Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 Hi. I have a question about the hook up to high self drills. You said on the videos (speed life?) the hook up to high self occurs in life or death situations, for instance, where the martial arts trainer gets to the advanced stages of training and their master tells them, " Sorry. I hate to tell you this, but I have to let you know, at this point in the training, if you keep training, I might kill you. If I do, sorry, etc, and so on... " and you also gave the example of time slowing down when you rolled your car over, and you knew how to grab the seat, turn the engine off so the car wouldn't blow up, roll down the window, crawl out the window, etc. You gave those as examples of life or death situations causing an instant hook up to high self to get instructions. What is the difference, then, between a hook up to high self and the type of hook up where the CM and SCM (or objective and subjective or " middle " and " low " self) are hooked up and working together properly? Or the difference between the high self taking over and the scm taking over (as in fight or flight or as in going down to theta where the CM is " out to lunch, " so to speak? How does that compare with what Hudson wrote about the hook up of the two minds? Hudson claims that the subjective mind (SCM, " low " self) has intuition but is imperfect in its intuition and that God would be an example of perfect intuition that does not need the CM. Well there's more to it than that, but you've read the book. So is Hudson's idea of " God " the same as the Huna idea of " High Self " ? This does not make sense to me IF that's the case BECAUSE according to Hudson God would be all knowing and would not have need of future learnings. However, the " High Self " supposedly chose to send us here for specific learnings. If the " High Self " is the same as " God, " then why would " it " need those learnings? " It " would already know. Also, I understand that it is possible to have a view of " God " as also continuing to grow and learn and experience new things where there is a " perfect " God as far as function and growth and learning, instead of in a " static " sense. (Also, in terms of " energy " , static does not get anything done, is not creative, does not grow or help or do anything.) Even so, what is the difference between " Higher Intelligence " (or " God " ) and the " High Self " And IF there's a difference, then what's the difference between " High Self " and a hook up between the SCM and the CM where the two communicate clearly with each other and do not have any conflicts with each other? Maybe Jesus had something in mind similar to " High Self " when He said, " I and the Father are One " ? I don't know. I can do the model with " picture / symbols " , but when I go to put it into words, what is the difference between what we call the " High Self " and its functions and the functions of a SCM and CM that are in clear communication and harmony with each other? " High Self " does not seem (to me) to be evolved enough to be considered " God, " because if so, then why would we be here to learn things that supposedly " God " would already know? Thanks, Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 Dear Jim; You have the presupposition that we are here to learn things. How do you know that is what God intended? Also this " old guy " thinks there are as many young pack rats as old ones. Hoarding is not age specific. As one who personally has experienced and continues to consciously experience the low self as well as the high self they were nothing like the presuppositions I had before I experienced them the first time. And they do have all knowledge, are all knowing. Since they are also me, maybe when I experience them I am just " getting " what I already know? My life with them is much easier, more fun I believe than it was trying to judge before the awake experience of them.. Just a thought or so, Loren - James R. Knippenberg <erommel Friday, May 20, 2005 2:49 PM Hook-Up To High Self > > Hi. I have a question about the hook up to high self drills. > > You said on the videos (speed life?) the hook up to high self occurs in life or death situations, for instance, where the martial arts trainer gets to the advanced stages of training and their master tells them, " Sorry. I hate to tell you this, but I have to let you know, at this point in the training, if you keep training, I might kill you. If I do, sorry, etc, and so on... " and you also gave the example of time slowing down when you rolled your car over, and you knew how to grab the seat, turn the engine off so the car wouldn't blow up, roll down the window, crawl out the window, etc. > > You gave those as examples of life or death situations causing an instant hook up to high self to get instructions. > > What is the difference, then, between a hook up to high self and the type of hook up where the CM and SCM (or objective and subjective or " middle " and " low " self) are hooked up and working together properly? Or the difference between the high self taking over and the scm taking over (as in fight or flight or as in going down to theta where the CM is " out to lunch, " so to speak? > > How does that compare with what Hudson wrote about the hook up of the two minds? > > Hudson claims that the subjective mind (SCM, " low " self) has intuition but is imperfect in its intuition and that God would be an example of perfect intuition that does not need the CM. Well there's more to it than that, but you've read the book. So is Hudson's idea of " God " the same as the Huna idea of " High Self " ? > > This does not make sense to me IF that's the case BECAUSE according to Hudson God would be all knowing and would not have need of future learnings. However, the " High Self " supposedly chose to send us here for specific learnings. If the " High Self " is the same as " God, " then why would " it " need those learnings? " It " would already know. > > Also, I understand that it is possible to have a view of " God " as also continuing to grow and learn and experience new things where there is a " perfect " God as far as function and growth and learning, instead