1. Val Valerian - Matrix Series - I thru IV CC torrent description, click at download link. Free Download Val Valerian - Matrix Series - I thru IV CC with a link at Picktorrent is the largest BitTorrent search engine on the net with millions of torrents.
2. Re: Val Valerian Matrix Series It seems some people doesn't like when others are trying to be helpful. I've posted a reply for explaining how to use the torrent website.
3. VAL VALERIAN MATRIX SERIES PDF - 10 Nov 2 Valdamar Valerian/MATRIX V - Quest of the Spirit - The Ultimate Frontier - The Code to the Matrix 3 Valdamar Valerian/MATRIX V - Quest of. TUTTOLIBRI EPUB DOWNLOAD. Compare the story to val valerian matrix series work of Val Valerian and others. That’s the percentage who are required not to get.
4. If you are interested in this subject I think a better read than Matrix V would be. The Code to the Matrix Please download it for free.
5. Matrix V, by an anonymous author, is one such publication (actually, the Matrix V material consists of three books in a series, and Matrix VI is now out as well). Edited and privately published by Val Valerian who runs the Leading Edge International Research Group at www.trufax.org, the Matrix V material is billed as 'Information for Very.
6. Matrix II: The Abduction and Manipulation of Humans Using Advanced Technology [Valdamar Valerian] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping. Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Theory and Application (MIT Lincoln Laboratory Series). Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

During the past few days of thinking, of reading, of surfing the net, I realized that I have to comment on more than just Richard Hoagland or Tom Bearden. Here I will make several comments on what I have found in Val Valerian's 'Matrix III.'

Matrix V, by an anonymous author, is one such publication (actually, the Matrix V material consists of three books in a series, and Matrix VI is now out as well). Edited and privately published by Val Valerian who runs the Leading Edge International Research Group at www.trufax.org, the Matrix V material is billed as 'Information for Very.

Without beating around the bush, let me just say that what I have found is so ridiculous that I ask myself again and again: 'Who is really behind the propagation of all this nonsense?' 'Whose interest does it serve?'

In the end, it seems to me that the source must be the same as that which is behind Richard Hoagland.

Who is it?

I don't know.

The reader who is taken in by this kind of thing can legitimately ask: How do I know it is nonsense? How can I say that it is really that bad? How do I know it is not my inability to understand such 'lofty concepts?' Or, that it is not my 'Lack of imagination' or lack of good will?

For a long time, (over three years), I was open enough to think that the books by Val Valerian contained some genuine information from genuine and well-informed sources. I could even see, here and there, some things that corresponded to what I knew was true. But recently, upon a more detailed examination, this has changed because I have now come face to face with evident and elementary signs of disinformation.

Here are some striking examples: on page 344 we find a couple of mathematical formulas that make no sense at all. In fact, they look like a very bad joke.

(3) sum_i mu_i 1

...with a comment 'The sum of all created ANTE-MATTER and Matter is always equal to UNITY=1, not 0, zero.' This is nonsense since number one, 1, is a pure number. It has no physical dimension.

Saying that the sum of matter is equal to 1 is as silly as saying: The sum of all my money is 1. 1 WHAT? One dollar? One hundred dollars? Or 1 cent? Or 1 million? Or one Visa Card? Or one hope to have more money?

Then we have the next formula:

(4) sum_i E_i = E_u 1

Then we have

(5) sum_i=E_u<< 0

...with a comment: 'The sum of the Parts is always less than the whole.' As we know from the above that the sum is 1, it follows now that 1 is less than zero.

Nonsense!

While from the next formula:

E_u1infinity

E_U = m c^2 c^2

Well, it is evident to me that the author has never really taken any serious physics courses, otherwise he would not make such nonsensical statements. The speed of light is a dimensional quantity. It is not just a number, like 1 or 20 or 20 000 or whatever.

We must also say in which UNITS it is expressed: miles per hour? miles per second? inches per year?

For any choice of units we have a different value. One mile and one inch - they are both ONES, but they have a different content.

Therefore, because speed (of light, in our case) is a dimensional quantity, you canot simply replace c to the 2nd power by c to 4th power in formula, because these two have different physical dimensions!

I believe that elements of 'dimensional analysis' are taught in high schools - that was at least the case with me....

What can we conclude from this?

1. The Author of these formulas has not learned the rudiments of dimensional analysis, thus he cannot really understand how to write sensible physics formulas. If he took high school physics, he wasn't paying attention.

2. The source of the information presented on these pages of the Matrix III book is certainly not a 'well informed insider' or 'very well informed alien' either! The source of these pages is either the pure grandiose imagination of the author, or the pure imagination of someone else, or deliberate disinformation.

Now that we have a basis on which to make some deductions about the source, we can proceed to more 'advanced' parts of the material. You see, when errors are as easy as those above - they are easily detectable by even a bright high-school graduate, because they are not using sophisticated terminology. But on some of Matrix III pages we do find such sophisticated concepts. So let me comment on some of them, and then let me try to draw some conclusions.

But before doing that let me point out that this is the very same kind of disinformation I have found in Bruce Cathie's writings. In 'Anti-Gravity and the World Grid', Edited by David Hatcher Childress, we have a contribution 'Mathematics of the World Grid' by Bruce L. Cathie, and on p. 97 of this paper we find an 'improved Einstein formula', called 'Harmonic equation 1':

E=(c + sqrt(1/c))*c^2

Here, as in the case of 'Matrix III' discussed above, the author does not know, or has forgotten, that velocity is not just a number, that it has a physical dimension of LENGTH/TIME and, therefore, you cannot simply add c to sqrt(1/c), and you can not replace c^2 by c^3 in the Einstein formula!

The formula is nonsense!

