Theory of the Dissemination of Knowledge - the DoK

[Sol]

Honorable Seekers!

A fun little notion we've been playing around with for the past few weeks has suddenly started to sprout all over the place. And I don't mean these Halexandria Foundation forums themselves, but something else.

It was first mentioned here in connection with the axiom "Manuscripts Don't Burn", from that strange Russian novel we have a whole forum about. Then a member posted a fun poem also relating directly to this subject ("inadvertently" so he claims, hehe.)

I've held off writing about it earlier as I didn't have the thing fully formulated yet, but seeing as everybody's suddenly talking about it, we better try to consolidate the whole thing in one place and in an orderly fashion, before things really get out of hand. There is little doubt that with a dedicated crew we'll have this thing figured out in no time, down to the last question mark.

Funny that this notion's been in my head for many years - but just a few weeks ago I was finally forced to come up with a name for it on the spot, and "Dissemination of Knowledge" was the best I could do just then.

Upon reflection, I ordinarily wouldn't vote for this name - because although "dissemination" is a nice concept, but the sound of this word is not very appealing, plus I don't know if I want to *dis* someone or some thing. But Dan immediately shortened that title into DoK, which is indeed a most endearing name and a catchy title, and should probably stick.

Thus we decree that this moniker - DoK - now remain in the Legacy of Humanity for All Time. So when asked, we will henceforth say that the DoK IS what is up.

And the way to test if this theory works would be of course to see just how quickly it spreads, how many people around the world hear about the DoK in how short a time. When the movie grosses it's second hundred million, this will tell us that the Word had indeed Spread far enough.

So basically, the Theory states that each individual person is a potential Central Information Hub for spreading knowledge. And like with all abilities, physical or mental, so with this too - some people are just naturally much better at it than others. I call them "DoK Centers" for want of a better word. Such a person can do things like coin expressions which later everyone starts using without having any idea how they got them, or they set what is known as "artistic styles" that many artists start following later.

These DoK Centers are *not* the same people who are known in Advertising Theory as Trend Setters. The Trend Setters are usually highly visible and charizmatic public figures, from the political, business, or entertainment sector, who're followed by hordes of papparazzi wherever they go, and every thing little thing they wear or touch people make a lot of money from. This is a totally different (and extremely ugly) phenomenon which surely warrants a separate closer examination.

But no, my DoK Centers are for the most part NOT public figures at all, and are known to few outside their circle of friends (though they often have many of those.) Yet for some reason, things they do and say everyone laters starts to imitate. So their "ability" to influence trends evidently extends somehow into the "energy" realm, as I just don't see any other way to explain how they manage to do it.

Their ability goes beyond anything they have actually consciously learned or think that they know. And my basic hypothesis is, that when such a person says something to just one other person - he has in effect already told the entire world. His idea will take hold and the Trend will start right there.

I urge everyone to accept this theory (hehe), becasue it's the only right thing for a Creative Artist to believe: that his eventual influence on the world is *not* deterimined by his current "popularity". People like Van Gogh and Edgar Allan Poe have certainly proved this with their own lives.

What remains now is to try and formulate this whole thing better, through the many intersting questions that Dan and others have already posed on this. For example, just what does "telling to another person" mean, and is the act of "telling" even necessary at all. Also, this theory is obviously related to Jung's Collective Subconscious and the Vedic Akashic records - so where exactly does it fit into there.

So by all means, repost your various responses here, and then we'll start wrapping this baby up.

Later on,
Sol

[DocPtah]

Cool.

Ever since Sol first suggested his theory, I have been struck by its apparent applicability to dozens of other neat concepts. One of these, of course, is Mikhail Bulgakov's statement: "Manuscripts don't burn" -- another thread which is currently being followed on these Forums.

My understanding of this DoK Theory (Dissemination of Knowledge) is succinctly described as the assumption that…

…there are individuals -- presumably a relatively small percentage of the population of human beings -- who upon informing one other person of anything are in effect informing everyone else in the world.

If this theory is correct, then one might logically infer that the claim, “Manuscripts don’t burn”, could be a potentially valid concept.

To get a better idea of this theory, one could by logical extension assume the following as tentative axioms of DoK Theory:

1. The act of "telling" someone is equivalent in all respects to communicating with them, either orally, in writing, or by any other means. A key factor is that someone else actually receive the communications -- even if they don't consciously understand it, remember it, and reply to the originator that what has just been said is perhaps the most profound, paradigm shaking event in the history of mankind (including any prior incarnations in extra galactic circles)

2. Thinking about things, but NOT communicating them to another person does NOT (necessarily?) communicate it to the universe at large. This would still be true even when thinking without telling someone else might have effects on one's mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual being. (Admittedly this point might be controversial.)