of in a " static " sense. (Also, in terms of " energy " , static does not get anything done, is not creative, does not grow or help or do anything.) > > Even so, what is the difference between " Higher Intelligence " (or " God " ) and the " High Self " And IF there's a difference, then what's the difference between " High Self " and a hook up between the SCM and the CM where the two communicate clearly with each other and do not have any conflicts with each other? > > Maybe Jesus had something in mind similar to " High Self " when He said, " I and the Father are One " ? I don't know. I can do the model with " picture / symbols " , but when I go to put it into words, what is the difference between what we call the " High Self " and its functions and the functions of a SCM and CM that are in clear communication and harmony with each other? " High Self " does not seem (to me) to be evolved enough to be considered " God, " because if so, then why would we be here to learn things that supposedly " God " would already know? > > Thanks, > Jim > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Loren, Jim, I agree, " pack rats " come in all ages... Older ones just have more evidence! But a key question here is about pre-suppositions and expectations. Does a point of view exists that contains NO pre-suppositions? Being connected as three selves, yet one, are we truly objective? Does any of this help clearly identify a purpose in life? Greg R. > > > On > Behalf Of Loren and Donna > Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:06 AM > > Re: Hook-Up To High Self > > Dear Jim; > You have the presupposition that we are here to learn things. > How do you know that is what God intended? > Also this " old guy " thinks there are as many young pack rats > as old ones. > Hoarding is not age specific. > As one who personally has experienced and continues to > consciously experience the low self as well as the high self > they were nothing like the presuppositions I had before I > experienced them the first time. And they do have all > knowledge, are all knowing. Since they are also me, maybe > when I experience them I am just " getting " what I already > know? My life with them is much easier, more fun I believe > than it was trying to judge before the awake experience of them.. > Just a thought or so, > Loren > - > James R. Knippenberg <erommel > > Friday, May 20, 2005 2:49 PM > Hook-Up To High Self > > > > > > Hi. I have a question about the hook up to high self drills. > > > > You said on the videos (speed life?) the hook up to high > self occurs > > in > life or death situations, for instance, where the martial > arts trainer gets to the advanced stages of training and > their master tells them, " Sorry. I hate to tell you this, > but I have to let you know, at this point in the training, if > you keep training, I might kill you. If I do, sorry, etc, > and so on... " and you also gave the example of time slowing > down when you rolled your car over, and you knew how to grab > the seat, turn the engine off so the car wouldn't blow up, > roll down the window, crawl out the window, etc. > > > > You gave those as examples of life or death situations causing an > > instant > hook up to high self to get instructions. > > > > What is the difference, then, between a hook up to high > self and the > > type > of hook up where the CM and SCM (or objective and subjective > or " middle " and " low " self) are hooked up and working > together properly? Or the difference between the high self > taking over and the scm taking over (as in fight or flight or > as in going down to theta where the CM is " out to lunch, " so to speak? > > > > How does that compare with what Hudson wrote about the hook > up of the > > two > minds? > > > > Hudson claims that the subjective mind (SCM, " low " self) > has intuition > > but > is imperfect in its intuition and that God would be an > example of perfect intuition that does not need the CM. Well > there's more to it than that, but you've read the book. So > is Hudson's idea of " God " the same as the Huna idea of " High Self " ? > > > > This does not make sense to me IF that's the case BECAUSE > according to > Hudson God would be all knowing and would not have need of > future learnings. > However, the " High Self " supposedly chose to send us here for > specific learnings. If the " High Self " is the same as " God, " > then why would " it " > need those learnings? " It " would already know. > > > > Also, I understand that it is possible to have a view of > " God " as also > continuing to grow and learn and experience new things where > there is a " perfect " God as far as function and growth and > learning, instead of in a " static " sense. (Also, in terms of > " energy " , static does not get anything done, is not creative, > does not grow or help or do anything.) > > > > Even so, what is the difference between " Higher Intelligence " (or > > " God " ) > and the " High Self " And IF there's a difference, then what's > the difference between " High Self " and a hook up between the > SCM and the CM where the two communicate clearly with each > other and do not have any conflicts with each other? > > > > Maybe Jesus had something in mind similar to " High Self " > when He said, > > " I > and the Father are One " ? I don't know. I can do the model > with " picture / symbols " , but when I go to put it into words, > what is the difference between what we call the " High Self " > and its functions and the functions of a SCM and CM that are > in clear communication and harmony with each other? " High > Self " does not seem (to me) to be evolved enough to be > considered " God, " > because if so, then why would we be here to learn things that > supposedly " God " would already know? > > > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Well, " here to learn things " fits much better than " God was bored and decided to screw with me " or " God liked me better than everyone else, so that's why I'm so awesome " or whatever. Either one leads to paranoia. But here to learn things presupposes I have some choice with where I go in life and that there's something positive about that. Also, " faint