FAC875-Return of Armunn Righ, Ab, Jan Erik

like this

Another big roundable about 0;they”.

Benoit, Didi, Farcevalue, Misom, Prescient, Purpleplay

Armunn on IPS

No tags for this post.

10 thoughts on “FAC875-Return of Armunn Righ, Ab, Jan Erik

  1. YouCanCallMeAl

    Great to hear Armunn on the show – he has an excellent voice and manner. He seems to have put together a worldview of his own and is prepared to discuss spirituality in a non-standard religious terms. I don’t agree with him! But at least he view has a positive aspiration – that there is something that intervenes at the last to save us all. I don’t see a basis for it (and then neither does he) but I appreciate a hopeful spiritual-philosophical outlook as much as the next soul!

    1. YouCanCallMeAl

      A quick PS on words…

      As I understand it ‘ligare’ doesn’t mean ‘connect’ so much as ‘tie’ or ‘bind’.  Religare means to re-bind. (It is where we also get the word ligature).

      It is clear to me that all religion is about binding individuals to a cause. (I distinguish between spirituality (a personal expression) and religion.)  A religion will self-proclaim itself as truth, and the followers of that religion are meant to be guided and mediated by a book or a priest.  To me, religion is pretty plainly about collectivism and acceptance of authority in your life, binding one’s spirituality to an external authority.

      That sense of ligare makes perfect sense to me. It is an example of a very obvious meaning hidden in plain sight.  Like media mediates or reality for us. Anyway, the meaning of religion is not about ‘connecting’ to source or God, from an etymological perspective – it is about binding to external religious guidance.

    2. A R




      Thank you Al,
      Glad that you liked it and that it was helpful to contemplate yourself, regardless of agreeing or not – we do not have to agree, nor is that expected. Agreement would mean a monolithic culture and worldview and that is the shadows vision, not ours.

      First, I would like to address the hope part of your comment. It is not hope, it is a sense, and intuition, if you like. Even, if you would allow me to be so “irrational” a sort of “dejá-vu”, in the sense that I sense we’ve all been “here before” and so know how the story goes.
      To better understand my view on “hope”, allow me to suggest this: youtu.be/MZsM8oWlZus

      Now, addressing the “intervention” part, note that here is where expectations have attempted to taint it. Christians will expect either the return of Christ or a rapture. So-called Atheist technology/science worshipers will expect a great transhumanist salvation. And so on and so forth. When I refer to an “intervention” it is not based on an expectation of its form (prophetic signs and so on) but based on the re-emergence of a “shard of Truth” (so to speak, using words in a metaphorical manner) that has been buried underneath layers and layers of false personas or false “clothing”. The fact that we are having these contemplative thoughts in themselves is already a vague example of such re-emergence, of that “looking into one’s mirror” and dealing with the falsehood we’ve identified with and gave life to over the course of our existence here. So, regardless if it’s a short or if it’s as long-playing as “Gone with the Wind” or “Ben Hur”, all movies have an ending (which doesn’t mean they can’t be played again afterwards on the same “DVD player”).
      To help clarify my contemplation into this, allow me to suggest the following:
      youtu.be/yJ-7o1YLk1I
      youtu.be/yw3v6b-Ztws
      youtu.be/2vM1EWiSWfw
      youtu.be/LxbaVIE9LM4

      As to “ligare”, you are correct, but in Latin-based languages (such as my native Portuguese), the root for “ligare” is also used in the sense of connection. A “internet connection” for instance would be a “ligação à internet”. Nevertheless, be it a fact that all words are programming language, the world itself will also use that same word for its opposite sense. In fact, were it not so, the purity of that original “re-ligare” would still remain and have never been used exactly as you describe. One way to tell them apart is that a pure “re-ligare” (in the sense of “connection”) will always be individual first and the false “re-ligare” will always be collective first (in the sense of “binding”).

      Also, I would like to say that I do not have a worldview to offer per se, but I am sharing my notes to assist in each individual’s own contemplation, regardless, I reiterate, of agreement or not.

      Thank You and Kind Regards!