Worse than this, it is not even a 'wrong' formula. You see, with a wrong formula, you could still discuss how it is wrong, where it is wrong, or in which circumstanmces it can possibly be partly true. But you can't do that with a nonsensical formula. This formula must have been typed by one of those thousand monkeys in their 4 billion year task of composing the Encyclopedia Brittanica!

Back to 'Matrix III' and the more 'advanced' terms that appear there:

It is somewhat strange that on p. 332 the author (VV?) also has 'Earth's Power Grid Vortex' - but he is using more advanced terms than Bruce Cathie... Backing up to p. 313 of Matrix III, we find 'Definition of Terms in Relativistic Physics.' It starts with tensors; let me quote: 'Tensors (literal) Multi-dimensional, multicomponent force having magnitude and direction, representing a complex state of Forces, Fields, Mass, Energy, Flow, Stress, etc. The states of rest, motion and the vibrations inherent in a system can be completely described by Tensors.'

Is there any sense in the above definition? Does the author understand what he is talking about?

I don't think so, because it is not true that tensors have magnitude and direction!

That is true about vectors, which are very particular kinds of tensors (and there is a separate entry for them few lines below), but that is not true about tensors in general. Tensors do not have a direction, and also the concept of a 'magnitude' of a tensor is undefined.

By the way, even for a vector the concept of a 'magnitude' is well defined only when these are vectors in a space equipped with a positive defined scalar product - but not in a general vector (or affine space). Therefore we conclude that the author does not understand what a tensor is.

So, if he does not understand it, why is he using it?

I do not know! One possibility that comes to my mind is that he has read it somewhere and he is repeating it without understanding. Another possibility is that somebody has given him this material for the purpose of deliberate disinformation.

But who could it be and why would they do it?

Your guess is as good as mine!

Now, let us skip 'vector' and go to 'spinor.' We find here: 'Spinor: a mathematical entity mostly used in quantum mechanics describing a spin having only two values, such as (+ - or up/down) for electrons, protons, neutrons. A spinor is present in discussions of relativistic light cones.'

Is that correct?

First of all, when physicists talk about spinors, they do not necessarily mean objects that have only two values. Spinors are objects carrying half-integer spin. They may have two values (for spin 1/2), but they may have more (2s+1) values for spin s. So the author of this definition has a rather narrow perspective and/or incomplete knowledge. But we then we find that spinors are present in discussions of relativistic light cones.

Is THAT true?

Well, first of all spinors do not have to be present in discussions of these cones. Relativistic light cones were discussed by Minkowski and Einstein long before spinors entered into physics. It was Roger Penrose who pioneered the use of spinors in discussions of light cones.

Thus we conclude that the author either has talked to Penrose or has read a paper or a book by Penrose, but clearly without understanding, because you cannot really understand spinors if you are not able to understand vectors and tensors.

Let us go to 'twistor.' Here is what we find: 'Twistor: A generalized spinor, and a mathematical entity used to represent curved space geometrically. Twistors are coordinates of spinor-space....'

Here again we see a touch of Roger Penrose. But are twistors 'geometrical quantities used to represent curved space geometrically?'

The answer is: sometimes, perhaps, but only in signature (+++,-), certainly not for general curved spaces, and not in arbitrary dimensions.

Thus again we see that the author is using terms that he does not understand.

Why would he do it? To impress the reader? Or to disinform?

Go to: Critical Note on Tom Bearden and Richard Hoagland - NOTES on AIAS

Go to: Val Valerian, O.H. KRLL, and the Matrix Material

Welcome to current version of the Leading Edge International Research Group website, which has had quite a varied history and evolution over the years since it began in 1998 (See internet archives). For more than 28 years, since 1987, we have conducted explorations and analyses of experiential reality at various levels and have published books (primarily the Matrix book series (the meme 'Matrix' began with us in 1987) and the Leading Edge International Research Journal (150 months) which detailed ongoing findings. The production of various books began in 1988 with 'The Matrix: Understanding Planetary Power Structures', followed by other volumes over the years that were the result of the examination of various major experiential dynamics in civilization, taking into consideration what had been discovered previously. From 1988 to 1998, all of our research was consolidated into these books and publications, which were available to researchers worldwide. From 1999 on, there was a focus on the nature of higher reality, which yielded the Matrix 5 series, beginning with 'The Quest of the Spirit - The Ultimate Frontier', through the use of out-of-body experience and exploration on advanced levels of reality. After 22 years, we stopped publishing books in 2011, and our focus then turned exclusively to managing the Leading Edge Research Journal Online (below) which began in 2006 as a conceptually expanded online reincarnation of the LE Research Journal, as well as the continued exploration of higher dynamics of the context of our existence. We also simplified this main page for the site.

Leading Edge International Research Journal Online

• If you have a PC (or Android with Opera Mini android browser), this is the ultimate way to stay informed about what is happening. For more than a decade, The LE Journal Online has been the best evaluative tool available for the astute 'observer', one who is a non-participant in events but takes notes and evaluates, who wishes to look much deeper at developing events and situations in order to see the roots of ongoing issues and dynamics. Articles are viewable through the Printfriendly® proxy, which largely eliminates ads, cookies and unnecessary bells and whistles, and has options to enlarge text size for those who need help reading, as well as printing, creating a PDF or emailing the article, making the experience safer and the time more productive. Extensive archives provide the opportunity for subscribers to do deeper research.

•Typically more than 1300+ news articles, videos and other items from 100+ sources are reviewed daily, (~30,000+ items a month, requiring ~200 hours) allowing the selection and, after analysis and relational aggregation, presentation of the most informative, relevant ongoing distillationwhich reflects significant changes in 18 different categories (see left, below) which encompass all the changing dynamics on and off the planet. Furthermore, it embodies 'relational analysis' of ongoing dynamics which uncovers latent information and info relationships not usually realized. Having a eidetic memory for events and a creative drive to do this makes the website indispensable. We would enjoy your support. Try it - you'll love it. Check out the comments from subscribers below.

