For me, these are yet more confirmations that the split among human consciousnesses follows the 80-20 rule: 80% NPC, 16% "in-between", and 4% fully conscious.
But let me trace through the particular manifestation seen in the Milgram experiment. Let me first state that I have separately determined that higher consciousness and an innate moral sense are one and the same phenomenon. Those without higher consciousness, and thus without an innate moral sense, superficially mimic it by "following a moral code". This "external morality" comes from those who that person accepts as "authorities", typically religious and/or political powers and systems. In this, they simply seek external reward or try to avoid external punishment.
So in this case the "experimenter" is accepted by those certain subjects as the authority. He's got a white coat and a clipboard, doesn't he? Nothing they do is immoral because the moral authority has not indicated otherwise.
Interesting note: I heard many years ago that for some of the subjects in this experiment, the higher the compulsion from the experimenter, the more firmly they resisted. I suspect these were the fully conscious subjects.
Interesting note #2: I met a couple of people a few years ago that had recently graduated from the local state university with bachelor's degrees in psychology. Neither one had ever even heard of either this experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment, let alone studied them.
There is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that almost no one was conscious before about 600 BC. The most crucial aspect for finding that evidence is that you have to have the idea firmly in mind before you can properly interpret the evidence that's been in front of you all along.
Take, more or less at random, the Book of Isaiah, which is from the other side of that Great Divide of Consciousness. First chapter, first verse, we find:
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
What an exceedingly strange way to put it. If Isaiah wrote it, why not just say, "My name is Isaiah and this is what I saw"? The same applies if someone pretending to be Isaiah wrote it. And if that author wanted to write honestly, he could simply say, "My name is So-and-so, and I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who heard from Isaiah that...." I claim that we get this odd third person phraseology because Isaiah was not conscious.
First chapter, second verse, we find:
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
Well, it's not like they had some rule against speaking in first person because here is Yahweh doing just that. Why the difference? Yahweh is conscious and speaks in first person.
Try to find any Biblical exegesis explaining this, or even recognizing the difference. You won't. It's just like not having your microscope properly focused: there are a lot of things you simply will not see. That's why I said you had to have the idea firmly in mind.
The 600 BC date comes from the Axial Age, plus much additional evidence. I believe I may have mentioned it before. The exact circumstances of that transition I have yet to fully understand, but it's a much longer story and has nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe or Evolution or anything like that.
The clues are extremely tiny, but here's how it shapes up: a deal was struck between Yahweh and Satan which took effect around 600 BC. Yahweh and his forces withdrew while Satan and the Fallen Angels remained.
The nature of it seems to be something like this: if, in a given period of time, Satan could come to dominate the world and the human race, then he could keep rulership. Humans, virtually all of whom were unconscious up to this time, were to be given a tool to resist: some small fraction of them would receive higher consciousness. I think you may be able to see that consciousness is all we need to free ourselves from our current situation.
The mechanism I believe has something to do with the pineal gland. I would also presume it's a recessive genetic trait. Thus, getting upset with people that "don't get it" is like yelling at the colorblind for their failure to try hard enough. I'm sure you know there is virtually no research available along these lines.
As I say, the evidence for the whole idea is scant and fragmentary. One of the more obvious points is where Jesus is confronted by Satan in the desert. Satan offers him the world. Note, though, that Jesus does not contest that. IOW, he recognizes that the world is Satan's to give. And so it is, if Satan prevails in the deal that has been struck.
Now your microscope must be well focused when you tale a look at this verse (Matthew 8:29):
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Biblical scholars are silent on this, but if pressed I'm sure they would just wave their hands around and talk about Revelation and the End Times or some such. My concept is much more finely tuned.
These "demons" are the un-reincarnated spirits of giants, who were the offspring of the "bene Elohim" and human women, now trapped on Earth and living off loosh. We see that they are aware of who Jesus really is, and they are also aware of the deal that has been put in place. Their fate rests with the outcome of that deal.
Finally, you know that "revelation of the method" thing that conspiracists always talk about? The prevailing idea is that it has to do with karma. Satan and the Elites afraid of karma? Well, maybe. But again, my idea is more concrete. Someone is coming back to make sure that the rules of the contest were followed, and violation equals forfeit. That's something real to keep Satan and his followers in line.
