(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) If you have a negative experience as an infant in a room painted blue, you will be programmed to react negatively to blue, and whenever you are in a blue room your brain will release the same neuropeptides that were released at the very time of the infantile experience. You won't know WHY you feel "frightened" or "panicky" or "sad" or whatever the negative experience produced, and you will think it is something to do with whatever else is going on in that room, or who you are interacting with, at that moment, without even being aware that the whole experience is being triggered by the memory of the negative experience as an infant in a blue room. Your mind will seek to rationalize the feeling by blaming it on anything or everything, because the idea that the color of the room could be the cause is too illogical.
[Comment - Not all negative experiences necessarily become traumatic The life history of an individual, personality, temperament, the context within which a negative experience occurs, what transpires after such an experience - all of these factors, along with others, have an impact on whether, or not, a given experience becomes traumatic, problematic, or simply dissipates with the passage of a few hours, days, or weeks.
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Sure, maybe you avoid blue. You don't "like" it, but you surely will never admit that it can control your emotions and your experiences. It will be rationalized as a "preference." No reason, just is. Well, there are a lot of things in our lives that we think they are "us," and they are not. They are programs.
[Comment - Characterizing pathology in terms of behavioral/belief/emotional complexes which arise in circumstances that are perceived as traumatic by an individual and which coalesce into programs or circuitry which colors, shapes, and orients what takes place in conscious life is not quite the same thing as trying to argue that such programs are imposed on us from without. Yet, part of Laura's argument at various points along the way has been that most human beings are programmed from without by a Control system.
There are several different kinds of programming whic are being alluded to, but, unfortunately, the distinction is not always clearly delineated. Saying that we program ourselve in various ways is quite different from saying that we are programmed from without by some sort of Control system.
This is not to say there are no such things as Control systems which seek to program us in particular ways, nor does the foregoing preclude the possibility that such Control systems may seek to exploit the programs which we, ourselves, create. However, none of this requires one to suppose that there is just one Control system being run by hyper-dimensional techo-wizard Lizzies, and none of this requires one to assume that the Control system or systems will always succeed in exploiting our self-programmed vulnerabilities, and none of this requires us to suppose that every kind of programming is an instance of indelible imprinting.
There is a great deal of individual choice and hermeneutical activity involved in experiencing something as traumatic and devising coping strategies for dealing with such trauma. As such, we tend to create or construct our own developmental programs and circuitry - although, obviously, such circuitry is shaped, colored and oriented in various ways according to the structural character of the surrounding family, neighborhood, community, and culture.
Nonetheless, the nature of the latter is, by no means, necessarily the dominant set of issues. Of much more importance are an individual’s hermeneutical choices with respect to the engaging of reality and the decisions that are made to treat different events as traumatic, or not, and the decision of how to cope with whatever it is one decides in such cases, and, then, how one responds to the way other people respond to such decisions. There is a lot more hermeneutical fluidity and degrees of freedom than Laura gives the impression, via her clinical model of pathology, trauma, and the laying down of developmental circuitry.
In addition, the quality of conscious experience may not all be capable of being reduced down to the 'colors' of various neuropeptides even though peptides may be associated with, or correlated with, such experiences. Memories may retain some traces of the presence of neurotransmitters, but there is Laura has advanced no theoryabout what moves neuropeptides to flow in the first place, or at what intensity, or with what emotional torque, or with what consequences?
Is one happy because nerupeptides flow, or do neuropeptides flow because one is happy? Is trauma the result of neuropeptides flowing, or does the interpreting of some event as traumatic trigger the release of neuropeptides?
There are pain receptors which have been located, and these are called nociceptors. However, one still has to explain how the hermeneutics of trauma, along with the production and release of those neruropeptides which fit onto such nociceptors are linked causally to phenomenology - that is, phenomenologically speaking, which comes first, the chicken (the neuropeptide/nociceptor dyanamic) or the egg (the hermeneutics of experience) .]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) People fall in love and marry the most damaging people for these reasons. Maybe they have the same nose, or eyes, or hair as someone who provided a very pleasurable experience as an infant. Those traits will trigger the neuropeptides of the memory, flood the entire body and, voila! You are "in love."