Afterlife - Take Me Inside

Transitional Materials for Those Moving Beyond The Game

This is essentially what we have discovered, after decades, when all is said and done:

UP

Introductory Primer Based On Advanced Experiential Knowledge and Observations
by Val Valerian
'Who' Are You? What is Your Nature? Why Are You Here?
What is Your Unique Path? What Does It All Really Mean?

The Real Matrix: Above and Beyond
Introduction to Matrix 5: Quest Of The Spirit - The Ultimate Frontier, by Val Valerian

'As you pursue the nature ofreality you will find that there are fewer and fewer
people that you can talk to. And the more you advance, the more you will be tested.'

Experience Outside The Physical Body: Toward Our Natural State of Being
The ability and experience of this nature is not something everyone can do,or be successful with
, unless it happens to be part of your existing path and incarnationalexperience. Everyone has
incarnations which are involved with this, at one time or another in ourexperience.

The works of these authors willgive you and starting point, if this is part of your path:
Worksof Robert Monroe
'Journeys Out of the Body', ' Far Journeys', ' Ultimate Journey'
Worksof William Buhlman
'Adventures Beyond the Body: How to Experience Out-of-Body Travel'
Worksof Robert Peterson
'Lessons Out of the Body: A Journal of Spiritual Growth and Out-of-Body Travel',
and 'Out-of-Body Experiences: How to Have Them and What to Expect'
Worksof Jurgen Ziewe
'Multidimensional Man: Astral Travel And Life After Death',
and 'Vistas of Infinity - How to Enjoy Life When You Are Dead'

Considerthat among the authors above, only Monroe had an accurate grasp of the context,
although not as much as we know today with the publication of the Matrix Vproject.

Exploring Larger Realities &Context: The Matrix V Project


UP
(2000-2017)

The Matrix 5 Project, underwayfor 17 years, embodies a collection of the most advanced material we have realizedafter a 28 year period of investigation and research geared toward peeling backthe layers of reality, in order to acquire an accurate context relative to ourexistence and experience -- something that cannot be done on that scale fromwithin the frame of reference, but outside of it. By definition it would not besomething that most would understand, coming from a strictly culturalperspective. The specific title is: 'Information for Very Advanced, Dominant and Final 3rd Density Incarnations (From the Perspective of a Final 3rd Density Incarnation)'.The material is NOT written for the general public, but for those with advanced thought patterns and interestswho resonate along those lines. It details understandings about the actual existential context in which all beings exist and have their experiences, and has produced a continuing commentary with an ever-increasing knowledge base resulting from experiential observations, not from non-experiential belief systems, using a time-tested dynamic of exploration (out of body travel) shared by many people who have thoseabilities. Matrix 5, starting with Quest of the Spirit - The UltimateFrontier, is the ultimate self-help material.

The goal of the Matrix V project is to unleash your individuality and assist you in rediscovering who you reallyare. It is about providing the keys necessary for those who need them to spiral out and graduate from the Game.The material was always meant for those with very advanced incarnational perspectives which not only take into account the larger reality we live in, but the why and how of it all, based on experiential activities of a very high order over a period of time. The first three volumes of the Matrix 5 project were available in print until 2011: Matrix V Quest of the Spirit - The Ultimate Frontier, 3rd (Gold) Edition, 2003; Matrix V Gold Edition Volume Two, The Graduation Key, 2004, and Matrix V Gold Edition Volume Three, The Journey,2005, and these comprised the initial three- volume 1,163 page Matrix V Trilogy, which contained 606 descriptive segments of material and 560 Questions and Answers about the material, written by an Author who underwent12 years of shaman training, went to the Monroe Institute, and has achieved a vast amount of very very unique first hand observational experience which far exceeds the norm. He relates the nature of the larger context of reality and the nature of what all individuals (and the planet) are going through at this time. It eventually turned out that the implications of theproject far exceeded anything that anyone could ever have imagined.

The main thrust and examination of theoriginal Matrix V Trilogy was an examination of the nature of the Higher Self, and incarnational 3rd density experience. In 2005, after publication ofthe third volume, segments continued online and constituted the start of Matrix 5 Volume 4 'Endgame', which covered 9 years, from Sept 2005 to January2014. After about a year break (everything inthe final analysis boils down to a matter of 'timing'), more segments began to be written, corresponding an urging from a higher level, and Matrix 5 Volume 5, 'The Gathering', began in March 2015 and was complete by 25 July2017. If youare a subscriber to Leading Edge Journal Online, you have a special Matrix 5 panelto access material from earlier volumes and basic explanations of elements ofthe context, to begin with, which is useful because that's the observationalperspective of the website. As of August 31, 2017, the entire body of work untilJuly 27, 2017, all volumes, are at the library on Focus 27, available tocountless individuals.

A summary, with selectsegments from the first three printed volumes, is on the LE Online Journal and explains the perspective, terms and definitions, and then perhaps what is discussed in the later online volumes will make more sense conceptually.

A Few Points To Keep in Mind At This Point:

Remember: 'In observer status, you do not move against the Game, but you most definitely can point out the Game's mechanics to other interested observers. Share what you see. Remember, you don't escape by fighting the Game, but by removing yourself from it. Remember what the word 'observer' means - a non-participant in events, but someone who takes note and evaluates.' -M5V1

'The focus on external power giveaways is important to the Game. You must give your power away to appease the Game. As long as your power is given away, you cannot discover who you really are.'

'YourHigher Self allows freedom of choice here as learning experiences.You won't make a choice that will cancel any experience that yourHigher Self requires, but there is plenty of latitude in 'other'experiences. The more Advanced you become is due to how you handled decisionsfor your incarnation. You WILL, for example, have to experience being BOTHpolarities. Without those experiences, you won't appreciateBalance.'

'Balance OBSERVES the Game and points out interesting facets of it, but does not call for actions against it.'

