Those who talk about ECOLOGY are attempting to install fear, guilt & shame...

[Guest guest]

--- , " darthon4 " <darthon4 wrote:

> Yep, now that you mention it once you get the skills from

practicing

> the drills you certainly can create thoughtforms for whatever

purpose

> you want and put them where ever you want.

 

Nice.

 

Group, notice one of the Master Keys that Lori uses with virtually

everything, is to shelf her skepticism UNTIL she has done the damn

drills and CAN VERIFY FOR HERSELF what actually occured.

 

Then she compares her past beliefs with her NEW PROVEN EXPERIENCES.

 

COOL!

 

> There was also something that I think you've mentioned to us

> about " ecology " ? Was it something like how we are totally

> responsible for the consequences of what we create, program for,

> etc., etc.? ;-)

>

> Is there a way to tell if something you are thinking of creating

or

> have programmed for will be the best for your evolution?

 

Sure.

 

If YOU do it, whatever " it " is, then it IS SOMETHING NEEDED for your

own personal evolution.

 

Those butt-holes that talk about ecology are stupid asses that are

attempting to install fear, guilt and shame into others because of

THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS AND LIMITING BELIEFS!

 

 

Those who talk about ECOLOGY are attempting to install fear, guilt &

shame...

www.mentaltrainingsecrets.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Doc and all,

 

 

Those butt-holes that talk about ecology are stupid asses that are

attempting to install fear, guilt and shame into others because of

THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS AND LIMITING BELIEFS!

 

 

Those who talk about ECOLOGY are attempting to install fear, guilt &

shame...

www.mentaltrainingsecrets.com

 

Hm, when I run this through the clarity model it comes out pretty bad. When

I RV it I get an angry person responding to a whole bunch of hallucinations

about others intent and meaning mainly based upon fear installed into the

meaning by a third party. Sorry Doc, I don't agree with you this time.

Why, a whole lot of reasons. One, you have talked about ecology and I know

you were NOT installing any of those things. Two, from discussions I have

had with many people that include you I know Donna Eden has similarly talked

about 'ecology' whatever that is and wasn't doing that either. Three, I

recently talked about ecology and commented to allay fear and guilt. I

commented that ecology is directly built into your drills to begin with.

So, did someone mind read a bunch of crap into it when I said that?

Probably, but that is their filters and their problem if they did. And

maybe everyone that I've talked to in this group got it. I'm sure that the

psychologist that I was talking to last night didn't get it and again that's

his problem.

Was what I said about ecology being built in true? Of course it is. Example:

when one does the VAKOG for a desired outcome, one by the positive choices

one makes for one's self will automatically only include that which is

desired. So when they go to level and place this on their time line then

look at the steps to get there...automatically it includes choices leading

to those positive results without even giving any potential pitfalls a

thought avoiding them. They (any potential pitfalls that incorrect choices

might have lead to) are completely out of mind/body/spirit and have no power

and are completely bypassed as if they never even existed.

The law of allowing is built right into the drills. So does this mean a

given ethos or set of limitations are enforced? Yes, the ones you installed

in the visualization when you create your own thought form that are

congruent to a real world outcome. None are forced upon you or anyone else

learning the drill.

This freedom to follow ones' own beliefs whatever those are and still have a

viable tool were actually one of the bragging points I used about the

superiority of Docs skills. Both Saturday night at the seminar and just last

night to another psychologist who was 'concerned' I would be lead to 'evil'

beliefs installed by my friend (in other words beliefs he doesn't agree

with) I told him and I tell all of you that the greatest strength in Docs'

drills is they are designed to dovetail your personal

beliefs/desires/situations to your outcomes without imposing a belief on

you. That it has the added bonus that you do it all and are responsible for

it all is just additional icing on the cake if you ask me.

I commented Saturday night at the seminar that ecology is built right into

the drills. I just gave an example of what I meant three paragraphs back.

Note that my definition of ecology isn't " being a good Christian " or " being

a good Muslim " In fact, good and evil were excluded terms since so many

people have such different and externally imposed definitions of what those

mean that I find it impossible to get what I mean across when I use those

terms.

