 |
 |
 |
 |
#212899 - 09/10/02 09:57 PM
Reversals of RCH
|
RedWolfe
Moderator
Registered: 09/10/02
Posts: 45
Loc: Australia
|
More reversals on richard hoagland have been uploaded to the reverse speech site - what do you all think - http://www.reversespeech.com/rch.htm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
#212900 - 09/15/02 05:22 PM
Re: Reversals of RCH
|
RedWolfe
Moderator
Registered: 09/10/02
Posts: 45
Loc: Australia
|
I see RCH has cast TEM forum adrift - let me remind everyone that you saw his feelings for the conference in his speech reversals first, posted a few days before the link to the conference was taken off his site. makes you wonder about the accuracy of his other reversals, doesnt it?
"I also want to say hullo to all the people in the enterprise chat room and the enterprise conference, cos we have an awful lot of members."
They're ****ed
http://www.reversespeech.com/rch.htm
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#212908 - 09/24/02 11:39 AM
Re: Reversals of RCH
|
f3a
Member
Registered: 10/15/01
Posts: 3010
Loc: Bay Area
|
quote:
Originally posted by RedWolfe:
Why does the unconscious communicate in pictures? I'm not too sure exactly why. Thats a bit like asking why did the ancient egyptians use hyerglyphics (spelling?).
When it comes to ancient records left by advanced ancient civilizations, the reason
for not leaving us a straight forward ‘blue print’ of their knowledge seems to be
the secrecy and the complexity of passing such knowledge to somebody they knew
wouldn’t be speaking their language…
quote:
Maybe its a universal language that crosses language boundaries.
That would make total sense IF the pictures would be straightforward…
The question here seems to be not about the pictures per se, but what those
pictures show.
You’re probably familiar with the dream interpretation and descriptions by Remote Viewers, Monro Institute folks and alike about symbolic representation of our
subconscious in altered states. But it isn’t always consistent. Sometimes what you see
is what you get, but more often you see something and only after the event happens
you’re capable of making sense of what your subconscious showed you symbolically.
So, why the inconsistency and why depending on the dept of the altered state the pictures become more or less literal? It seems that is because what we pick up MOST of the time is noise and or a different combination of it. I envision it as a bad reception on the TV channel. We get white snow and occasionally when TV set tries to reacquire the signal we get a picture, then the picture disappears and we get white noise, then we get a part of the picture again…
In other words it isn’t that we get abstract pictures because that is how this stuff works, but because we can’t acquire a strong consistent signal. So, either our protocols are faulty and or our receiver is broken or not tuned properly. It seems that the later is the case.
quote:
Jesus taught in parables, or pictures.
It seems the reason he did is two fold.
Because he was basically going against religious establishment at the time, he needed to say things in not so obvious way.
Because parables sometimes are easier to understand, but I’m not sure I agree that parables are pictures per se.
quote:
But its a great question - i'll be pondering that for weeks now
Me too 
Best,
-f3a
_________________________
---Terribilis Est Locus Iste--- Why can’t we just say it like it is? --- Imagine ---
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator: RedWolfe, Rick Donaldson
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered
and 5 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