3. All overt acts of telling anyone anything, or communicating hate, love, or any other emotion, is communicating with the entire world. Thus the old adage that "smile and the world smiles with you", "hate and love can never be focused," and "all the world loves a lover" are fundamentally and irrevocably true. Said ability of certain individuals -- technically known as "broadcasters" or Sol's "DoK Centers" -- can communicate to the world at large a great deal of hate and discontent -- and/or love and compassion -- by the simple expedient of communicating hate, discontent, love, and/or compassion (or any other knowledge and/or emotion) to a single individual. It thus becomes a rather Sirius responsibility!

4. Sarcasm which is sufficiently covert (or just less than obvious) may accordingly communicate with the world something entirely different from what the direct recipient of the message would understand or comprehend. This is not necessarily bad in that "those with ears to hear..." will get the message accurately. Meanwhile, those without ears can be mercifully spared... unless of course in the latter case, where miscomprehending might something result in unintended and potentially very negative results.

Particularly scary is that the above communication has now been placed into the ether and the world must accordingly react. (This passage intended to be humorous, but nevertheless still true within the context of DoK Theory.)

Okay, for the moment. But more later. (I'm still working on my "DoK Center" merit badge.)

[Rama]

the DoK is a noble idea but I'm afraid I can't agree with any of the axioms. here's why.

"1. The act of "telling" someone is equivalent in all respects to
communicating with them, either orally, in writing, or by any
other means..."

not so. most people are the product of their reactive nature. they are subjected to "accidents" and two other types of influences. only through certain kind of work, can one HOPE to attract an awakened person. when that person consciously communicates orally to you, and you consciously listen, then, maybe, you can argue that some knowledge is actually given.
that is, the giving and the taking must happen consciously and must be taken a certain way. (too long to describe here what one needs to do when receiving ANY impression)

"2. Thinking about things, but NOT communicating them to
another person does NOT (necessarily?) communicate it to the
universe at large.

Yes and no. it is true that all energy is "intelligent". it carries information superimposed on its wave ad infinitum. every emotion releases energy which is absorbed by the all-permeating "field", or "chi" if you like, and recorded in its intricate pattern. for that matter, every action is recorded in it. but that doesn't mean that most people can access that information, or that it has real power if it's not "sent out" in the proper circumstances and with the proper focus.

"3. All overt acts of telling anyone anything, or communicating
hate, love, or any other emotion, is communicating with the
entire world.

see above.

"4. Sarcasm which is sufficiently covert (or just less than obvious)
may accordingly communicate with the world something entirely
different from what the direct recipient of the message would
understand or comprehend.

this statement harps too much on man-made literary styles. sarcasm is a euphemism for "saying one thing but meaning another". since what matters in any action is the intent, rather than the literary style of the author, then that intent will dictate the energy released. for the most part, sarcasm is a form of criticism in disguise. meaning, a statement of unhappiness in the guise of a cruel or poignant joke. in any case, this is energy spent on a pointless action. you may view it as using "code" to communicate with a bunch of friends.


the underlying principle of my entire comment is that knowledge is material and finite. just like bread (that can be proven mathematically based on the acceptance of certain principles. again, too long for this thread). and the senseless dissemination of it doesn't guarantee sensible action on the part of the listeners. with one loaf of bread you can make 4 or 5 sandwiches and feed 4 or 5 people properly. but divided between a 1000 souls, each gets too small a piece to make use of. in fact, it might only anger the receiver. real knowledge works the same way.

so, I agree with the altruistic desire to "feed" the hungry world but it is only that, a desire. And I need not remind everybody of the destructive power of desire for anyone on the way to awakening.

[DocPtah]

Thanks, Rama, for your thoughts... even if they disagreed with mine!

Curiously, our initial disagreement seems to be primarily about what is meant by "axioms".

In Euclidean Geometry, for example, one of the axioms of the theory is that two parallel lines do not meet. [See Postulate (axiom) 5 and/or Playfair's axiom briefly described in the linked Wikipedia web page.]

Clearly, such a postulate is valid only on a plane surface, and does not, for example, apply to a sphere where such things as lines of longitude would meet at a pole. However, the axiom is still valid within the constraints of Euclidean Geometry. Furthermore, Euclidean Geometry works enormously well on a plane surface, and the ramifications of it can be felt even in the kind of three dimensional geometry that more accurately describes our apparent universe.

In the DoK Theory, the intent of establishing such axioms was to clarify such nebulous terms as "telling" someone something. This was the purpose of all four axioms. Your objections to the axioms may have their own validity outside the bounds of DoK Theory, but within the theory that, hopefully, is being discussed here in great detail, the axioms are by definition valid.