'The Law of Allowance says that Light-siders must be free to be what they are, just as are Dark-siders. This is part of the Game. Light-siders do not follow this law and neither do Dark-siders. This is a law with Balance at its root and Balance is what BOTH polarities dislike. There is no right or wrong, just different experience, BUT the bestchoices are made with greater information, so you are less likely to be suckered in. As with everything else, by the time you reach VERY Advanced stages, things will be made clearer to you. '

A daily selection of Matrix 5 material is presented below:(A good daily reminder of the reality behind your daily experiences)

Observations on Static Cultural Reality Models
by Denise Breton and Christopher Largent
Authors of The Paradigm Conspiracy 1988

UP

The Control Paradigm Posing as a 'Philosophy'

The dumbing down - becoming less than who we are - brings us face to face with one of the control paradigm's most powerful devices for achieving control. The control paradigm presents itself as a 'philosophy', as if it's innocently telling us what's what. It even insists that its mechanistic, materialistic, control-measured picture of reality depicts the 'real world' and tells us how to be practical in the world of facts and things, dogs eating dogs and sharks eating whatever. The more our reality can be reduced to objects, this 'philosophy' tells us, and the less we trouble ourselves with ideas, values and other intangibles, the more we understand the 'realities' of the control universe. Adopting this philosophy as 'the most practical way to maximize our personal sphere of control', we don't notice that we're made controllable in the process. To 'buy into' the 'philosophy' is to become controllable by its 'values' of external rewards and suggested into a view of ourselves that is not true to our nature and potential as True Human Beings. But, the control paradigm isn't philosophy. It doesn't encourage free thought or dialogue. It doesn't develop our minds or souls. It doesn't invite inquiry into its core assumptions, strategies, responses and goals. Instead, it functions as a mind-control trance. The control paradigm comes across as 'the one way' to experience reality, and it doesn't make room for alternative perspectives. To do so would go against the control agenda. As a result, the control paradigm in truth has little in common with philosophy and much in common with propaganda and mind control methods - trance inducers.

The ReasonClosed Social Systems Don't Work

Responding to the need forbalance in society doesn't work using closed-system thought patterns,because the nature of the game:

Maintainsa toxic order: First, if the system equilibrium is already toxic,it gets reinforced. Bad 'norms' are simply perpetuated, since closedsystems 'run on automatic'. They don't have the power of discernment.They don't evaluate systems in light of personal needs, human evolution orplanetary health. Their one mandate is to 'preserve the establishedorder', even if that 'order' is toxic for the people and planet.

Valerian Book Series

Puts systems above people: Achieving 'social order' throughclosed-system methods put systems above people - system needs over personalneeds. Systems come first. That's the message we hear in social systems, namely,preserving systems is more important than nurturing people. Closed systems sayto people, 'You are part of us, therefore we own you. Who you are isincidental. You must perform the roles we assign you in the ways we require. Wewon't allow you to deviate. If you changed, we'd have to change, and that wewon't allow. Our 'social order' would collapse'. Putting the rigidstructure of social systems first costs all of us. People get 'chewedup' by systems. The idea of 'sacrificing ourselves for the greatergood' may be a laudable idea if the greater is good. But, what if it isn't?

FeaturesControl and Abuse: Closed social systems don't work because they keeporder through control - force, punishment, and other power-over methods ofenforcement. But, can social harmony be forced? Is top-down control the way toachieve 'social order'? Threats and intimidation cannot be the fabricof healthy social systems. They do too much violence to our inner lives, costingus our freedom. How healthy can our social system be if the people arepsychological wreaks? When we are deprived of out essential powers as free,creative beings, our social systems reflect our emptiness. When do we get inreturn for 'submission'? Not security. Being one-down in a controlhierarchy isn't a secure place. When people get deprived of freedom and securitywhile at the same time they are bound by control systems, they behave like cagedanimals. Intelligent beings don't do well in cages.

And ...

The Nature of Reality isn't closed: Another reason closed social systemsdon't bring social order is that reality itself isn't a closed system. The oldscientific belief systems such as closed-entropy energy systems, also used toreinforce closed-system social control patterns, are rapidly becomingtransparently false as scientific research has shown over the last few decades.No matter how much closed systems try to control variables and shut out change,reality won't be shut out. We can't make our social units into 'islands ofno-change', because the greater reality (the context on which our systemsdepend) is dynamic.

ParadigmCloaking Devices - Paradigm Protective Dynamics

The best way to make ourparadigm 'armor' invulnerable is to make it invisible. What can't bedetected by the population can't be shot down. When invisible, our paradigmsavoid the risk of attack. We hide our paradigm's filtering processes underacceptable cloaking devices - and many such covers will do the trick.

Staying Within A Group

One way to make paradigmfilters invisible is to surround ourselves with people who share our set. Wealign ourselves with groups who take the same paradigm for granted. Surroundedby people whose filters are familiar, ours blend in. Paradigm filters stayinvisible, and we ask 'What filters?' and 'What paradigm?'Everyone shares the same agenda of keeping the paradigm filters unchanged. Whenparadigm issues do manage to surface, it's to reinforce how'successful' and 'right' the group's paradigm is. Theofficial lines get repeated and the catchphrases echoed. Those who question theparadigm and don't speak its 'language' are out. It is becauseof this that cliques permeate paradigm-rigid societies, with each group accusingthe other of being 'cultish'. Paradigm dynamics, or dogmatics of eachgroup resemble what goes on in mainline churches, corporations, schools,universities, governments, labor unions and non-profit organizations. Thestrategy of keeping filters invisible under the cover of a group-shared paradigmturns out not to be considered aberrational behavior, but the 'requirednorm'. When Groups Support Growth - There are groups that supportgrowth and evolution, and group-shared paradigms can be useful if they areexploring these areas involving full potential. Working with people of like mindtakes us forward by leaps and bounds. As we work with others in this way,developments emerge greater than any one person could produce. Whether groupinvolvement supports 'filter evolution' or 'filterfixedness', therefore, is a matter of paradigm development.

