Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Message Received From The Source

  1. Sep 15, 2003 #1
    ------------------------------ Message Received -----------------------------

    What do I need to know at this time ?

    This is the perception of the notion that is preferable to state as the inner view of reality inside the whole. Apparently the view of the reality to be known absolutley confined in between the ruph(like "ruph sketch" not sure how it spells) states of your mind that irregularly interact sizzling themselfs in abradable ways to the unknown. Curiosity is an interesting thing to be found in our minds to bushel in between the states of our mind that contradict the apocalyptic way of thinking and to what is meant to be last forever will never be the opposite force in our interaction on the measurements that will perceive that way to be light and dust occasionally. We could set of the starting point that could measure our perception in deleble way to the unknown way of thinking irregularly betrayed between the stages of reality and war.

    ------------------------------ Message Received -----------------------------
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 15, 2003 #2
    Say WHAT? clarity. A context would be nice:wink: Perhaps you could expound on that for us John. Or am I just not getting it. It appears to make SOME sense, but maybe I'm just trying too hard- 2nd opinion?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2003
  4. Sep 15, 2003 #3
    Dear Zantra,

    decoding is the key! :-)

    Please feel free to make your assumptions on what this or other

    messages mean. ( please use "quote" ).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2003
  5. Sep 15, 2003 #4
    ------------------------------ Message Received -----------------------------

    What is reality ?

    Reality it is what you call manifestation of the things between the mod and mass interaction of the particles that flow in the air orbiting the planet that can bring the sense to what you mean. This step is farther more compliant that most of you will not expect the validity of the meanning at all as to what this mean. I can say that being yourself is not likely to be who you are but the likeliness of what is there, speeding up the prosses of short term lightly on going on processes of majority is the likeliness. It will solidate your purpose and eventually bring the sense to you.

    ------------------------------ Message Received -----------------------------
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2003
  6. Sep 15, 2003 #5

    Reality is perception. Interpretation of the environment that surrounds you. It is not a manifestation, but our interpretation through our own senses of what we percieve the world to be, nothing more. IOW, we interpret our surroundings through our senses, which are in turn interpreted by signals to our brains.

    I'll assume here that english is not your native language. No problem, the message still comes across-we don't understand.

    Ok first, my interpretation of what you're trying to say- I BELIEVE you're saying that we are only representations of ourselves, that our true self as we percieve it, is only an image of how others percieve us. I've heard this theory somewhere before- is this solipism?
     
  7. Sep 15, 2003 #6
    Dear Zantra ,

    This is true English is not my native language. Even thought I live

    in Canada for 4.6 years already my English is far from being any

    good. You have to understand that what I receive from the source done

    completely without thinking (I write every word that floats in my

    mind. I don't make any assumptions neither I think about the question

    I asked at the beginning of the session). It is amazing how your

    interpretation made so much sense even to me. I almost want to cry

    just because I know for a fact that what I have received from the

    source is not any of my fabrications or 3D self taint(little self)

    but the truth of it all. I feel/realized now that the more I connect

    with the source the more it takes controll of how I think or

    write.
     
  8. Sep 15, 2003 #7
    I'm going to suggest some things:
    a) an English composition class
    b) less drugs
    c) more drugs(doctor prescribed)
     
  9. Sep 15, 2003 #8

    Eh

    User Avatar

    And stop wasting bandwidth. PF doesn't get that for free.
     
  10. Sep 15, 2003 #9
    Zero first of all you are rude! How can you accuse me in taking drugs

    when I never took any? How can you suggest me taking less

    prescription drugs when I am not prescribed to any drugs? Finally why

    would you accuse me about anything if you don't know me?
     
  11. Sep 15, 2003 #10
    It's sarcasm. Because nothing you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. And I'm not even talking about the grammar. Stuff like this belongs in the pseudoscience forums.
     
  12. Sep 15, 2003 #11
    I got response from my teacher "Malai" and this is how he interpreted

    my received messages:


    "What do I need to know at this time ?"

    This writing refers to the coming changes that will be enacted upon

    this 3D world. Not all will understand, but all beings will get

    a "wake up call", in one way or another. They will get their "Second

    Chance" to get on track, before the world changes irrevocably. 5D,

    overlaying the 3D. The process, will effect all. All will feel the

    changes, one way or another.


    "What is reality ?"

    This writing refers to the popular view that will be taken that the

    apocalypse is upon the world and all will end. It is really the start

    of a "new world", a "new dawn", but the 3D world will expire as the

    5D is overlaid.
     