But then I have this weird nonconformist physical definition for 'good' that

has to do with any event or action that leads to the net gain of the sum

total of reality. Hm, how many new terms to define does that bring up? How

do we quantify that? How does it relate to standard externally enforced

social values? How different does it paint my meaning and usage when one

understands my meaning and intent in those words as compared to the social

standard? So for purposes of this conversation to avoid the externally

imposed dogmatic attached verbal implications I found another way to say it.

I'm sure there are " Butt-Holes " that use the word ecology to install fear

and guilt. Sure, I identify it and move on. Just as some people use the word

security to install fear and disempowerment of others. Any word can be

abused and used to perform these types of actions. It doesn't mean everyone

using a given word is attempting to do that. This is why I disagree this

time Doc. Sorry, I refuse to see you as a member of the set of " stupid

asses that are attempting to install fear, guilt and shame into others

because of

THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS AND LIMITING BELIEFS " .

 

Thanks for all the knowledge and help,

Walter Hurlbut

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clarifying. I never know what to think when I hear the

term " ecology " used except that somehow it rubs me the wrong way.

 

Part of it has to do with my own experience with how, for example,

something like manifesting works for me.

 

When I program it either manifests something or it doesn't. Pretty

simple right? :-)

 

.....and from my experience my programs result in a manifestation far

more often than they don't. So I must be doing it right most of the

time...and when it does manifest its always better, often far better,

than I expected because I leave it open for something better, and I

expect that.

 

Now what REALLY puzzles me is those occasions that something DOESN'T

manifest for me. I am not always certain what it means or why that

happens.

 

I used to think that maybe it meant it was something that my highself

didn't think I needed or thought was not in the best interest for my

evolution. Where did that belief come from??

 

Or....maybe I just simply didn't do something correctly when I

programmed!

 

From what you are saying, if I feel I NEED to create something, then

it really IS something I need to have or to experience for my

evolution.

 

If that's the case, then I think you've just simplified things for me

tremendously!

 

I think that means all I need to do is go back and take a look at the

programs I did for something that didn't manifest for me.

 

Then I can take a look at all the ones that did manifest and compare

what the differences are, and then correct the programs that didn't

work based on the differences I find.

 

From that I can then create an improved model that works for ME for

manifesting. It can't be as simple as that can it?

 

So glad I kept a journal all this time, and used a digital recorder

when I was programming, a lot of the answers I need are probably in

there.

 

And considering all the things I know now...the effects of limiting

beliefs, about fixations and complexes, and how to change or

eliminate them, plus the effects of our bodies energies, and so many

other neat things I've been learning this past year.....If I could

use that in my model how could I use it?

 

Doc, thanks for answering my question and getting me thinking about

this!

 

Lori

 

 

 

, " kahunamaker "

<kahunamaker wrote:

>

(snip)

 

> > Is there a way to tell if something you are thinking of creating

> or

> > have programmed for will be the best for your evolution?

>

> Sure.

>

> If YOU do it, whatever " it " is, then it IS SOMETHING NEEDED for

your

> own personal evolution.

>

>

>

> Those who talk about ECOLOGY are attempting to install fear, guilt

&

> shame...

> www.mentaltrainingsecrets.com

>

[Guest guest]

, " Walter

Hurlbut " <whurlbut wrote:

>

> Hi Doc and all,

>

>

> Those butt-holes that talk about ecology are stupid asses that are

> attempting to install fear, guilt and shame into others because of

> THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS AND LIMITING BELIEFS!

>

>

> Those who talk about ECOLOGY are attempting to install fear, guilt

&

> shame...

> www.mentaltrainingsecrets.com

>

> Hm, when I run this through the clarity model it comes out pretty

bad. When

> I RV it I get an angry person responding to a whole bunch of

hallucinations

> about others intent and meaning mainly based upon fear installed

into the

> meaning by a third party. Sorry Doc, I don't agree with you this

time.

 

You took it out of the context I posted it in.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lori,

This post really struck me.

