Thinking would require an inner voice. Otherwise they're just reacting.
I'm not convinced people 'with no inner voice' exist. Maybe actual retarded people. It's like the airplane taking off from a treadmill question, people are confused about what's being asked.
Do I hear 'other voices' no, can I think to myself without talking, of course. Everyone does.
I've read enough of those Reddit threads to know they exist. The study was done with prisoners because they were able to find the most in one place. They don't think about how what they do effects others at much higher rates. They also can't think steps ahead.
A long time ago someone asked me "if you put a human brain in a pig and raised it from birth as a pig, would it be capable of human levels of conciousness and reasoning? Or would the mind mould to fit its environment (I.e. human potential is lost and it will remain a pig forever)?
I think people without monologues care raised without learning how to reason so there's no need to develooe a monologue.
I just started reading Dune (despite reading a ton in general) and that tracks with the way the BGs use the term "humans".
That said, seems like a lot of extra work to do when you can just run some MSM articles that prompt the NPCs to bleat about how cool they are for not being able to actually formulate thoughts.
I actually had an experience with a girl once, in highschool, who casually mentioned how weird it was when writers in books would describe how they could envision things. They thought it was metaphorical and overdramatic. I somehow managed to successfully walk her
through imagining something in her head, and it was like someone's reaction to taking mushrooms for the first time. She couldn't believe what had happened, her pupils dilated, she was excited and had goosebumps. I believe that you're partially correct in that this ability is suppressed in a lot of people. However, there do appear to be some people who are just genuinely incapable of it.
Your lesson is a memory from Sunday School and reading circle for me. Did you ever all image a rose, and smell the rose? I grew up hearing my elders say so much was removed from school. Even more was removed when my kids were in school.
Sometimes, I just sit on my balcony for hours and stare in to my mind's eye, casually living through countless scenarios and ideas that are so vivid and wild it would make Pixar jealous. I just can't fathom living through life without this ability; it's as natural to me as breathing. We are a completely dominated, subjugated and oppressed species. But God is Great, and has a perfect sense of humor which is based on truth and love— real love, full of justice and wisdom. I've seen enough people's lives get undone by their evil actions to know that karma is the sword with which God strikes down evil: they set in motion their own demise, by the very laws of nature.
Even the most evil people, who lived comfortable lives until death, will have to suffer in the afterlife— watching everything they built be torn down and repurposed by even greater evil, until it all gets conquered by good, for good.
If you have an inner voice, if can be irritating when the topic comes up because suddenly you're narrating in your mind. Reddit threads cull of yes vs no are insane with the number of no's
I dont think so, If you ask a person with a monologue they look at you like your stupid say "yeah, it wont shut up".
Ask someone without they look at you like have two heads and say "umm no?" Cause they cant imagine. The idea is crazy.
My deaf ex said it's pictures in her head and when she dreams they communicate telepathically instead of signing or writing in a notebook/phone. Always thought that was interesting.
The soul’s connection to God will be abolished through medicine, vaccines, and the disconnect from nature and natural healing. Rudolph Steiner said this would happen in 1917. You can see the effects today.
Medicine/medic/med - "take appropriate measures" implies ones free will of choice taking possession of suggested moderation...which tempts one to ignore perceivable moderation moving through one, hence being FREE (will of choice) within DOM (-inance of balance).
Balance moderates choice...measuring other choices imbalances ones choice.
disconnect from nature
Nature/natus - "born" implies within by separation of whole into partials.
DIS (apart) CON (together) NECTERE (to bind) implies ones choice to bind self to a suggested contradiction.
Interestingly enough, physiology textbooks clearly explain the physiological basis for the inner monologue, I guess they dont "trust the science" anymore
There has been essentially no disciplined research on defining and characterizing the "soul". The last I'm aware of was done by the Ancient Egyptians. Thus, it's certainly premature to say that NPCs do not have souls. Many people will have the intuition that all humans most probably do.
That being said, among other evidence, the violent backlash against the concept of NPCs can tell us two things. One is confirmation that it exists. Why fight so hard against something that isn't there? The other is that the Dark Occultists that run the world consider it one of the Big Secrets, as it provides crucial insight into human consciousness and, perhaps, the soul itself.
The closest analogy of which I am aware is to liken NPCs to people who are color-blind. That is, for some reason (which can possibly be traced to a biological origin), certain people lack a capability which other humans possess. In one case it has to do with vision, in the other with the level of consciousness.
In both cases, it's not for "lack or trying" or "stupidity" or "moral failure" or "propaganda" or any similar reason you see offered universally. In both cases, the condition is not readily apparent to others, it cannot be detected through introspection. and a person may remain unaware of it through their entire life.
It turns out that for someone attuned to the correct paradigm, there is actually quite a bit of available evidence pertaining to this condition. What I cannot avoid concluding is that there are also zero people interested in such evidence.
That may sound like a slam, but there's a vital point to be made: for those who one might think would be interested in researching such a subject, they display no consciousness whatsoever that their paradigm regarding it may be in error and should be reconsidered.
