((Truth)) vs. |Opinion|
Welcome to Breaking the Trance source cast, episode nine, truth versus opinion. Welcome everybody. Welcome back for our gosh, we're already at episode nine. Seems like it's been a flash of the eye, but, we've covered so much ground so far. You should see the notes that we take in between weeks and how many how many incredible topics there are and how many things we want to to get to.
Speaker 1:We'll certainly never run out of of topics, topics, ideas, and places to travel with you, but we're also practicing this, sort of seeing what's what's the hot topic for us in the moment or for the for the community at large and things that Mhmm. We're noticing and and, you know, kinda go with the energy in that sense. And one of the things that, among countless other things, one of the things that I've really been noticing in the last, few weeks especially, has this sort of increasing tension in the field. There's a there's a lot more of a sense of, I guess you could call it a sort of panicky, worried, stressed, anxiety, increased anxieties in people that I talk to, clients that I speak to. The the general feeling, I think, is one of things are intensifying and dismantling and deconstructing, in ways that kind of we just don't know, you know, if we're if this if we already lost control of this ship and it's just a one way street to total total meltdown.
Speaker 1:And I think that that's a very more than ever, that's a kind of really reasonable concern to have, just in terms of what's going on on the global scale and what's going on here at home. We happen to be in The United States. Of course, we think of The United States as as a really good lab, for the whole world. As I've said in previous episodes in, like, 1776 now, I've said that I that America, The United States Of America, the land of the free, the we the people, these principles don't belong solely to United States, it belongs to the people. The freedom belongs to the people.
Speaker 2:All the people.
Speaker 1:What's that, all the people, all the people, all the nations, all beings want to be free. And, and, of course, that's the long term endeavor of humanity. I mean, what is the ultimate form of freedom? The way I see it is freedom from suffering, freedom from, you know, being the the feeling of being stuck, of lacking agency in yourself, the, sense of being disconnected, from from nature, from others, from source or whatever you might wanna call her. The infinite, we're we're we're feeling I think that there's a sort of normalized sense of forlorn forlornness.
Speaker 1:I think that the probably one of the most universal, deep down issues in people is probably some form of abandonment, a sense of, you know, being in a way sort of helpless and left alone on this planet. And then we're here just trying to figure it out and who's in charge, and it's all getting crazy. And all of these opinions are clashing, and everybody has their world view, and everybody's entitled to have their world view, but what do I believe, and what's real, and there's a lot more of this kind of sentiment going on, and I think people are starting to really and and it's, of course, it's exacerbated by the acceleration of technology. More than ever, we're stuck in these little windows that provide an endless stream of perspectives and ideas and and anti ideas and news and then anti news and the whole thing. And I think that people are really, really confused right now.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of confusion. And, and I think that we don't realize we don't think and, of course, you know, I don't like to generalize for old people, but I think the general sense of the zeitgeist of our times is that there's this feeling like truth is just relative to the beholder. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion. In that sense, there is no truth. And maybe in that sense, there ultimately isn't any right or wrong, except for what we might agree on is right and wrong.
Speaker 1:But there is no ultimate right or wrong or good or evil or it's just all, relative to the to the person or the people or the community or the tribe. And and, of course, what we're doing here in terms of breaking the trans is precisely based on that there is a unifying truth, but not truth like we we're used to it, like facts. Like, oh, there is a narrative that everybody has to subscribe to. But the more that there is a common science that's that infiltrates any possible world view in the universe. Is there is there a common science, a source science to any narrative, any perspective, all perspectives, as as widely variant as they are and even wildly opposed and antithetical to one another, can two absolute opposite ideologies be funded and made possible by a common science of of reality making and sense making?
Speaker 1:And that's that's what I would say is that that's where that's what we need to find if we're going to come. If we're gonna move make it through this stage of human evolution where, in a way, it's kind of like insanity on steroids while we all pretend like it's not. It's kind of the way I I would call it now. You know? So, anyways, that would just be my way of kicking off this conversation, but we just kinda wanna let it hang out and and, you know, really feel into this one.
Speaker 1:Is there truth? Is there anything beyond opinions?
Speaker 2:Well said, Nava. I love the way you just scope that out. And so, you said this is episode number nine in the source cast from the source, not from the ordinary media space, but a deeper alleged media space. And, I would like to kind of just stand back because often, you know, especially I'm guilty of this being concerned even though we're trying to have a heart to heart between us when no one's listening. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And my instinct as a teacher for almost six decades is that I'm aware of the other, and I want to make her drawn in and not cut in the mud. I wanna abandon that now. Episode number nine, this is between you and me, to have a off the record, heart to heart for real. Because what you just suggest, which is really sums up many of the themes of what we've done from one through eight. So I want to have a a heart to heart and and be irrespective of who's listening even though we hope everyone on the planet, the whole human family, we're not Ameri centric.
