS an intensely interesting question however. It's is a beautiful mystery. I don't expect to ever have the answer or be certain.. I'm fine with that.

But IF we live on as spirits I will know when I die. A pleasant surprize.. Albeit a freaky experience I'm sure.. OTOH, if we truly are meatballs, I won't care for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I know what you mean. If we are meatballs then we're some lucky freakin' meatballs, I'd say. We get to laugh, love, cry, sing, write on internet forums, deal with silly insanities and more serious insanities. Whatever the truth is we're lucky. Unless LRH is right and Xenu is waiting to freeze our souls and make us watch re-runs of bad Space Opera films. But if he's wrong then existence is pretty grand.

 

[Sane Person]

But the BEST thing to play with is your own experience of yourself AS THE BEHOLDER. And grant everybody else the right and freedom to "behold" however the hell they choose to.

Agreed.
I remember that's what Scientology claims to encourage and then has it's members go insane every time there is a disagreement about Scientology. Rather insecure behavior if you ask me.

 

[spbill]

There's an additional perceptic when viewing without the refective technology of the eye, somewhat as viewing with the naked eye is a different experience than looking through a telescope. We are seeing through a series of perceptic lenses and as they are peeled off association with creation becomes more apparent.
Nothing "is" an "is", it is as we each create it. I'm in your corner on spiritual being, we all are spiritual beings no matter what the viewpoint. The difference is stricly consciousness of create, which amounts to perspective. My opinion.

Good phrase, Nexus: "consciousness of create" - some might call it responsibility. My peeve was with use of the word "perceive" ... by convention that term means to become aware of something not created by the observer but pre-existing, it isn't used for make-believe fairy-tale pretend stuff (like gods) one mocks up. When someone uses perception of X as proof that X actually exists I find myself wondering how they manage to dis-acknowledge their own hand in its creation (unconsciousness of create). No doubt this stems from some prejudice I have toward honesty, possibly due to my Christian upbringing.
Bill

 

[spbill]

Well it is me all right glaring at my brother who wanted to snatch my car from me.

Great capture Vinaire! Who was the photographer?