memories (small bits and pieces) of past lives matches the idea that I came here to learn what I didn't learn then or to correct what I didn't know back then or what I knew and didn't take action on. If I didn't have those memories (some of them kinesthetic that get triggered in specific ways when I'm watching something or reading something, but I don't have any other modalities to complete the memory), then I would think it was horseshit and God just put me here because He was bored and needed someone to screw with. (The other way to create a paranoia pattern is to make one's self important enough that God (whomever that might be) " Needs " me here -- which makes the person who believes that more important than God, at least in their own mind. Some TV preachers are good examples of that particular way to manifest a paranoia.) Anyways, what I'm interested in is how you know that was the " high self " that you experienced? How do you know that it was different from the subconscious and conscious minds being hooked up and in harmony with each other, and how do you know that was specifically YOUR " high self " that you were hooked up to and not " God " or " Higher Intelligence " or " The All That Is " ? For instance, I am, in fact, going back over the videos that cover this topic, and doing the drills. I notice different qualities of thoughts and feelings while doing those drills. I also know there are other types of feelings when someone is " hooked up " with their own energy systems and they are on a path that is correct for them. When I moved to Kansas City, I had a feeling in my second chakra, and I also had other feelings that I might possibly describe now as " rain of blessing " , but I felt hooked up to " God " , as if I were doing what I was supposed to do. That is how I would describe it based on what I believed at that time. Then 6 months later, in Kansas City, I went, " Where the FUCK is God, anyways???? " And I know the first time I was going to go to a seminar to meet Doc, I also had the feelings of " This is what I am supposed to do. " And I was screwed up, but had a sense that I was on the correct path. So is hook up to " High Self " a feeling we get when we are being congruent with our life's purpose? Or is it something else? How do we know it is our own High Self -- ie, " me " , instead of " God " or " Higher Intelligence " or " The All That There Is " ? Is it just a programmed belief? Or is it a kinesthetic feeling that you give that label to? If so, what are the qualities of that feeling? Is it a " Knowing " ? And does it " matter " if the label is correct or not as long as the result is there? Or does the correct label / description make it easier to recreate / reaccess that hook up? Thanks, Jim Loren and Donna <iamone May 21, 2005 11:06 AM Re: Hook-Up To High Self Dear Jim; You have the presupposition that we are here to learn things. How do you know that is what God intended? Also this " old guy " thinks there are as many young pack rats as old ones. Hoarding is not age specific. As one who personally has experienced and continues to consciously experience the low self as well as the high self they were nothing like the presuppositions I had before I experienced them the first time. And they do have all knowledge, are all knowing. Since they are also me, maybe when I experience them I am just " getting " what I already know? My life with them is much easier, more fun I believe than it was trying to judge before the awake experience of them.. Just a thought or so, Loren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 To Greg and Jim; First as I can understand it none of us is objective because we are in a subjective world. We are spiritual beings peeking through the window of these bodies into the physcial realm of subjectivity. Our mind techniques allow us to go into the no time no space, objective world. But we only have whatever frames we use here to interpret the information we bring back. Jim has great questions but from few choices. Replace two words in your post and see how that changes the options. Replace learning each time with " experience " and replace God with Love and see what you think of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Please note I double spaced around further comments than what you printed. If I did wrongly, I apologize. Jim had too many thoughts to answer and I thought sectioning them was effective to the train of thought? Love Ya, Loren - Loren and Donna <iamone Sunday, May 22, 2005 4:36 PM Re: Hook-Up To High Self > To Greg and Jim; > First as I can understand it none of us is objective because we are in a > subjective world. We are spiritual beings peeking through the window of > these bodies into the physcial realm of subjectivity. Our mind techniques > allow us to go into the no time no space, objective world. But we only have > whatever frames we use here to interpret the information we bring back. > Jim has great questions but from few choices. Replace two words in your post > and see how that changes the options. Replace learning each time with > " experience " and replace God with Love and see what you think of it? > - > James R. Knippenberg <erommel > > Sunday, May 22, 2005 1:51 PM > Re: Hook-Up To High Self > > > > > > Well, " here to learn things " fits much better than " God was bored and > decided to screw with me " or " God liked me better than everyone else, so > that's why I'm so awesome " or whatever. Either one leads to paranoia. But > here to learn things presupposes I have some choice with where I go in life > and that there's something positive about that. > > Now if we can just figure out what the questions are? > > > > Also, " faint memories (small bits and pieces) of past lives matches the > idea that I came here to learn what I didn't learn then or to correct what I > didn't know back then or what I knew and didn't take action on. If I didn't > have those memories (some of them kinesthetic that get triggered in specific > ways when I'm watching something or reading something, but I don't have any > other modalities to complete the memory), then I would think it was > horseshit and God just put me here because