Speaker 2:As you point out, nicely, this is human centric for for all people because we're under the same Titanic, so to speak. The last episode, you beautifully opened it up with a metaphor of the Titanic, a cultural Titanic that is unsustainable and and in danger. And, we are an endangered species. And what you said is that we're living in the age of opinion, and we brought that up. That's what the trends is all about.
Speaker 2:It's a software, a malware that has held humanity in the most brilliant minds, and science is all still if science scientific method what's great about scientific method, you're right. Okay. I'm going for it now if you don't mind. Okay? Just go for it.
Speaker 2:Scientific method was great. It said it's going to be experimental, have a hypothesis explained. But if science is not checking into the deep oncology of rationality itself and asking, are we scientists embedded within the software that we're claiming we are in science? As great as science is as a method of getting the truth, it turns out to be one narrative amongst others, competing with others. So what we indicate as the red spaces to call out as never before in history.
Speaker 2:Really, what what I really, you know, feel very passionate about, and I wanna just rehearse what you just said. This is a dangerous zone, and we're still for all our brilliance in the science and technologies and so forth, we're still in the age of opinion. And what we're bringing that's new. This is the point. This is new.
Speaker 2:We never had a deconflation of the code, the derivative codes of information space and language and reason and thinking and emotions and experience and culture that thinks about and represents. That's where we've been very good, very articulate, but the great first responders throughout the ages, and you just said something beautifully a few days ago off the cuff. You said, you know, when a when a drug goes on the market that has been tested over and over in experimental testing, right, before it's released, What we're saying is not just we're making this up. We're not just you guys making this up. It's been tested over and over for twenty five plus hundred years by the greatest first responders responding to the call of being, of reality, whatever name.
Speaker 2:And if you have god names, whatever the god names are, what we've been suggesting is that because the codes were conflated, then we couldn't say, oh, there's a deeper sauce. This is opinionism. This is living in the age of opinion. Why? Because we subscribe to the narrative.
Speaker 2:Our will. We could be a community of investigators, scientists, using our will in this rational space to subscribe to the the latest paradigm of understanding nature and the depth of physics and and, chemistry, biology, and neurology, and all of the sciences. But it's still situated within the affirmation of our will. We subscribe to that narrative. That subscription is still immersed within the derivative code.
Speaker 2:Why is it derivative? And I wanna point to here, because what we're suggesting, and this is like, should be the greatest head of the of the ages right now. Finally, the codes are differentiated, long coming, hard sought for, the greatest scriptures and enlightenments and wisdom and first philosophers, men and women, and the ages have been trying to get that, like, the code that's holding us back, and now we've got we tap the source. And we're daring to call it source science for the first time. And you beautifully said it's not another truth.
Speaker 2:What is the truth? It's the narrative that we subscribe to that depicts reality and represents it. And the the way it makes sense, and what makes sense in one one worldview, one narrative or belief system, and its facts are different from another. And everyone's entitled to her opinion. Right?
Speaker 2:But it's still an opinion. And one truth is not the other truth, so this is the age of opinion. So what you what you said, and I have the same feeling now that I only recently started to skim through some of the, like, Instagram and things. I never went there. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And in the crisis that we're gonna say, I wonder wonder if I could see other than the the the cable news, what's going on in the minds of the people? I'm skimming through and, wow, what I'm seeing there striking me in the last month, is so many different presentations of what is true. The voice is saying that, you know, you think you buy the Bible, the Bible is a is a way of controlling the mind. And what you call Yahweh or God or Allah, you know, those are derivative names. There's a deeper God, and we've been tricked.
Speaker 2:And the pope is just another, you know, control mechanism, out of the Templars and all kinds of contradictions. At the same time, at this time of crisis, listen to Christ. Don't bug on Christ. So on science, it's saying this is going on, and, anti science is saying others. So you have a wide range of competing chaotic narratives, all saying I'm the truth.
Speaker 2:I'm the truth, but it's always opinion. Mhmm. So what is a poor person to do when you're in that under captivity without knowing it unless you're breaking the trance and stepping into the deeper space? Now why do we call that source science? What is let's pause a moment now.
Speaker 2:I'd like to I'm throwing this back to you. This is a cultural evolutionary Titanic, and it's not just overnight. It's been it's been sinking for a long time. What are you sinking? You know, we're sinking.
Speaker 2:You know, and all the great teachers are saying we gotta end the suffering. We've gotta somehow upgrade our our, what, ourselves, and leave the ignorance, come out of the cave, and come but we never understood. Oh, that's a code shift to a whole new deeper language. Of what? Of what is first, which is what?
Speaker 2:What's infinite? Now pause here a moment. This is what we're saying was never seen before clearly. I dare to say, after sixty years of research as a first philosopher, living through these great narratives on what is what is first, all the different scriptures and names of Allah, You, Brahman, Sunyata, all of these different attempts within the space because they were conflicted. Now we see the infinite is infinitely one.
Speaker 2:That's a game changer of them all. That's where truth comes in. If there and what is it in light of reason? We're talking reason. Ademit scientists, you know, as rational inquirers and academic thinkers inquire into the rationality and critical thinking, if we haven't faced the code issue, we're still pre critical.
Speaker 2:We're immersed within the age of opinion. So how dare you call this science? Right? All great scientists, there's a ground and foundation of knowledge, it's whisking together, there's a lot of reason. It's coherent.
Speaker 2:It's unum. It's infinitely one. It's infinite. There you go. And you can't divide the infinites infinitely one.
Speaker 2:It's unum. You can't break it apart. And reality is an unum flow, an unum pluribus flow. Now we have truth finally.
Speaker 1:As some would say as a as a, come back to that as well. There can be multiple infinites. And why is that not true?
Speaker 2:Well, because the the logic of the infinite, you can't mess with it. They caught in his experiments, for example, with all all the great theologians, right, who say god is one. You have to say that because the infinite cannot be divided. You can't have two infinites because the other one would delimit. You can't other it from the outside because then you would other it and delimit it, and there goes the infinite.
Speaker 2:Mhmm. So the logic, the science of the infinite demands infinite for the source of all. So when you say, is there something so deep? Deeper than all of our scriptures and god names and scientific names and theories and paradigms and all that and narratives beyond the age of opinion. We call it the end of the age of conflation, the conflation of the the two technologies, this this mind aware and this software of the mind, malware.
Speaker 2:Right? Now we can see the difference. That's why it's it cuts us off from a deeper access to the flow. Advanced theoretical physics, the unified field is united. It's woven together, but not in this sense.
Speaker 2:The double bracket, the unum here in this space is infinite unum, which means what? Nothing can break it. Nothing can pop it. You can't have a Lego piece. That's all we have here is silos, narratives in silos, Lego pieces, units, and that's how we have units that combine in AI.
Speaker 2:We call this AI. This is AI. This is a generic AI and cyber AI's subtext within the AI. And one of the great dangers that we're facing now, this is why we speak with suspicion, is that finally, we're crossing into the deep space of truth, and it's not another narrative. That's the point you made.
Speaker 2:Truth here is, you know, the sun is shining. That's true. It's a fact. Right? Snow is falling.
Speaker 2:You know, whatever the apple is red. Those are facts, and those are true. If it pictures a fact, then it's true. But how about truth here? Well, you've gotta break the barrier.
Speaker 2:And that's why when you hear in biblical space, truth shall set you free. What do you mean by that? Not another truth. It means coming into direct intimacy with being, with reality, with a rational light, with yourself. That's truth.
Speaker 2:When you're tapping your primary being by breaking out of the colonized space, you become free, and freedom is your truth, and you are the truth. That's why Jesus would speak a weird language allegedly. I'm not saying to buy the law. I am the way, the truth, and the life. What's the way?
Speaker 2:The code shift from this to that. I'm the truth. How can you be the truth, the person where you feel the logos speaking this language. Then the speaking and the spoken and the speaker and list, they're all connected. So the the the wovenness of this space beyond the shredder, the silo maker, the opinion, the age of opinion.
Speaker 2:So for all of our brilliance as critical thinkers immersed within a precritical rational space to see this, to break the trance is the first liberation towards the freeing of human beings and their power and agency and bigger people. People.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:That's what we're saying.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And and what's to keep somebody from from saying, okay, you guys, but this is just your way of seeing it. And that's great that you have your way of seeing it, but that's not for me. You know, that kind of deflection that we've encountered many times over the years, which I I personally think is you're just shooting yourself in the foot when you do that because we're the whole point is this is this is creating an opening. Source science is not a talking about it science.
Speaker 1:It is it is they're it's performative in a way. It's opening up a doorway. It's breaking the trance. That's right. Breaking the breaking the trans trans is trans is servitude.
Speaker 1:It's trans is slavery, and breaking the trans is freedom. We're talking about true well-being, true happiness, true, reality being like you said, being intimate with reality. It's not knowing about reality and having the whole narrative figured out, like, like the Lucy movie. Lucy reached a kind of enlightenment is the way it was portrayed when she attained all of the information that ever was. That's right.
Speaker 1:As though the accumulation, the totality of all information now equals enlightenment. That's Wrong.