 

I might have said something like maybe I'm not supposed to have/do that. Now I will investigate more deeply. Maybe I was just not clear enough or ... or ...

 

Thanks for your terrific presentation at the Intensive. I know you will keep up the good work.

Mary

 

 

-

darthon4

Tuesday, February 28, 2006 9:16 PM

Re: Those who talk about ECOLOGY are attempting to install fear, guilt & shame...

Thanks for clarifying. I never know what to think when I hear the term "ecology" used except that somehow it rubs me the wrong way. Part of it has to do with my own experience with how, for example, something like manifesting works for me. When I program it either manifests something or it doesn't. Pretty simple right? :-)

[Guest guest]

Walter -

 

I think ecology is really important - and not as a guilt thing.

 

I've nearly driven myself crazy trying to figure it out (in a

logical, philosophical, non-local universe kind of way) over the past

15 years or so. (I'll spare you the ruminations!) Actually longer,

but the argument has evolved.

 

The best simple formula I keep returning to is:

 

" The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts "

 

(Dostoevsky says in the Underground Man sometimes 2 + 2 = 5)

 

We're all busy with our parts -- can we see the larger formula and

strive to that?

 

Elegance - also comes up.

 

In the mathematical sense of the word.

 

I see it aesthetically -- why are some objects, designs, poems,

simply better than others?

 

Why are some solutions simply more elegant?

 

Is ecology simply comprehending the Meta?

 

Helen

 

 

 

 

 

On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Walter Hurlbut wrote:

 

> Hi Doc and all,

>

>

>

> But then I have this weird nonconformist physical definition for

> 'good' that

> has to do with any event or action that leads to the net gain of

> the sum

> total of reality. Hm, how many new terms to define does that bring

> up? How

> do we quantify that? How does it relate to standard externally

> enforced

> social values? How different does it paint my meaning and usage

> when one

> understands my meaning and intent in those words as compared to the

> social

> standard? So for purposes of this conversation to avoid the externally

> imposed dogmatic attached verbal implications I found another way

> to say it.

> I'm sure there are " Butt-Holes " that use the word ecology to

> install fear

> and guilt. Sure, I identify it and move on. Just as some people use

> the word

> security to install fear and disempowerment of others. Any word can be

> abused and used to perform these types of actions. It doesn't mean

> everyone

> using a given word is attempting to do that. This is why I disagree

> this

> time Doc. Sorry, I refuse to see you as a member of the set of

> " stupid

> asses that are attempting to install fear, guilt and shame into others

> because of

> THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS AND LIMITING BELIEFS " .

>

> Thanks for all the knowledge and help,

> Walter Hurlbut

 

[Guest guest]

, Helen

Driscoll <helen wrote:

>

> Walter -

>

> I think ecology is really important - and not as a guilt thing.

 

Usually those who use that word, are into " judgement " ...

 

....and they don't have a clue about one of the PRIMARY LAWS of the

Universe, " the Law of Allowing " .

 

Please note, it's not the Law of Accepting. That again is

judgemental from a negative viewpoint.

 

And, " ecology " never takes into account another one of the PRIMARY

LAWS of the Universe, " the Law of Cause and Effect " .

 

Think long term.

 

Amilius, when he first was incarnated as Adam, was a loser. He

blamed Eve for his behavior of eating the apple from the forbidden

tree of wisdom. That's living at " effect " . Not a productive way to live.

 

God kicked them both out of Eden.

 

Many life times later, re-incarnated as Joshua, he was a " get shit

done " type of man that lead a ferocious Jihad to great success. A

war lord of great skill and determination...

 

....and, karmically, he did over-do that " hanging of kings " a bit, so he build up

some negative karma.

 

(Don't we all?)

 

Even later yet (I'm attempting to keep this story brief), he came as

Jesus the Christ...and accomplished even more, in a different realm

of productivity.

 

(not the current accepted view of the dumbed down Christianity).

 

Too bad.

 

So, what is ecology?

