To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/12/21 14:23
Subject: Re: [K-list] Foodstuff and Genetic Engineering
From: Mystress Angelique Serpent
On 2000/12/21 14:23, Mystress Angelique Serpent posted thus to the K-list:
At 04:16 AM 12/21/00, Wim Borsboom wrote:
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.
LOL!! Prove it! :)
> (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.)
They come from your interpretation. If you could interpret Sumerian
Cuneiform 30 years ago, then why did you not publish your findings? The
only one known to have cracked the code is Stitchin, and I do not get much
resonance with his interpretations, either. Now you are claiming to have
predated his work.. but you offer nothing to back it up, and say you cannot
do it anymore.. so I assume it is an idle boast.. more rhetoric?
> 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.
Written and posted since 1997.
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/eden.htm
Whitley Strieber also posted his version of "the Fall" in one of his
UFO books.. "Confirmation", I think. He saw early humans, sick and dying
from famine and drought, interpreting it as a punishment from God.
>I just account for what I have seen... is that dogmatic?
To insist that you are right and others are wrong, about a
mythological event, is dogmatic... and not respectful of other beliefs.
> > 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.)
Do a websearch on Adam and Eve.. you will turn up all manner of folks
espousing their own dogma in place of the biblical version of the dogma. I
regularly do a link-search on Serpent..I find all kinds of stories.
Of course, you have not looked for anything that might conflict with
your cherished beliefs. You keep repeating them hoping for a reaction? Why?
Go out and look!
>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.
Yet you defend yourself with rhetoric and patronizing statements.
>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,
>o not agree. You might be a fool like me if you do, or a fool like me
>f 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".
If you have nothing to lose, then why do you need to spout rhetoric
and patronize me because I disagreed?
> > 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.
Now you are backpedaling.
> 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.
Sure, I have all kinds of visionary memories that are totally "real"
to me.. but that does not make them "truth" beyond my own experience.
> > 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.
That is a very patronizing response, Wim. Insulting, even. Surely you
can do better than that? Accusing me of immaturity because my beliefs
differ from yours? That is outrageous and I truly expected better of you.
You have nothing to lose, but you need to insult me because I disagree?
I think you have more invested in this than you care to admit.
Everyone from Hitler to George Bush spew out their version of "Truth"..
and they are very invested in making it other folks truth, too.. The
pro-lifers insist they have the Truth, so does the Pope, so does Saddam
Hussien.. Truth is relative and perceptual. Not absolute. That you would
back up your truth by saying my truth is immature, is just insulting, it is
not sincere debate. I can respond in kind.. but is there any value to it?
> > 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.
No, there is not. Not that can be expressed in words. No Truths, just
opinions. Perspectives. The ultimate "Truths" if expressed in words end up
sounding as nonsensical as a Zen Koan. Only understandable if you have had
experience to recognise the meaning.
I can come up with a dozen answers to "what is the sound of one hand
clapping", and to me they are all true.. but they still make no sense to
someone who has not been there, done that... and someone who has, may still
have different answers to mine. So what is Truth? There is an exception
to every rule. Limitless manifestation obeys no rules. On the highest
levels of reality, nothing is true, everything is true.. nothing is real...
everything is as real as you want it to be..
> 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?
That is an adolescent argument.. LOL!!!
The ultimate truths cannot be expressed in words.. that does not mean
we cannot have conversations? The experience of Kundalini cannot be
described in words, no words can hold the infinite.. so the list should not
exist?? Your statements are rhetoric.. I know you are good at rhetoric,
well trained, but does that make it Truth? I have not been to University to
study rhetoric like you have.. does that make your truth more true than mine?
One cannot know what it is like to stand on the peak of Everest by
reading about it.. so no-one should write of their experiences?
In the chatroom you kept saying there is only one of us.. well, then why
have a chatroom? Why go to a party at all?
>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.
Making reference to manipulation in an event most listmembers did not
attend, without backing it up with specifics is very manipulative and
totally self serving. In my opinion, your uses of Akashic reality are self
serving.. your reaction to my disagreement only serves to validate my
statements... in my opinion.
I already know that Akashic realities are reflective of the
individual.. self serving by definition. Buy the soap or not, as you wish.
>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'
Well, if that is so then you might be able to accept my "Truth" as
well as your own.. because we are one.. yet instead you choose to belittle
me and tell me my arguments are immature..