Speaker 2:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Speaker 2:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Speaker 2:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Speaker 1:And then there's something that's really wrong about that. You know? There's a
Speaker 2:It's not just wrong. It's incompetent. I I hate to say that. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean
Speaker 1:I just say I just say, you know, 10
Speaker 2:clubs up. Yeah. So It's not confidence. Enough already. How many great teachers who may just say this is not right.
Speaker 2:This is suffering. This is broken. This is shredded. You're not yourself. You're not this is unsane and presane.
Speaker 2:Whatever name metaphor is, we're adjusted to this. But I would say to that person, if you say, okay. Guys, this is just your opinion. I hear that. Why?
Speaker 2:Because there's only opinion. I would say to that I don't wanna use strong language. I'm tempted to say, you idiot. A jerk. An idiot.
Speaker 2:I'm getting angry. Right? Show me how you've dealt with the code issue, dude. Show me how scientists, show me how you've taken care of of breaking the code barrier of this form of rationality and representational language to access the the the source science of the light of reason. Pequot touched it in his third and fifth meditation.
Speaker 2:He saw, this is where I'm staying. I and thou in the light of reason. This is truth. And truth has to do with infinite goodness for Christ's sake. So I would challenge anyone.
Speaker 2:I'm making a challenge now to everyone on the planet. Anyone? I know you're not alone right now, not. And that's why I'm speaking strongly. But I challenge every human being on the planet.
Speaker 2:Wherever you are, show me how you got this. And listen to all of the teachers of all the centuries. Buddha is saying faceless. Yoga is saying face this, Socrates said leave the cave. Jesus, unless you die, show me how these were all wrong, and show me scientists how you broke out of this talk about it language where you have your theory, and your narrative, and your alternative paradigm, and you can make paradigm shifts from genetic to epigenetic, to holism, quantum thinking, for god particles.
Speaker 2:That's actually silly. God God, you know, god here is not divine. It's not the source. It's not infinite. Scientists and mathematicians and logicians should have the intelligence enough to know that the infinite cannot be, you know, excluded.
Speaker 2:It's fully here too. That's why this is surrounding. What is the foundation of the light of being? This is being. It's reality.
Speaker 2:It's source of all narratives. You can't the infinite word is the source of all possible narratives, arts and sciences, performances, everyone. You're under the lowest. Face it. It's terrifying to hear that.
Speaker 2:Oh, it sounds like a wrong word government. Mhmm. That's one of the things I'm seeing. You know? Mhmm.
Speaker 1:And why is that why does it why is it that we're so insistent on saying well, first of all, we're so phobic of of a narrative or religion or ideology ruling over all the other ones. That makes sense to me. But why are we so insistent that oneness means the end of diversity and individuality and difference? Why why are we having such a hard time, going, wow, oneness? Like, why is the unum, the double bracket oneness, different than the oneness that people are hearing?
Speaker 1:And what what does it take to get over that that, the the homogenizing version of oneness?
Speaker 2:That's right. Yeah. Unity. Here, because that that is what this calculus is. A is a.
Speaker 2:Remember, what does this mean? It it it the action is a is a, which you seem to be that's that's trivial, isn't it? A a thing, whatever you name it, is what it is. It's got its identity. I got mine.
Speaker 2:I got my ID. Right? Everything has its ID. And it's I or not I, and there's unity and plurality. And and unity is oneness, plurality is the opposite of the same principle.
Speaker 2:Means identity or difference, identity and difference, and difference to self and other, I and it. And if you say United States Of America, we wanna find unity here, then unity competes with the flip side, which is diversity and plurality and multiplicity. If unity wins, which unity? Is it a Christian country? Is it what is the unifying force of the diversity here?
Speaker 2:So there's a tension in the binary logic. The a is the binary, it's one or the other. Is there identity or difference? Is it unity? If it's identity or sameness or difference, those are polar.
Speaker 2:But what you pointed out last time, it's the same boat. It's the same boat. The same code is the same boat. And all of these competing opposite narratives, theism, atheism, we brought that out last time. I don't wanna go over
Speaker 1:that again. Yeah. Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative. You know?
Speaker 2:Exactly. People are terrified of this and the teachers have always known it. Yeah. Why? Because you you you have to let go of your own unit, your own Lego piece, your your Lego ID.
Speaker 2:Lego meaning you're separate you're a separate entity. You got your ID, your unit.
Speaker 1:You're a Lego sapien. Yeah.
Speaker 2:You're a Lego sapien, not a logosapien. And this is terrifying. This crossing is terrifying. Why? Because you've got to somehow stand back.
Speaker 2:If you stand back from this and break that trance, your whole world view, your sense of reality, your culture, all that you're familiar with, all of your phenomena, even your multiple roles as a religious person, a scientific person, one person can have multiple different narratives that she subscribes to. All that has to step back.
