[franzBardon]

Originally Posted by Richard T

Hello franzBardon.

Dr. Diggle's makes his statements based on a number of concepts.
I may agree to the form of the concepts but not on the spirit of the concept. Call it the spirit of the letter.

Mr. Deagle's premise lies primarily on his assessment of reality. And I challenge the basis that he uses to describe that reality as incomplete.

You cannot challenge statements without explaining why. And you cannot explain why by working from the point of view of the statements you are challenging.

So, obviously, the commentaries were not from Dr, Deagle's point of view.

The aspects of the lecture that I found of interest are related to the nature of reality, an aspect that he admits to be of the utmost importance. So I concentrated on those.

The lecture was quite lengthy in time, it would not have been practical to tackle every item independently. It is more efficient to offer a synthesis of the process as a solution rather than go through the entire process.

You say I have contradicting observations. Could you point them out?

The relevance to Dr. Deagle's statements lies in a re-definition of the basis upon which Dr. Deagle's builds them.

I am not easily offended franzBardon. No need to worry about that.

you requested that i point out the contradictory observations you expressed but, before doing so we must begin with examining the term disinformation you begin your commentary with; which it self is problematic. this problem circulates throughout that which you've decided to share with us. you state :

"Like anything, there is always a measure of reality in what is said and a measure of disinformation." cancel.

this declaration is your personal belief which derives from the total sum of your logic, reasoning, discernment, and intuition among other things. you find that these faculties are in agreement therefore, present the result of that effort to us in the above statement as what you know to be correct. moreover, one in which the reader should accept as being correct. i italicize the word should because you ask us to get into your frame of mind, so that we may accept this paradigm (reality)before proceeding on to the remainder of your commentary. your hypothesis of reality is just that.. your hypothesis, not that of the reader. to ask us to accept your understanding of reality is likewise asking us to trust that your perception is correct. this is presumptuous because it is the individual's responsibility for acknowledging & creating the whole of their reality on all levels. moreover, how they will or participate in life and in a discussion.

you state, "Now, I am not saying that Dr. Deagle is necessarily wilfully disinforming. Disinformation can be considered as any distortion, any coloration, any partial information (meaning partly retained information), anything that lets the mind imagine potential outcomes." cancel.

it would of perhaps been more appropriate to just state that, " all truths are but half-truths, or every truth is half-false " this is a universal irrefutable truth moreover, law. but, you choose to use the word disinformation. disinformation, is the deliberate act of an individual to disseminate deception to another to: prevent, dissuade, mislead, and redirect them to one's own course of action. being half-false is not the same as disinformation for the willful (intentional) act of deceiving goes far beyond that of being partially false. in your opening you try to define the lens through which the reader is to proceed.

your definition of disinformation is sorely misleading. it is through this intentional misleading lens you ask the reader to accept. you even tell the reader you will include, " a measure of disinformation." is this logical? what is the purpose of beginning this thread? a demonstration of how disinformation functions... or something more?

you state, " ...any partial information (meaning partly retained information), anything that lets the mind imagine potential outcomes." cancel. are you suggesting an omission of information is the same as disinformation? you charge dr. deagel with neglecting or leaving something out. this may be or may not be the case however, this is an assumption on your part. if that assumed omission compels you to imagine (to fill in the perceived blanks) that is your prerogative but, that is what you have determined.

you state:

"The greatest poison of the mind is belief. And beliefs are supported by thoughts. Thoughts are akin of auto-hypnosis, and thoughts dictate man's activities in the world. The brain is a radio. And what it receives is dependent on the mind's frequency. Not the actual material brain itself, but its invisible counterpart, so to speak. And the invisible counterpart of the brain is dependent on the origin of both the incarnated entity and of its original point of contact that exists within other spheres of reality." cancel.

i would say to you then, borrowing from an old phrase, " a man that believes in nothing will likely fall for anything"

the product of how (effectively or ineffectively) you've both utilized and integrated your faculties, the subtle forces, and external forces, results in a glimpse of what you know which in turn influences how & what you believe. you state, "beliefs are the greatest poison to the mind." cancel. this may or may not be the case as it relates to you however, realize you are manifesting your view through words and breath. you mention "...thoughts support beliefs...", cancel.
thoughts are frequencies which are themselves varying rates of vibration. beliefs, thoughts, imagination, the whole of created things move..vibrate.. this is a universal law. if you mean a set belief can hinder the function of the mind i'm in agreement but, a belief cannot remain unchanged. some beliefs may prove to be an obstacle but, nothing more. for instance i believe moreover, i know, creation is an incredibly precious gift, that everything is connected for the source IS the same, and that love is the means & language to & of our unification. now with regard to love, it may or may not be the means & language to and of our unification with the whole but, that belief will change, deepen as i evolve (ascend higher in the planes). is that thought, that belief poisonous to my being or my mind? of course not. thought is influenced / receptive to vibrations emanating from with in & out. subconscious is one of the conduits through which higher level vibrations communicate. ego influences the conscious (waking) mind however, so does the subconscious. the introduction of the ego may or may not be of natural origin but, a bi-product* of the mind. you state, "...thoughts are akin of [to] auto-hypnosis, and thoughts dictate man's activities in the world..." cancel. there are vibrations.. frequencies.. that have been employed against us to induce certain states for the purpose of controlling us but, some recognize them and change them. scaler technology being one many are familiar with another example is fluoridated water. the brain is a muscle that interprets these signals which may or may not store them for future use. in addition, it might not be the only muscle which stores these signals. some hold the belief that the entire body is a store house.

it is true human beings have been conditioned in numerous ways but, have the capacity (the potential) to overcome many forms of it if they apply themselves. having an active understanding of what frequencies (vibrations) are and how they function especially in relation to ones self is essential. knowing how to use them is incredibly important. beings do have the capacity to minimize how negative frequencies and suggestions influence them if they invest the time. simply throwing ones hands up declaring one is powerless over the forces at work is not the logical thing to do.

what you've stated repeatedly through out your commentary undermines and misleads the reader and quietly suggest to them to adopt this defeatist attitude. i do agree with some of your points but, those points are minute compared to the bulk of your commentary i.e. beliefs. in my opinion you are still struggling with your own reality as you create it which is what we all do to a certain degree however, you cannot expect us as the reader to agree nor adopt your views. our views, reality is ours to create and explore. you can ask the reader to consider your thoughts as you share them but, nothing more. there are many things within your commentary i would like to discuss however, now is not the time. many individuals that participate in these forums are seeking assistance with answers and a means to protect themselves while they journey to know themselves. this is a very precious time and one that ought to be handled delicately.