To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/12/21 05:16
Subject: Re: [K-list] Foodstuff and Genetic Engineering
From: Wim Borsboom
On 2000/12/21 05:16, Wim Borsboom posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Angelique,
You wrote:
> Hmm.. Wim, I appreciate your lovely
> story of Adam and Eve, and I am
> glad you shared it. I have had a similar
> vision of Genesis and it is quite
> different than yours, closer to the original
> Sumerian mythology that the
> Hebrews borrowed from. I know of others
> who also had this vision and it was
> different again.
Just to set the record straight, I am not into creationism, absolutely
not. Also I'm not saying Angelique, that I think that you think that I
am into that. (Ohmigosh, what a sentence)
I am just trying to say that these two folks (Adam and Eve) were real
beings, just like Shiva was and the Greek Gods were, just like Yahweh
was a human being although divine pretensions were put on that character
as portrayed in the old literature. (And by the way I happen to be well
versed in Sumerian history, at one point I could even read the script,
but that is 30 years ago. (My references to Enlil, Enki do not come from
nowhere.)
> Your version is in definite conflict
> with *what we know* of the history
> of human evolution on this planet...
> including the evolution of agriculture.
(Wim's asterisks)
Exactly my point, that is why I keep bringing it up... And I can because
even the scientific literature is inconclusive on this, especially if
one takes into consideration what is scientifically being discovered in
the Indus valley. I am not afraid to differ, that is alright with me. I
have no reputation or credibility to defend. I am not hung up on this,
it is just what I personally remember, that is what I write about...
What I remember and have seen could be important to someone...
Well, maybe not to you, I can easily be a fool. I take that well. You
may not see it my way, but then you have not seen what I have seen, also
you have not written about what you have seen in this regard. At least I
do not recall.
I just account for what I have seen... is that dogmatic?
> It seems to me that you have some
> dogmatic attitude, in insisting your
> vision is the one and only correct version
> and all others are wrong.
Never knew about other people's visions on this, as they were not
brought up on this list, and as I have not read anything on this
anywhere else. (But then, I might not be well read.)
Purposely, I have posted many times on this topic to elicit some
response... and finally one person bites... am glad it is you.
I have never insisted on the fact that my view is the only view as I
never had to, it was simply not responded to. As I said, I just recount
my memories. I expected controversial responses in the first place.
In my last post, I wrote:
> I will probably get into hot water with
> my statement about genetic engineering.
What I say is not trendy. It is not 'kewl' nowadays to disagree with
tribal sensitivities. Also is it not 'kewl' and 'morally correct' to
agree with genetic engineering etc. But why should I be afraid of not
being "so hot" or not "so cool". It is not where peers go (peers from
either camp) that reality is often encountered.
Also, I might easily be astray or lead someone astray. Do as you like,
do not agree. You might be a fool like me if you do, or a fool like me
if you don't.
I only bring forward, and if that is a risk, I can take it because I can
afford it, as there is nothing to lose as "I ain't got it no more".
> The Akashic records are really not a
> reliable source of information.
I have memories that I call 'akashic' because the akashic paradigm, when
I first heard about it, seemed to me a reasonable explanation for what
and how I remember. I do not surf the akashic records, have never done
it. I just happen to remember. It has nothing to do with whether the
source is reliable or not, that is all conceptual anyways... What I
remember is as real as I remember having shaved myself yesterday evening
and not this morning.
> It is *your* truth, but that does not
> mean it is *the* truth.
Here, sorry to say, you are using an adolescent argument. One hears that
type of argument in high schools, amongst disgruntled kids with their
parents, etc. and it spills over into adult life. I understand it well,
have used it many a time myself, over many a year. But one grows out of
that sort of thing. There is not such a thing *the* truth and *your*
truth. That is very poor philosophy and an inexact use of language.
> They (Akashic records) contain
> *All* possible occurrences,
> past present and future, limitless
> manifestation. The version you will
> see when you go viewing, is the one
> that is most resonant to you, personally.
> You will get a movie that is a reflection of
> yourself, that addresses your personal
> issues. It is *your* truth, but that does
> not mean it is *the* truth.
If what you say is correct, than there is absolutely no *the* truth. So
there is not even an argument then. That then makes all discussion
useless as 'anything / whatsoever' at some point in space will be
someone's truth at some point in time. Well that maybe so... but then...
why do you even respond to me?
It was good that I joined the chat a couple of days ago, it gave me an
insight into that 'personal issues' paradigm. The use of akashic reality
can indeed be manipulative and self serving and misleading. It does not
have to be.
You wrote:
> For that reason, I discourage my students from surfing the Akashic
> records. Better to "be here now".
"Being here now" eventually evolves into more than being on that
smallest intersection of temporal and spatial dimensions. "Being here
now" is a step, a very important one, true, but only a step, a method to
get away from our fractured, dispersed and divisive mentality in order
to get to: 'Holistic being, that we are 'everywhere - anytime' as well
as 'timeless - spaceless', the 'source of all' as well as the 'goal
where all goes', I AM, individually and collectively'
I wrote:
> My idea is that genetic engineering
> when balanced by appropriate control
> mechanisms is more than OK. We cannot
> stop it and should not stop it but we can
> streamline it through the normal checks
> and balances of opposing pressure and
> lobby groups.
(With 'opposing pressure and lobby groups' I mean opposite groups on
either side of the issue.)
You wrote:
> I disagree. DNA is the Fire Serpent,
> physical manifestation of the
> unified consciousness of the planet itself.
> I don't think it is right for
> it to be sliced and diced by well meaning
> or greedy scientists who want to
> play God. Patriarchal "Dominion of nature"
> BS. Frankenfoods.