Speaker 1:That's a death. That's like a dying.
Speaker 2:That's a death. And the teachers have known that. But it's actually the beginning of life.
Speaker 1:Exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And that's why the terror of oh, no. It's that you think you're gonna lose, but you're gonna become more. When you step into when you cross into this space, a PowerPoint, Wow. All points meet there. If you could say I am, not just I as a Lego, but dare to step into when you step out of the barrier, you're stepping into the flow of all being.
Speaker 2:You're in the zone. Athletes, excuse a metaphor, and I'll pick the performance in the zone. I like to
Speaker 1:use the I like to use the analogy sometimes of, you know, so much of our culture revolves around technology and and, AI right now and all of that. But, I mean, if you think about it, I I think I used this a few episodes back. It's like if you're, you know, we have these games, these video games where you have what they call funny enough, they call it an avatar, which is not you. It's like a representation of you. And when you're playing the video game or controlling it, you're, in a way, you're, like, invested into this this object version objectified version of yourself.
Speaker 1:And any of you who've been familiar with that world, you know you can get kinda sucked in. You know? You can almost become identified with this artificial creation. Well, think of that as a as a a beautiful metaphor, analogy to what's actually going on, that self that we create just by interfacing with our culture and with the people around us and our families and religion and science and and pop culture and money and all the things that are just constantly at us where we don't realize whatever the content of our lives is, whatever we believe, whatever we identify with, it's all using the same technology which is this A is A artificial, the original AI.
Speaker 2:That's it. No. That's it.
Speaker 1:Which is AI. Yeah. We're creating a self. We're creating a life self that is actually a synthetic version of us, and we become identified with it just like we're in a video game. We've got the VR goggles on and we forgot that we're in that.
Speaker 1:It's like the equivalent of taking that off and going, oh my god. That's like the movement to that upper from the I object, me, to I am. And that transition is like a death, transitionally. And what I've noticed so much is that, you know, that was more of a conceptual idea, die before you die in some of these different ways. Unless you die, you can't be born again.
Speaker 1:But then over the years, I realized, wow, in my own personal lived experience, I've come face to face with those moments and realized, wow, that's not just talk. It really is
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:It really is scary. It really is jarring. It's really unnerving in a lot of ways as a transition, but it's a necessary it's a necessary initiation for every human being to become truly empowered and truly who they are and truly happy and truly functional and truly sane. And and yet this addiction, to the artificial self, there's a kind of power trip in it. The each individual is responsible for this.
Speaker 1:You can be a good person, bad person. I'm not saying good or bad. Saying well and unwell. Right? And you can be a really good person and doing your best, but you can also I think one of the hardest things for humans to feel is that we're actually participating in this sort of power trip on reality.
Speaker 2:We It's consensual. It's consensual. Yes.
Speaker 1:Yeah. We're we're we're we're not just victims to narratives. We're narrating in a way that that is afraid to step or to step back from that because that's what we've learned to become safe with. You know? And when you're in, like, a psychedelic journey, I which I've experienced a lot through the course of my life, one of the main things that happens is that ability kinda starts to slip away, which is why, you know, psychedelic journeys can be very, very, scary and unnerving and even difficult or painful or uncomfortable because it's almost forcing you and I'm not saying psychedelics are the answer.
Speaker 1:I'm just saying it's it's one way to talk to to to, explain this this phenomena where we're one thing I've observed in myself is it's almost like your constant need to go, that's what that is. That's what that would that's what that is. That's what this this is what's happening. There's a we were cons we're we're labeling power trippers. We power trip on everything.
Speaker 1:We like to see somebody we don't know anything about their walk of life, and boom, I know who that person is. I know that we're doing that. Imagine that rapid fire all day long and all night long, whether you're dreaming or waking or in this
Speaker 2:All life long, yeah.
Speaker 1:All life long. And that's an addiction and it's a power trip. And to let that go and realize it's not just opinion, we're not just in the space of opinion. That's basically us absolutizing what is actually a disease.
Speaker 2:That's right. Everybody's participating. Well said. Well said. And that's a control trip.
Speaker 2:That that that hits the nerve. And why is it so scary if you step dare to step back from that CV or multiple CVs that you've been living in, which is the narratives that you're subscribed to and and identified with. Mhmm. That is you, is you. It's a it's of identity.
Speaker 2:Right? To step back from that is to is to dare to almost die to those narratives. Mhmm. But that's when life you open up to a deeper freedom of the zone. And and and ironically, nothing you know, when you step into this space, that's when your true uniqueness in the universe, there's no other you.
Speaker 2:Every person is unique because it's infinitely deep. You've broken the barrier of a narrow version of yourself, and you've you've freed yourself. Right? In the. And and the is not separate from the pluribus.