Accordingly, we may be somewhat in agreement on your comments regarding axioms 1, 2, and 3 -- but NOT in the context of DoK Theory. Furthermore, I would argue that any agreement with your comments does not necessarily argue against DoK Theory.

Unfortunately, we are not in agreement on two other of your points.

For example, your definition of sarcasm...

...sarcasm is a euphemism for "saying one thing but meaning another". since what matters in any action is the intent, rather than the literary style of the author, then that intent will dictate the energy released. for the most part, sarcasm is a form of criticism in disguise. meaning, a statement of unhappiness in the guise of a cruel or poignant joke. in any case, this is energy spent on a pointless action. you may view it as using "code" to communicate with a bunch of friends.

Sarcasm is far more than code; it is often used as a means to convey a truth by means of pointing out the idiocy of a particular viewpoint. It is admittedly often a taunt, especially one ironically worded, but it is also a means of emphasizing a point to be made. In fact, sarcasm is often more memorable and thus better able to communicate with open minded individuals who are not necessarily "a bunch of friends." At the same time, this goes back to your point that "what matters... is the intent." In regards to the latter statement I would probably agree with you.

On the other hand, where we find ourselves at considerable odds would be your statement...

the underlying principle of my entire comment is that knowledge is material and finite. just like bread...

I would suggest to you that knowledge is not even remotely material and/or finite. I would argue quite strongly that knowledge is most certainly not anything like bread... Furthermore, knowledge can be disseminated without the slightest diminution, maintaining its impact on every utterance or reception.

You have certainly made the point that any discussion of DoK Theory must come to grips with the material or immaterial nature of knowledge. From my perspective, for the DoK Theory to have any validity, it will almost certainly require knowledge to be a non-material energy, which may or may not be limited by any equivalent to E = m c squared.

What we're really dealing here with is the very idea of consciousness, and the question of its relationship to matter. The tendency of scientists to restrict consciousness to matter is simply their inability or unwillingness to look outside their scientific box. And until science does incorporate consciousness in all of its glory, science will still be primarily about playing with tinker toys.

The basic question remains, however. Can it be true that:

…there are individuals -- presumably a relatively small percentage of the population of human beings -- who upon informing one other person of anything are in effect informing everyone else in the world.

This is clearly the more fundamental question. And while the axioms may be debatable, is the basic DoK Theory still valid (with or without the axioms)?

This is also, I suspect, where the discussion needs to focus.

[persimon]

DocPtah:
>>is the basic DoK Theory still valid (with or without the axioms)? >>

Oh, my! Yes, it is entirely valid for me. I believe even beyond that: a voice in the desert is communication to the whole world. This one has been proven, but if pronounced with the passion by anybody, it would also function in the same way - this is my deepest belief.

Yes, also, an idea strongly settled in one's brain is a message to the world as well.

The acceptance of DoK depends on the perception, volume and quality of meanings of words by individuals, including such broad terms as "world," "communication," "materialism," "idealism," etc.

The materialistic prejudices of the mainstream scientists are well criticized by some remarkable contemporary scientists such as David Bohm, and well before him, the great figures like Da Vinci and Isaac Newton did not think materialistically. But the thinking of small-minded scientific establishment of our days occurs in a very limited space of meaning. In fact they do not even connect their own realms of work with the environment around them - the environment of light and electro-magnetic waves, for instance. Their mode of thinking is possible to reduce to this: Beethoven is actually sitting in their radio set and plays his music.

We are indeed very lucky that all the greatest in science existed long ago: Newton or Da Vinci would not survive today; the mainstream science nearly killed Tesla (scientifically).

What does it have to do with DoK? DoK is valid because the "material" and "non-material" are just two aspects of anything and are strictly divided only in some thinking processes. Ancient philosophies believed that every idea is a molecule (or whatever term for the particle they used at those remote times).

According to this idea, we are till now exchanging the molecules or waves with Buddah, Moses, and Jesus (and those before them) - not just using the writings about them done by others. These particles carry their energy that we choose or able to perceive or accept consciously. Unconsciously (I do not mean subconsciously), everyone is doing that. Therefore, even the idea not told can found someone who may be tuned to it.

Have to stop as this happens to be my favorite subject, and I can go on endlessly. Thank you who read this vague stream of emotions.

