Balancers

[Miniar]

I see chaos as randomness, disorder and order as having a pattern and near predictability to it.

To go further, chaos is that which lacks any predictability, has no pattern to it, is random. Order is that which is patterned and is predictable. Chaos is more volatile while order is more stable.

The thing with this is that practically everything that exists has some structure, some order, some pattern of being. Even the pattern in which the raindrops fall is structured. There's little, if anything at all, that exists, that "is" chaotic. So where does this balance come in? If the overwhelming majority of everything follows a patter, a structure, adheres to causality, then where's the chaos?

(copy/paste for the win)

[Seraphyna]

In this world, there is little chaos. It's hard to give definitive examples from earth because nature is so structured here (I mean you can apply math to a crap ton of it). I know that probably sounds like one big cop-out, it's not intended that way. Things I view as chaotic are pointed out to not be entirely chaotic, and I definitely see where people are coming from...but I still see aspects of things a good deal of you consider to be ordered to have chaos to them. I think at this point we might just have to agree to disagree and to accept that the confusion might just be there to some degree. Because at this point I feel that this is gonna be a circular conversation.

(OT: Holy crap we're on page 6)

[Miniar]

[quote=Seraphyna]In this world, there is little chaos[/quote]
That's the thing. This world has an overwhelming majority of order over chaos and as such "should" be unbalanced and thus not functioning as it should, but here we are, still existing.

[Iro]

(Edit: Grumble, the window refreshed before I could finish typing. Trying this again.)

(To Freetha) What, you don't think "God" plays dice with the universe? The appearance of a pattern does not imply that there exists external to someone a pattern, but only implies the possibly ordered nature of the observer's mind. If we want to discuss this from the point of view of particle physics (one of several ways of looking at the rules of the universe), we could turn to physicists to aid us, but the further we probe the more we get into quantum mechanics. The further into quantum we go, the more abstracted we get and the less we (those here) are likely to understand. However, if I recall correctly, there is a contingent of quantum theorists out there that maintain the fundamental chaotic state of the universe.

For the sake of the argument, I'm going to ask our big question in a way in which I don't think it's been phrased. Bear with me, setting up the question will take several sentences (premises). Let us say that we have a "random number generator." By this I don't mean a machine that has an algorithm or whatever. Instead, this RNG is a completely arbitrary and potentially quasi-existing "thing" that, at our "time" of encounter, provides us with a string of twelve numbers. In short, something utterly random producing something rather ordered. This string of numbers need not actually be a string of numbers; rather, what the RNG does/creates appears to us as numbers. Let's further say that the numbers arbitrarily generated produce a sequence, sum, or other arithmetic entity that we deem significant - the Fibonacci sequence, 5, 616 (or 666 for those traditionalists out there with your textual errors), 626, a lottery number and date, a social security number with three extra somehow important digits, part of pi or e, or even your height and weight in whatever units of measurement you want. It needn't matter what the "numbers" come out to be, only that you observe something "significant" about them. It needn't matter how the RNG works (also arbitrary), only that it produces for us a collection of "numbers." How much of this is us assigning order to our environment where there is none, how much of this is us projecting order onto the environment (creating order from nothing), and how much of this is order actually present in the system?

From a physical standpoint on grounds anyone with basic understanding of physics can understand, entropy (the "random motion of particles"/disorder in the system/heat) will take on a uniform appearance to outsiders over time. When all energy in the universe converts its form into entropy, the universe will be nothing but vibrating particles which, if dispersed equally, would produce a static level of heat. The particles wouldn't likely be dispersed evenly, so there could be pockets of heat and cold, given the expansion of the universe and the motion. In either case, there is "order" - uniform heat or recognizable spots. However, the original meaning of "entropy" as "disorder in a system" (from the Greek "in transition"). Perhaps it is an inappropriate word.

My thought, however, is that no matter how we slice it, the words come back to being abstractions created by observers to explain their observations - that is, they are dependent on observers, they represent an "anthropological" element (at least to the minds of humans; I lack an adjective to describe entities aware of both self and environment). If, however, we assume that there is existence and that existence isn't static, as we are in this discussion, then we are assuming the existence of energy. In such a reality, there need be no observers, though that wouldn't stop energy from existing. To this end, what makes this energy inherently ordered or chaotic?

[Archer]

Imagine I am a complete idiot - or a student sitting at your feet - or a child - or someone who doesn't speak English. And try to define "order" and "chaos" for me.