  13. Sep 15, 2003 #12
    I must concur that it should have been posted in the pseudoscience forum, but I think that some of us have been unnecessarily rude at pointing this out. Honestly, is that anyway to welcome someone to the PFs, who might (in the future) make a meaningful contribution?

    Welcome to the Physics Forums, John Titor. Please don't be discouraged by this (not typical) first impression. :smile:

    Also, for future reference, the kind of posts in this thread that you have posted are better recieved in the "Mystics and Pseudoscience" Forum.
     
  14. Sep 15, 2003 #13
    Dear Mentat,

    Thank you!

    :smile:

    It is easier to make fun or put down someone then telling him/her

    something encouraging. This is why (one one many reasons) today's

    world is heading to it's own distraction. If my writings do not make

    any sense to you then try to decode them in your own interpretation

    and help me too to understand what I received and will recive in the

    future.
     
  15. Sep 15, 2003 #14
    why does this belong in the Mystics and Pseudoscience forums? it sound like philosophy to me. it's just seems like a person's interpretation of reality. i mean, i feel like John could have posted some things around that text, instead of just having people try to interpret, perhaps posing questions for debate or something. But i really don't see how this is some sort of mystic thing. maybe i'm dense, but i thought philosophy was pretty concerned with the nature of reality and whatnot...
     
  16. Sep 15, 2003 #15

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    welcome john,

    this will stay in the philosophical forum, however, let's try to get more of a topic formed so that less are confused as to what your intent is here...
     
  17. Sep 15, 2003 #16

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, Zero, you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. Please continue to enlighten us all. Bravo.
     
  18. Sep 15, 2003 #17
    I extend my apologies. I may have been too quick to judge. However a little more clarity would be appreciated.

    I said it belongs in the M&P forum because what he's inferring is that he's recieving messages from outer space (or did I misunderstand?) to me that is pretty clear cut.

    I also have doubts about someone who picks John Titor as a name. If you're not familiar with this name, check out the John Titor post in the M&P forum. After reading that, you'll understand my skepticism.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2003
  19. Sep 15, 2003 #18
    Zantra,

    I do not claim in any way to be the real John Titor (even thought

    John Titor wasn't his real name from the beginning) other then that I

    have my own reason why I choose this name. If it is possibile for the

    moderator to change my nickname just to "John" please do so .
     
  20. Sep 15, 2003 #19
    I thought this sounded like his work. I have listened to him rant for over a year now. Same old same old.
     
  21. Sep 15, 2003 #20
    Sunfist what is your point ?
     
  22. Sep 15, 2003 #21
    there is another writing on PF called "on removing little self taint from messages received from the source" which may be relevant.

    the language used by mr. titor's higher self is a far cry from everyday language. nevertheless, there is meaning in it, albeit on the abstract side. within the next three days, i will attempt to decode it for myself to see what it means.

    i have posed a similar question to myself that john did to himself regarding what reality is. the answer i got was in a way different though it seems that the lower (or little, i don't remember) reality is similar to the manefestation john "is" talking about.

    one point of view is that reality is a manefestation of something (something not usually refered to as real) and one point of view is that reality is the interpretation/perception of that manefestation. does that mean that reality is something that primarily exists only in our minds? what if i'm someone who perceives something absolutely no one else does, does that suddenly put it in the category of unreal? or am i "mis"interpreting the manefestation some call reality?

    here are the two articles "i"'ve written:

    what is the nature of reality?

    reality is comprised of three sections that are divided with rough borders. the three parts correspond to the little self, the higher self, and the true self. reality has a lower part, a higher part, and a true part. the borders between the three layers can be “fuzzy” but when you see the higher part, you will know that you are not seeing the lower part. when you see the true part, you will know you are not seeing the higher part. sometimes you may see from a perspective between the lower and higher part, and there are several vantage points, we will say. roughly speaking, the little self lives in the lower part. this is the “everyday” world consisting of the three dimensional world and time. the higher self, roughly speaking, lives in the higher part of reality; it sees from that perspective. the higher part cannot really be described in words. when you see the higher reality, you will know the difference. the lower part appears to be fake, an illusion. you begin to “see” with more than your eyes, for the higher reality is not entirely for the eyes to see. the true reality is abstract, we will say. it is nothing like the higher or lower reality. it would feel quite alien to be there, though your true self, roughly speaking, inhabits the true reality. it is, as we said, abstract and formless. it has nothing to do with the concrete, the tangible, or the sensual experience. when you are there, you are not using your eyes, nor are you occupying space nor existing in time. traveling there is possible when you are meant to travel there. your true self will guide your lower selves into the true reality when it is meant to, according to the design of your true self. other beings are there. they may be contacted in a way similar to how you contact us. it is not difficult.