- persimon

[Rama]

I imagined that the knowledge=material statement will be the crux of the entire argument.

the reason we are having difficulty agreeing on this is firstly because of our definition of "material".

when I say knowledge is material, I actually mean that true knowledge is quite quantifiable. we are used to thinking in certain terms for the world of emotions, other terms for the world of ideas, still others for the world of bread, for example. but this is simply because we artificially divided our reality into areas that don't readily intermingle.

but that doesn't mean that there isn't a set of laws that govern everything.

and part of accepting the idea that such laws exist, is the acknowledgment that everything around us is expressed as various forms of energy. now, each form of energy has very definite, although at times imperceptible, qualities. and each form of energy is subject to the laws governing the dimension from which it sprang.

consequently, relatively speaking (E=MC^2), knowledge expressed as energy IS material although it may not express itself as SOLID material.

the next point of contention lies in the definition of knowledge.

since every ACTION expresses itself as energy, and since every energy vortex carries "on" it other waves of energy, superimposed as it were, it can be said to carry information. much like the principle by which TV operates. so if you equate knowledge with information, then absolutely the DoK principles apply seamlessly. consequently, every thought, word, or action, that begins as energy, will express itself eventually in our reality.

but what is the point of that expression? how nourishing can any piece of knowledge be if it's taken in tiny crumbles, lost among trillions of words on the internet? and how do we learn to aim it and use it as sharply as we use a knife. and btw, I never said that one sentence can't "nurture" people in some sense, or drive a million people to do something crazy. that still doesn't qualify it as true knowledge. take my word, I worked for years in advertising.

I will end this by adding that in my observations, there is great importance in who is transmitting the knowledge, how it is done, and what is the receiver to do to truly be able to assimilate this knowledge. but before answering these questions we must first strive to understand how the human factory really functions (with one set of laws) and how knowledge, or impressions (in a more generalized term), are properly used to literally evolve this "factory".

[Sol]

Great stuff on the involved responses everyone. Well, I've been trying to reply to Dan's axioms for about a month now, then scratched that and started replying to Rama's objection, then scratched that again after seeing the response, so now I'm all confused. So just to hit off on some things here.

knowledge is material and finite. just like bread

Oh ye, man of little faith! What about the well-known story of that nice Jewish boy who managed to feed several thousand people with five loaves of bread?

Furthermore, your comparison between knowledge and bread goes directly against one of the famous dictums this same guy is credited for, namely that "Man does not live by bread alone". (Well actually it was Old Hillel who said that, but never mind.)

The point is that Knowledge is evidently needed for our existence *in addition* to bread - and thus the two are not identical, but instead complement each other. So "knowledge" cannot be measured in the same units as bread. The basic approach should be that Knowledge is Infinite, like the Universe itself. There's always enough to go around.

And even if we remain on the strictly materialilstic level - there are many ancient approaches which teach one to make use of the equally infinite Material in the Universe. Recent trendy shows like "The Secret" merely summarize in a simplistic and commercialised way what the Sages have been teaching for millennia about "making something out of nothing".

Applying this method has certainly worked in my own life, so for what it's worth, I can personally attest to the validity of the technique. So I believe in the miracle of the loaves and fishes. But even if we agree that one loaf of bread *cannot* feed a thousand people, it's also well-known that one little idea can certainly nurture even a thousand million.

I second what Daniel notes above - about being largely in agreement with what you say, but not as relevant to the DoK theory in particular. His questions about it still remain - namely HOW exactly does one put an Idea into the DoK realm, does each and every one of our thoughts just goes into it automatically and so on. Also, what happens when we say not exactly what we mean - like with jokes, sarcasm, or confabulations.

To this we can add your very true observation that not everybody can access these "DoK ideas". So we also need to explore some of the mechanisms through which these can be gained or "made available" to everyone.

So let me just send this off before it gets too long, and try to address some of those in my next posting.

Best wishes,
Sol

[Sol]

(Sorry, there was a glitch here earlier with my previous post, but we have it all sorted out now. : ) )

Right, well having had a while now to ponder Daniel's original Corollaries to the DoK, I have the following.

Firstly, it seems indeed that actually COMMUNICATING the Idea to someone, even just one other "entity out there", is evidently necessary to get it into the "DoK Circuit", from which it becomes accessible to everyone. The Communication, as opposed to a mere thought in one's head, is what gives focuses the idea and gives it "life", makes it tangible enough to be grasped and understood by others.

Merely *thinking* of an idea, without the act of communication, also very likely puts it "out there" in the DoK Ether - but as an amorphous thing that can perhaps be felt by some, but can never gain anything near the influence of a communicated idea. An act of Creation demands Focus - and communication is what focuses the thought.

Therefore, if we do not communicate our "bad thoughts" to anyone, then we need not fear them breeding demons in the Collective Subconscious. Our bad thoughts themselves can't influence much until we express them. It seems likely that the uncommunicated "bad thoughts" are "unformed" and they also lack whatever "wings" that DoK Ideas need to spread. This fits right into Dan's number 2 above. The uncommunicated bad thoughts remain in the Ether "near" the person who thought them, influencing only him and his immediate surrounding, but not the rest of the word. To do that, we need Communication.