Compartmentalization of ParadigmFilters

Mechanism: Another wayto keep paradigms invisible is to split our lives into compartments and todesign paradigm filters for each 'box'. When we are convinced to splitour perceptive world into separate pieces, we protect the paradigm filters weuse for each piece. In a fixed area, certain paradigm filters don't apply, andwe don't mix them with filters we use for a different box. That way, we neverhave to ask how it all adds up; it just doesn't, and no one expects it to addup.

Social Result: Lack ofConsistency. We don't ask whether the values we use at work are the valueswe'd like our children to live at home. If we adhere to one religion or belief,we don't want to hear about the views of another. By putting walls between ourfilters, we protect our overall filter arrangement. We avoid filter comparisonswhich would inevitably bring our paradigm out into the open and subject it torevision. Some of the greatest leaps in knowledge and art - cultural paradigms -occurred when two or more societies interacted. Control paradigm isolation ofsocieties prevents these leaps. Box-category thinking, valuable as it is forproducing specialized knowledge, prevents this type of exchange. It forbids useven to attempt to integrate our filters with wider contexts - a process whichparadigm evolution demands. 'There's no overall paradigm', we tellourselves, which means our cultural paradigm stays 'offstage',invisible.

Openness and Objectivity Issues

Another way to keep paradigmfilters hidden is to 'appear to be filter-free', as if 'we haveno paradigm, no filters, and no covers for them either. For decades, scientistsand social engineers hid filters behind claims of objectivity, pretending to be'unbiased observers'. Claiming to be 'open' and'skeptical', while rigidly adhering to paradigm dynamics, are otherways of hiding paradigms we're not keen to question. Sometimes, claiming to be'open' is used as a strategy to make us appear paradigm-free, whichguarantees that neither we nor anyone else has a chance to look at our filters.By appearing to be 'big-minded', we keep our paradigm close to thechest and off limits.

Use of Covers to Block ParadigmAwareness

If we are to evolve, we need toknow what paradigm we're using, so we can change it. Defensive covers block thisawareness. How far are people willing to go to protect their paradigm? Historyshows that people will kill to protect what they 'believe' to be thecase. Changing paradigms, ways of thinking and perceiving the universe based onnew information, can be scary for some people. No wonder the strategies forkeeping paradigms in place are more developed than strategies for changing them.

Use of SocialTaboos to Block Paradigm Awareness

One of the most potent paradigmcloaking devices individuals and societies have is the taboo. A taboo preventsthe questions we dare not raise, the things we dare not do, and the ways we darenot think. When members of a society obey taboos, they pretend that aspects oftheir lives do not exist. Problems are not problems, and obvious sources oftrouble remain off-limits for discussion, and people are manipulated into notspeaking of them. People let the social system throw walls of silence aroundthem, so the system is not threatened by hearing the truth about what we'reexperiencing. Most current social systems on the planet are maintained in astatus quo state in this way.

Taboos About Sex - Theactual function of the taboo on sexual matters in Western countries, whichparadoxically exists at the same time as the maintenance of a strong focus onsexual matters, is to supplement and increase the focus on sexual matters insociety. The same principles holds for gender-specific taboos, which also havethe function of suppressing different factors relating to wholeness of being andexpression. Many of these taboos have the function of introducing the sociallycomplicating factors of 'guilt' and 'shame', and are alsoincluded in some religious paradigms.

Taboos About Feelings - Thereis also another taboo which exists that makes feelings off-limits in some socialsystem. People are programming 'to be in control' of emotions. Eventhe words 'emotion' and 'emotional' are cast in negativeconnotations, and are often used to discredit a persons viewpoint. In fact, theprocess of socially programming the factoring-out of emotions is highlyconvenient for control paradigm systems, because if we cut ourselves off fromhow we feel under a situation of domination, we tend to 'tolerate' itmore readily, and we are programmed to disregard the pain when we witnesscontrol-system abuse to others. Control system abuse is seen on television 24hours a day and termed 'entertainment', which goes to show how deeplysome paradigm elements are buried. Another phenomenon that arises is that thecontrol paradigm feeds people with rationalizations, judgments and the ultimateultimatum: 'Things must be done this way or chaos will follow'.

Science Taboos - Many of the social control taboos in oursociety have in fact been inherited from science - what's 'real' andwhat is not, what we can 'talk about intelligently' and what isconsidered 'superstitious' or 'pseudo-science'. In general,the rule is this - 'if you can measure something, manipulate it, predictits function and then replicate it (control the outcome of experiments on it) -'it's scientific and real; if not, it's imagination or illusion.'People are programmed to accept this approach to science because it reinforcesthe idea of control over the environment. Unfortunately, this strategy reducesthe idea of 'knowledge' down to a matter of 'control'. Weare led to believe that 'knowing something' means being able to'control' it -- which is the control-paradigm epistemology. We are ledto grant science this 'authority' and we are programmed not toquestion it, even if it stands in the face of mountains of observed (but notreproducible, and therefore 'anecdotal') evidence.

Science Taboos - The WiderImpact

Defining knowledge in terms ofcontrol raises questions. What kind of 'control' does science give us?Control paradigm science inevitably disregards wider contexts, because widercontexts aren't easily 'controlled'. To 'gain control',scientists 'eliminate variables' and 'constrict the field'.In fact, scientists learn early in their programmed training to think innarrowly focused ways and to disregard broader contexts, thus, the mostdefensible Ph.D. thesis is the most specialized one. A result of this process isthat using narrowed control thought processes, we find ourselves faced withwider-context problems. For example, we are stuck with nuclear waste with ahalf-life of 500,000 years and clouds of acid rain that kill forests. If thesame money went into researching new evolutionary technologies, as theimpression was given to the public in the early 1970's that it 'wouldbe', we wouldn't have the problems we have today. But, a public programmedto think along the same lines has simply ignored this simple idea.