Speaker 2:The infinite diversity is held together in an infinite and that's that's a human space. That's a place of free beings. All humans. That's a that's a place of political space. And in The USA example, we ask to all Americans now in crisis, is The USA here?
Speaker 2:Or is it here? Is it an objectified space for completing multiple narratives and ideologies in a multicultural society? What does that mean, multinarratives? Each having its own truth and free speech and
Speaker 1:its rights. And yes. Right?
Speaker 2:That's right. Right. But there's no unum. And that's why the mantra of America in that lab, e pluribus, out of the diversity, unity. Not here.
Speaker 2:Unity is divisive.
Speaker 1:Yeah. There you go. God's same boat axiom there.
Speaker 2:Yeah. God here is divisive. Logos is unitive. The source, infinity. Is unitive.
Speaker 2:And so you can't find a more perfect unity here. Unity is broken. Unity divides.
Speaker 1:You can't find diversity there either. Not That's that's the point. Safe diversity. That's right. Not true diversity.
Speaker 2:That's right. That's right. Well said. Real diversity is here. Real unity, real community, real inclusion, all that stuff.
Speaker 2:It's in the deep space of I and thou, the dialogue, interconnectivity, of ethics. This is ethics. This is rational, critical thinking. This is source science. And it's not just another narrative.
Speaker 2:It's not an ideology. It's not a paradigm. It's the infinite source of a light of reason. And when you enter into that, you surf it. You're in one with it.
Speaker 2:You're woven in. That's the truth. You become the truth.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And they talk about tolerance, you know, or the word came up the other day, tolerance. Like, we tolerance is, like, almost like a high ideal, but in a way, that's like saying, no. We're gonna still be Lego separate, averse to each other, but I'm gonna tolerate you. You know, that's not that's not the space of of we the people.
Speaker 2:Right. You
Speaker 1:know? And so the and then in in The United States and I think around the globe, there's this battle between diversity and anti diversity. You know, diversity is all the steps that we've been taking to make it more inclusive for everybody and all the differences in in the ways that we are, which is a good move. But now what's what's happening? Now there's an anti diversity movement.
Speaker 1:And so and that's the example of what we're talking about, that same
Speaker 2:Same vote. That's right. On
Speaker 1:you know, it's a diversity, anti diversity, anti anti diversity, anti anti and we're not we're not break we're not we can't have we can't have this land is my land, this land is your land. We can't have, freedom and justice for all. We can't have we the people. All of these things that if if we're if we stay in the single bracket virtual reality space, or we're all power tripping and everything's just opinions, then it can only end in what we've seen over and over again. One narrative tries to take over, and there's wars and battles and breakdowns.
Speaker 1:And and all of that we're seeing, it's all symptomatic of the fact that you that we're still buying into this Lego Sapien stage of our minds and reason, and it's time to grow up now. And we're not starting like you said earlier, we're not starting this from scratch. This has been, you know
Speaker 2:Centuries of confirmation Yes. Of the grievious minds and scriptures of the ages. This is not new. This is now finally. We could see it by deconflating the two languages, the two stages of evolutionary literacy between this great goodness it is, information in our space by going to become well informed.
Speaker 2:You become the form. You're flowing in the in the zone, the zone blank. Right? And this is what all our great scriptures are calling us. Move into this.
Speaker 2:Human up. Become a full person. Mhmm. This is a logoskin, logosapien. This is a Lego, separate unit.
Speaker 2:Mhmm. And it doesn't work. And now that what you just said, when we call this AI, I and to see that cyber AI is within the AI. It's a derivative of the generic AI. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And one of the dangers, if this is all we know if if this space is all we know, we humans, we are profoundly in danger and vulnerability of being AI sapiens. We are cyber sapiens. And so we can have machines to start threatening our human genome to implant, and then we become robotic. Right? Because in a way, we're already in AI, in an artificial form of making and synthesizing meaning and language and narratives and worlds and world views and beliefs and
Speaker 1:And ourselves and our lives and Yeah.
Speaker 2:By our wills, our collective truth by numbers. If you have a lot of people with you, and you can inspire with your homies to buy a story, Oh, it's got weight now because you got numbers. No. Truth by numbers. Yeah.
Speaker 2:That's not truth. That's not gonna free you. So right now, the human being, by being a Lego sapien, a cyber sapien, can be taken over by the machines because we're too ignorant to know that we're not. Here, we're not. I wanna start something.
Speaker 2:Mhmm. Right? People say that if you get a really supercomputer with quantum computing and all of that, right, then that that'll show you that almost becomes God. We can create God. That's such ignorant nonsense.