The Comm itself can take many forms. I suppose primarily words, written or spoken - but it's also of course possible to communicate through music, painting and any kind of art. And there is also "telepathy" - non-verbal communication. You can "send" and "receive" someone's formulated and directed thoughts through telepathy - but what if a telepath "accidentally" stumbles on someone's random thought not directed at anyone? It would seem that the INTENT behind the communication is the important factor, in order to make it viable.

Thus I think we can agree on two things already which are a prerequisite for getting an idea into the "DoK Field" (we'll come up with a good name for it yet, hehe.) To do so, the idea has to have behind it the Focus and Intent of its originator. (And interestingly, these are the very two things that also make a Shao-Lin Master able to do his thing. )

Noting Rama's latest comment, we should reiterate that it's indeed of great importance *who* is transmitting the knowledge, and these we call the "broadcasters" or "DoK Centers". I believe that every person is a potential one - but like with every ability, some have this more developed than others, and we can now delve into exactly what this may entail.

However, we need to examine whether this is the same ability as the one referred to in the proverb "Smile and the world smiles with you". This saying seems to be talking more about people with "magnetic personalities", whose any behavior becomes somehow contagious. It's very likely that such people are also DoK Centers. But I've personally met some great artists who're surely mighty DoK Centers - yet they seem to lack personal charisma and usually get ignored, rather than imitated, in a crowd. So we can try and deliniate sharper boundaries here, on what differentiates a "charismatic person" from a DoK Center.

Finally about Sarcasm - this seems to be a subtlety that really does exist only for "those with ears to hear". The idea wouldn't take hold with anyone who doesn't take the joke, so it only works on a percentage of the population.

This begs the question: what if you are a DoK Center and you tell somebody a sarcasm and this person does *not* have the ears to hear - does it still become a DoK idea that gets spread to everyone from there? I say yes, because the communication here did have the proper Focus and Intent, and it's not the poor Dok's fault that the listner's ears were plugged. But I may be wrong about this, so that's another thing we should look into.

I don't think we should turn this into an "ontological" debate though, about the very issues of "what is Knowledge" and "how is it assimilated at all". In Philosophy it's possible to talk just about these issues all your life, and not get to anything else. I say we just *assume* for the sake of this Theory, that we all "know" what those concepts mean and "agree" about that, as well as about the meaning of every word in this sentence. Then we can proceed.

Right, believe it or not that took me the better part of a month to forumulate, and I'm still not happy with it. But such is the life. I better send it out there into the Ether to become part of the Great DoK, before things get worse.

Best wishes, and I hope this continues in the very same vein.
Sol

[Greenie]

I used to work in the advertising section of Lord and Taylor, a big department store based in NYC. Every season all the colors and styles would change all over New York and the whole country to a degree. Everything from women's fashions to candy flavors would have this subtle stamp of fashion.

One spring in our store and every other store all you'd see in the windows was pastel plaids. Maybe you could find a bright floral in the discount bin, but otherwise if you wanted a new outfit it was going to at least have a little pastel plaid doodad on it somewhere. The flavor that season was some version of almond. The candy counter would be pushing marzipan festooned with a pink plaid bow. The bars served almond flavored martinis. All the freshest perfumes were almond-based. It was just this big almond craze.

How did everyone get the same idea at the same time?

Fashion forecasters.

The advertising department would hire a company called BrainReserve to tell us a year in advance that pastel plaid and almond were going to be hot hot hot. Then there would be a meeting of buyers and department heads where everyone would agree that the president of the advertising department would take a 2-week fact finding trip to Paris with his good looking assistant (to hold the Pantone Color Book) in order to get his head around the kind of pink that only Parisians truly understand, and to track down a special French Almond Soap in a unique parfumerie on the Rive Gauche.

Across town at Macy's, their advertising head was taking a two week trip with his groovy assistant to Bermuda - for the pink sand beaches and a legendary almond tart at the hotel.

At Bloomingdales their advertising head was headed somewhere with his assistant too - and each trip would result in next spring's promotion of pastel and almond that every fashionable New Yorker would be clamoring to have in their homes, in their cars and on their bodies.

But how do fashion forecasters come up with these things?

I met Faith Popcorn, owner of BrainReserve on a NYC bus. I'm certain that Faith is a high functioning Asperger. Aspergers have the kind of autism that makes them act like *little know-it-alls*. In it's really mild form it's kind of common really; just think of that slightly obnoxious smart kid in class that would just blurt things out and sometimes the teacher would be put in her place.

I had just read Faith's book, *The Popcorn Report* and I knew exactly who she was when she inserted herself into a conversation I was having with another person and proceeded to set us both straight about what was going on.

Faith lays it all out in her book how it is that she accomplishes her magic with forecasting.

