Signs, Signals and Signatures
The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new. - Socrates
Socrates by Danny Giesbers. (I don’t see it either - but I like it.)
Socrates, (470–399 BC) is perhaps best known for asking a lot of questions. He is universally recognized as a wise man, and less so, as a wise guy:
By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you’ll become happy; if you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.
(Read more quotes here.)
I like this one: Wisdom begins in wonder. This sounds right, doesn’t it?
I - probably like you - am a wondrous person, though admittedly my curiosity is selective; I can drive the same car or use the same washing machine for a decade before discovering a “new” feature. (Oh, it does that?)
A long time ago, I read that Socrates was known for suddenly stopping in mid-walk, even mid-talk - becoming fully subsumed in contemplation. (This is referenced in Plato’s Symposium as well.)
Personally, when I read that I had my suspicions that this might be an eccentric way out of boring conversations, but who knows? And the “who knows” is always in play with Socrates since what we know of him is through the accounts of others; he didn’t write. (Or rather, he didn’t sign his name to anything written down.)
The lack of authorship - known as the Socratic Problem - means we get our understanding of the man through mediated accounts by contemporaries and students. Plato, being the most famous and for many, providing the most reliable accounts. It’s remarkable that despite the lack of authored material, he is nonetheless often recognized as the primary foundation of western philosophy.
What we know of Socrates comes to us through primarily three sources:
Aristophanes (446 – 386 BC) - a comic/playwright (most critical)
Plato (428ish - 347ish BC) - student and philosopher (most referenced)
Xenophon (430 – 354 BC) - student & historian (least controversial)
The Socratic Problem is only a “problem” if what you’re looking for is hard accuracy; for the clear, sharp difference between facts and impressions, objective VS subjective. (Though even the widely-accepted quotes I’m using, attributed to him, may or may not be accurate. Who knows?)
This paradigm - false VS true - leaves much to be desired. The demand for “just the facts” is akin to demanding a two dimensional rendering of a multi-dimensional world. Facts alone can never sufficiently flesh out a complex person or allow us to understand them fully.
We all know this.
How we come to ‘know’ something is far more a matter of hermeneutics; an art and science, that balances and incorporates multiple factors rather than following a straight line. (Clearly had this balance been established in our culture, the slogan, “Follow the science!™️” would not have proven so successful on so many, during the recent marketing campaign.)
There are multiple ways to construct our stories, weave our sense of reality, and facts are surely part of them. But they can only play (largely) a supporting role. (Even in something like a recipe, the ingredients (factual, parts) are essential yet the outcome will include and transcend those parts as quality of ingredients; temperature of the room; calibration of the oven and the harder to measure content-ness of the cook, will also effect the end result. (That’s a fact by the way.)
Because of our societal imbalance in terms of how we access reality, demanding the facts, is sometimes conflated with pursuing the truth. They are not the same thing, obviously.
Generally speaking, facts and logic are largely concerned with parts or the ‘dots’, and while they contribute to thinking and reason, they often fail to connect those dots in encompassing “truths” on their own. Other kinds of knowing assists here including imagination and intuition. (This is evident in the amount of people who, despite an overflow of dots (facts), can not, connect them.)
We’ve been living with this imbalance for a long time - knowledge as a mainly mental pursuit and the results of that included increased hubris among the growing expert class, (now quickly reversing) exaggerated importance of siloed, academic and scientific pursuits (bubbles) while simultaneously diminishing a holistic understanding of the human experience.
This imbalance has ultimately provided us smaller views of ourselves and our world.
So this is probably a decent representation of what Socrates factually looked like:
This one may come closer to the ‘truth’ about him:
A stark example of this imbalance in how we know what we know, can be found in the burgeoning LGBTQ+ movement with its inflated narratives targeting primarily our youth, while attempting to hijack the compassion and herd-instincts of adults in order to manipulate them to embrace the “movement” under the banner of tolerance and inclusion, even though it’s clearly about division and serves multiple political/cultural goals and agendas. (Long sentence I know.)
One of its purposes, is to fully reframe how we view our bodies; the underlying implication (not stated) that our bodies are made up of mere parts, and like a screw-up from Amazon, you may have been delivered the wrong one. (No worries, there are drugs and surgeries for that.)
If bodies are made up of interchangeable parts and mistakes are made with them - without ever naming it - you deny the mysterious intelligence behind life itself. You deny trust in nature. You gut meaning.
Another agenda around the trans movement is to confuse gender, which as Icke points out, is strategic to the actual trans movement (transhumanism) because as he says, confusion precedes fusion.
It’s a sad state. All of it. People - including children - being used as pawns in a chess game they know nothing about. It’s hard to watch. (Mostly I don’t.)
The over emphasis on the mental; gathering facts, applying logic, thinking things through to the exclusion of other modes of gaining knowing, is a tell. It represents an outer layer of the multi-layered invisible fence that holds the slave system in place and that has, over time, tightened to a narrowing corral.
The elevation of logic and reason, while seemingly reasonable, was actually a perimeter setting, to hem us in.
This amounts to tuning into a couple stations - on the radio that you are -rather than utilizing the full spectrum of stations you came fitted with.
Nicely if you are part a group with a secret agenda to take over the world, then all you need to do, is control the content of what can be played on those already limited thought-channels and you end up… well, pretty much where we are.
Yes, I’m simplifying something far more complex. But you get my point - this imbalance did not happen by accident.
Here’s a few accepted facts about the man Socrates:
Socrates was a male. (Despite that bold claim there is no record of his being a racist.) He lived in Athens, was a soldier who fought in the Peloponnesian War and was married.
He was well known, controversial and highly influential. (Still is.)
He was a hero for some and villain for others. He had little money or apparent interest in money. His teaching was informal - he never charged for it. He was widely reported to have been unusual looking - ugly even.