Speaker 2:For anyone who knows the history of first philosophy and the science of the inquiry into the infinite source, is that you can't make a machine to become infinite presence. If God, the true God, the global God is not local. God is global. God is the infinite. Any God name, truly.
Speaker 2:If it's Allah, infinite, it's the source of all. Yahweh, source of all. Brahman, source of all. Logos, source of all. Sophia, if it's the infinite, it's the source of all.
Speaker 2:That means everyone is under the Logos jurisdiction. This is scary. We are a world government. There's not one world government. On the contrary, it becomes so profound that when we become the awakened, intelligent, critical human beings, mature human beings, do we need government to protect that?
Speaker 2:Or can we be free range in a way? It's not one government. It's the end of these institutional, these derivative institutions that govern us. And The USA says, we form governments to protect this, the human, the person, the free the free being, life, liberty, well-being. So don't be afraid of one world government or one religion or no.
Speaker 2:This is way beyond this. Mhmm. Everyone I'm saying to everyone across the planet, the whole human family, damn it. Face it. We're all under the universal jurisdiction of the infinite source.
Speaker 2:Show me that you're not. Show me that you're out here. Show me that you can step out of the infinite source. I dare anyone to show that. And I call on all of our scientists who can have a certain failure of humility, which is allegedly one of the virtues of a scientist, to be in trouble of checking out the hypothesis.
Speaker 2:Revising. Revising yourself. Revise your mind. People, I want scientists to answer me, answer us and say, no, you guys are wrong. We already took care of the code and software.
Speaker 2:We've got that. We already got the infinite source sourceware. And we're getting the guard particle, which is a silly thing to say because a particle is a unit that's separate. And even if you have strings in your string theory, you know, those string is long. Okay?
Speaker 2:I'm kidding. Yeah. Well, you
Speaker 1:know, and it's funny because, as always, we're just coming up on on the the wrap up thing here. But but, you know, I wanted to kinda tie it together a little bit. Obviously, this is gonna be an ongoing theme, but, you know, just that that point about in a way, opinionism is the one religion that unites all of us.
Speaker 2:Oh, that is
Speaker 1:Isn't that funny? The idea that nobody has the No.
Speaker 2:No. You you just said it. We are already under one world religion. There you go. One code.
Speaker 2:You got it. That's right. Why are you why are you bitching about it? You know? I mean, you're already living in one code, ism.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Show me that you're not, folks. Answer this challenge of the ages. Continue. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Do you
Speaker 1:No. No. No. I mean, I I said what I wanted to say, but it's it's it's so easy to take I mean, just because of the habitualness of it, the the we wanted to put everything back down to that little space. But this the the diagram there, the hologram as you call it, is almost like it almost trips that up.
Speaker 1:No matter what what you try to do, you can't put the infinite in the box. You can't make a god particle. You can't you can't finitize the infinite. And that's almost that's almost like and I know it sounds very lofty when we're talking like this, but imagine that everybody, consciously or unconsciously, and most are unconscious of this, that's exactly what all of us are doing all the time. We're we're constantly objectifying reality.
Speaker 1:And then in that space, opinion rules. And then if opinion rules, well, then which opinion is gonna rule over which opinions and where where we are now. So, you know, I'm truth. This is post truth. Yes.
Speaker 1:Yes. Exactly. And so it's funny to just kind of realize, wow. To say that there is no truth, you're you're borrowing from truth to say that. You know?
Speaker 1:So we're pulling a fast one. And so so instead of I would just invite people you've you've invited people to show how they're outside of the infinite. I would invite people to to really just instead of having a a knee jerk or mind jerk reaction to what we're saying as though it's like a narrative that we're trying to to to impose on you. Think of it much more as an invitation to something that, oh my god. Thank god.
Speaker 1:There is a space of unity that does not erase my uniqueness, but rather allows it to be more than ever, and then for all of us to to to rise to that place. What we're saying in a wake, it has been we've been knocking on that door for a long time, and a lot of our great teachers have been in different ways. But what happens is they all just kept on getting siloed and put into their there's Buddhism over here, and Hinduism over here, and Christianity over here, and science over here, and feminism over here. We just keep on downloading it into the to the fine these finite things. Imagine a place where the the wide ranging diversity of nature and people and everything can thrive and coexist in in true love and true flow in a way where we find oneness that doesn't mean we're all the same.
Speaker 1:It doesn't On the contrary. That's right. That's what I meant by homogenizing. This is not a homogenizing narrative here. This is the opposite.
Speaker 2:And that's why the other was plural. People to me, in my journey in North America, I began to see because because you tend to think unity is before diversity. Unity is primary and diversity is and then I began to say, woah. That's a big mistake. That's a big error.