In the days of yore the woman (Eve) got the blame, now the man (Adam)
does?
Sure, it may be silly how I say that, but your 'Frankenwhatever' is as
silly a statement.
There is a lot of retoric in how you say what you mean Angelique, may
that not cloud your clarity? You'd be surprised how many young female
scientists are participating in this DNA endeavour. (Whether it is good
or not, let's leave that aside for now.)
> We simply don't understand it well enough.
That is right, that is why we/they are doing it. That is not what you
mean, I know, but you cannot stop curiosity... Could they (?) stop you?
> Scientists see the elegant
> multiple redundancy system and silent
> genomes as "junk" DNA.. there is no
> junk, there is only DNA that has not yet
> manifested it's full potential, or
> that we don't understand the purpose of, yet.
I know that you have not read that "junk" :-) in National Enquirer type
of articles, (and I do not mean this fascetious), but the original
scientific research articles did not use words like "junk DNA", it is
the journalists, critics and popularizing writers who did, and even then
the word may appear mainly in titles or sidebars, and quite often the
body of the popularized texts does not use the word in the sense of junk
at all. Also I have seen a few too many articles in publications and
broadcasts from the religious right on this. That is when I start
wondering if we get the news or... some misinformation.
Political, moral and religious agendas as well as fights for research
money play a larger role than one thinks.
Have you ever noticed that at some point in life left-leaners become
right-leaners...? A certain bitterness sneaks in as well...
> We have already had some Frankenstein
> disasters from genetic engineering, such as
> monarch butterflies being poisoned by wind
> blown corn pollen that had been genetically
> engineered to be an insecticide. We don't
> need any more.
Granted, I do not want to poo poo what you say on the butterfly issue,
but a lot of this type of news is often rather anecdotal, makes good
copy, sells print and... makes little sense.
> It is my intention to use his methods (Burbank's)
> at the Kundalini sanctuary.. and put Monsanto
> out of business before they can do any
> more damage.
I was wondering where the beef was, well here is the beef, Monsanto!
Oh Angelique. (Don't I recall you had a different scheme with them in
mind before? Now, I may be wrong there, but...)
Fighting the enemy will make you see the enemy everywhere and fight the
enemy forever. Fighting will not set you free... This is what enemies
want you to do. It turns you into a enemy fighter not a freedom fighter,
the can handle enemy fighters better..
Review your mission statement. A Kundalini Sanctuary to... what did you
say...? It must be winter solstice, Angelique, come on now.
I wrote:
> ...the (pro) lobby groups...anti-'genetic
> engineering' groups. Together they form
> the checks and balances
> that our good earth 'Gaia' allows.
('pro' inserted later for clarity )
You wrote:
> Gaia will allow us to get very burnt fingers
> from genetic engineering so we learn to
> respect nature.. just as She Allowed nuclear
> testing, extinction of species, ozone layer holes,
> DDT, over fishing, overpopulation and pollution.
> Doesn't mean any of those things are a
> good idea!! She allows Her children to learn
> from their mistakes.. genetic engineering is a
> big mistake, and the sooner we learn it,
> the gentler the spanking will be.
Now, do you not not sound like a mother who wants to prevent her
children from making mistakes, actions that in the eyes of the children
are serious experiments, it comes with them...
Also Gaia does not spank, just like the 'good Lord' (Einstein's words)
does not judge and punish.
It is the believers who tell God/dess who to punish and who not.
God/dess could not care less, does not have to care since we became self
spankers.
I had a client once who used to be quite militant, a real activist. At
her last session she told me that she had gone for a walk along the
ocean (she needed grounding) and had climbed some rocks. The rocks were
quite beautifully eroded by glacial scouring. (Is that the expression?)
Anyway, some geological agency had attached a bronze plaque to that rock
face which said that 15,000 years ago there had been a glacier above
that point about 2 kilometres high. She realized that 15,000 years ago
all the fir trees, cedars, mosses, fishes, insects, salmon, people even,
were exstinct from that huge area just by earth's and nature's action.
Conceivably in 15,000 years that could be the case again. She decided
that from that momnet on on she would enjoy the woods in which she lived
'for themselves', rather than being afraid that they would not be there
anymore for her children. She wept, she had never been able to love the
woods even for herself and by herself, nature for her was always
connected with fear for loss. She had only been fighting out of fear
that her children would have the same pain of loss and fear that she
had. She decided that she did not need to have that loss, she could love
now. And that was the message he daughter tried to give her... "Mom,
don't love for me, love for you..."
I'm not saying, "Stop being concerned." I'm saying not to lose focus...
if love and fear are linked then love is not love, it is love lost.
You wrote:
> The anti genetic engineering lobbyists are
> a part of the check and balance system..
> they are not outside of it.
That is exactly what I said.
> The scientists who do the gene
> work are not hearing Gaia's voice,
> they don't believe the Earth is
> conscious.. the lobbyists, know it IS
> .. and we are concerned!
Are you sure you fully understand what the Gaia hypothesis is. Gaia
includes the scientists as well. Gaia is all of this earth nothing
excluded.
> but slicing and dicing DNA is not
> the way to go about it!
> I do not condone that work... and I am very
> passionate about this!
Be passionate about positive things, Angelique, not negative things.
Have you been too house bound..., do you really need to visit your
relatives? Grounding is an earth touching thing... Tickling Gaia with
your feet...
Also, we are by far not an endangered species.
Some indidviduals live as though they themselves are a single endangered
species.
One asteroid and the dinosaurs were gone...
No I don't mean we do not have to care... but we may have to adjust our
perspective...
Also remember death does not exist, what are you afraid of?
Love, much of it, just for you Angelique...
Wim.
1/10924/0/_/680797/_/977400239/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.