I see chaos as randomness, disorder and order as having a pattern and near predictability to it.

To go further, chaos is that which lacks any predictability, has no pattern to it, is random. Order is that which is patterned and is predictable. Chaos is more volatile while order is more stable.

That doesn't tie in with anything you have previously suggested as being examples of chaos. War? How is that random or unpredictable? A guy in his office going postal? That's VERY predictable.

Part of why I am having difficulty understanding you is you seem to contradict yourself in that kind of context. Picking violent or destructive events and calling them "chaotic", but then saying that "chaos" to you means randomness and unpredictability . . . when the events you gave as examples are neither random nor unpredictable.

But, I'll go with the concept of randomness and unpredictability, and assume for the moment that your examples (war etc) were either just not great choices, or I'm not interpreting them the same way as you are.

I can't remember your stated opinion on "God" or the "maker" or whatever. But if your Maker is omniscient, then the concept of "unpredictability" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as It could predict all things. On the other hand, if It is not omniscient, then the idea of it deciding what is and is not good and appropriate for the Multiverse seems rather vain to me, and not a little terrifying.

Jumping in here . . . why did you need a living stress ball anyway? Humans need social contact as a result of evolutionay psychology - simply put, humans cannot feed, reproduce, and shelter themselves without help from other humans. So humans have a very strong drive to seek out other humans and co-operate with them. With a non-biological, created entity like a Balancer, though - I don't see why there's a need for social contact at all. So why did you need companions?

We were created as complete beings, with the complete ability to "feel" because our judgements cannot be black or white, they are shades of grey. If you excise certain emotions, then that ability to judge "fairly" becomes rather compromised.

I'm not suggesting emotions be "excised". In a human being, certainly, removing fear would be counterproductive to functioning - because humans have evolved the emotion of fear in order to get them to react very quickly to dangerous situations.

What I'm asking is the opposite of "why excise an emotion" - it's why *ADD* that emotion in the first place.

What does human love do? It enables humans to form bonds with one another that promote them working together in societies, to encourage reproduction, to facilitate the rearing of healthy children. Those proto-humans that loved each other survived rather better and bred more proto-humans who loved each other even more.

Your Balancer folk don't seem to actually need relationships with other entities in order to function - from what I can tell you don't require groups to procure food, you don't require adults to raise young, you don't require pairs to reproduce. So - what's the love for?

Or, alternatively, do you place "love" on some kind of privaleged ground - do you think that rather than being an example of evolutionary psychology, there is something universal or special about it?

That explains why we have emotions and the ability to feel at all.

I don't think it does; see my responses above.

Companions are there for us so that said emotions can be expressed in a healthy fashion and so that their expression is either avoided (by that I mean these are certain beings we "come home to" so that there's a reduced chance of coming across another who we would feel X way towards).

That you need companions so you can express your emotions in a healthy way makes sense only with two prerequisites:

1 - That you need emotions in the first place
2 - That those emotions must be dealt with in a human-like manner

The other alternatives, for example, are that you would not have been designed with the requirement to love; or that you would have been designed with the ability to love but no need to express it. (Not expressing an emotion is problematic in creatures like humans - I don't see why it would necessarily be so in non-physical beings.)

We are given certain faculties and as such are given a means of controlling them in another being.

To break this down - are you saying that you were given emotions in order to understand them so you could manipulate them in others? If I'm reading you right, why is that necessary?

I can, for example, study the psychology of a serial killer and understand in detail why he wants to kill someone, what emotional release he gets from a particular act. It would then be possible for me to interview him in such a manner as to manipulate his emotional responses to get me the result I desire.

I can do that as a little human with some studying and practice.

So why do you, as a Balancer - a Balancer charged with protecting the Universal Everything, no less - need to actually feel those emotions? It's possible I'm misunderstanding you; if so, please let me know where you think the breakdown in communication lies and we can try to learn.

My memories show me that I am a being of energy and as such can take whatever form pleases me.

Just a side note: just because you remember being something, that does not mean you were that something.

In many cases I simply read people's posts on forums that matched memories of places that I have. With respect to people who have shared my memories, they have told me what they remember of me at the mention of my name alone. I told them nothing else. In some cases they had more detailed memories of certain things than I did at the time.

What kind of confirmation are we talking about? That a Silver City existed with various non physical beings in it? That the entire Multiverse was Balanced by 13 individuals? It's hard to comment without knowing the details.



