4/8/95 #1   HATONN

As any "change" comes upon our presence or as focus is aptly applied here and there for some purpose astounding, we get the backwash of very thoughtful and insightful questions as ones awaken to the "generalized" plight of a world.  You may only have less than 4% of a world population in Elite positions--but those 4% have coerced everything for the full mental setting of all the other percentage.  Further, you do not "SEE" with your eyes--you only, at best, "look".  "To see" is not necessarily to "perceive".  In this day of true "possible" vision let us focus on a flower for a moment.  You may well "see" the flower; in this visual game let us choose the universal "rose". Choose up one for self right now--if you wish, go pick one if there be one in the garden or vase--even artificial will make my point.  You see something, do you not?  As you visually look at the object you see something of it but from any vantage point, without moving it or you, you can't even see the "other view" of its backside or whatever side is awry from your line of vision.

So far so good?  No, the mind is registering many things such as the simple art of perceiving color, shades of color, types of petals, types of leaves, objects on the surface and that is only with one glance.  Now pull the rose close and look deeper--all the same things apply only now you add details such a veins in the petals, moisture or soil on the petals and leaves, the various parts which are in simple "view" to your collection.  Now go within and get a magnifying glass and peer at each tiny but perfect piece of this wondrous thing held in your hand or living or growing upon its life system.  You could literally spend days, weeks, years, lifetimes on one subject--THE rose is your presence.  Then move further and take up the perceptions which MAY be applied to that tiny object in your presence, fragrance which you cannot see, touch which can prick your finger if thorns be present, the aura which is sensed but not very visible, etc.

Now, check out your eyes--how well do you actually "see"?  Are you color blind?  You cannot even measure WHAT you see as to color because there is no easy way to measure sight except against some established "norm".  If I perceive blue, for instance, is it the SAME shade of blue that you perceive?  The RECEPTION may be the same for all humans to some extent but as you move from place to place the language may well change and you may not know by name what you "mean" by a term.  Some "colors" become recognized by titles of nobility, Royal Blue, or American Beauty and thus and so.  Then look into the subject of your very own eye mechanism and how well it sees--actually.  Is it possible you wear glasses to see better, a concavo-convex arrangement or possibly a convexo-concave lens to assist?  Ah, now we get into things which require more knowledge.  Well, to save you looking up definitions (because definitions are not our subject YET) the former is used in glasses for long-sighted people and the latter for short-sighted people.  But, I still have a point here; you may "see" a long or a short distance--but how far and comprehensively do you PERCEIVE in either "distance"?

I have to use these examples for you don't yet understand the concepts of invisibility for there are so many different presentations of invisibility.  There is the actual fact of such molecular dispersion as to be unseen by the eye.  There is the fact of too large a thing to be comprehensively seen by the eye and of course there are the tiny things which must have greater assistance to be seen by the eye.  There is also the BENDING OF LIGHT which hides objects in open atmosphere and light "bounce" which affects vision as in too much or too little.  This subject which started about a rose is now into generations of study without changing the subject of first encounter.

The MIND is capable of handling 100% of all such information--but such a tiny portion of a human mind is used consciously as to make these things meaningless to the masses who have had their minds purposely VACATED.

So, why don't I just start here and inform all of you willing readers?  Because you can't read enough in a lifetime to know even all that I can supply--in writings--and your minds, although recording the data, give you no perfection in "recall".

Source: CONTACT: THE PHOENIX PROJECT, April 18, 1995, Volume 8, Number 12, Page 16.

http://phoenixarchives.com/contact/1995/0495/041895.pdf

Transcribed into HTML format by R. Montana.