This (left)? or that (right)?
When we meet the extraterrestrial civilizations who've been invited here to assist us in overturning the dark and accomplishing Ascension, we won't meet them newly. We'll meet them carrying the baggage that attaches to them from our culture - namely, our existing words for and pictures of them. So I'd like to spend a moment considering how language and pictures impact us.When we meet the extraterrestrial civilizations who've been invited here to assist us in overturning the dark and accomplishing Ascension, we won't meet them newly. We'll meet them carrying the baggage that attaches to them from our culture - namely, our existing words for and pictures of them. So I'd like to spend a moment considering how language and pictures impact us.
Our language influences how we see and understand everything. For instance, we use the word "aliens" to understand extraterrestrials. In a commonsensical definition, "aliens" means "not from here." If we've been conditioned to be xenophobic or to fear strangers, and many Westerners have been by the Illuminati, then the word "aliens" carries a sinister and fearsome set of connotations.O
But extraterrestrials from some planets will tell us that (1) we are also not from here and (2) many of them are our ancestors and so, in a manner of speaking (and "manner of speaking" is everything), are more "from here" than we are. But this understanding will probably be clouded by the word "aliens."
Edward Sapir was a brilliant linguist who helped us see the manner in which our language determined our thoughts. In 1929, he wrote:
"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection."
Our simplest acts are shaped by our language-based thoughts.
"Even comparatively simple acts of perception are very much more at the mercy of the social patterns called words than we might suppose. …We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation."
We don't see the world as it is but as we think it is and speak about it. And we think as well as talk in words.
"The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same worlds with different labels attached."
Later, Benjamin Lee Whorf added to our understanding of how language shapes perception and understanding. He advised us that:
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds--and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds."
"No individual is free to describe nature with absolute impartiality but is constrained to certain modes of interpretation even while he thinks himself most free."
If our language assigns negative words to extraterrestrials, like "aliens" or "space invaders," then we'll be preconditioned and set up to see extraterrestrials in a negative way. If it assigns positive terms to them, such as "space family" or "universal brothers and sisters," then we'll be set up to see them in a positive way. Matthew Ward has done a lot of work especially to try to set up a positive manner of thinking about our "space family."
Having said that, the same could also be said about our use of pictures. How the propagators and disseminators of our cultural understandings, which until now have been predominantly influenced or controlled by a global elite with dark designs, depict people sets up our attitude towards them, as this depiction of President Obama (below) illustrates. Notice that, as well as being given the Joker's face, a black hat character in Batman movies, the artist throws in the word "Socialism" for good measure, which is a trigger word for many Americans.
Again the addition of the word "Socialism" is an illustration of how words shape perception. After all, the word "Socialism" is just a word but we can watch in ourselves what reaction it calls up. It is not neutral in valence among many contemporary Americans and it is not used for any neutrality in valence but for the negative connotations that it's been invested with,
Here is an example of a picture with a positive valence. Every politician seems to want to be photographed against the background of the flag, in the hopes perhaps that the swell of patriotism that greets the sight will rub off on us. Here's the obligatory shot of Obama, cleanly barbered and dressed in the mandatory suit and tie, designed to warm our hearts as well with love of country.
How did each of these photographs or artistic depictions make you feel? You can bet your boots that the dark will be drawing on every reactivating image and description that they can lay their hands on. And how we felt here is the kind of automatic emotional reaction we'll have to contend with.
I could go on and review the various movies that have been created, some to offer a negative representation of extraterrestrials such as Independence Day or The War of the Worlds and some to give a positive view such as ET or Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
There are several problems that our conditioning presents to us. The first is that our conditioning exists below conscious thought. It is beyond the reach of choice. Our subconscious throws up pictures without consulting us.
The second is that we tend automatically to get behind what the subconscious throws up. We don't say "I am not my thoughts" or "I am not that picture." We tend to assume that we are indeed our thoughts and pictures, get behind them, see life through their lenses, and allow ourselves to be manipulated by them. We are unsophisticated in our response to what the subconscious throws up.
The third is that we have no easily-understood manner in which to stand in the face of the impressions our subconscious throws up. I use the upset clearing process, which is detailed in the section of the righthand column called "Preparing for Ascension," to stand in the face of subconscious impressions, a process that is based on "being with" impressions until they pass. But most people are unfamiliar with how to deal with them. They tend to wrestle with them, if they see any need at all not to allow themselves to be used by these impressions. But wrestling with them only causes their persistence ("What we resist persists" - Werner Erhard).
So we have our work cut out for us once Disclosure opens up a new chapter in our lives and our civilization's history. We'll need to confront our commonsensical notions, our conditioning, our linguistic ways of seeing and understanding, our photo album of pictures - everything we've been told or have seen may stand in the way of our understanding of what stands before us.
There is much work to do to be able to remain calm and open to what will meet our eyes then.
No comments:
Post a Comment