At this point I feel like I have two huge issues with understanding your position that I've asked about but I don't think were answered. These are separate from notions of credability, just very basic things about how you have described yourself that to me seem inconsistent or nonsensical. They might have already been touched on in my above post, but I'm specifically outlining them here so they don't get lost in the noise:


1 - Chaos and order; you have given, as examples of chaos, someone going postal at work, insane people in general, and war. However you later said that randomness and unpredictabiltiy are hallmarks of chaos. "Insanity" is too general to comment on, but people going postal are VERY predictable (this is practically Human Behaviour 101) and war is also in general very predictable - in terms of the minutia of what happens on the battlefield, and when and where and why wars break out. So can you expand a little on how you understand "chaos" and what you understand it to be?

2 - You said that "it is nigh on impossible to feel for someone so deeply and yet ignore them entirely." I flat out disagree with this. For humans who have all-consuming love (actually I think limerance is a better term) it is indeed difficult to walk away, but eminently doable. Music and drama are chock full of people who walk away from someone they deeply love either for the greater good, or just for that one person. Many religions have the concept of loving gods (or in the case of Christianity, an all-loving Creator God) who have great love for humans but are able back off and not act. So why was it "nigh on impossible" for you to do so?

[Ges]

Well I explained all of my conclusions...but I suppose I'll answer this again anyway. There are reasons I tweaked my self identity and abandoned certain things and those reasons I have already given. I think my current view is more valid for one because it's the first thing that has completely "fit". It fits with my memories and those of a couple of other people. I have never incarnated before and my memories and feelings confirm this. That's the reason I know I'm not tiger, or anything else for that matter. Why I may have appeared physical I have never before been physical.

So are you saying, that when you were an Angel/Phoenix you were saying/knowing that "This actualyl doesn't totally make sense?" or such with the other identities? I mean, most people with changing beliefs, tend to think each one fits the whole picture better than the last, even if it doesn't in reality, so I'm just curious more on what really makes you think this one is so right, rather than another somewhat-errant step in a path of identifying. Especially tricky with memories that are not confirmed, as they are the most subject to mutability based on your beliefs.

This is more now becoming a general issue, but was brought up here with the nine year claim.

None of us will have definitive proof until we die. Until then we might have shared memories with others and really convince ourselves...but that's confirmation only on a personal level and could be seen as nothing to anyone else.

Actually, I believe that confirmed memories, if brought to light (both personally and interpersonally) in intelligent and blind ways, can serve as proof.

That being said, I have spent quite some time not only analyzing my beliefs and memories but rejecting them only to have them resurface again and again.

Just because that desire to kill the milkman comes back all the time, doesn't mean it's right

Actually though, I do believe that durability of thoughts/beliefs, is a sign toward their validity though. But I don't see how much time you could have given the beliefs memories, with the aforementioned progression of your identity.

I have meditated on them and explored them, and after having many details comfirmed by others.

How so?

Well, as I've said, I don't recall having ever been physical before and do have limited memories of myself as these other beings. Put them together and it's clear I have never lived as them, so to speak, and yet they are still very close to me.

I don't remember going to Niagara Falls (and still consider myself not to have gone there), but I have photo evidence to the contrary. Just because you don't remember something, doesn't make it an irreality. (Ov course)

I do not believe they're just childhood imprints because of my memories

I think you fail to understand what childhood imprints are and do. You don't believe that Tiger/Mermaid/Gargoyle/Phoenix are imprints, because you have "memories" of them...but the whole function of childhood imprints and cryptoamnesia, is that they are methods of knowledge/influences from your childhood that you don't remember working their way into your life and resurfacing as "memories". So saying "I don't believe I was physically a Tiger, because I have past life memories of being a Tiger-thing non-physically, and these memories are proof against imprinting" (for example, I know that's not exactly what or how you are saying it) is somewhat meaningless. If you remember something, there is a chance it's arising from a childhood imprint, so you can't use memory in and of itself to disprove the imprint, unless you remember something there is no way possible of having picked up in childhood.

and I don't believe they are just quirks because my personality does not reflect them. From what I remember of "gargoyles" and mermaids and from what I know about tigers, I share very few (if any) personality traits with them.

