Those who walk among us
It is a known issue that live references don’t make it through the “widget clipboard” correctly. That is why you can’t edit the live reference in the next button above (have been working on that).Notice the strong parent → child transactions highlighted above. This is required due to seth’s strong beliefs about the required way people should converse with each other.
But the button live reference is not new seth. You have known about it for months at In thought buttons.
In fact, you even liked and commented on the -- draft -- back in October here
[!btn (22276) how to make a button]→
Some people are put on this earth to help others “wake up” and to “shake up” limiting belief systems, especially in this particular time period where consciousness is waking up across humanity. These people don’t think about what they do, it is a simple automatic reaction. They intuitively notice where another person has a self-limiting belief system and hammer back at that belief system in a verity of ways. My built in mode is mirroring belief based behaviors.
I am not the only one who does this. There are lots of us around. My mom Elaine is another one. Her skill in this area comes out via playful poking and needling and teasing. You may recognize that from your past, and even sometimes your conversations with her in the present. You may recognize others in your life who do this in other ways too, because you have a strong attraction for these people Seth.
As long as a person I respect has a self-limiting belief system in active play between us, and they are exhibiting a pattern of attraction for me and my skill, I automatically interact with them in the manner which most activates their limiting beliefs. Often, with Seth, this comes off as an authoritative parent … because information delivered in that transactional way most stimulates his core limiting beliefs about the nature of how information should be disseminated to him. I don’t do this consciously, it is quite automatic, though I have learned to be able to observe it happening and understand what is going on.
With other people, the areas I mirror their limiting beliefs are quite different, if any. This is why I appear so differently to different people … I can tell a persons limiting beliefs simply by how I feel, who I become, when I am interacting with them, as their limiting beliefs and patterns shape me and my personality with them. This is also why I so much enjoy being around people who have cleaned up their core beliefs … because those people I naturally interact with authentically and without any of these mirroring roles bubbling up into interaction.
This is the nature of my contract with the people of earth … and with some, the contract is more directly personal having been made one-on-one before incarnating. We meet up and we do the thing we agreed to do.
You seem to think ...
Well that is news to me . Can you tell me what those strong beliefs are?
i have a “strong beliefs about the required way people should converse with each other”.nathan
Note the “should” in your claim. Fact is that i avoid “shoulds” … and am very careful about the context in which i use such a concept. So for me to have some over arching judgement about what people should do, does not sound like me, to me. Are you quite so very sure that you got me from me in this case?
I do however look at what happens and try to ascertain why it happens. For example i see people mirroring negative behavior, and i see the negative behavior being amplified. I see that happening again and again.
Here is the general pattern i, and many others, observe …
I cannot remember a time when i have seen negative behavior lessen by being mirrored.<output: behavior X> + <input: mirror of output> => Amplification of X
So … when X is negative, it just gets worse …. when X is positive, it gets better.
Either the behavior gets worse,
or one goes away from the mirror,
or the mirror stops mirroring.
So yeah okay, that is my strong belief. Stated here explicitidly for the first time .
But i have yet to see where there is any “should” inherent in my belief.
So i am very confused about what you are intentionally doing here with me and mark.
Could you shed some more light on that?
“I cannot remember a time when i have seen negative behavior lessen by being mirrored” ~ Seth
You are right. It never lessens. As Bashar (and Tolle and many others) say, some belief based behavior is so deeply ingrained, and even unconscious, that it is needed to make it stronger to any degree until it is so strong that it can be seen even by the doer of the behavior. Then, it can be dealt with, if it is chosen to do so. Until that point though, it is not the doer’s choice, because it is hidden under layers of automatic thinking.
… and, ANY behavior that can only be made stronger is one that is worth bringing to the light.
… behaviors that support us are not able to be made stronger, they simply support us and continue doing so and that is all.
we could even drill down to some specific examples …
here are some interesting ones to think about …
- seth’s belief: is not “the greatest”
- ’s belief: is “the greatest”
What happens when #2 gets mirrored ?
I’m not saying anything here … sorry haven’t done the math … i just think that might be a fertal direction to think about.
The belief that “Miami is not the greatest” is not a self-limiting belief, to either of us.
… which, er by your own philosophy it never is.
but that may not be the interesting thing emerging here.
so it seems you are telling me that you go around and percieve a behavior that you judge is based upon a arbritrary belief, then you amply that behavior, presuming that the subject will better notice it.
is that an accurate statement of what you do?
… or rather the belief (behavior in support of) that appears to be being amplified here is #2.
i think an objective observation of what has been happening would support that observation.
You are looking at this as if it were something I think about and do. It is not. All thinking is quite a bit later, after the fact, hindsight. The actual skill is quite immediate, really no different than moving one’s hand off a hot stove.
But that does not matter … as far as my question goes, it amounts to the same thing.
Here let me see if i can rewrite it, factoring out that part …
so it seems you are telling me that …
is that statement more accurate?
you go around perceiving others peculiar behavior,
then you amply that behavior,
thinking the other will better notice it as peculiar.
As far as the other noticing, that is out of my business completely. Others attract me, and this aspect of my nature, so that they can have a personal experience with it. For some, it may be to amplify a deep and unconscious belief. For others, it may be to see oneself through the mirror, notice what it is like to be bullied the way you bully others, etc.
Why are you so intent on rewriting all this stuff to fit in your box? Just take it as it is. I know it well and it is what I am saying it is. If you don’t see that immediately, you will eventually, when you extend your perception.
is that more accurate?
you notice a peculiar change in yourself
while interacting with an other
then you amply that change.
#btw, i am just trying to understand this a bit er, so that i can just take it as it is.
so by mirroring you are amplifying which contradicts your assertion, “I don’t amplify anything”.
i.e. the amplification only happens when the source “chooses” to respond to what comes back and send it out again or more. If the source does not respond to the reflection, there is never any amplification at all.
… and, if the source does respond, it is almost always an indicator the source has negative sensitivity to the reflection perceived … hence it is well understood to be a self-limiting output from the source.
Well a mirror pointed to a mirror will reflect images infinitely.