 

Dr. John M. La Tourreatte

[Guest guest]

Hi Helen,

 

Thank you. I think maybe ecology has been used for too many things and there

is a better phrase. I was discussing this with Doc just yesterday. There is

a very good reason for choosing another approach as everything grows and

there is a phrase that is more fitting with that than the dynamic stationary

state implied in ecology.

 

The math I implied in my definitions part on good/evil is actually quite

complex and requires an understanding of operators and their matrix elements

for creation and annihilation operators. I was actually writing it as a sort

of Rosetta stone for a certain scientist to translate a previous

conversation as when I am hungry and tired I tend not to take the time to

explain in a fashion involving terms of common meaning and go straight to

simplistic language which I have assigned my own very complicated meaning

too that is not the norm.

 

Further, I wrote the entire post here while I was extremely tired and upon

rereading it, I when rested I wished I had never written it. I was not in a

normal 'Walter' state and so I apologized to all concerned after rereading

it.

 

The statement you make about the whole being greater than the sum of the

parts is indeed a very good one and is actually fitting and appropriate to

what I was alluding to in the 'Rosetta stone'. I suspect we have done

similar analytic approaches and the intuitive approach is embodied in your

statement of elegance I suspect. We do seem to be on similar wavelengths

here.

 

After talking with Doc, I think I would like to hear more about " personal

evolution " such as where it started as a process and how it works today just

to name two aspects.

 

I think there is something deeper yet...the process of the sum becoming

greater than its parts has a meaning too and such a Lobachevsky hyperbolic

space-time like thing as the growth of system from sum of parts to greater

than sum of parts might not be best described by a dynamic equilibrium term

like ecology. So I would like to ask Doc to please continue on the

explanation of " personal evolution " as this seems more fitting to me in this

more rested state.

 

Thanks,

 

Walter Hurlbut

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Helen

Driscoll

Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:26 PM

 

Re: Those who talk about ECOLOGY

are attempting to install fear, guilt & shame...

 

Walter -

 

I think ecology is really important - and not as a guilt thing.

 

I've nearly driven myself crazy trying to figure it out (in a

logical, philosophical, non-local universe kind of way) over the past

15 years or so. (I'll spare you the ruminations!) Actually longer,

but the argument has evolved.

 

The best simple formula I keep returning to is:

 

" The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts "

 

(Dostoevsky says in the Underground Man sometimes 2 + 2 = 5)

 

We're all busy with our parts -- can we see the larger formula and

strive to that?

 

Elegance - also comes up.

 

In the mathematical sense of the word.

 

I see it aesthetically -- why are some objects, designs, poems,

simply better than others?

 

Why are some solutions simply more elegant?

 

Is ecology simply comprehending the Meta?

 

Helen

 

 

 

 

 

On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Walter Hurlbut wrote:

 

> Hi Doc and all,

>

>

>

> But then I have this weird nonconformist physical definition for

> 'good' that

> has to do with any event or action that leads to the net gain of

> the sum

> total of reality. Hm, how many new terms to define does that bring

> up? How

> do we quantify that? How does it relate to standard externally

> enforced

> social values? How different does it paint my meaning and usage

> when one

> understands my meaning and intent in those words as compared to the

> social

> standard? So for purposes of this conversation to avoid the externally

> imposed dogmatic attached verbal implications I found another way

> to say it.

> I'm sure there are " Butt-Holes " that use the word ecology to

> install fear

> and guilt. Sure, I identify it and move on. Just as some people use

> the word

> security to install fear and disempowerment of others. Any word can be

> abused and used to perform these types of actions. It doesn't mean

> everyone

> using a given word is attempting to do that. This is why I disagree

> this

> time Doc. Sorry, I refuse to see you as a member of the set of

> " stupid

> asses that are attempting to install fear, guilt and shame into others

> because of

> THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS AND LIMITING BELIEFS " .

>

> Thanks for all the knowledge and help,

> Walter Hurlbut

 

[Guest guest]

--- Helen Driscoll <helen wrote:

>

> Is ecology simply comprehending the Meta?

 

After all ... what is a Meta for?

 

--Vince

 

http://huna-ohana.com