Well, for example, tigers, if it's an imprint from watching a documentary as a child (or any exposure up to the present honestly, but we'll keep it simple) or even watching the Jungle Book, you're not necessarily going to have tiger personality traits, as chances are that's not something you'd pick up, or would be portrayed. When was the last time you watched a documentary on koalas and thought you really understood how koalas think when it was over?

*nods* This is more what I mean about confirmation. Now lack of confirmation doesn't invalidity (nor does confirmation validate), but it is a starting point. I'm curious how the sharing of memories came up, and how sterily it was handled.

In many cases I simply read people's posts on forums that matched memories of places that I have. With respect to people who have shared my memories, they have told me what they remember of me at the mention of my name alone. I told them nothing else. In some cases they had more detailed memories of certain things than I did at the time.

[/quote]

So a fair amount of contamination, but I guess that's better than "OMG, you remember the Silver City, do you also remember the Emerald Ice Cream Parlour?" "Uh...huh, I guess I do...it was by...a river wasn't it." "Yeah, that must be it."

The need for companionship that humans have is a product of human biology and evolution. You, completely non-human beings, need companionship to express emotions . . . why? Why would non-physical beings with a completely different makeup and origin from humans have the need to express emotion in such a human way?

Actually, this brings up my question of, why woudl you need companionship if you were part of a collective consciousness? All the hives I've seen and heard of, tend to have little need of companionship (excluding "assimilating" types), because, well, who needs more people when you're living in the same mind as others?

It needn't matter what the "numbers" come out to be, only that you observe something "significant" about them.

That's the nice thing about this stupidity known as reality, since it is inherently meaningless, we can put our meaning to it.

What I'm asking is the opposite of "why excise an emotion" - it's why *ADD* that emotion in the first place.

Specifically why add it, out of what could be an abstract thousands of emotions/impulses that are beyond standard human comprehension.

So glad Mom was smart enough not to give us the "ability" to love, would have made things messier than they were, heh.

That you need companions so you can express your emotions in a healthy way makes sense only with two prerequisites:

1 - That you need emotions in the first place
2 - That those emotions must be dealt with in a human-like manner

For some reason, #2, specifically made me think of Catholic Priests, and other people that are celibate/single by choice. They don't need a companion in order to prevent them from accidently falling in love (and anyone who has ever been in a relationship, knows that having a partner is a poor prevention for finding someone else interesting/attractive), so it's not just dealing in a human-like manner, but I guess a standard western manner. (Not that Catholics aren't western.) Just there are many ways of dealing with such feelings and impulses, but a prior commitment just seems like the easiest idea to toss out.

I can, for example, study the psychology of a serial killer and understand in detail why he wants to kill someone, what emotional release he gets from a particular act. It would then be possible for me to interview him in such a manner as to manipulate his emotional responses to get me the result I desire.

I can do that as a little human with some studying and practice.

The opposite is true, sociopaths, aspies, and other people with limited/muted or lack of emotions, can easily manipulate people with emotions (in fact, it tends to seem/be easier, as you're less involved)

1 - Chaos and order; you have given, as examples of chaos, someone going postal at work,

Actually, if I remember right Archer, this example was to show how too much Order causes "internal breaks"

[Archer]

1 - Chaos and order; you have given, as examples of chaos, someone going postal at work,

Actually, if I remember right Archer, this example was to show how too much Order causes "internal breaks"

I stand corrected! Even so, it's just an example of someone acting in an inherently predictable way - I don't see it as an internal break at all.

[Seraphyna]

But, I'll go with the concept of randomness and unpredictability, and assume for the moment that your examples (war etc) were either just not great choices, or I'm not interpreting them the same way as you are.

I think we can safely say we just don't interpret them in the same way. It's also hard (as I've said somewhere on this thread before) to take human examples and call them chaos because things here are pretty ordered in one way or another.

I can't remember your stated opinion on "God" or the "maker" or whatever. But if your Maker is omniscient, then the concept of "unpredictability" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as It could predict all things. On the other hand, if It is not omniscient, then the idea of it deciding what is and is not good and appropriate for the Multiverse seems rather vain to me, and not a little terrifying.

From what I can recall, It is omniscient with respect to the present. It cannot predict the future as the future is not set in stone-it is constantly changing.

What I'm asking is the opposite of "why excise an emotion" - it's why *ADD* that emotion in the first place.

Your Balancer folk don't seem to actually need relationships with other entities in order to function - from what I can tell you don't require groups to procure food, you don't require adults to raise young, you don't require pairs to reproduce. So - what's the love for?

