Jump to content

Oakwise

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    487

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Oakwise

    Can David be wrong ever?

    in David Icke Discussion

    Posted

    Of course Mr Icke can be wrong. It's unreasonable to expect one man to be right about everything while possessing all the answers to the most pressing questions. However, I don't think he's wrong about Trump. I'm >95% certain he's right. 

     

    To be honest, the statement within your question seems pretty contradictory. To take on the 'slings and arrows for humanity to thrive' is a pretty heroic deed, wouldn't you agree? It suggests Mr Trump is sacrificing something for the good of humanity. Yet you also claim (perhaps hypothetically) you don't see him as a 'hero savior figure'. Maybe I'm missing something. 

    • Like 1

    Question about David Icke's simulation theory, that we are not our bodies but rather infinite awareness

    in David Icke Discussion

    Posted

    On 11/27/2024 at 10:03 PM, Grumpy Grapes said:

     

    Describing this universe as the 'third dimension' is just an alternative title, and not meant to be taking literally. 

     

    Thank you for the concise answer. 

     

    Usually when someone says not to take a phrase literally, it means the phrase is figurative, which is to say it conveys some kind of meaning via comparison etc. So in this instance what is the metaphor, simile or symbolism? 

    Question about David Icke's simulation theory, that we are not our bodies but rather infinite awareness

    in David Icke Discussion

    Posted

    On 11/3/2024 at 3:07 PM, Grumpy Grapes said:

     

    3 spatial dimensions = Length, width and height.

     

    Time is the 4th dimension.

     

     

    Thank you.

     

    So which of those three (or four) dimensions is the third? 'Three dimensions' is plural, whereas 'third' is singular e.g. in a marathon there's only one third place.

     

    The concept 'third dimension' implies a sequential order of dimensions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.

     

    So:

    • Is there a relationship between the sequential order and the number of spatial dimensions in a given dimension e.g. the first dimension = 1D etc.?

    • If so, then how does that work? Was the third dimension created with the introduction of depth (which you might logically say is the third spatial dimension)? Before this dimension came into being was there only height and width? And so on? And where does time fit into it? As you said, some people regard time as the 4th dimension.

    • If not, then how does anyone know this is the 'third' dimension? For all we know it could be the 86th dimension. Has someone managed to count them and determine the correct order? How many dimensions are there? What was their methodology? Questions abound.

    There's probably something obvious I've missed. Hoping you guys might be able to shed some light.

     

    Thanks in advance.

    Charlie Veitch, Silkie Carlo and Big Brother Watch

    in Censorship & Freedom Of Speech

    Posted

    Charlie Veitch. Now that's a name I haven't heard in a while. Arch turncoat he was. Went over to the states for a TV show, messed about with some lego bricks, and came home to declare that 9/11 wasn't an inside job after all. I thought he was pretty dumb to do that, a man of low integrity. But I don't think he quite deserved the extremely savage attacks he received from some of the truth community. I think someone hacked his website as well. 

     

    He used to have a group of disciples that followed him around as he did his street antics (he copied another bloke who used to protest in clever, creative ways). He also used to harangue the public via a megaphone. I remember one of Charlie's disciples was a podgy Gnome-like man who used to skip alongside him, occasionally looking up at him with adoring eyes. Sometimes it looked like Charlie was trying to shake him off, like he was embarrassed. 

     

    After the turncoat incident I never bothered keeping up with the story. I remember thinking that the word 'veitch' could be etymologically related to the word 'vetch', which is a type of pea commonly fed to sheep. To me that kind of acted as a full stop on the sorry affair. 

     

    As for Silkie, she was much loved in the truth community. A Vera Lynn type character. But I never bothered to see what happened to her. Occasionally one hears her name mentioned in connection with Big Brother Watch, which seems like a toothless organisation. 

     

    Got me reminiscing about how this forum used to be. It used to be incredibly lively and productive. Now it's not even a shadow of its former self. Sign of the times I guess. 

     

    Kudos to you people keeping it alive. 