      1. YouCanCallMeAl

        I listened to your hope video. You say:

        This reality is a game/simulation -> I don’t agree. It is perfectly acceptable to whatever is running this place for us to think that though, IMO.

        Some sort of parasitical ‘mind’ inhabits our own minds -> I do agree that there is something parasitical around… I don’t think it literally inhabits our minds, I don’t think it is anything magical. (I also think this is the same think that Christians refer to as Satan – which I see allegorically.) I do however think that the parasite has generated artifacts that correlate so strongly to those we innate hold, that we actually take them to be ours. I tend to see our situation as one where the individual needs to avoid becoming collectivised in one trap or another. So, a part of our job as authentic souls is to avoid the collectivising traps – eg law, religion, money, technology, even language.

        The house only wins if you play -> I agree. No need for hope or false belief. (Nor guilt, nor trust for that matter).

        In response to your comment. I don’t get what you mean by “all movies have an ending”. Perhaps its that our time on this ‘stage’ will come to an end? You mention “Gone with the Wind” and “Ben Hur”… and I noticed that you also made lots of other references to popular culture. I do see that value of films, songs, etc as a common shortcut to express an idea.

        But, I personally object to taking the ideas presented much further than that. I see these as part of the collectivising infrastructure. What is it to truth if there are correlations in the culture that the parasitical entity creates and presents? They are trying to present an alternative to truth to us, after all, it should have some themes and coherence. Magic numbers (eg: 11, 33) heroes and villains, etc – all that is there for is to stupefy us and waylay us. As for the rollout of the compelling technology that we see nowadays, this is just the latest and most compelling attempt to control the terrain – this attempt is intended to subvert our very senses. By encouraging us live a life through a screen (that they can impact) we place ourselves into an even more complete jail cell.

        If you ask me, with regards to the spiritual life, all information is a hoax. Its all there as a distraction. As you say, the only way to win is not to play. The answers are within, but we have only taken the time to uncover some of them.

        With ‘ligare’, I still think the negative connotation (ie ‘to bind’) is the more correct one with regards to ‘religion’. If some individual spiritual growth occurs in a collectivised, mediated, religious structure, it is despite the religion not because of it. Any effects from religion will only stunt the individual. How could it be any other way? The ‘terms’ that religion uses are not innate, pre-linguistic ones we may sense in ourself. They are passed through a thousand minds that all want to direct some of your effort to their ends.

        1. A R

          Thank you for your response, Al.

          I understand and accept your disagreement. It is indeed an acceptable parameter for “them” that we think it is a game, movie or simulation. I used those terms to convey what I meant as a metaphor not as a literal description, in any case. I do not subscribe to “simulation theory” but the nature of reality is inaccessible to the limitations of our minds and so attempts at metaphors are the most handy alternative.

          I do however think that the parasite has generated artifacts that correlate so strongly to those we innate hold, that we actually take them to be ours. I tend to see our situation as one where the individual needs to avoid becoming collectivised in one trap or another. So, a part of our job as authentic souls is to avoid the collectivising traps – eg law, religion, money, technology, even language.

          I am in complete agreement with your quote above and have shared notes in several videos to that effect, even if using different vocabulary.

          In response to your comment. I don’t get what you mean by “all movies have an ending”. Perhaps its that our time on this ‘stage’ will come to an end? You mention “Gone with the Wind” and “Ben Hur”… and I noticed that you also made lots of other references to popular culture. I do see that value of films, songs, etc as a common shortcut to express an idea.

          But, I personally object to taking the ideas presented much further than that. I see these as part of the collectivising infrastructure. What is it to truth if there are correlations in the culture that the parasitical entity creates and presents?

          Regarding the quote above, even at an individual level, a being is born (metaphorically a “movie” starts), has an existence (metaphorically that “movie” has a plot), and eventually dies (metaphorically that “movie” ends). It is no different in a collective sense. In my observation, “they” play scripts over the “world stage” exactly to prevent a “organic” script from taking place. If the actors are directed to perform certain characters, then they will never allow that “organic play” to manifest. I understand that you disagree with this view, but it is what I observe at this point.