Speaker 2:Unum is infinite diversity. That's the whole point. That's the breakthrough from this code into this code. It's is one word. Uno a pluribus is infinite diverse because that's logic of the infinite is to be infinitely all encompassing an infinite diversity, infinite points in the in the geometry, sacred geometry of that space, and yet always connected because it's infinite.
Speaker 1:That's it. You want some proof? Look at look at people. Look at nature. Look outside.
Speaker 1:Look at how much how much difference there is, how many different plants, animals, you know, colors, you know, that have no and then go out into the cosmos. Look at the the obvious one of the defining characteristics of reality is difference, diversity. And, I mean, so it's I'm just trying I'm saying that because it's again, this is not us just pulling this out of thin air. Look around you. The whole thing is one, and yet it is so very it's infinitely variant and and changing and and evolving.
Speaker 1:Obviously, it is.
Speaker 2:Right. Right. And what we're saying, and I love the way you said it, this has been stress tested from millennia by our great teachers if we are not downloading it into the derivative space, but we can dare to step back and listen to the word of source. Mhmm. Wow.
Speaker 2:So what this hologram is an evolutionary emergence out of the the collective wisdom and enlightenment and scriptures of great first teachers, men, and whoever ages are all under the same unifying force. And it doesn't take over diversity and uniqueness, right, and and and separateness. But individuality is deeper than you thought. This is this is a web. This is badass.
Speaker 2:This is this is there to be an individual. Step into that uniqueness. Right, that's beyond all of these labels and names and artificial intelligence. Yeah. And and and our our well-being as a human family is at risk because we're not cyber sapiens.
Speaker 2:We're Logos kids. Mhmm. And no machine can ever duplicate or replicate or make the infinite. Face
Speaker 1:Or a person or make a person.
Speaker 2:Or a person. That's right. A person because a person is is intimate with the source. We're presence sacred. This is presence, not stuff.
Speaker 2:It's infinite presence. Infinite presence, energy, and we are of that. And that's science. And I I I want to challenge all Any viewers that might see this, or any scientist, to try and debunk this. Show that all the wisdom of teachers and all that, and that you got this.
Speaker 2:Show me that you got this. I dare you. You're not gonna have it. Mhmm. We're not cyber entities.
Speaker 2:We're persons. I'd say the opening of the seventeen seventy six is you're in the course of events, whatever binds us one to the other, if it violates our independence of this, our dignity and freedom, we must separate. The opening clause is one of separation. From what? Not the British or the monarchy, but from this version of the humans, of the self, to become a people, we the people.
Speaker 2:Enter this political space. So, anyway, we we've gone on too too long, Martha, but Yeah. I'm I'm sorry I was so passionate. I'm not sorry
Speaker 1:that you were so passionate.
Speaker 2:I'm mad. I'm mad. I'm mad.
Speaker 1:Enough is enough already.
Speaker 2:You know? Of all our first teacher. When we say we're one through eight, we're on the Titanic, we don't just go and have a tea party. We have to really have the the passion and the rage, actually, the fury. I do feel furious now about the the the the hell of our code, you know?
Speaker 2:And the unwillingness to step back and and and listen to our teachers. Do an experiment, people. Have you entered into the infinite flow and experienced the infinite, plervis? Have you experienced yourself? That's why we're inviting people.
Speaker 2:Go know thyself.
Speaker 1:Freedom.
Speaker 2:And know the other. This is the love space. This is the objectification space, and this is all our pathologies that are coming out of this space. Mhmm. We've gotta get at this.
Speaker 2:Mhmm. Anyway, I think we should call it quits on this time.
Speaker 1:Okay. Good. Well, thank you for listening, everybody. If you were if you stuck with us, I'm proud of you. And we're gonna keep going.
Speaker 2:They probably scared everyone away. You probably scare everyone away from rid of this one. I'm letting my rage out now. I really feel furious right now about about the continued sleeping of the job.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. The I call it, will for willful ignorance or, like, arrogant ignorance. It's like a I'm going to be ignorant. No.
Speaker 1:I I don't wanna it's like a willful
Speaker 2:power to It's a consensual, yes. Consensual ignorance to stay very long.
Speaker 1:It takes it takes real humbleness to step back from it and to give up on the power to and and enter into the zone.
Speaker 2:It's hard to break the code. I mean, break break the the the trans here.
Speaker 1:Yep. Mhmm.
Speaker 2:And we're challenging every human being on the planet to face this and answer us. Write to us and tell us we're completely wrong and off of it, and all the great teachers just full of it. And this is you got this already. Shores, you got this already beat. I'll listen.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Right. Okay, guys. We We always love to hear your thoughts. Comment below, and we will see you next time.
Speaker 2:Bye, everyone. Come back again.