[Comment - Is it the flood of neuropeptides that generates the experience of love or is the presence of neuropeptides only one of the factors that shapes, colors and orients the hermeneutics of phenomenology? Are all feelings of love necessarily a triggering of past memory circuits, and if so, how does one explain how the initial experience of love was experienced, or how does one explain that different people love different things if the underlying biochemical mechanisms are all the same?
The fact of the matter is we are still left with the mystery of how a person comes to construct his or her individual hermeneutical map of the world which treats one thing as pleasurable, but another thing as painful, or another thing as traumatic and threatening. This mystery is especially relevant given that two people faced with, more or less, the same set of circumstances may not end up with the same hermeneutical take on the significance, purpose and meaning of such events, even though the neuro-chemistry in both instances is likely to be, more or less, the same.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The most interesting thing about this is that neuropeptide receptors are found all over the body; you have a "whole body" sensation! You can actually "feel" it "flooding" like a "rush" through your system! But I can guarantee to you that it is chemical. It has nothing to do with higher emotion. And it most definitely has nothing to do with objective reality. Your imprinting creates your very own subjective view of the world and maintains it. And it is in this way that we all live in "wishful thinking."
[Comment - There is no imprinting going on in the foregoing - at least, not in the technical, ethological sense of this term. What is going on concerns the processes and dynamics through which a person generates a hermeneutical stance toward the life-world.
Furthermore, just because a process is subjective does not preclude the possibility that it may accurately reflect, to varying degrees, certain dimensions of so-called 'objective' reality. Subjectivity and the objective world are not necessarily fated to ever remain closed off to one another, because, on the one hand, there are subjective processes (e.g., science, mysticism) which seek to reach out and touch various facets of the objective world and, thereby, gain insight into the character of the latter, while, on the other hand, the nature of the objective world is to leave its mark on our subjective modalities irrespective of whether the latter likes this or not, and, thereby, the objective world has its own way of penetrating into the subjective realm.
We do create our own subjective view of the world, and how malleable or fluid this view is - how open it is to being re-constituted in the light of additional experience - depends on the individual. There is no generalization which can be made because different people, even in similar circumstances, hermeneutically construct their understandings of self, world, reality, truth, and so on, in different ways. The hermeneutical circuitry is a lot more complex than Laura seems to suppose and a lot more complicated than modern brain chemistry has been able to unravel.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The neuropeptide receptors are also clustered in the gut in very high concentration. We get "gut reactions" according to the programs set up in the imprinting stages of infancy. It has nothing to do with the exact circumstances of the present moment. It has everything to do with the "program" and the response to some cue that turns on the neuropeptides of pleasure or trauma. The receptors are also arranged in clusters along the spine and can be felt as the "raising of kundalini" with the proper "cues" that may or may not be from benign sources. This can also be a REAL initiatory event, but in that case, it is activated from a different center and with different chemicals.
[Comment - Although nerupeptide receptors and the flow of neuropeptides may be associated with the presence of kundalini energy, one might not be able to reduce the latter down to the former. Correlation is not necessarily the same as causation.
Moreover, Laura seems to be trying to give the impression that the developmental circuits are a lot more rigid and tightly wired than may be the case. There are a lot of factors which can attenuate and modulate the impact which different kinds of events have on us within the context of our hermenutically generated models of reality.
One event may not be enough to generate a feeling of trauma. Furthermore, when one begins to consider a set of experiences, then, there can be a lot of different hermeneutical dynamics going on with such a set of experiences which do not necessarily push, pull or orient an individual in any one direction with respect to the experience of trauma or problems or even liking and enjoying something.
We don’t necessarily generate specific programs in relation to all of life’s events. In addition, as far as whatever programs we do generate are concerned, things may be a lot more open-ended or there may be more degrees of freedom within which to hermeneutically move than Laura’s idea of a program would seem to suggest.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) And, until you have read the studies of how powerful these chemicals are, and how powerfully they control us, you simply have no idea of what you are dealing with. You will rationalize until the cows come home that it is "really my higher understanding" or "it is really love, this is an exception to the rule" or "I am in touch with my higher mind" and all that in the face of the evidence that repeats over and over again.