NPCs are unable to conceive that there is higher level of consciousness, and so will presumably be forever unable to reach it. So too, at that higher level of consciousness above NPCs which the Gnostics termed "psychics", are in a parallel way unable to conceive that there is a higher level of consciousness above their own. Most are conspiracy theorists of one type or other, and in fact this is the very reason they are conspiracy theorists in the first place.
At a rough guess, the numbers are 80%, 15%, and 5% between hylics, psychics, and pneumatics, respectively. One should also be aware that a person who has a higher capacity but is underdeveloped may simply appear to be a person of lower capacity. Personally, I thought there was nothing at all suspicious about 9/11 until late in 2012.
If you're someone out there reading this and feel like you "get it", rather than are furiously thinking of all the reasons it is incorrect, then you must now realize the difficult tilt of the playing field we're on.
That's why, imo, belief in God is absolutely essential in realizing true human potential. Look at the great works that ancient humans accomplished, many of which we are incapable of currently replicating; hint: there's a recurring theme in all of them. Understanding that there is an infinite limit to consciousness, and only one thing stands outside of that limit, which is by its very nature incomprehensible, is a fuel for the fire of curiosity and therefore growth.
This is the best description of a theory I have been pondering for a while. Based on my own observations, there clearly is a difference between humans, irrespective of general benign differences. For lack of being able to put my finger on it, I theorized that there must be beings on this planet that look and behave like humans, but dramatically diverge when it comes to matters of morality (for lack of a better word). For example, in the extreme, the act of taking someone's life. I watched an interrogation video where the suspect was being questioned as to why he dismembered his girlfriend. He was caught with some of her body parts in his car, so no doubt about his guilt. He described how he dismembered her and distributed her parts all over town. Within the same breath that he described this horrible crime, he insisted that "in no way did his crime take away from the fact that he was still a good person". There was no presence of mental health issues, so you have to wonder what kind of human is this? All this to say, I think you description of the "disconnect" is the best to describe how we may all look similar, but there is a clear difference in how we process and act on information.
Hey, I'm glad you found the info useful, and thanks very much for your thoughtful reply!
Since you're interested in the subject, let me put a few more pieces on the table and tell you how I've got them arranged. There's a lot of evidence to support those pieces, but rather than detail all that (which I am more than willing to offer if you're interested), I think it's much more constructive if you have the "framework" in mind as you encounter evidence organically in your own studies. Then you see whether it fit or does not. Anyway...
As far as I can tell, there is only one type of human. Well, there may be an exception to that when it comes to "Illuminati bloodlines", but that doesn't play a big part in the analysis of our situation. If They did what They do for love or money or because They're half-alien, there's not much functional difference. Nor is there much evidence in any case, aside from that They clearly like to "keep it in the family".
So the framework seems to be that humans develop naturally through three levels, and the fundamental difference between them is the upper limit. I have no idea how the limit is determined. It does not seem to be hereditary, as one would imagine.
There are very scant indications that development to the highest level can be artificially stimulated, but the technique is baffling because the underlying mechanism in unknown. Development can certainly be halted. For example, Satanists are aware they need to traumatize children before age 7 to arrest them at the lowest level.
All this leads into the subject or morality and moral behavior. I have found that these three levels of consciousness are identical with three type of "morality". That is, a particular faculty of moral reasoning is set by the level of consciousness. So you see why the Satanists are so concerned.
NPCs, at the lowest level, have no in-built moral sense. They are guided simply by external systems of reward and punishment. Don't wan't to go to jail? Don't break the law. Or, don't get caught doing it, see? Want to go to Heaven? Go to church on Sunday and don't cheat on your wife. Oh, and kill the pagans if you're instructed to, the more pagans the better. So morality ends up coming from external authorities.
In the middle state, morality comes from deliberate moral reasoning, comparing facts and circumstances to a moral code adopted along the way. Such reasoning can be very tricky, and the biggest problem is that humans can "rationalize" just about anything. In this scenario, the reasoning most often comes out to be the personally convenient course. Whaddaya know? But it's why, for example, you see Bill Maher say some surprising things from time to time.
At the highest level, a moral sense is in-built, as reliable yet undefinable as knowing up from down. (Okay, yeah, I know it's your inner ear, but if no one had told you that you'd have no idea where to point when asked where that sense resided.) For such people, if Jesus Himself told them murder was okay, it would still not be okay.
Final note on how NPCs connect the murderer in your example to people supporting the Israeli genocide: they all think of themselves as "good" people. You see, for them that's the axiom rather than the conclusion. Their moral reasoning is completely inverted, or more accurately one would say it is moral rationalization.
"Good" people are pro-Israel and send bombs to Israel to slaughter "bad" people, and how could it be otherwise? The key observation here is that slaughter--for any reason--does not seem to bother any of them in the slightest. You can't find a single one of them praying, "Jesus, Lord, have mercy, let it end." At least I haven't heard one yet.