          I merely gave “Gone with the wind” and “Ben Hur” as examples of long movies, as I was addressing the length and scope of the movies, not the titles in question. Quoting myself: «So, regardless if it’s a short or if it’s as long-playing as “Gone with the Wind” or “Ben Hur”, all movies have an ending»
          So, be them shorts (short movies) or as long-playing (in time length) as those two.

          I attempt, and I completely accept that I may fail in that attempt, to only use movies insofar as their message can be “transmuted” away from the parasitical intent. After all, all their movies, if they are to appeal to our inner Truth, they have to show some of its patterns, otherwise they do not get our attention. So, what I see is that they do not define the symbols and patterns and then program us with them, that is not what I observe. I see that they pick up those symbols and patterns, try to make us completely forget about them and then sell them back to us with misleading programming intent. Yet, the patterns themselves precede the parasite, that never actually created them, but use them due to their identification power on us. We can use the screen and not be used by it – and you would agree with this, using this screen vehicle such as internet and web forum in an attempt to push away from the illusion it was made for: that visible attempt is already, to my observation, a small example the “tip of the iceberg” (metaphor) of that “something” True that emerges from amidst the illusion.

          If you ask me, with regards to the spiritual life, all information is a hoax. Its all there as a distraction. As you say, the only way to win is not to play. The answers are within, but we have only taken the time to uncover some of them.

          I agree. Yet, in the meantime we are left with using a tainted language to communicate or not communicate at all – which is a choice each of us has to make. Communication through words or metaphors will never be pure, so, it requires that both participants have a willingness to overlook the languages inherent insufficiencies and attempt to reach the core of what is trying to be conveyed, directly inaccessible as it is. Fakeology and media analysis or hoax deconstruction is already that: some will shrug it off, other will be willing to attempt to realize what is being conveyed, even when mistakes in any analysis are made.

          With ‘ligare’, I still think the negative connotation (ie ‘to bind’) is the more correct one with regards to ‘religion’. If some individual spiritual growth occurs in a collectivised, mediated, religious structure, it is despite the religion not because of it. Any effects from religion will only stunt the individual. How could it be any other way? The ‘terms’ that religion uses are not innate, pre-linguistic ones we may sense in ourself. They are passed through a thousand minds that all want to direct some of your effort to their ends.

          It seems that, in essence, there is an agreement, as I stated, quoting myself in the previous response: «One way to tell them apart is that a pure “re-ligare” (in the sense of “connection”) will always be individual first and the false “re-ligare” will always be collective first (in the sense of “binding”).»
          Perhaps the only difference, which is perfectly acceptable, I reiterate, is that, like I stated earlier in this response, I observe that “they” got those symbols and patterns from us, then adulterated and misdirected them and “they” did not create them “themselves”.

          Thank You and Kind Regards!

          1. YouCanCallMeAl

            Thanks again for taking the time to reply so thoughtfully. I think we agree on a lot.

            I’m not going to address every point, but I will respond to this:

            So, what I see is that they do not define the symbols and patterns and then program us with them, that is not what I observe.

            I think that is what I observe.

            Taking Christianity – and this bit is an imaginative exercise – I could imagine that the bible was a collection of stories and parables provided by some group of elders, who perhaps were dealing with the same parasite in their time. Having found a way to manage or mitigate the parasite, they chose to use parable as means of communication down the ages, as parable can be translated and is a complete story in itself. They were aware that the parasite would try to subvert whatever was written down, so tried to make it as bulletproof as they could. (Probably lots of religious books are like this). I have a specific interpretation of the bible in that I think the bible is an allegorical tale – not a literal one. That the term ‘God’ is a stand in for truth. And that Jesus is us. So, an allegory. But the manipulators recognising the potency of the message sought to subvert it. They did so by making Jesus a historical figure, rather than the representation of our spiritual side I think it was intended to. He was explained as a literal hero who saved us for eternity. The value of mis-explaining it like this is that we can never be as good as he, and even that there is no great need to live an authentic life personally. As an external figure he should be worshipped externally (in a church), and his teachings should be mediated (by a priest) – so plenty of further opportunities to confuse and mislead.