Or, alternatively, do you place "love" on some kind of privaleged ground - do you think that rather than being an example of evolutionary psychology, there is something universal or special about it?

I do feel there's something universal about love. As to why give us emotions at all, I have given you why I believe we have them. However, I cannot give you a definitive answer other than that because I didn't create myself. I do not definitively know why we were given the ability to feel whatever emotions we do.

We are given certain faculties and as such are given a means of controlling them in another being.

To break this down - are you saying that you were given emotions in order to understand them so you could manipulate them in others? If I'm reading you right, why is that necessary?[/quote]

No, I'm saying that since we have the ability to feel X emotions, we are given a being to fully express them to. That quote from me is in response to "why do we have personal stress balls".

Just a side note: just because you remember being something, that does not mean you were that something.

Yes, that can be said for all of us. I believe I am this something and have memories that support that belief.

What kind of confirmation are we talking about? That a Silver City existed with various non physical beings in it? That the entire Multiverse was Balanced by 13 individuals? It's hard to comment without knowing the details.

Well the Silver City thing is a memory held by a lot of angelics, etc., but aside from that I have come across two people specifically who remember "me". They remember my description, that I was non-physical, and that I was one of a group of beings whose purpose was to keep existance existing. They didn't give me a number of beings (and I don't mean to say that 13 is *the* number, just that 13 "sounds right," it could be entirely wrong) and didn't have details on how we kept existance existing just that it was our purpose.

2 - You said that "it is nigh on impossible to feel for someone so deeply and yet ignore them entirely." I flat out disagree with this. For humans who have all-consuming love (actually I think limerance is a better term) it is indeed difficult to walk away, but eminently doable. Music and drama are chock full of people who walk away from someone they deeply love either for the greater good, or just for that one person. Many religions have the concept of loving gods (or in the case of Christianity, an all-loving Creator God) who have great love for humans but are able back off and not act. So why was it "nigh on impossible" for you to do so?

While some humans can and do walk away from love, many do not. That is why we have adultery, people killing for a partner etc. Not just a biological drive, but love. That emotion which causes irrational behavior in many individuals.

Music and drama are chock full of many things, among them ideals.
Many religions also have the concept of loving gods who had such love for humanity that they went around raping women in the form of a swan or whatever form and leading to the birth of half gods such as Hercules.

It was nigh impossible for me to do so. Why? I don't know. Inherent flaw perhaps, but it was.

So are you saying, that when you were an Angel/Phoenix you were saying/knowing that "This actualyl doesn't totally make sense?" or such with the other identities?

Yes, I am saying that I tried different identities on and when they did not fit tossed the parts that didn't work and kept the part that did.

I mean, most people with changing beliefs, tend to think each one fits the whole picture better than the last, even if it doesn't in reality, so I'm just curious more on what really makes you think this one is so right, rather than another somewhat-errant step in a path of identifying. Especially tricky with memories that are not confirmed, as they are the most subject to mutability based on your beliefs.

It is rather rare that someone nails their personal identity on the head their very first go. If you got yours 100% the first time, then kudos to you. From my experiences, people rarely get it "right" right away, it is a process of going through theories until one sticks.

On the memory front, I have already said I have had memories confirmed. I have also explained why I feel this one is right.

Actually, I believe that confirmed memories, if brought to light (both personally and interpersonally) in intelligent and blind ways, can serve as proof.

It could serve of proof, or of proof of shared delusions. What I mean by no "definitive proof" is that there is no way to 100% prove anything anyone believes if it is of a non-physical nature. Claiming you have some sort of non-human DNA can be conclusively proved, claiming you have X soul can be confirmed through shared memories with others, but cannot be accepted as anything but shared personal truth.

How so?

I have already explained the nature of shared memories and the meditation I have taken part in.

I don't remember going to Niagara Falls (and still consider myself not to have gone there), but I have photo evidence to the contrary. Just because you don't remember something, doesn't make it an irreality. (Ov course)

I have no evidence to the contrary as you do with your Niagra Falls example. Until I do, if ever I do, this is the identify I've landed on.

so you can't use memory in and of itself to disprove the imprint, unless you remember something there is no way possible of having picked up in childhood.

I remember worlds I never came across (in books, media, etc.), I remember beings descriptions of which are specifically in nothing I have come across as of yet even the beings that do link up to those I came across in myth and fairy tales are not completely the same. And when it all boils down nothing I remember ever having been exposed to describes beings quite like me.