Science Taboos - Ethics andValues

A very important point to make isthat the taboos that insulate control-science from its impact on society alsohide its values. The directions that science and technology take involvedecisions based on values - control values. Nonetheless, taboos place scienceabove ethics. In other words, control-science taboos hide its decision-makingprocess and the values that guide them. These values and decisions affect thecourse of science. The fact that some scientific research gets screened outwhile other research receives both funding and publication is attributed to'the natural course of scientific development', as if there is noparadigm-based filtering going on. In fact, 'there's a whole lot offiltering going on'. Various 'experts' dominate each field of'inquiry' and also dominate the direction and 'limits' ofresearch. They give their 'positions' at 'conferences',where 'reputations' may be 'made' or 'broken', andthey edit the journals. Even more telling is the funding of research byindustry. There is an unspoken but real incentive to present projects thatsupport the agenda of work being done in various industries. Combinations ofindustrial, academic, and political interests influence, and even control, whatshould otherwise be open scientific research, in many cases research that couldpotentially save lives. The cancer and AIDS industries are good examples.

Life in aParadigm Controlled by External Reward Systems

In a paradigm of externals,externals call the shots. Instead of allowing us to be guided from the insideout (a formula for anarchy, the control paradigm claims), the paradigm controlsour behavior through rewards and punishments. We come to think and act likePavlov's dog, salivating over the next bonus, a bigger kennel to call home, afancier collar to sport, or a top dog position. The paradigm isn't aboutdeveloping our talents, abilities, or potential; it's about making uscontrollable by giving or withholding external rewards. To achieve this control,the paradigm grades each 'thing' in a hierarchy of externals. Theinner life means nothing compared to the outward characteristics indicated byour species, race, gender, age, status, group affiliation, and income. If dogspossessed the wealth of Bill Gates, for instance, they wouldn't suffer inmedical experiments, just as people who have money don't work in sweatshops orsell their children into slavery. That's the problem with externals: they'refine until they become the means for enslavement, which unfortunately they doalmost immediately. When a paradigm puts external values first, consciousnessdimensions are dismissed out of hand. Small wonder that the potentials of ourminds and hearts-and all the values that go with them, e.g., meaning,compassion, justice, or wisdom-go undeveloped. A control paradigm has neitheruse nor place for them.

Closed Social ExternalControl-Based Paradigms Don't Like Discussing This

Naming paradigms and their powerfor good or ill isn't a new insight; it's as old as philosophy. It is, however,an overlooked insight in an age that can't seem to shake a materialistic,control-obsessed paradigm-and for good reason. Reflecting on paradigms is thestuff of change, and changing paradigms is the most fundamental and powerfulchange we can make. To a paradigm of control, that's not welcome. The sum totalof our experience contingent on something as invisible and changeable as aphilosophy? Change by paradigm shifts, which anyone can make? Powers ofperception and creativity that defy rigid material boundaries? Humans as beingsof immense powers and abilities? Once you let these cats out of the bag, there'sno telling what mindsets and institutions might be made obsolete. Obsolete isprecisely what established institutions of power and control don't want to be.They learned from the fate of carriage and buggy whip manufacturers when carscame along. Established interests now make sure that questioning the neanderthalparadigm of burning things for energy triggers 'War-of-the-Worlds'panic about destabilizing the world economy. Even the call for improved publictransit systems borders on subversive. Stiff challenges face a paradigm shift onthe simple level of out-there technology, frozen at a stage that Captain Picardsometimes finds among the more primitive human civilizations he encounters. Whatchallenges might we face if we embark on a far deeper level of questioning-onredrawing the paradigms that sort out who we are and why we're here? Plenty. Ifthe cultural paradigm's purpose is not to honor human potential but rather tomake it an obedient servant to existing social structures, then nothing could bemore threatening to the established order than a paradigm shift regarding ourself-conceptions. We fit into society as it is now only as long as we don'tremember that we're more and here for more.

Examples of ControlParadigm Lack of Interest in Developing Human Potential

The agenda for traditionalpsychoanalytic therapy, for instance, isn't to develop human potential; it's tokeep people functional in established social structures, however miserable theirlives may be and however abusive or wrong-headed the social structures.'Well-adjusted' becomes a synonym for mental health. But if someone iswell-adjusted to being an SS officer in Nazi concentration camps, is that personmentally healthy? In Fire In The Soul, psychoneuroimmunologist JoanBorysenko writes of this narrow aim of therapy: 'Sigmund Freud...believedthat when a person was cured of neurosis the best outcome that could be expectedwas return 'to an ordinary state of unhappiness.' (New York: Warner, 1993,p. 54) Psychotherapy's official job is mopping up the mess that social systemsmake of our lives by convincing us that the mess is our fault, our failing, ourscrewiness. If we don't conform, adjust, fit in, and measure up, something mustbe wrong with us. And psychotherapy has its truth: we may well be frozen ingrief or shock and not functioning at our best, but don't the social systemsthat shape us deserve equal scrutiny, equal critical analysis? Thankfully manytherapists reject this paradigm and venture forth with their clients on theforbidden territory of meaning and human potential as well as of critiquingsocial structures, but it's no easy task persuading insurance companies to comealong. Control institutions pay insurance companies to pay health professionalsto keep people in their place, serving the established order.