She just writes down what it is she's going through, and figures that everyone else will catch up a year or so later. So if she likes pastel plaid this spring, you're gonna like it next spring. This will happen whether or not she tells anyone, but she managed to make a great living off of marketing her special gift.

So if this is what folks with just an autistic twinge are capable of, what about those head banging kinds who are entranced for hours with a piece of string?

Maybe they "call down the moon", make that initial contact with the raw idea. Maybe these folks, banging their craniums against the backs of their chairs and wetting their pants, are dreaming of an endlessly repeating matrix of lavender and rose marzipan that won't hit the likes of Faith Popcorn for another ten years.

Laura

[persimon]

Great story, Greenie!

Why some ideas whether clearly defined or not get spread (picked up, disseminated) while others do not? In this posting, I am trying to ask some questions that maybe someone would be interested to talk about.

Is it true that if 100 monkeys start washing the sand off of their bananas, ALL the monkeys would start doing the same whether in direct contact or not? Some biologists claim that this is what really happens.

The channels of DoK are probably as numerous as there are definitions of knowledge. For example, people familiar with computer developments remember that IT (Information Technology) was followed by Knowledge Technology. The engineers were supposed to understand this development as follows: Knowledge is information that acquired more dimensions the number and nature of which are not clearly defined. Rama (see Rama's postings above) uses "Knowledge" where I, probably, would use "information." So what dimensions does knowledge include as compared to information if to follow the terminology suggested here?

Now, what is the volume of Biblical "I do not KNOW my husband?" Why this was referred to "knowing"? - Z. Sitchin provides historical explanation coming back to Adam and Eve when Enki (the Serpent) supplied them with that knowledge. However, it seems history itself added a metaphysical flavor to that knowledge. What do you think? Does dissemination have to do anything with it? What are the borders and channels of dissemination here?

The intent and focus are key parameters of the DoK theory as Sol and DocPtah are postulating. These necessary conditions are also expressed in a philosophical film "Dark City" (director Alex Proyas, 2001) a Si Fi resembling "Matrix" only slower and less pretentious (to my taste). The word "tuning" is used in this movie to denote the time when the humans are put to sleep while the aliens who captured the city for their own survival "are tuned" in order to both telepathically and directly spread and receive information and decisions, if I remember correctly.

A few poets through history wrote poems called "Silentium!" (silence). In the case of a Russian poet F. Tyutchev, this call for silence occurred after numerous attempts to pour his soul out loud which did not find any real understanding. His passionate call for silence is actually a continuation of telling someone (DoK) that a thought expressed in words is false. "Be quiet, hide your thoughts and dreams! Noone will understand what is the essence of your life because a thought rendered in words is false!" This poet, no matter how wonderful, suggested also another easy way to the Russians, which suggestion is very much loved by them, that "it is impossible to understand Russia with one's reson, one must just have a faith in her." - This was meant to be a sort of sarcasm.

Above, the reason and faith are juxtapposed. Aren't they aspects of knowledge?

If I were to analyze my own posting, I would say that for those who hear for the first time about the movie "Dark City" or poet Tyutchev, these are two pieces of information. Deciding whether reason and faith, intuition and definition should be aspects of existing (I love DeCartes but I exist not just by thinking alone) is part of knowledge.

- persimon

[Rama]

it's hard to say what should be addressed first. also, there are contained in Persimon's post threads on many other related subjects.

so i'll try to keep it as simple as possible and progress along the undulating train of Persimon's thought.

instead of thinking of all matter as some form of energy, let's try thinking of all energy as made of various forms of matter. knowledge, information, or in general, every impression we receive reflects an intake of certain "matter". each creature according to its place in the cosmos can "work" with certain matters.

inside each creature, there are different "centers" that work to "digest" different kind of "matter", transforming it into "higher", more "refined" matter that is necessary for various functions and for our personal evolution.

all these "materials" are communicable and exist around us, or "inside us" as it were, in an interconnected energetic field, sometimes akin to eastern Chi, or in western science, simply "the field". A semi-interesting book on the subject just came out last year by Lynn McTaggart. it is a fairly good, though incomplete, introduction to an ancient concept from the point of view of western science.

anyway, all these different "materials" (information included) operate on various levels, or dimensions. according to their level of "refinement" they have different properties. Any matter that is "higher"—relative to the matter that we eat, breath, and in which we live—might be considered to be above our axis of time. its effects therefore are felt everywhere, instantly, from our point of view.

while it takes great practice and work to learn how to tap, or tune at will, into these higher energy fields, we all feel glimpses of it in our daily lives. in fact, we are built in a way that allows us to receive specific kind of impressions "unconsciously" and it makes us do all sorts of things. the sources are varied, as i mentioned in my previous post, but one source for example is planetary influences. just compare graphs of sunspots activity with world events. you'll be surprised.

so the monkeys "know" when to start peeling off a banana because they are "acted" upon, simultaneously... instantly, by this particular type of impression, as it's initiated by certain members of the monkey group. it's similar to flocks of birds in flight or schools of fish at sea.

faith, in this case, has nothing to do with it. there are definite, although few, systems of knowledge that were kept intact and are able to provide the laws governing all this energy movement. but for now, you can call it faith.

great film Dark City.

-Rama

[keemba]

This being my first post on any forum ever in my life, I hope I understand the purpose of posting; to assist my fellow beings towards enlightenment by means of giving all I've got to offer at the moment?

Okay, the first idea I would like to reflect on is communication. Two ideas came up when reading the posts 1. if it's possible for a DoK Center to reach the entire world it couldn't simply be through words either spoken or written since there are a bajillion languages and 2. Maybe it is possible through words spoken having a certain vibration that carries the whole idea worldwide within the vibration, such as Om, or in the story of the Tower of Bable.

Personally I don't know because I don't think I'm one of these DoK Centers, but who knows, and do the DoK Centers even know they are one? My only experience with this is really cute and funny, so I'll share.

3 1/2 years ago my daughter held her 14th birthday party which turned out to have 20 or more boys and girls show-up and many of them spend the night. For fun, a couple of her guy friends wanted to dress up in her clothes. They had a blast dressing up and especially wearing her "girl pants", her jeans that are low-riders and flare at the bottom. One of the boys dared him to wear her pants to school (the party was in April), so he bored her jeans and wore them to school. I'm not exactly sure the timing but within a few weeks or months this group of boys were wearing girl pants to school often. The amazing thing is that now boys are wearing girl pants all over the world and they sell these kind of pants for boys now. I live in a small town of about 25,000 in Utah. I truely believe they started this worldwide trend through a night of playing dress-up.

Now this isn't exactly what we're talking about here, but the relative part concerns communication.

Of course the main purpose here, in my opinion, is to know how to determine who is a DoK Center, and determine whether they know they are a DoK Center. Because only then will any of this matter since the pupose would be for them to share enlightenment with all and assist personality evolution.

I will now interpret my definition of personality. Personality is the entity part of us that attaches to separateness "ego" because if oneness of all beings is realized then the personality believes it will die and nothing wants to die, per se. Many books have been written on this for thousands of years, The Advanced Course in Yogic Philosophy, Coming Home by Martia Nelson, The Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukov, and one that seems to be able to describe the concept with of-the-times clarity The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. Although this may seem like a spiritual theme coming on, it's really not, it's more of a prelude to several questions I will ask that may begin a critical thinking streem for the goals and purposes of this post and simply because I only have questions to offer right now.

When did all this "knowledge" become lost? Why do some seem to have the ability to tap into it, like Edgar Cayce as he was somewhat illiterate when taking into account the amazing "information" he was able to give in readings? Are DoK Centers equipped, so to speak, with the best vibrational frequency to emit "knowledge" or "information" to the masses? DoK Centers know they are one? How do we determine this, and then how do we find them?

In my studies and research the mind's invention of the current God shows to be a pretty destinctive time frame for when a great deal of pure truth became lost. This falls right along with Tolle's idea that the problem of today is that we are all insane and unconscious by being almost entirely if not entirely trapped by thoughts of the mind and in effect blocking the flow of energy. The mind is not who I AM yet most of us exist there and this is the personality "ego", separateness, and in the same manner "God" is separate from us thus an attachment to the mind which is ego or personality. Don't get me wrong, I feel that the mind is a tool, but certainly is not "I think therefore I AM" . Maybe we all have the knowledge or are capable of receiving it but our attachments to our personality block the inflow of this energy?

I'm leaving this open from here because it's very late at night, and I just previewed this post -WOW- it's a little long, oops. Oh well, I hope you enjoy and have some insight on the questions posed.

keemba
P.S. is there a way to spell check my posts?

[Sol]

Hi Keemba, welcome to the forums, and thanks for bumping up this fun old topic! Great show on noticing it among the increasingly vast mass.

So you see compadres - the DoK Theory DOES work! This is the proof - we have caused "ripples in the ether" with our discussion, which attract by their sheer existence.

Well, there were a few very intersting messages posted here just before we went offline in mid-April, that I had fully intended to reply to earlier - but who knows when we'll get to them now, with so many interesting new ideas questions suddenly posed here.

However, as I feel we must by now accept - according to the DoK Theory (which I will lovingly call "DoK-T") all those questions have now caused their own ripples in the spectrum, and will evidently be answered in due time when the necessity *really* arises. We're sure to get to them all eventually.