When was the last time you watched a documentary on koalas and thought you really understood how koalas think when it was over?

Never. Then again, I'm not really a koala person.

Actually, this brings up my question of, why woudl you need companionship if you were part of a collective consciousness? All the hives I've seen and heard of, tend to have little need of companionship (excluding "assimilating" types), because, well, who needs more people when you're living in the same mind as others?

When everyone shares the same purpose, the same basic structure, the same abilities, even sharing a mind is like seeing a reflection of yourself in X other beings. It's like how people ask how an individual can be lonely in a crowd. It's very possible to have a need for a being separate from those sharing your headspace so to speak.

[Ges]

I think we can safely say we just don't interpret them in the same way. It's also hard (as I've said somewhere on this thread before) to take human examples and call them chaos because things here are pretty ordered in one way or another.

So as Freetha asked then, shouldn't that mean the world will collapse?

While some humans can and do walk away from love, many do not. That is why we have adultery, people killing for a partner etc. Not just a biological drive, but love. That emotion which causes irrational behavior in many individuals.

All emotions are irrational behaviour.

Yes, I am saying that I tried different identities on and when they did not fit tossed the parts that didn't work and kept the part that did.

Hmm, maybe it's a projective note, but I don't remember much of you going around claiming that "I think I'm this, but I'm sure it's wrong", which is more my point. Not so much that looking back you think it's wrong, but at the time you thought it was wrong up until the time you were given more "evidence" to nudge you the next way.

I mean, most people with changing beliefs, tend to think each one fits the whole picture better than the last, even if it doesn't in reality, so I'm just curious more on what really makes you think this one is so right, rather than another somewhat-errant step in a path of identifying. Especially tricky with memories that are not confirmed, as they are the most subject to mutability based on your beliefs.

It is rather rare that someone nails their personal identity on the head their very first go. If you got yours 100% the first time, then kudos to you. From my experiences, people rarely get it "right" right away, it is a process of going through theories until one sticks.

You seem to miss this point again. It's not against the nature of changing identities (which the more we discuss the more I feel should have its own rant), but the fact that people inherently believe that their current ideas are correct, and the past in error, even when their current ideas can be just as flawed and errant as all the ones leading up to it. It's about the complacency of "Ah, now I got it, now it all makes sense..." until the next piece of information doesn't fit, or the next time someone wants to appear more special, then it's "Actually, I was wrong..."

On the memory front, I have already said I have had memories confirmed. I have also explained why I feel this one is right.

From what I've seen, most of the memories you mention confirmed, if I'm remembering right were more about generic Celestial love-angst, not being one of thirteen phenomenally cosmic powered entities charged with keeping notions of Chaos and Order in check.

I have already explained the nature of shared memories and the meditation I have taken part in.

I saw no such meditation, just mentions of visions and dreams in vague passing.

I have no evidence to the contrary as you do with your Niagra Falls example. Until I do, if ever I do, this is the identify I've landed on.

So you're saying, just because you don't remember a life as a physical creature, that's a good enough reason to assume you've never been a physical creature? People, humans, don't even remember all (or a lot) of their own life, let alone past lives (which is another rant all together), so in general I feel the attitude of "I don't remember X, thus it's not" is more than a little flawed, cause I'm sure there are more than a few things you don't remember.

I remember worlds I never came across (in books, media, etc.), I remember beings descriptions of which are specifically in nothing I have come across as of yet even the beings that do link up to those I came across in myth and fairy tales are not completely the same. And when it all boils down nothing I remember ever having been exposed to describes beings quite like me.

Let me restate

so you can't use memory in and of itself to disprove the imprint, unless you remember something there is no way possible of having picked up in childhood.

So, you're saying, the worlds you remember, all of the different planes/universes, the silver city, has nothing to do with anything you've come across in media? Because you remember ever book, movie, play, picture book, tv show and comic book you've been exposed to in passing in this life? And with enough detail to know that these places, events and concepts don't exist in it? That, would be where I would call shenanigans.

are not completely the same

So you're willing to discount something similar be cause it's not "completely the same", yet the memories you use for confirmation, are not completely the same, and that is acceptable?

Again, as mentioning with cryptoamnesia, is your mind absorbs it, sorts it, and hashes it out as memory, so of course it isn't going to be completely the same, most things you remember aren't completely the same as what they were, and the more repressed/unexpressed the original memory is, the more room for that corruption.