So much to take in.
I believe I agree with your premise. I have always had an intuition that there is something different deep down between humans that is solely related to nature. One might be able to argue it could have to do with the specific hominid (Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Naledi) that Homo Sapiens Sapiens bonded with to produce modern man. I am sure one could make anecdotal cases for variants, to which I would call that an outlier. This intuition has become a near surety since Covid. The division between NPC, middle class and highest level has become obviously naked to any casual observer.
Risking the perception that I am put myself at the highest level, as most would naturally do, I think it best describes me. For instance, I tried to take a boxing class. However, when it came to the act of raising my hand to strike another person in the face, I found it offensive. The idea of reaching out and striking someone, even in friendly competition, somehow felt beneath my ideals. If Jesus, showed up and said, "it's okay to kill", I would likely say "No thanks".
We have used the word morality in this discussion, but I have some trouble with the word's meaning. We are conditioned to think that being moral or having morals is "taking the high road or being good", however, I understand the word to mean "whatever society determines is good". That is a slippery slope, some societies consider eating dogs as perfectly fine, they have no compunction with it. Does that make eating dogs moral? Not in my book, but I wasn't raised in that society. See how morality can mean different things to different people.
That being said, I am against all violence (right, everyone says that, but do they really mean it), being a fan of history, the amount of loss that has taken place over time due to fighting wars is unimaginable. Especially, that wars are fought by the little guy for the sake of the big guy. That I cannot abide. It is my opinion, based on a study of history, Israel has been at the heart of aggressing this conflict in this region.
As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"
Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.
I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.
NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.
As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.
First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.
Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.
Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.
Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?
So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.
I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol
f) isn't that exactly what's implied by your etymological reduction and the generally understood definition of the word itself? Aka: reasoning with yourself in a form of self-debate, with your own "devil's advocate" (contrarian perspective), to find a truth that you may not have been previously aware of without exploring your own logical constructs.
Is it reduction to acknowledge letters used to shape words? Is it reduction to acknowledge perceivable sound underneath suggestible words?
etymological...reasoning with yourself in a form of self-debate
a) Reasoning implies a conflict against others; hence choosing a side, which brands everyone else as ones opposite. For example...agree vs disagree; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; yes vs no; me vs you; us vs them etc.
One cannot choose a side within any conflict of reason without opposing others.
b) Notice that YOURself implies a conflict of reason...MYself vs YOURself.
The foundation for this...nature designates units (Latin unitas; unus; one) aka each one's self. If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I"; then one brands every other one as "YOU".
ME generates YOU. Nature implies oneness (whole) generating ones (partials). Ones claim over self (me) implies self possession, which in return permits another (you) to establish demonic possession aka dai-mon - "divider; provider" by dividing one into a conflict of reason against others through provided suggestions.
If one consents to a suggestion (want or not want); then one establishes a conflict of reason (want versus not want).
c) Reason implies form vs form; implication implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Few suggest inFORMation to tempt many to ignore perceivable inSPIRation. Latin spiro (to breathe) implies forms adaptation to flow aka life adapting to being moved from inception towards death aka reaction (exhale) adapting to action (inhale).
generally understood definition
a) Definite (fixed) contradicts tion (action aka motion). Ones consent to suggested information implies ones free will of choice holding onto a definition, while ignoring perceivable inspiration...which one cannot hold onto, since it moves. Hold onto your breath to discern that for self.
The trick...suggested definition aka DEAF PHONETICIAN tempts one to ignore perceivable PHONIC (sound; entire aka all perceivable offered to each ones perception).
b) Understand implies "standing under" aka ones consent submitting self to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to stand up/rise/sustain self within KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".
c) Being implies reactor (life) within generator (inception towards death) aka reaction within action aka form within flow aka matter within motion.
Few collectivize many into "gentiles" by tricking each one to react to suggestions by few instead of perceivable generation. If reactor ignores generation; then it ignores re-generation of self.
In other words...suggested "actors" under "directors" tempts one to ignore being directed (inception towards death) reactors (life).
Simply suggesting the word "actor" inverts reality, where matter reacts to enacting motion...if one consents to suggested, which ignores perceivable.
with your own "devil's advocate" (contrarian perspective)
a) If one exists (life) WITHin (inception towards death); then that implies a separation by motion into matter....matter cannot own anything within motion.
Few utilize suggestion to tempt many to CLAIM ownership by consent aka to buy into what few are selling aka to take into possession aka to avow; to confess; to belong etc.
b) Reason implies contrary (versus); which contradicts implication (if/then).
There's no conflict within implication...if motion; then matter + if balance; then choice + if whole; then partials + if all; then ones + If inception towards death; then life etc.
Nature doesn't reason...it moves; which implies those being moved. It's those within nature who choose to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions, who are reasoning against one another over the suggested while ignoring implication of all perceivable.
This is the foundation for the great work of masonry...hiding reality (perceivable inspiration; implication) underneath fiction (suggested information; reason).
c) Advocate aka ad (towards) vocare (to call) implies suggested progressivism tempting ones consent forwards, while ignore that perception (life) needs to resist wanted temptations within perceivable (inception towards death).
Life cannot consent to suggested progressivism without destroying itself...yet few can suggest progressivism to tempt many to willingly destroy each other.
to find a truth
Consenting to suggested information implies wanting (truth) or not wanting (lies) it; while ignoring perceivable need (change).
Applying change to truth changes it into a lie and vice versa. Take for example "I AM"...that's a truth suggested during change (inception towards death), hence moving towards becoming a lie...no matter how hard one tries to hold onto ones life.
In short...suggested words contradict perceivable sound. The former tempts one to hold onto it as truth; which permits others to use contradiction as lies, while perceivable sound simply changes aka moves.
you may not have been previously aware of without exploring your own logical constructs.
What if one uses implication (if/then) instead of logic/reason aka logos/words?
What if one is aware of perceivable sound as the foundation of any suggestible words shaped within?
What if suggested information tempts one to own it; while perceivable inspiration sets each one within as FREE will of choice?
What if consenting by free will of choice binds one to the suggestions of another aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew)?
What if nature doesn't CON (together; with) STRUCT (building matter)...but instead sets matter (life) apart from one another within motion (inception towards death)?
There is a universality of living things...something animates it. Dead or alive is such a fundamental binary it's hard to deny it exists.
However, a blade of grass has almost no awareness other than growing towards light an water, but a dog, why, it has emotions and expressions and limited self awareness. Crows are smarter, so to speak, than a new born human.
I suppose the thing I'm saying here is that there is no switch over in the mechanics of what makes something alive once the creature becomes complex enough. The soul, which animates the living thing, gets more complex along with the complexity of the living thing.
This is a fun philosophical exercise- one that is ultimately unknowable. The consciousness field permeates through the universe- like gravity. My belief is that field is what animates life itself. A soul (insofar as I understand it) would require a level of consciousness high enough to be aware of its own existence- something a blade of grass lacks, but a crow absolutely has in spades.
I really have no idea if that’s where the line gets drawn (or, to your point, if there’s a line at all between consciousness and presence of soul), but it makes logical sense (to me, anyway) that a soul would have to be aware of itself to exist beyond this realm once it’s physical vessel perishes.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this subject.
I would disagree with your comment about a blade of grass. It has been proven that plants communicate with one another, feel pain, react to harm, and seek environments to their benefit.
One example, trees communicate with one another through their root systems. It has been documented that if a tree is being damaged, it will send signals to other trees around it, and they will produce chemicals to strengthen their branches and trunk.
I subscribe to the matter is energy and energy is matter thought. Everything has the spark of life (or God), simply because we don't see it, speak its language, or understand it does not mean it does not exist.
The whole "x% of the people don't have inner monologue" is retarded and is most likely a transhumanist psy op to convince people they or others are not fully human. In reality everyone (safe for the severally mentally impaired) has such a voice, but some fail in recognizing and defining it as such. The whole thing is as scientific as the coof science, evo theory or climate change.
It's embarrassing seeing conspiracy savvy folks here taking the bait because it's politically charged: "woke libs are literal NPCs bro - here's the study". No, they are as human as you and me, but their fallen nature allows them to be ignorant, stupid and degenerate. It's a matter of free will ultimately and a moral issue, not a physiological or intellectual one.
I came to this conclusion on my own thanks to covid.
Sooooo. They never read the study about inner voices. This is what they think is normal. Notice it cites reddit threads. There have been many.
https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue-explain-what-its-like-in-their-head-57739
It cannot be coincidental that someone with no inner monologue has no idea what they're talking about 🤣
Thinking before they speak seems to be impossible too.
Thinking would require an inner voice. Otherwise they're just reacting.
I'm not convinced people 'with no inner voice' exist. Maybe actual retarded people. It's like the airplane taking off from a treadmill question, people are confused about what's being asked.
Do I hear 'other voices' no, can I think to myself without talking, of course. Everyone does.
I've read enough of those Reddit threads to know they exist. The study was done with prisoners because they were able to find the most in one place. They don't think about how what they do effects others at much higher rates. They also can't think steps ahead.
I want to know how they read in their head.
A long time ago someone asked me "if you put a human brain in a pig and raised it from birth as a pig, would it be capable of human levels of conciousness and reasoning? Or would the mind mould to fit its environment (I.e. human potential is lost and it will remain a pig forever)?
I think people without monologues care raised without learning how to reason so there's no need to develooe a monologue.
This is why the "people without monologues" is a bullshit psyop.
What if just/iustus/ius/right (inception towards death) generates reactions (life)? What if right implies ones rite of passage?
What if require aka re quaerere implies ones reaction seeking something?
What if ones mind/memory reacts to everything already available?
What if seeking (suggested) tempts one to ignore available (perceivable)?
What convinced you that NO; NOT; NOTHING can exist?
Actual/action implies motion; retardation aka re tardo (delayed response)...what if retardation implies ones delayed response (life) to motion (inception towards death)?
This still blows my mind. NPCs are a danger to real humans and need to be eliminated IMO.
This is the purpose of the Gom Jabbar test.
I just started reading Dune (despite reading a ton in general) and that tracks with the way the BGs use the term "humans".
That said, seems like a lot of extra work to do when you can just run some MSM articles that prompt the NPCs to bleat about how cool they are for not being able to actually formulate thoughts.
Some of us have great instincts, but we were taught to ignore them because it was weird as a child. relearning how to listen is very difficult.
I actually had an experience with a girl once, in highschool, who casually mentioned how weird it was when writers in books would describe how they could envision things. They thought it was metaphorical and overdramatic. I somehow managed to successfully walk her through imagining something in her head, and it was like someone's reaction to taking mushrooms for the first time. She couldn't believe what had happened, her pupils dilated, she was excited and had goosebumps. I believe that you're partially correct in that this ability is suppressed in a lot of people. However, there do appear to be some people who are just genuinely incapable of it.
Your lesson is a memory from Sunday School and reading circle for me. Did you ever all image a rose, and smell the rose? I grew up hearing my elders say so much was removed from school. Even more was removed when my kids were in school.
It's just sad. This was by design.
Sometimes, I just sit on my balcony for hours and stare in to my mind's eye, casually living through countless scenarios and ideas that are so vivid and wild it would make Pixar jealous. I just can't fathom living through life without this ability; it's as natural to me as breathing. We are a completely dominated, subjugated and oppressed species. But God is Great, and has a perfect sense of humor which is based on truth and love— real love, full of justice and wisdom. I've seen enough people's lives get undone by their evil actions to know that karma is the sword with which God strikes down evil: they set in motion their own demise, by the very laws of nature.
Even the most evil people, who lived comfortable lives until death, will have to suffer in the afterlife— watching everything they built be torn down and repurposed by even greater evil, until it all gets conquered by good, for good.
First three dune books are pretty solid.
I have thought that people who say they don't have an inner voice are just misunderstanding the question.
Just seems so weird that they have nothing going on at all.
Even if it's not a "voice" as such how do people even think thoughts?
If you have an inner voice, if can be irritating when the topic comes up because suddenly you're narrating in your mind. Reddit threads cull of yes vs no are insane with the number of no's
I dont think so, If you ask a person with a monologue they look at you like your stupid say "yeah, it wont shut up". Ask someone without they look at you like have two heads and say "umm no?" Cause they cant imagine. The idea is crazy.
My deaf ex said it's pictures in her head and when she dreams they communicate telepathically instead of signing or writing in a notebook/phone. Always thought that was interesting.
The soul’s connection to God will be abolished through medicine, vaccines, and the disconnect from nature and natural healing. Rudolph Steiner said this would happen in 1917. You can see the effects today.
Medicine/medic/med - "take appropriate measures" implies ones free will of choice taking possession of suggested moderation...which tempts one to ignore perceivable moderation moving through one, hence being FREE (will of choice) within DOM (-inance of balance).
Balance moderates choice...measuring other choices imbalances ones choice.
Nature/natus - "born" implies within by separation of whole into partials.
DIS (apart) CON (together) NECTERE (to bind) implies ones choice to bind self to a suggested contradiction.
Not shocked that they all happen to be woke too.
Interestingly enough, physiology textbooks clearly explain the physiological basis for the inner monologue, I guess they dont "trust the science" anymore
It first their feelings, it can't be so.
So, how would a hylic feel if they didn't have breakfast this morning?
But I did have breakfast this morning, duh. Are you stupid or something?
There has been essentially no disciplined research on defining and characterizing the "soul". The last I'm aware of was done by the Ancient Egyptians. Thus, it's certainly premature to say that NPCs do not have souls. Many people will have the intuition that all humans most probably do.
That being said, among other evidence, the violent backlash against the concept of NPCs can tell us two things. One is confirmation that it exists. Why fight so hard against something that isn't there? The other is that the Dark Occultists that run the world consider it one of the Big Secrets, as it provides crucial insight into human consciousness and, perhaps, the soul itself.
The closest analogy of which I am aware is to liken NPCs to people who are color-blind. That is, for some reason (which can possibly be traced to a biological origin), certain people lack a capability which other humans possess. In one case it has to do with vision, in the other with the level of consciousness.
In both cases, it's not for "lack or trying" or "stupidity" or "moral failure" or "propaganda" or any similar reason you see offered universally. In both cases, the condition is not readily apparent to others, it cannot be detected through introspection. and a person may remain unaware of it through their entire life.
It turns out that for someone attuned to the correct paradigm, there is actually quite a bit of available evidence pertaining to this condition. What I cannot avoid concluding is that there are also zero people interested in such evidence.
That may sound like a slam, but there's a vital point to be made: for those who one might think would be interested in researching such a subject, they display no consciousness whatsoever that their paradigm regarding it may be in error and should be reconsidered.
NPCs are unable to conceive that there is higher level of consciousness, and so will presumably be forever unable to reach it. So too, at that higher level of consciousness above NPCs which the Gnostics termed "psychics", are in a parallel way unable to conceive that there is a higher level of consciousness above their own. Most are conspiracy theorists of one type or other, and in fact this is the very reason they are conspiracy theorists in the first place.
At a rough guess, the numbers are 80%, 15%, and 5% between hylics, psychics, and pneumatics, respectively. One should also be aware that a person who has a higher capacity but is underdeveloped may simply appear to be a person of lower capacity. Personally, I thought there was nothing at all suspicious about 9/11 until late in 2012.
If you're someone out there reading this and feel like you "get it", rather than are furiously thinking of all the reasons it is incorrect, then you must now realize the difficult tilt of the playing field we're on.
That's why, imo, belief in God is absolutely essential in realizing true human potential. Look at the great works that ancient humans accomplished, many of which we are incapable of currently replicating; hint: there's a recurring theme in all of them. Understanding that there is an infinite limit to consciousness, and only one thing stands outside of that limit, which is by its very nature incomprehensible, is a fuel for the fire of curiosity and therefore growth.
This is the best description of a theory I have been pondering for a while. Based on my own observations, there clearly is a difference between humans, irrespective of general benign differences. For lack of being able to put my finger on it, I theorized that there must be beings on this planet that look and behave like humans, but dramatically diverge when it comes to matters of morality (for lack of a better word). For example, in the extreme, the act of taking someone's life. I watched an interrogation video where the suspect was being questioned as to why he dismembered his girlfriend. He was caught with some of her body parts in his car, so no doubt about his guilt. He described how he dismembered her and distributed her parts all over town. Within the same breath that he described this horrible crime, he insisted that "in no way did his crime take away from the fact that he was still a good person". There was no presence of mental health issues, so you have to wonder what kind of human is this? All this to say, I think you description of the "disconnect" is the best to describe how we may all look similar, but there is a clear difference in how we process and act on information.
Hey, I'm glad you found the info useful, and thanks very much for your thoughtful reply!
Since you're interested in the subject, let me put a few more pieces on the table and tell you how I've got them arranged. There's a lot of evidence to support those pieces, but rather than detail all that (which I am more than willing to offer if you're interested), I think it's much more constructive if you have the "framework" in mind as you encounter evidence organically in your own studies. Then you see whether it fit or does not. Anyway...
As far as I can tell, there is only one type of human. Well, there may be an exception to that when it comes to "Illuminati bloodlines", but that doesn't play a big part in the analysis of our situation. If They did what They do for love or money or because They're half-alien, there's not much functional difference. Nor is there much evidence in any case, aside from that They clearly like to "keep it in the family".
So the framework seems to be that humans develop naturally through three levels, and the fundamental difference between them is the upper limit. I have no idea how the limit is determined. It does not seem to be hereditary, as one would imagine.
There are very scant indications that development to the highest level can be artificially stimulated, but the technique is baffling because the underlying mechanism in unknown. Development can certainly be halted. For example, Satanists are aware they need to traumatize children before age 7 to arrest them at the lowest level.
All this leads into the subject or morality and moral behavior. I have found that these three levels of consciousness are identical with three type of "morality". That is, a particular faculty of moral reasoning is set by the level of consciousness. So you see why the Satanists are so concerned.
NPCs, at the lowest level, have no in-built moral sense. They are guided simply by external systems of reward and punishment. Don't wan't to go to jail? Don't break the law. Or, don't get caught doing it, see? Want to go to Heaven? Go to church on Sunday and don't cheat on your wife. Oh, and kill the pagans if you're instructed to, the more pagans the better. So morality ends up coming from external authorities.
In the middle state, morality comes from deliberate moral reasoning, comparing facts and circumstances to a moral code adopted along the way. Such reasoning can be very tricky, and the biggest problem is that humans can "rationalize" just about anything. In this scenario, the reasoning most often comes out to be the personally convenient course. Whaddaya know? But it's why, for example, you see Bill Maher say some surprising things from time to time.
At the highest level, a moral sense is in-built, as reliable yet undefinable as knowing up from down. (Okay, yeah, I know it's your inner ear, but if no one had told you that you'd have no idea where to point when asked where that sense resided.) For such people, if Jesus Himself told them murder was okay, it would still not be okay.
Final note on how NPCs connect the murderer in your example to people supporting the Israeli genocide: they all think of themselves as "good" people. You see, for them that's the axiom rather than the conclusion. Their moral reasoning is completely inverted, or more accurately one would say it is moral rationalization.
"Good" people are pro-Israel and send bombs to Israel to slaughter "bad" people, and how could it be otherwise? The key observation here is that slaughter--for any reason--does not seem to bother any of them in the slightest. You can't find a single one of them praying, "Jesus, Lord, have mercy, let it end." At least I haven't heard one yet.
So much to take in. I believe I agree with your premise. I have always had an intuition that there is something different deep down between humans that is solely related to nature. One might be able to argue it could have to do with the specific hominid (Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Naledi) that Homo Sapiens Sapiens bonded with to produce modern man. I am sure one could make anecdotal cases for variants, to which I would call that an outlier. This intuition has become a near surety since Covid. The division between NPC, middle class and highest level has become obviously naked to any casual observer.
Risking the perception that I am put myself at the highest level, as most would naturally do, I think it best describes me. For instance, I tried to take a boxing class. However, when it came to the act of raising my hand to strike another person in the face, I found it offensive. The idea of reaching out and striking someone, even in friendly competition, somehow felt beneath my ideals. If Jesus, showed up and said, "it's okay to kill", I would likely say "No thanks".
We have used the word morality in this discussion, but I have some trouble with the word's meaning. We are conditioned to think that being moral or having morals is "taking the high road or being good", however, I understand the word to mean "whatever society determines is good". That is a slippery slope, some societies consider eating dogs as perfectly fine, they have no compunction with it. Does that make eating dogs moral? Not in my book, but I wasn't raised in that society. See how morality can mean different things to different people.
That being said, I am against all violence (right, everyone says that, but do they really mean it), being a fan of history, the amount of loss that has taken place over time due to fighting wars is unimaginable. Especially, that wars are fought by the little guy for the sake of the big guy. That I cannot abide. It is my opinion, based on a study of history, Israel has been at the heart of aggressing this conflict in this region.
As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"
Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.
I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.
NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.
As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.
First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.
Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.
Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.
Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?
So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.
I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol
Is there a known link between no monologue and left politics?
If you were stuck in the snow, naked, how would you feel? I'm not nekkid and I'm not in da snow. Yes but imagine if you were. I'm not
a) What if one exists within soul/sole?
b) What if logi (logic/reason) tempts one to ignore being bios (one's life) within zoe (inception towards death animation)?
c) What if nature implies perceivable sound (flow), while those within suggest words (form) to distract from that?
d) What if matter (hylic/hylo) can only exist within motion?
e) Does an inner monologue exist before ones consent to a suggested language by another?
f) What if logue (logic/reason/conflict/one side vs another) contradicts mono (one and only aka sole/soul)?
f) isn't that exactly what's implied by your etymological reduction and the generally understood definition of the word itself? Aka: reasoning with yourself in a form of self-debate, with your own "devil's advocate" (contrarian perspective), to find a truth that you may not have been previously aware of without exploring your own logical constructs.
Is it reduction to acknowledge letters used to shape words? Is it reduction to acknowledge perceivable sound underneath suggestible words?
a) Reasoning implies a conflict against others; hence choosing a side, which brands everyone else as ones opposite. For example...agree vs disagree; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; yes vs no; me vs you; us vs them etc.
One cannot choose a side within any conflict of reason without opposing others.
b) Notice that YOURself implies a conflict of reason...MYself vs YOURself.
The foundation for this...nature designates units (Latin unitas; unus; one) aka each one's self. If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I"; then one brands every other one as "YOU".
ME generates YOU. Nature implies oneness (whole) generating ones (partials). Ones claim over self (me) implies self possession, which in return permits another (you) to establish demonic possession aka dai-mon - "divider; provider" by dividing one into a conflict of reason against others through provided suggestions.
If one consents to a suggestion (want or not want); then one establishes a conflict of reason (want versus not want).
c) Reason implies form vs form; implication implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Few suggest inFORMation to tempt many to ignore perceivable inSPIRation. Latin spiro (to breathe) implies forms adaptation to flow aka life adapting to being moved from inception towards death aka reaction (exhale) adapting to action (inhale).
a) Definite (fixed) contradicts tion (action aka motion). Ones consent to suggested information implies ones free will of choice holding onto a definition, while ignoring perceivable inspiration...which one cannot hold onto, since it moves. Hold onto your breath to discern that for self.
The trick...suggested definition aka DEAF PHONETICIAN tempts one to ignore perceivable PHONIC (sound; entire aka all perceivable offered to each ones perception).
b) Understand implies "standing under" aka ones consent submitting self to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to stand up/rise/sustain self within KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".
Understanding (suggested information) contradicts knowledge (perceivable inspiration).
c) Being implies reactor (life) within generator (inception towards death) aka reaction within action aka form within flow aka matter within motion.
Few collectivize many into "gentiles" by tricking each one to react to suggestions by few instead of perceivable generation. If reactor ignores generation; then it ignores re-generation of self.
In other words...suggested "actors" under "directors" tempts one to ignore being directed (inception towards death) reactors (life).
Simply suggesting the word "actor" inverts reality, where matter reacts to enacting motion...if one consents to suggested, which ignores perceivable.
a) If one exists (life) WITHin (inception towards death); then that implies a separation by motion into matter....matter cannot own anything within motion.
Few utilize suggestion to tempt many to CLAIM ownership by consent aka to buy into what few are selling aka to take into possession aka to avow; to confess; to belong etc.
b) Reason implies contrary (versus); which contradicts implication (if/then).
There's no conflict within implication...if motion; then matter + if balance; then choice + if whole; then partials + if all; then ones + If inception towards death; then life etc.
Nature doesn't reason...it moves; which implies those being moved. It's those within nature who choose to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions, who are reasoning against one another over the suggested while ignoring implication of all perceivable.
This is the foundation for the great work of masonry...hiding reality (perceivable inspiration; implication) underneath fiction (suggested information; reason).
c) Advocate aka ad (towards) vocare (to call) implies suggested progressivism tempting ones consent forwards, while ignore that perception (life) needs to resist wanted temptations within perceivable (inception towards death).
Life cannot consent to suggested progressivism without destroying itself...yet few can suggest progressivism to tempt many to willingly destroy each other.
Consenting to suggested information implies wanting (truth) or not wanting (lies) it; while ignoring perceivable need (change).
Applying change to truth changes it into a lie and vice versa. Take for example "I AM"...that's a truth suggested during change (inception towards death), hence moving towards becoming a lie...no matter how hard one tries to hold onto ones life.
In short...suggested words contradict perceivable sound. The former tempts one to hold onto it as truth; which permits others to use contradiction as lies, while perceivable sound simply changes aka moves.
What if one uses implication (if/then) instead of logic/reason aka logos/words?
What if one is aware of perceivable sound as the foundation of any suggestible words shaped within?
What if suggested information tempts one to own it; while perceivable inspiration sets each one within as FREE will of choice?
What if consenting by free will of choice binds one to the suggestions of another aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew)?
What if nature doesn't CON (together; with) STRUCT (building matter)...but instead sets matter (life) apart from one another within motion (inception towards death)?
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality
Every living this has a soul, from a blade of grass to a tree to a cicada to a lion to a human. While only humans have a rational soul.
The NPC meme merely shows that most people don't do much rational thinking.
Consciousness at some level, sure. A soul is a bit much for a blade of grass.
There is a universality of living things...something animates it. Dead or alive is such a fundamental binary it's hard to deny it exists.
However, a blade of grass has almost no awareness other than growing towards light an water, but a dog, why, it has emotions and expressions and limited self awareness. Crows are smarter, so to speak, than a new born human.
I suppose the thing I'm saying here is that there is no switch over in the mechanics of what makes something alive once the creature becomes complex enough. The soul, which animates the living thing, gets more complex along with the complexity of the living thing.
This is a fun philosophical exercise- one that is ultimately unknowable. The consciousness field permeates through the universe- like gravity. My belief is that field is what animates life itself. A soul (insofar as I understand it) would require a level of consciousness high enough to be aware of its own existence- something a blade of grass lacks, but a crow absolutely has in spades.
I really have no idea if that’s where the line gets drawn (or, to your point, if there’s a line at all between consciousness and presence of soul), but it makes logical sense (to me, anyway) that a soul would have to be aware of itself to exist beyond this realm once it’s physical vessel perishes.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this subject.
I would disagree with your comment about a blade of grass. It has been proven that plants communicate with one another, feel pain, react to harm, and seek environments to their benefit.
One example, trees communicate with one another through their root systems. It has been documented that if a tree is being damaged, it will send signals to other trees around it, and they will produce chemicals to strengthen their branches and trunk.
Check it out, it is fascinating. When
Very well, then it provides more evidence that every living thing, even a tree, has a soul.
I subscribe to the matter is energy and energy is matter thought. Everything has the spark of life (or God), simply because we don't see it, speak its language, or understand it does not mean it does not exist.
I find that the Shinto religion best describes the blade of grass idea.
"dismembered voices"
So no inner voice, but internal visions of violence, or incapable of using the proper words?
I'm picturing the hall with all the heads in jars from "Futurama".
I don't follow Gnosticism so I reject this theory.
The whole "x% of the people don't have inner monologue" is retarded and is most likely a transhumanist psy op to convince people they or others are not fully human. In reality everyone (safe for the severally mentally impaired) has such a voice, but some fail in recognizing and defining it as such. The whole thing is as scientific as the coof science, evo theory or climate change.
It's embarrassing seeing conspiracy savvy folks here taking the bait because it's politically charged: "woke libs are literal NPCs bro - here's the study". No, they are as human as you and me, but their fallen nature allows them to be ignorant, stupid and degenerate. It's a matter of free will ultimately and a moral issue, not a physiological or intellectual one.
About 2/3 of people are NPC. That said, Gnosticism is a stupid cope for christians who want a trendy POV without having to give up Jesus.
Early Christians literally genocided the Gnostics, who have no ties to Jesus whatsoever. Your post is hilariously asinine.
"Early Christians" literally genocided all the other early christians, including Gnostics.
Gnostic beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. You're using words without any clue of their meaning.