For me, these are yet more confirmations that the split among human consciousnesses follows the 80-20 rule: 80% NPC, 16% "in-between", and 4% fully conscious.
But let me trace through the particular manifestation seen in the Milgram experiment. Let me first state that I have separately determined that higher consciousness and an innate moral sense are one and the same phenomenon. Those without higher consciousness, and thus without an innate moral sense, superficially mimic it by "following a moral code". This "external morality" comes from those who that person accepts as "authorities", typically religious and/or political powers and systems. In this, they simply seek external reward or try to avoid external punishment.
So in this case the "experimenter" is accepted by those certain subjects as the authority. He's got a white coat and a clipboard, doesn't he? Nothing they do is immoral because the moral authority has not indicated otherwise.
Interesting note: I heard many years ago that for some of the subjects in this experiment, the higher the compulsion from the experimenter, the more firmly they resisted. I suspect these were the fully conscious subjects.
Interesting note #2: I met a couple of people a few years ago that had recently graduated from the local state university with bachelor's degrees in psychology. Neither one had ever even heard of either this experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment, let alone studied them.
There is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that almost no one was conscious before about 600 BC. The most crucial aspect for finding that evidence is that you have to have the idea firmly in mind before you can properly interpret the evidence that's been in front of you all along.
Take, more or less at random, the Book of Isaiah, which is from the other side of that Great Divide of Consciousness. First chapter, first verse, we find:
What an exceedingly strange way to put it. If Isaiah wrote it, why not just say, "My name is Isaiah and this is what I saw"? The same applies if someone pretending to be Isaiah wrote it. And if that author wanted to write honestly, he could simply say, "My name is So-and-so, and I heard from a guy who heard from a guy who heard from Isaiah that...." I claim that we get this odd third person phraseology because Isaiah was not conscious.
First chapter, second verse, we find:
Well, it's not like they had some rule against speaking in first person because here is Yahweh doing just that. Why the difference? Yahweh is conscious and speaks in first person.
Try to find any Biblical exegesis explaining this, or even recognizing the difference. You won't. It's just like not having your microscope properly focused: there are a lot of things you simply will not see. That's why I said you had to have the idea firmly in mind.
The 600 BC date comes from the Axial Age, plus much additional evidence. I believe I may have mentioned it before. The exact circumstances of that transition I have yet to fully understand, but it's a much longer story and has nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe or Evolution or anything like that.
The clues are extremely tiny, but here's how it shapes up: a deal was struck between Yahweh and Satan which took effect around 600 BC. Yahweh and his forces withdrew while Satan and the Fallen Angels remained.
The nature of it seems to be something like this: if, in a given period of time, Satan could come to dominate the world and the human race, then he could keep rulership. Humans, virtually all of whom were unconscious up to this time, were to be given a tool to resist: some small fraction of them would receive higher consciousness. I think you may be able to see that consciousness is all we need to free ourselves from our current situation.
The mechanism I believe has something to do with the pineal gland. I would also presume it's a recessive genetic trait. Thus, getting upset with people that "don't get it" is like yelling at the colorblind for their failure to try hard enough. I'm sure you know there is virtually no research available along these lines.
As I say, the evidence for the whole idea is scant and fragmentary. One of the more obvious points is where Jesus is confronted by Satan in the desert. Satan offers him the world. Note, though, that Jesus does not contest that. IOW, he recognizes that the world is Satan's to give. And so it is, if Satan prevails in the deal that has been struck.
Now your microscope must be well focused when you tale a look at this verse (Matthew 8:29):
Biblical scholars are silent on this, but if pressed I'm sure they would just wave their hands around and talk about Revelation and the End Times or some such. My concept is much more finely tuned.
These "demons" are the un-reincarnated spirits of giants, who were the offspring of the "bene Elohim" and human women, now trapped on Earth and living off loosh. We see that they are aware of who Jesus really is, and they are also aware of the deal that has been put in place. Their fate rests with the outcome of that deal.
Finally, you know that "revelation of the method" thing that conspiracists always talk about? The prevailing idea is that it has to do with karma. Satan and the Elites afraid of karma? Well, maybe. But again, my idea is more concrete. Someone is coming back to make sure that the rules of the contest were followed, and violation equals forfeit. That's something real to keep Satan and his followers in line.