            Anyway, if that’s anything like what happened, and some years pass and this is what we are taught (historical hero Jesus mediated by the church), I think what we are learning is a knee-jerk reaction to look outside for answers. This is to say we are being programmed incorrectly to waste time and be misdirected by looking for answers in all the wrong places. And that once we accept any external sources, we fall under the spell of one authority or another.. Fakologist is great in so far as it allows us an opportunity to rationally dismiss these sorts of disempowering narratives in the objective reality we share.

            You also said:

            Communication through words or metaphors will never be pure, so, it requires that both participants have a willingness to overlook the languages inherent insufficiencies and attempt to reach the core of what is trying to be conveyed, directly inaccessible as it is.

            I agree that I don’t know how much value there is in communication – in a way it too is distraction. I don’t think you can really reach someone with words, however clear you are. You can either hear your own uncovered knowledge or not. I don’t know if I’ve seen ‘knowing’ transferred this way anyway. What I think I know, I’ve learnt/uncovered for myself. And that knowing can only be like this.

            Perhaps what might happen is that someone who has already uncovered some part of the knowledge within themselves can then talk to another, and find similarities or differences in the description of the terrain that are fruitful. This in itself is a fantastic experience; anything that spurs new thought is great, as well as perhaps taking a hint of further areas of investigation.

            1. A R

              Thank you, Al!

              Taking Christianity – and this bit is an imaginative exercise – I could imagine that the bible was a collection of stories and parables provided by some group of elders, who perhaps were dealing with the same parasite in their time. Having found a way to manage or mitigate the parasite, they chose to use parable as means of communication down the ages, as parable can be translated and is a complete story in itself. They were aware that the parasite would try to subvert whatever was written down, so tried to make it as bulletproof as they could. (Probably lots of religious books are like this). I have a specific interpretation of the bible in that I think the bible is an allegorical tale – not a literal one. That the term ‘God’ is a stand in for truth. And that Jesus is us. So, an allegory. But the manipulators recognising the potency of the message sought to subvert it. They did so by making Jesus a historical figure, rather than the representation of our spiritual side I think it was intended to. He was explained as a literal hero who saved us for eternity. The value of mis-explaining it like this is that we can never be as good as he, and even that there is no great need to live an authentic life personally. As an external figure he should be worshipped externally (in a church), and his teachings should be mediated (by a priest) – so plenty of further opportunities to confuse and mislead.

              Anyway, if that’s anything like what happened, and some years pass and this is what we are taught (historical hero Jesus mediated by the church), I think what we are learning is a knee-jerk reaction to look outside for answers. This is to say we are being programmed incorrectly to waste time and be misdirected by looking for answers in all the wrong places. And that once we accept any external sources, we fall under the spell of one authority or another.

              Your quote above is precisely the type of thing I tried to convey when I wrote that «So, what I see is that they do not define the symbols and patterns and then program us with them, that is not what I observe. I see that they pick up those symbols and patterns, try to make us completely forget about them and then sell them back to us with misleading programming intent. Yet, the patterns themselves precede the parasite, that never actually created them, but use them due to their identification power on us

              The symbols and patterns pre-exist the parasite, are used against it and then the parasite learns to use them to convince us to feed him. This is my view and it seems close to your views too.

              Regarding:

              Perhaps what might happen is that someone who has already uncovered some part of the knowledge within themselves can then talk to another, and find similarities or differences in the description of the terrain that are fruitful. This in itself is a fantastic experience; anything that spurs new thought is great, as well as perhaps taking a hint of further areas of investigation.

              I see it as that is what we are attempting to do with a debate such as this one. We have to use words and juggle them around, but what actually communicates is not in text or language or even thought in its linguistic form. Something we say to each other may trigger a realization in the other that is even seemingly irrational at first sight in relation to what was said, but that is brought about wordlessly and instantaneously anyway.
              I use to say in my channel “Truth speaks no words”, because if it speaks words, even as I do my videos, it is not Truth. Yet, it may emerge in the other anyway – not that I or you gave it, but because it was always already there.

              Kind Regards!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.