    • Like 1

    Know what you are.

    in Nature Of Reality

    Posted · Edited by Oakwise

    On 12/10/2023 at 7:08 AM, steven geldenhuys said:

     

    Instead of being a play-ground, the illusion became a drug, where we wanted more and more from it. The illusion pulled us away from who and what we are, where we looked to the pleasures of Life rather than who we are. There is nothing wrong with attaining pleasures, but the problem became that these pleasures defined us. Who and what we are could be seen by the pleasures we had accumulated around us, where my car or my house or my job defines our place in society and the illusion.

    The world of superficiality was born, where our pleasures can be taken from us from one day to the next, where you go from hero to zero. And this is how fickle our lives became, where now we worked damn hard to hold onto what we have, where it’s mine, but it is so much more than that, as what I have defines me.

     

    We plugged ourselves into the illusion, always forgetting what we are, and this was so because what we are forgot itself, so there was no one to steer the ship that is the spirit and body form.

     

     

    That reminds me of the ideas Socrates explored on the day of his execution (Plato, Phaedo). Some of his friends were gathered around him, upset that their revered instructor was going to die. So he was trying to put their mind at rest by assuring them that the true lover of wisdom (philosopher) is one that has spent his life preparing for death as upon leaving the body he would be free to pursue wisdom (knowledge) in its purest form. 

     

    See the following passage (Socrates in Plato's Phaedo): 

     

    Quote

    '[S]ome such view as this must present itself to genuine philosophers, so that they say such things to one another as these: “There now, it looks as if some sort of track is leading us, together with our reason, astray in our inquiry: as long as we possess the body, and our soul is contaminated by such an evil, we'll surely never adequately gain what we desire–and that, we say, is truth. Because the body affords us countless distractions, owing to the nurture it must have; and again, if any illnesses befall it, they hamper our pursuit of reality. Besides, it fills us up with lusts and desires, with fears and fantasies of every kind, and with any amount of trash, so that really and truly we are, as the saying goes, never able to think of anything at all because of it. Thus, it's nothing but the body and its desires that brings wars and factions and fighting; because it's over the gaining of wealth that all wars take place, and we're compelled to gain wealth because of the body, enslaved as we are to its service; so for all those reasons it leaves us no leisure for philosophy. And the worst of it all is that if we do get any leisure from it, and turn to some inquiry, once again it intrudes everywhere in our researches, setting up clamour and disturbance, and striking terror, so that truth can't be discerned because of it. Well now, it really has been shown us that if we're ever going to know anything purely, we must be rid of it, and must view the objects themselves with the soul by itself; it's then, apparently, that the thing we desire and whose lovers we claim to be, wisdom, will be ours–when we have died, as the argument indicates, though not while we live. Because, if we can know nothing purely in the body's company, then one of two things must be true: either knowledge is nowhere to be gained, or else it is for the dead; since then, but no sooner, will the soul be alone by itself apart from the body. And therefore while we live, it would seem that we shall be closest to knowledge in this way–if we consort with the body as little as possible, and do not commune with it, except in so far as we must, and do not infect ourselves with its nature, but remain pure from it, until the divine shall release us; and being thus pure, through separation from the body's folly, we shall probably be in like company, and shall know through our own selves all that is unsullied–and that, I dare say, is what the truth is; because never will it be permissible for impure to touch pure.” Such are the things . . . that all who are rightly called lovers of knowledge must say to one another, and must believe.'  

     

    So it appears that these ideas are very old. It's not surprising that much Gnostic thought is connected to neo-Platonism. Indeed, a fragment of Plato's Republic was found among the Nag Hammadi texts. 

     

    To punctuate this post, perhaps something pithy is required. Hear the words of Leo Tolstoy:

     

                            Life is a dream, death is an awakening. 

     

    David's new book The Dream

    in David Icke Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Oakwise

    2 hours ago, QueenRia said:

     

    Same!