It was supposedly said by the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, that he was the wisest man. Socrates is said to have tried to prove the Oracle wrong, by going into the streets of Athens, talking with as many people as he could and asking them questions. (This eventually became known as the Socratic Method or Dialectic.) It had the frequent effect of deconstructing previously held views, and causing the questioned to contradict themselves.
Naturally he pissed a lot of people off. It’s easy to understand why; having one’s beliefs upended is uncomfortable. It’s convenient to lash out at the one asking the questions, rather than dealing with the realization that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about or why you believe something.
That who he was and what he did or said still revolves around questions that have no clear answer, is, to my mind, perfect. When it comes to questions, much of their value lies in discovering how little we actually know.
“I know only one thing - that I know nothing.” (This quote could be why the Oracle thought Socrates, the wisest.)
Importantly - and I’m finally getting to my point - while Socrates advocated for reason and critical thinking he didn’t limit himself to them. He reported a daimonion, or internal voice, that he listened to and that he believed was divine or semi-divine. He also claimed he received his mission, to look after the souls of Athenians, by Apollo.
It would seem that for Socrates, critical thinking, reason and listening to oracles and inner voices, were not incompatible. Something many contemporary thinkers would likely find confusing.
Yet this is not too unlike Einstein who described that he would spend time on a question, and after residing in the inquiry for awhile - or tuning in - the answer would simply come to him. Like a gift. He talked about this in terms of “fields” which were all around us and could be penetrated via sustained attention.
This is similar to the work of Rupert Sheldrake, which resulted in generally the same conclusion - that “morphic” fields are everywhere and we exist in them.
This is obviously a fully different way of accessing knowledge than we get from thinking through and applying facts and logic in a linear way. (Though I suspect, “thinking-through” may also result in penetrating those fields.) It opens us to direct knowing, once the information held in the field is penetrated. (Which is also, not without its potential problems.)
It’s also the kind of knowledge that is - intentionally, in my opinion - left out in our education, at least diminished, and even mocked as serious in academia. (Though you can be sure is deeply explored in secret, intelligence driven research, along the lines of remote viewing.)
If we can indeed tune into information in the fields that surround us, this speaks to our energetic bodies; our electromagnetic make-up. We are beings who both emit their own energetic signals, as well as, being receivers of signals. An invisible layer of communication and interaction that is ongoing.
You can probably quickly imagine how if you wanted to reduce human capacity, messing with the electromagnetic fields and signal receptors would be advantageous. Steering people fully away from these innate facets - via elevating the mental - would work just dandy.
Compared to instant knowing via fields and signals, words, and even thought processes are clunky and slow.
Since all of us are electromagnetic beings, we all have our own unique “signatures”. We put out a signal into the larger field that we all exist in. This is not static of course; our signals are in flux, and can be intentionally strengthened using higher frequency charges, like gratitude and appreciation. They can also be dimmed with frequencies like fear and doubt.
We all know this, the ups and downs of how we feel daily. We also all intuitively know what we can do to shift or charge ourselves up. (Or down.)
This is incredibly empowering to realize. Particularly now, in a world in an obvious slide and all that means. It’s not enough to see it. To see the problems. That’s essential but not where our energy needs to go.
We’re not merely recipients of someone else’s agenda, we have our own volition and can intentionally generate those qualities we want to see in the world. Focusing on what we wish to create, rather than fighting what we don’t want.
As the wise Socrates is credited with saying, (and referenced in the title):
The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new. - Socrates
This fully inverts the prevailing set up. No doom. No gloom. Instead, agency, purpose, and intention - which have actual effects through the fields we live in.
The nanoparticles and graphene stuff in the jabs are an attempt - in my view - to dismantle this human capacity; to interfere with our radio-selves and distort the signals. Good news. It’s really not easy to do that. Our Source connection is fully immutable. There’s no putting out that spark. Sure, you can kill off a body, but that spark is eternal.
Find those fields that nurture and strengthen you - whether in nature, in prayer, in friendships in music - where ever you are lifted with love and joy. Recharge yourself. It’s not just good for you, it’s good for everyone. When we do this for ourselves we’re in service to others at the same time.
I suspect that Socrates remains a source of continued debate, academic study, and inspiration because, despite the inability to pin him down, the lack of authentic (authored) work, those who study Socrates through mediated sources, can still “pick up” the signal of who he was.
He’s compelling. Still. There’s something present worth tuning into. For someone who didn’t sign his name to any papers or books, he’s left a rather large signature.
Final note - While we all know Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens (much like modern day “misinformation spreaders” I imagine) and was sentenced to death. It’s pretty clear from multiple accounts he could have chosen to leave Athens rather than drink the Hemlock. He chose that.
Plato (and others) believed he wanted to die. He surely wasn’t afraid of death. Another of his (attributed) quotes:
“Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.”
Indeed. And in such a SADs time, I find it helpful to remember that.
Thanks for reading.
Buy me kofi.😊 https://ko-fi.com/kathleen87247
Inspired in part by Jaqueline Hobbs of oraclegirl.org.
"We’ve been living with this imbalance for a long time - knowledge as a mainly mental pursuit and the results of that included increased hubris among the growing expert class, (now quickly reversing) exaggerated importance of siloed, academic and scientific pursuits (bubbles) while simultaneously diminishing a holistic understanding of the human experience."
This is so true. What was always undermined was our connection to the divine, the mysterious, and the miraculous. They're trying to severe our connection to God. In my life have often trusted a call from the Universe, even if it didn't make logical sense at the time. In retrospect it often seemed painfully obvious why that instinct was the right choice for me, so now I often do so habitually. It seems we've been trained our whole lives to ignore that little voice...
A fabulous piece with tremendous relevance to our dark benighted times.