Michelle Belanger wrote a good article on Cryptoamnesia and Past life memories, you can find it herehttp://www.kheperu.org/reincarnation/reincarnation4.html

It's not trying to disprove past life memories as a whole, just cautioning an awareness. I found it of amazing benefit for myself, friends and House mates, in helping discard misinformed lives, and finding a great strength of confirmation for others.

Of course, that's when I'm in a slightly objective mood, otherwise, you'll get another set of advice.

[Seraphyna]

So as Freetha asked then, shouldn't that mean the world will collapse?

As I've already said, it isn't about complete balance in each and every world, but in the grand scheme of things. If you'll notice, earth isn't stagnant and earth isn't imploding so clearly there's some kind of balance here even if nature is seemingly ordered.

Hmm, maybe it's a projective note, but I don't remember much of you going around claiming that "I think I'm this, but I'm sure it's wrong", which is more my point. Not so much that looking back you think it's wrong, but at the time you thought it was wrong up until the time you were given more "evidence" to nudge you the next way.

I have never presented my beliefs as truths, but instead "I think I'm this and I very well might be wrong" now it's more "I believe I'm this and it fits, but I could always still be wrong".

You seem to miss this point again. It's not against the nature of changing identities (which the more we discuss the more I feel should have its own rant), but the fact that people inherently believe that their current ideas are correct, and the past in error, even when their current ideas can be just as flawed and errant as all the ones leading up to it. It's about the complacency of "Ah, now I got it, now it all makes sense..." until the next piece of information doesn't fit, or the next time someone wants to appear more special, then it's "Actually, I was wrong..."

I'm flattered you're so worried about me, but I believe what I believe, I haven't just accepted it lightly (regardless of your personal opinion, I know myself better than you know me afterall). And if you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong, you're wasting type.

From what I've seen, most of the memories you mention confirmed, if I'm remembering right were more about generic Celestial love-angst, not being one of thirteen phenomenally cosmic powered entities charged with keeping notions of Chaos and Order in check.

Then you haven't read my last reply or those before that because I don't recall once mentioning specifically confirmed memories involving love stuff. I have however, mentioned others.

I saw no such meditation, just mentions of visions and dreams in vague passing.

Then you should go back and read, because I definitely mentioned meditation more than once.

So you're saying, just because you don't remember a life as a physical creature, that's a good enough reason to assume you've never been a physical creature? People, humans, don't even remember all (or a lot) of their own life, let alone past lives (which is another rant all together), so in general I feel the attitude of "I don't remember X, thus it's not" is more than a little flawed, cause I'm sure there are more than a few things you don't remember.

I know what I feel, I know that I have never been truly physical before, I know that I am energetic in nature, and if my innate feelings aren't good enough for you, then I really don't care. No, I don't have a complete memory or irrefutable proof...none of us do.

So, you're saying, the worlds you remember, all of the different planes/universes, the silver city, has nothing to do with anything you've come across in media? Because you remember ever book, movie, play, picture book, tv show and comic book you've been exposed to in passing in this life? And with enough detail to know that these places, events and concepts don't exist in it? That, would be where I would call shenanigans.

This is where I really begin to wonder if you've actually been reading what I type or if I'm wasting my time typing out point by point responses. I didn't say that EVERYTHING I have ever come across is different from EVERY plane/world/etc. I remember, just that there are things I remember that I haven't come across in media of any kind.

So you're willing to discount something similar be cause it's not "completely the same", yet the memories you use for confirmation, are not completely the same, and that is acceptable?

The memories I've used for confirmation have been more than just the same, they've been more detailed on the other end. Someone remembering in more detail something than I do is acceptable to me.

It's not trying to disprove past life memories as a whole, just cautioning an awareness. I found it of amazing benefit for myself, friends and House mates, in helping discard misinformed lives, and finding a great strength of confirmation for others.

Of course, that's when I'm in a slightly objective mood, otherwise, you'll get another set of advice.

Clearly you must think that one day I decided "hey I'm this!" and accepted it blindly. I have not and regardless of what you believe on the subject, my personal beliefs aren't changing. So if your goal here is to get me to go "oops, I'm wrong!" it isn't going to happen.

A lot of people know me well enough to know that I question others endlessly. Why you'd think I wouldn't apply the same process to myself, I don't get.