    I don't see a contradiction in the 'trap' theory at all. All it is saying is that the perception and trickery is not confined to this physical plane, it extends to the astral plane. Everyone who is not secure in themselves and their power can get tricked. That's all.  That doesn't say that there is no one who came by their own choice. I believe many did, especially during this time right now. I see no contradiction there.

     

     

    But does everyone who promotes that theory have the same view as you? 

     

    I've heard some people say it's all a trap and this world has been specially created to trap us (certain gnostic ideas). If someone genuinely believes that, then why are they still here? If they truly knew it, then they can leave any time and go play in eternity. I posit that really they don't truly have confidence in their own beliefs, and really have other motives for promoting these ideas etc. 

     

    And let's follow this fear of trickery. So how do you identify genuine conscious beings (spirits etc.) from the fake? Is there some sort of ID system? Are we completely stupid when we leave our bodies and have no ability to recognise? We have no knowledge and wisdom? That ignorance continues into the next world?

     

    And how do we know that people are tricked into coming back by imposters since they're now dead and can't relay their story? Many of them may have decided not to go back, and their loved ones were cool with that, and they're now hanging out in the fields of eternity having a jolly good old time. 

     

    I suppose we could refer to NDEers (which are basically the proof that consciousness exists beyond the physical body), some of which say they had to come back because it wasn't their time, that these 'loving beings' guided them etc., and they had a life review etc. You could say they were tricked. But how do we know? Maybe they had chosen to come here? Maybe you can learn while incarnating here, without memory of previous existence. It doesn't automatically prove that it is a trap. 

     

    ETA: Also, if many chose to come here 'during this time' as you put it, does that mean they came here to help fix this world? If so, does that mean at some point this world wasn't a trap? And how do we know that coming here to help isn't actually part of the trap? You're persuaded to come here and help when in reality it's an insoluble problem and you end up like poor old Sisyphus? 

     

    Just food for thought. 

     

    David's new book The Dream

    in David Icke Discussion

    Posted

    The people pushing the idea of it being a trap seem contradictory to me. If it's a trap, and it's not worth being here, then why are you still here? If you genuinely believe that, then leave, resist the persuasion of the so-called tricksters and go on existing as an eternal conscious being frolicking in the fields of eternity. 

     

    I know the reason: They don't truly believe it, they still have doubts; it's just that they can speak about it very forcefully. However, we don't get access to their inner lives, all those conflicting thoughts and emotions that they hide from the world. 

     

    Or perhaps they're saying that there is a reason to be here? If there's a reason to be here then naturally it can't be wholly a trap. It's possible that conscious beings do choose to be here for some undefined reason. 

     

    Personally, I won't be coming back to this crazy world. It's insanity. However, I feel it's not my time to leave yet. I have unfinished business. 

    WE HAVE TALKED ENOUGH

    in General Chat

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Mr H said:

    Imo. There is only one solution.

     

    That is to realise who you truly are. That is, in my language, God, and give up the identity of being a human.

     

    God Appears & God is Light
    To those poor Souls who dwell in Night 
    But does a Human Form Display
    To those who Dwell in Realms of day

     

    - William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    They Used HITLER and WW2 To Hide And Obscure A MUCH GREATER CONSPIRACY, Didn't They?

    in Politics & Social Engineering

    Posted

    @EnigmaticWorld

     

    Same here, mate. I would prefer pleasant dialogue, and by 'pleasant' I don't mean the interlocuter agreeing with me. Just frank discussion done in that polite spirit. If I'm honest, I would love to have dialogue in the spirit of Plato's Socrates. Not necessarily in terms of content, but in the sense of discussing ideas cordially, even when we are in disagreement. I like the idea of being able to disagree, but still remaining friendly. This transcendence of ego really appeals to me. That we are more than the ideas in our heads. 

     

    But having said that, I still stand by my previous sentiments: The bad elite are trying to position their opposition (the truth / freedom movement / community) as crazy right-wing extremists. I won't budge from that because it is of the utmost importance. 

     

    Don't worry about the name calling in the other thread. Water off a ducks back. Tit for tat. 

     

    Enjoy the rest of your evening and we'll pick this up another day, on better terms. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...