[Comment - Even if one were to agree with Laura about the way neuropeptide circuitry impacts our lives, one should not lose sight of the fact that in many respects we, ourselves, are responsible for the structural character assumed by such circuitry through the hermeneutical choices we make in how we decide to respond to the events of life. The programming is not imposed on us from outside but, rather, is invited into our lives through the hermeneutical engagements of life which we generate, together with the manner in which such choices are related to coping strategies or behavior, as well as the character of our hermeneutical responses to the way in which others respond to our choices.
Furthermore, the gravitational pull which the presence of neuropeptides may have in our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and behavioral lives need not have anything to do with the neo-Freudian developmental theory which Laura outlined earlier. Indeed, the neuropeptide phenomena can be considered quite independently of the neo-Freudian perspective, and the former is in no way dependent on the latter being true for its viability.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) And this behavior is, of course, reinforced by our cultural programming, our religious programming, and all the lies or half-truths delivered to us along with painful or pleasurable experiences that produce neuropeptides during the stage of our lives when these circuits are being laid in our brains. To go against your own programming, to do the opposite of what you feel because you have truly assessed the evidence objectively, is exactly like going through drug withdrawal. And in the throes of withdrawal, the individual will do almost anything to get the neuropeptide "fix" he needs.
[Comment - The dynamic between individual hermeneutics and cultural hermeneutics is a lot more complex than use of the word “reinforced” might suggest simply because there are so many different currents running through the cultural-individual dynamic. For example, an individual’s hermeneutical takes on reality and experience may not reflect the hermeneutical takes of reality which are present in the surrounding milieu. There are on-going conflicts and frictions which arise precisely because of the differences between individual hermeneutical activity and familial, social, and cultural hermeneutical activity.
At certain junctures, there may be a process of reinforcement which takes place, but in other cases this may not be so. Furthermore, even in the case of reinforcement, the individual’s hermeneutical programs came first, and, only then, were some of these individual choices selectively endorsed (via rewards) by the surrounding milieu as being appropriate or acceptable or the like. In other words, the language of 'neuropeptide fix' revolves around “programs” constructed by the individual rather than programs which have been imposed from without.
To be sure, in behavior modification - especially, operant conditioning - one selects some operant or response of the target and begins to manipulate the character of that behavior through the intervention and application of various kinds of reinforcement schedules. However, even the whole idea of what someone considers to be reinforcing tends to be a function of hermeneutical choices, and if the rewards which are used to fix reinforcement are not resonant with an individual’s hermeneutical perspective with respect to what is, and is not, experienced as rewarding, then, behavior modification is not likely to work to any appreciable degree.
Everything has ontological cracks in it, and it is through such cracks that we both become vulnerable to ourselves and to others, as well as the space through which we have the possibility of escaping from ourselves and the surrounding matrix. However, even if one removed the surrounding matrix, one still would be confronted with the obstacles and challenges which are generated through one’s own nafs (ego/carnal soul/rebellious tendencies toward truth) and the impact which nafs has on hermeneutical activity.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So, of course, once I realized that those whose programs were being "kicked on" were sucking me and others into their "black hole" of distorted emotions, I also knew that the only thing to do when one realizes that emotions are in charge of thinking is to do exactly the opposite of what one wants to do. Go against the program! I wanted to crawl into a hole and never come out again. I couldn't believe that people could misunderstand so completely and be so cruel.
And that was the program - MY program: my 1st circuit need to withdraw to safety and comfort. They were not being cruel, they were merely programmed.
[Comment - Laura's words above lend a certain degree of credibility to something that has been said in a number of previous [Comments]. The program in question was something which Laura generated, and it was not something that was imposed on her from without.
Moroever, the need to withdraw to safety and comfort - whether one refers to it as some sort of lst circuitry mechanism, or one refers to it in some other way - can be considered quite independently of neo-Freudian developmental theories. In other words, the individual's hermeneutic of experience determines what is characterized or perceived as being safe, comfortable, threatening, and indicating a need to withdraw, and this kind of hermeneutic has a primary role to play in shaping and coloring the circuitry which is laid down.