The Agenda for School Systems ina Control Paradigm

Nor are school systemscommitted to developing the more that we are. Schools are an arm of socialstructures, whether religious, governmental, or economic. According to theparadigm-defined needs of those structures, tapping human potential doesn'tcreate enough Dilberts to ensure the 'efficient' running of corporate,governmental, religious, and educational hierarchies. In this century, businessinterests have dictated the structure of schools. Henry Ford quickly noticedthat creative genius and intuitive knowing aren't useful on factory lines. So hepioneered the 'modern' school system that inculcates values and skillsappropriate for 20th century work life: being punctual, obeying orders, enduringhours, weeks, and years of boring, repetitive tasks, not talking while working,not resting, keeping to the schedule at all costs. Our minds become casualtiesof industrialization. Our souls end up casualties as well. Trusting ourown judgment, thinking for ourselves, adhering to our values, and havingconfidence in our innate worth don't make us good foot soldiers formy-way-or-the-highway bosses. Only people with low self-esteem are sufficientlyinsecure to tolerate abusive work environments. Insofar as we believe we don'tdeserve better, we adjust, becoming the kind of person that's required to'do the job.'

Obligingly, school systemsproduce people with precisely the low self-esteem that's needed for worker'flexibility.' Fears of being wrong, of not making the grade are fearsconfirmed for 90 percent of the population. That's the percentage who arerequired not to get A's by the bell curve system, guaranteeing that 90 percentof everyone coming out of school believe that they're incapable of excellence.Schools mirror back to students the mass message that 'you're just not goodenough, but if you do what you're told without question, you may get better andbe rewarded.' That's a handy message to have installed in the psyches of 90percent of the population-handy for perpetuating corporate, religious,governmental, and professional tyrannies, that is. All this modernschooling goes against what we know about the human mind and how we learn-andhave known for decades. Studies in learning show that we learn best when we'remost relaxed, yet schools maximize stress through fear of failure. Studies showthat children learn most easily through cooperative learning, yet schools imposea competitive model. Studies also indicate that students' beliefs about theirown learning abilities affect their performance-if they believe they're goodlearners, they learn easily; if not, learning the simplest things becomesdifficult-yet schools systematically undermine students' confidence. In theseand many other ways, school systems perform virtual lobotomies on our psyches,producing graduates who've long since lost their joy in learning, who believethey must be right all the time and 'know it all' or be condemned toouter darkness, and who experience post-traumatic stress symptoms at the thoughtof having to learn new things on the job.

On CulturalNon-Commitment to Potential

Alice Miller, a champion of thepotential we all possess from birth, pulls no punches in her books-For YourOwn Good in particular analyzes the social, cultural agenda of shutting downour potential. As she explains, the traditional rules of child-rearing passeddown from generation to generation have nothing to do with developing ourpotential, either emotionally, intuitively, psychologically, or intellectually.Their one agenda is control: control the child as soon as possible by any means,whether it's by punishment, humiliation, intimidation, beatings, grading,whatever it takes to break the child's will and autonomy.

Val Valerian Matrix Series Download Full

The justification for thisagenda is that children raised any other way won't fit into society when theygrow up. According to this cultural paradigm-expressed in the rules ofchild-rearing-learning to forget who we are and to become what others want andexpect us to be is the most important survival skill. Our potential as humanbeings is irrelevant, a side issue, compared to our ability to conform.
Of course we're supposed to believe that social systems have our best interestsat heart and that obeying them is indeed 'for our own good.' If weconform properly, our potential will develop accordingly. But is this so? Aswe've seen, schools and therapy-two systems that you'd think would be committedto developing human potential-have no such commitment. In what system or area ofthe culture might such a commitment exist?

Governments are fully occupiedwith who has power over whom, who has the biggest budget, where money can befound, who wins which election or vote, etc. Developing the human potential ofits citizenry is not a priority. If anything, it's not on the agenda at all. Theinsider's view that 'the masses are asses' is music to ambitiouspoliticians' ears, who then believe it's their manifest destiny to expand theirpersonal power and become benevolent dictators. Dumb masses are easy tomanipulate with slogans and half-truths. For their purposes, the less humanpotential the better.

Val Valerian Wikipedia

As much as we value spiritualteachings, we can't say that religious organizations have much commitment todeveloping human potential either, though granted there are exceptions. Adheringto fixed doctrines, building congregations, raising money, meddling in thepersonal affairs of members, running down sectarian competitors, and using fearand guilt to exact obedience and tithing keep them busy enough.

Businesses and corporationscertainly don't concern themselves with human potential, even though theysometimes pay lip service to it in the hopes of making employees more'productive.' The bottom line is the bottom line, and if humanpotential comes up at all, it's considered a frill or luxury-'warm fuzzystuff' that doesn't count in the 'real world' of business exceptto mollify disgruntled workers or help them adjust to higher levels of stress.

Scanning the culture, wefrankly can't find any system that's consistently committed to exploring humanpotential. If anything, our social systems regard human potential as animpediment, an annoying feature of human beings that gums up the systems'otherwise efficient workings. If people would just learn their roles and stickto them, everything would work so much better.

If we didn't know the paradigmbehind these systems, we may find this lack of interest in human potential odd.Developing human potential seems crucial to keeping human civilizations vitaland evolving, up to speed with the challenges that continually arise. Technologyper se can't save us, since we're not using the alternative technology wealready have to remedy social and environmental ills. What we lack is the thewisdom and foresight, the honesty, the sense of meaning, justice, integrity, andthe good to manage human affairs well. These aren't technology issues butparadigm ones. Wisdom and foresight are precisely the potentials that a paradigmgeared to domination and control factors out of us.