He was bored and needed someone > to screw with. (The other way to create a paranoia pattern is to make one's > self important enough that God (whomever that might be) " Needs " me here -- > which makes the person who believes that more important than God, at least > in their own mind. Some TV preachers are good examples of that particular > way to manifest a paranoia.) > > > > Anyways, what I'm interested in is how you know that was the " high self " > that you experienced? How do you know that it was different from the > subconscious and conscious minds being hooked up and in harmony with each > other, and how do you know that was specifically YOUR " high self " that you > were hooked up to and not " God " or " Higher Intelligence " or " The All That > Is " ? > > > I agree the fewer suppositions the better. When I first rediscovered the > parts of me we call God/Higher Intelligence/High Self and Low Self/Basic > Self/ subconscious we first went to theta. In a classroom setting we were > then asked to bring up the male then the female however they chose to > appear who were our High Selves, the marriage made in heaven, heavenly pair, > loving parental spirit. What appeared to me was nothing I expected and they > have been with me ever since. They " described " to me their race, when they > lived and on this continent. I was so high from it I did not have to sleep > more than an hour and a half a night for three days. They dress differently > now and then but are still there when ever I go deeply into theta. And I > have learned to sense when they enter me even when I don't " see " them. It > has been so thiry years next July. You must experience it for yourself. I > am able to but tell you the way. > As for Low Self, mine was tricky but on coaxing revealed itself to me. Back > then we thought nothing of looking to the animal kingdom to discover our > carnal nature. I don't see anyone using that approach now. So I won't talk > more of it unless Doc John says go for it. > As my growth has progressed, I sometimes get great RVs of my relatives. When > a great niece gave birth to a great-great niece two years ago I was able not > only to RV the child accurately but her High Self and her Low Self. I have > seen her now and am certain by looks I am correct about the carnal nature as > well as the parental spirits joined with her. I " know " it. I recently pissed > the great niece off telling her she is having a dark haired boy next as it > was months before this was confirmed. He is due soon now. > The three selves are how we describe our spiritual being but are not > separate from us. Low Self and Middle Self can leave at times and death to > the body in their absence may explain ghosts, etc. You know there are many > ghost at old battlefields who were not in the body when it ceased. Anyway, > does some of this help? > > > For instance, I am, in fact, going back over the videos that cover this > topic, and doing the drills. I notice different qualities of thoughts and > feelings while doing those drills. I also know there are other types of > feelings when someone is " hooked up " with their own energy systems and they > are on a path that is correct for them. > > > > When I moved to Kansas City, I had a feeling in my second chakra, and I > also had other feelings that I might possibly describe now as " rain of > blessing " , but I felt hooked up to " God " , as if I were doing what I was > supposed to do. That is how I would describe it based on what I believed at > that time. > > > > Then 6 months later, in Kansas City, I went, " Where the FUCK is God, > anyways???? " > > > Whatever you think God is, it is still just you. God is who we are, where > we are.You can presuppose all you want but that is all we can prove so far > as I know. Yahweh is that which causes to come into being. Who causes your > world to be? The High Self is the highest level anyone (including Jesus) > ever has found so why worry about The All That There Is if all we need is > here, us. When will we mature enough to quit looking somewhere else for what > is within us? Be responsible? > > > And I know the first time I was going to go to a seminar to meet Doc, I > also had the feelings of " This is what I am supposed to do. " And I was > screwed up, but had a sense that I was on the correct path. > > > > So is hook up to " High Self " a feeling we get when we are being congruent > with our life's purpose? Or is it something else? How do we know it is our > own High Self -- ie, " me " , instead of " God " or " Higher Intelligence " or " The > All That There Is " ? Is it just a programmed belief? Or is it a kinesthetic > feeling that you give that label to? If so, what are the qualities of that > feeling? Is it a " Knowing " ? And does it " matter " if the label is correct > or not as long as the result is there? Or does the correct label / > description make it easier to recreate / reaccess that hook up? > > > I don't know if being congruent is necessary. High Self is always there, > only relax enough and be mentally open enough to let them in through the > theta dooway. All of this is really about accepting/trusting ourselves.Out > of time here for now. > With Love, Loren > > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > > > Loren and Donna <iamone > > May 21, 2005 11:06 AM > > > > Re: Hook-Up To High Self > > > > Dear Jim; > > You have the presupposition that we are here to learn things. How do you > > know that is what God intended? > > Also this " old guy " thinks there are as many young pack rats as old ones. > > Hoarding is not age specific. > > As one who personally has experienced and continues to consciously > > experience the low self as well as the high self they were nothing like > the > > presuppositions I had before I experienced them the first time. And they > do > > have all knowledge, are all knowing. Since they are also me, maybe when I > > experience them I am just " getting " what I already know? My life with them > > is much easier, more fun I believe than it was trying to judge before the > > awake experience of them.. > > Just a thought or so, > > Loren > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.