>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.)
More rhetoric. You stated clearly that you do not condone
anti-genetic engineering groups. They are on the opposite side. Now you say
that is what you meant.. which is true? Or is Truth a matter of convenience
of the moment.. you trying to save face? Ah, but you have nothing to lose..
so you say.
>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?
That is not what I said, Wim.. that is simply more rhetoric. I did not
blame Adam for anything. You are putting words in my mouth and deliberately
misinterpreting my statements for the purposes of your own arguments.
That's pretty cheesy behavior for someone who insists they have nothing to
lose.
I referred to "Dominion of nature" as Patriarchal. It was said *to*
Adam, not by him.. an impossible standard, supposedly a directive from the
Father-God, that some Patriarchal men and women still try to live up to...
Who can dominate a hurricane? A volcano?
>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.)
You presume to predict my emotions and put prejudices where I have
none... and you insist my words are rhetoric? You are trained in Rhetoric,
I am not. That you would use your training to discredit my statements on
this forum, is very sad..
I have a young and lovely female slave who has done genetic
engineering. I never said it was all the work of men, you simply chose to
interpret it that way for your own purposes. There are plenty of
Patriarchal women around... and there are Matrifocal men. The terms do not
refer to gender of the individual, but of the cultural predispositions to
dominance, in whether they see God-dess as male or fem, and how that
perception affects the society.
The Patriarchal view is Dominion of Nature.. the Matrifocal view is
respect for nature.
> > 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?
Many have tried to stop me..
Would you stop a curious child from drinking poison, or would you
allow them to explore their curiosity? Curiosity was what motivated
Mengele's experiments on POW's.. does that make them OK?
> > 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.
I use the terms most popularly understood, in all my writing, whether
I am speaking of chakras with Western terminology instead of Sanskrit, or
speaking of junk DNA. Now you stoop to belittling my terminology?
Yes, my own slave girl scientist tried to tell me that much of the
strings of DNA she sliced and diced were useless and unimportant, and
therefore could be discarded without negative effects. She has been in the
lab, she has done the work.. rearranging the DNA of certain types of single
celled organisms to make them better food for fish farming.
Your assumption about my sources is extremely patronizing.
>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.
Than WHO thinks, Wim?
>Have you ever noticed that at some point in life left-leaners become
>right-leaners...? A certain bitterness sneaks in as well...
What does that have to do with anything??? Change is the only constant,
the pendulum swings.. yesterday's hippies are today's materialistic
Yuppies. I saw David Suzuki shopping in Safeway yesterday.. I would have
thought Capers Organics would be more his style.. and so what??
> > 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.
You don't want to, but you just did. That is a purely rhetorical
statement, Wim. My God-dogma is better than your God-dogma because he eats
Kennel Ration?
There are plenty of well respected scientists who have sounded the
alarm about the dangers of genetic engineering. There is plenty of evidence
of how genetically engineered food causes allergic reactions. For you to
dismiss my comments as simply anecdotal BS made to sell newpapers is
ridiculous and offensive.
> > 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...)
Yeah, you are wrong, and presumptuous. My attitudes about genetic
engineering come from my own Shamanic experiences, my belief in the
sacredness of the Fire Serpent... and I have found scientific references to
validate that... I am sure you could find scientific references to validate
your position as well.. So what is Truth?
Monsanto is a symptom, not a cause... but a nasty symptom, a good
place to begin. I'm not marching around waving signs, I am making sincere
plans to defeat them in the Marketplace by manifesting a better
product. Competition is part of nature too.
I am really disappointed, I expected better of you, Wim. My fault, my
expectations. I thought you seriously wanted to debate this issue, and
instead you just want to patronize me and deride what you *think* are my
sources of information so as to promote your own cause.. My post to you was
respectful.. your response is not.
I have a busy day today, more useful things to do than argue with
someone who does not bother to be respectful of my opinions, and stoops to
deliberate misinterpretation to patronize me. I'm going to stop now and
delete the rest.
Sure, write it off as my solstice craziness, if you like.. if it
pleases you. Have a good solstice.
Blessings...
"When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the
conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my
talent for absorbing positive knowledge. "
-- Albert Einstein
1/9698/0/_/680797/_/977434129/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
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.