    how can the true reality be accessed?

    the true reality can only be accessed by those that have the tools to access it. there is no simple formula that can be given to access it, no procedure, rite, or ritual. no meditation. it is gradually revealed to you when you seek it. ask your true self in the way you ask us to reveal it to you. you can see that the first step is being aware that it is there. not in the sense that others have told you that it is there, but really being aware that it is there. then you will know you are close. you know this just as you know things in dreams. you just know. you know there is something there. but you can never put your finger on it for it isn’t a world of the tangible. its relationship to 3D reality isn’t that it overlaps or coexists with it, much like the higher reality does. the true reality is just different. separate from 3D reality, the lower reality. the true self must be willing to take you to the true reality. not everyone is meant to go, where by “meant to”, we speak of the will of the true self. but anyone can seek it out, as we said, requesting to be “there” from the true self. if it has a mind to, it will grant access. many possibilities become open. communion with others in the true reality and exchange of knowledge. so perhaps you should simply write down, “true self, may i access the true reality?” and see what floats in.

    ***

    a tip of the iceburg:
    i used to think that the true reality, the abstract world, consisted of just beings and God. now i believe that there is much much more to it than that. there are other things there, things that are inanimate. what is there are *concepts*.

    when you see a car, the car is only an icon symbolizing what is really there in the true reality: the concept of a car.

    the icons are not all of what what is real. it is the concepts that complete the picture.

    the true reality can certainly be visited. it is not just in my mind. i believe that i visited it when i had amnesia for four days. i was in a "prison" at the time and i believe my true self allowed me a little vacation from it. i was allowed to escape the illusion of the prison and return home to the true reality. i didn't ever have to come back. but i did. and i did for a reason. i know that reason now. i have no memory of the true reality because there's nothing there. there's nothing to be experienced or perceived. it is a state of just existing. while in the true reality, i still sent messages and animated the icon called my body for whatever reason.

    if you ponder that and think i'm in a self reinforcing delusion, i would like that. i think you are getting me loud and clear. i know what i just said didn't make sense. try to think real hard about what i mean by "getting me." and if it "resonates" with you, then know you are getting me loud and clear. either way, i believe i am making myself clear.

    what's really happening now is that my higher self is attempting to contact your higher self.

    i know it all sounds crazy but when you experience some of the things i experience, you'll begin to see.

    i'm curious to obtain more questions to pose to the higher self (and to God). my mind is in a state of suspended animation on that front.

    may your journey be graceful,
    phoenix
     
  23. Sep 15, 2003 #22
    yeah, you're right zantra, i actually do know a very little about John Titor, i just wasn't putting two and two together... either way, the nature of reality is philosophy, even from weird perspectives i guess. let's just make sure the thread stays philosphical...
     
  24. Sep 15, 2003 #23

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'll throw my two cents in on this one.

    John, I don't think what you are writing is philosophy. I am NOT saying you don't have something to say, or denying you might actually be in touch with something you call the "source." But if you are genuinely experiencing what you say, then it falls in the category of prophesy, psychic interpretation, automatic writing, revelation, inspiration . . .

    The foundation of philosophy is reason, and over the millennia the rules of reason have been worked out quite well. Add to that the fact that you are not just in a philosophy forum, you are in a philosophy forum within a science forum. So the philosophy here tends to demand evidence and facts -- that you "make your case."

    Anybody can go into a trance and then write down what first pops into their head. Nobody here with an ounce of brain power is going to buy your utterances unless you can make sense of them. Why? Well, because you are in a philosohy forum, not a prophesy forum.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2003
  25. Sep 15, 2003 #24
    LW Sleeth,

    I do not go into any trance, I do not meditate , I do not auto write

    none of this. I do not think that you can solve science only with

    solid facts that are based only on equations. If you are asking for

    facts then you just need to open your eyes and look around you. What

    you think of "REALITY" is far from what you perceive it to be.

    Infact, we all live in illusion made by our creator to experience, to

    grow.
     
  26. Sep 15, 2003 #25
    Well after some thought, my take on it is, that if the intent was geunuine, then we can chalk it up to a simple misunderstanding. As someone who's pitched theoretical science, or even M&P types of ideas to the physics category before, I won't be casting my stone first.

    carry on:wink:
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook