Susan Marie has requested my opinion with regard to the above concept. I thank Susan for this and I feel that this is such an important topic that it should have a thread all to itself. It refers to the comments made with regard to the posting Groundhog Christmas with particular reference to Johar's comment about her husband and father.
If CTF is correct then many of us - particularly those of us who experience psychic phenomenon such as deja vu, precognition etc - are living our lives again. We do this in an internally generated holographic projection similar to that proposed in the movie The Matrix. This illusion (known as Maya by the Hindus) I call The Bohmian IMAX and I am of the opinion that there is strong evidence to relate this 'illusion' to David Bohm's Implicate Order and Holomovement , Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation, and Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation - the implications of the last two so wonderfully described by Jim Al Khalili in the recent BBC TV series Atom.
Depending upon our position in a new concept that I will describe in some detail in my next book - I call this The Scale of Transcendence - will facilitate foreknowledge of the present life based upon the subliminal (Daemon-accessed) memories of the previous life-run. These can be interpreted as a type 1 deja vu (short-term knowledge similar to the Precogs as described in various stories by Philip K Dick) or longer-term and more detailed such as type 2 deja vu or precognition.
Now I am of the opinion that sometimes we have subliminal memories of future events that may be years in the future. These manifest as 'hunches' or simply vague ideas. As such I would suggest that for Johar in her Virgin Life, (as A Dark Philosopher terms it), both events regarding her father and her husband happened as tragic and sad coincidences but mere coincidences nevertheless. However as Johar lives her life again with the subliminal knowledge of this impending coincidence, the coincidence, when it again takes place, is imbued with precognitive significance because the two events are linked by Johar's prior knowledge of the later one. As such the first event did not 'bring about' the second one as such because the only real link is Johar as the 'observer' as per the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Does this make sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
ANTHONY: Yes, it makes sense, and a great deal of it. Thank you so very much for your prompt attention; as always, your answers are enlightening, calming, coherent and fruitful. I simply cannot wait to order a copy of your new book, when it hits Amazon. Humblest thanks to you-SM
Hi Tony,
Yes makes total sense to me. I accept that the deaths of my father and husband are coincidence however what led me to your book, this site and to Susan Marie's story provide further evidence of previous runs of the same life only with refinements.
I think each run is a learning curve and that there is a purpose to each life. I don't think we just do it over and over again in a mundane fashion. This is my interpretation of evolution - of the soul if you like.
And funnily enough Susan Marie has already mentioned that you looked familiar to her when she saw your picture - I too had that same feeling of recognition.
Your daemon certainly rings a bell hehe X
Post a Comment