Such problematic programming leaves one vulnerable to being manipulated and exploited by others who wish to harness the trauma and energy associated with such programs in order to spread destruction and disharmony in society. Jinn can do this; people can do this; and Lizzies - if they exist - can do this. Indeed, any STS (service to self)-oriented individual can do this.
Laura's reference to the programming of others can be understood in a manner similar to her references to her own modes of programming. In both instances, people make choices concerning the habits, reinforcement contingencies, and traums to which they they will open themselves up and which, in time, may be become so many programs which are automatically triggered by certain circumstances and stimuli - but none of this needs to be thought of as imprinting in the ethological sense of this term. ]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) And, of course, each and every different group has its own idea of what is good for man, and some of this opinions are diametrically opposed to one another. When we step back from the picture, we see that something crucial is being missed - and this crucial thing seems to be the ability to observe the world objectively - empirically, if you will - and to use the mind to assess the "fruits of the ideas" in an objective way.
[Comment - Objectivity can only come when the mental, emotional, and spiritual faculties are operating in concert with one another according to their inherent optimum capabilities. It is not possible to have objectivity by working only with, or through, one’s mind - the mind needs to be guided by the illuminations of other internal, spiritual faculties which have been purified and calibrated.
Even the purification and calibration of these inner faculties are not sufficient . They only have been readied to receive.
Divinity must send the understanding, knowledge, and insight which is necessary to proceed. At best, we are receivers of knowledge, not generators of knowledge. What we call knowledge is, in actuality, channeled understanding, and such understanding can be sent from different sources - from: Divine to satanic.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In the present time, there are all sorts of "communications" with "higher beings" and sources of all kinds taking place. When we look at this, we find that there is the same problem apparent as we find in our own world. Can it be that there are 4th density beings - or higher - who communicate with humans by various means, who are simply as ignorant of the doings in their realities as we are in our own? Or, that their agendas - even if framed in the terms that it is for the good of humanity - could be less than positive?
And if our own "scientists" will experiment on our little 2nd density companions in ways that you will soon discover, do we for one minute think that "scientists" at 4th density would not feel justified doing the same with us?
[Comment - Isn’t it possible that the Cassiopaeans are merely trying to induce us to accept their world view, cosmology, metaphysics, or ontology? The Cassiopaeans could be sincere beings who are telling Laura and company a ‘story’ but a story which the C’s believe to be the truth, even though it may not be.
Just as we interpret our experience, they interpret their experiences. Consequently, the story which the Cassiopaeans are telling might be just a reflection of their hermeneutical activity rather than a reflection of the truth. Their metaphysics might just be the ‘truth’ as they see it.
Why should one assume that they actually know what they are talking about even though they may have access to information and technology which we do not? Like some doctors and scientists on Earth, perhaps these alleged 6th density beings, known as the Cassiopaeans, believe they are doing things for the ‘good’ of others, and, thereby, rendering STO (service to others) behavior, but, in truth, they are mistaken in their understanding and even as they believe they are helping people, they might be hurting them.
What are the criteria for identifying what constitutes real STO behavior? Surely(?) it is more than just observing the ‘Prime Directive’ of not interfering with the free choices of other beings.
What about kindness, charity, compassion, truthfulness, patience, beneficence, sharing, teaching, protecting, relieving sorrows, and so on? Isn’t doing STO dependent on understanding the truth about the purpose of Creation, and if the Cassiopaeans don’t properly understand that purpose, then, even though they believe they are doing STO, they may really be serving something other than STT (service to Truth), and, as a result, hurting the very beings they believe they are serving with the best of intentions.
Isn’t it possible that the Cassiopaeans are looking at STO through the eyes of being adepts in the occult, rather than as adepts in true mystical knowledge connected to the essence of realizing the purpose of creation? Why assume that beings with a greater or different technological capability than ours are necessarily any wiser or more knowledgeable when it comes to issues of spirituality, essential identity, or Divine purpose?]
| Part Two | Food Menu |
|