RelatedSubsection:BeliefSystems and Social Perception Structures

Logic , Reasoning andCritical Thought

Academic Studies: 'Critical Thinking: Fallacies 1'[40:44] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses fallacies falling under the broad rubric of Appeal to Emotion. He also discusses the nature of emotions, the role emotional intelligence plays, and outlines the structure of fallacious arguments appealing to emotions. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Fallacies 2'[41:44] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses fallacies falling under the broad rubric of Appeal to Popularity, distinguishing the closely connected fallacies of appeal to popularity, appeal to common practice, and appeal to tradition. He provides a number of examples for his students. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Fallacies 3'[36:36] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses two additional fallacious arguments: Two Wrongs Make a Right, and Red Herring. He provides examples for his students, and also discusses the variant of Red Herring termed Smoke Screen. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Fallacies 4'[45:25] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses fallacious arguments that work by attacking opponents or their arguments: varieties of Ad Hominem, the Genetic Fallacy, and the Straw Man. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Fallacies 5'[37:00] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses two additional fallacious arguments: False Dilemma and Slippery Slope. He treats both of them as valid but unsound arguments, i.e. arguments with a good structure but which contain at least one false premise, and gives a number of examples. He also discusses the Perfectionist Fallacy and the Line-Drawing Fallacy as sub-classes of False Dilemma. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Fallacies 6'[41:26] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses two additional fallacious arguments: Appeal to Ignorance and Begging the Question. He discusses the associated concept of the burden of proof and provides examples of appeals to ignorance and begging the question. [...]'| Critical Thinking: Complex Arguments, Unstated Premises '[41:40] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking course, Dr. Sadler discusses the structure of complex arguments, how 'premise' and 'conclusion' are relational terms, and how conclusions can function as premises. He also discusses unstated or implicit premises and conclusions and why we rely upon them. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Arguments And Non-Arguments'[41:01] 'In this lecture and discussion from his Fayetteville State University's Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses what sort of structure sets of claims must have in order to be arguments. He distinguishes arguments from other non-argument sets of claims, including narratives and explanations. Portions of President Barack Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech are used to provide examples for the class. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Issues, Claims, Arguments'[42:44] 'In this lecture and discussion from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler discusses several fundamental concepts and how they are connected with each other. He also points out some misconceptions common among students approaching this material for the first time. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Deductive and Inductive Arguments 1'[40:39] ' [...]'| Critical Thinking: Deductive and Inductive Arguments 2'[37:17] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler introduces important distinctions between different classifications of deductive and inductive arguments, providing examples to illustrate concepts such as validity, strength, soundness and cogency of arguments. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Deductive and Inductive Arguments 3'[39:56] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler returns thematically to the concept of argument forms, providing some examples, distinguishing content and form, and discussing how looking at the form can help students determine whether and argument is deductive or inductive. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Rhetorical Devices 1'[37:16] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler introduces several rhetorical devices used to produce persuasion and to skew perceptions positively or negatively. He addresses euphemism, dysphemism, rhetorical definitions and explanations, stereotypes, and innuendo. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Rhetorical Devices 2'[38:54] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler introduces several additional rhetorical devices used to produce persuasion and to skew perceptions positively or negatively. He addresses loaded questions, weasel words, downplayers, and the use of humor, satire, or sarcasm. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Rhetorical Devices 3 '[46:51] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking class, Dr. Sadler introduces several additional rhetorical devices used to produce persuasion and to skew perceptions positively or negatively. He addresses hyperbole, proof surrogates, and misleading analogies or comparisons. [...]'| 'Critical Thinking: Information Sources'[42:16] 'In this lecture from his Fayetteville State University Critical Thinking classes, Dr. Sadler discusses some basic issues with information sources. He addresses why we need to be critical in our reliance on sources, why we should proportion belief to evidence, and examines some of the sources of our information. This is a preliminary introduction to the topic which will lead into further, more technically focused lectures. [...]'

'A cognitive bias is a pattern of poor judgment, often triggered by a particular situation. Identifying 'poor judgment,' or more precisely, a 'deviation in judgment,' requires a standard for comparison, i.e. 'good judgment'. In scientific investigations of cognitive bias, the source of 'good judgment' is that of people outside the situation hypothesized to cause the poor judgment, or, if possible, a set of independently verifiable facts. The existence of most of the particular cognitive biases listed below has been verified empirically in psychology experiments. Cognitive biases, like many behaviors, are influenced by evolution and natural selection pressure. Some are presumably adaptive and beneficial, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions, when faster decisions are of greater value for reproductive success and survival. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, i.e. a general fault in human brain structure, or from the misapplication of a mechanism that is adaptive (beneficial) under different circumstances. Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many distortions in the human mind that are difficult to eliminate and that lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. [...]' Note: Discussed are: 1 Decision-making and behavioral biases. 2 Biases in probability and belief. 3 Social biases 4 Memory errors and biases 5 Common theoretical causes of some cognitive biases 6 Methods for dealing with cognitive biases. All these constitute complex elements of the social environment. Of course, when we on levels of reality where we are telepathic, none of this exists. Language and other factors introduce these factors into experience at this level. Related: 'Top 10 Thinking Traps Exposed — How to Foolproof Your Mind' [The Anchoring Trap: Over-Relying on First Thoughts; The Status Quo Trap: Keeping on Keeping On; The Sunk Cost Trap: Protecting Earlier Choices; The Confirmation Trap: Seeing What You Want to See; The Incomplete Information Trap: Review Your Assumptions] Part 2 [The Conformity Trap: Everybody Else Is Doing It; The Illusion of Control Trap: Shooting in the Dark; The Coincidence Trap: We Suck at Probabilities; The Recall Trap: Not All Memories Are Created Equal; The Superiority Trap: The Average is Above Average.]

Logical fallacies from written media: books, newspapers, magazines, newsletters, etc. A 'logical' fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, that results in a erroneous proposition without any validity. Yet, people are conditioned over a lifetime to 'believe' fallacies constitute valid discourse, even creating 'laws' and social customs around them. Fallacies are defects in an argument - other than false premises - which cause an argument to be invalid, unsound or weak. [...]' Resources: Fallacy | Fallacy Files| Logical Fallacies | Logic Primer A streamlined online text on propositional and predicate logic. | Critical Thinker Academy

• Español• русский • Deutsche• Français• український• български