Keemba, that was a excellent educational story about the children and the "girls pants"! As a father of three teenage children I surely noticed this trend a few years ago, and always wondered where it came from. It's fun to suddenly learn that it actually all started in a small town in Utah.

I believe that something akin to the "Hundredth Monkey Effect" is indeed at work here. But in this case it seems to work not necessarily because the first "100 monkeys" were particularly proficient DoK Centers in themselves - but because the rest of the world appears to have "been ready" for such a style to suddenly catch all over the place.

I think this operates pretty much the same way as when unrelated scientists suddenly invent the same thing at the same time in different parts of the world. It is said to be a natural result of the known science at that time, that different people would think of the same thing. It's a bit different for social trends like fashion, because these do not have a sound "scientific basis" that everyone in the world agrees on. But the underlying mechanism would still largely be the same, because in the case of social trends certain things have already been widely agreed upon, before the new trend or fashion catches on - which is why once it does catch on it spreads everywhere like brushfire (though admittedly some of it because of advertising.)

For example, there have been "unisex" clothes for a long time - which are in many way the same thing as "boys wearing girls' pants". I predicted years ago that this would lead to either gender eventually wearing each other's actual clothes - and sure enough, this has indeed started happening all over the place. It's not just things like those unbelievably low pants the the boys also started wearing - but young women are now wearing underwear that was formerly made only for men. It hadn't worked the other way on the underwear scene, I would guess only because the actual physical parts are very different and demand different support.

When did all this "knowledge" become lost? Why do some seem to have the ability to tap into it, like Edgar Cayce as he was somewhat illiterate when taking into account the amazing "information" he was able to give in readings? Are DoK Centers equipped, so to speak, with the best vibrational frequency to emit "knowledge" or "information" to the masses? DoK Centers know they are one? How do we determine this, and then how do we find them?

Great questions all of them, and we can probably spend the rest of our lives trying to figure them out.

Briefly though (yeah, right), I don't think that this "old knowledge" you refer to ever became lost. People like Cayce and others have called it things like "alien channeling" - but myself and others have called it Art and Literature.

Yes, I believe that all of our Great Artists could tap into the exact same "source of knowledge" from which Cayce got his Atlantis stories. And many of them even also wrote about Atlantis itself! But since those other stories were written as "myth" or "fictional literature" - we in the New Age tend to dismiss them more readily than "alien channeling". I personally have always found this strange.

Yes, I do believe that people who are DoK Centers are naturally equipped with that special "vibrational frequency", which helps them spread their particular Knowledge better than others. As with any human ability, like running or shooting straight, this one would also be differently developed in different individuals. I feel that this special "DoK Ability" is a product of that individual's ability to EXPRESS himself - by any means possible. Express himself in such a special way, as to make his idea spread around the world all by itself.

Like you, I also discard the main notion of the Age of Reason - Descartes' famous dictum of "I think therefore I am". I feel that we humans are a sum total of three equal parts - body, mind, and spirit - and it would be a mistake to concentrate on just one of them, the mind, like we've done for the past couple of hundred years with the "Humanist" philosophies. To merely THINK is not enough, we also have to Breathe and Feel, in order to really Be.

Therefore, at its "perfect ultimate stage", the DoK Expression that I mean above, in order to be really meaningful on many levels and acquire a full life of its own, would have to be beyond the merely verbal like with prose writing, or just "emotional" like with "classical music", or strictly physical like in Martial Arts. It would somehow need to be a full combination of all three.

I think that each person who is a "natural DoK Center" usually discovers their special ability at a very early age, when they see how people around have a tendency to imitate them. What each does with it is a different story. Many go on to become famous people, their works known and cherished around the world. But I would think that many also remain in comfortable obscurity, aware of the little ripples of their influence only on their immediate surrounding, and usually not knowing how far their ideas really went.

As to how do we find them - well, I personally have been trying to do it through forums like these. Who knows, it just might work.

Best wishes, and I hope we continue in the very same vein.
Sol

(PS. by the way - alas no, I don't know a way to spell-check your posts, other than writing them first in a document that spell-checks them automatically, like Microsoft Word. The Mozilla Firefox browser has a spell-checker, but not the Windows Internet Explorer.)

[DocPtah]

Yes, I do believe that people who are DoK Centers are naturally equipped with that special "vibrational frequency", which helps them spread their particular Knowledge better than others. As with any human ability, like running or shooting straight, this one would also be differently developed in different individuals. I feel that this special "DoK Ability" is a product of that individual's ability to EXPRESS himself - by any means possible. Express himself in such a special way, as to make his idea spread around the world all by itself.

I would agree with this, but would also point out that the manifestation of the 'special vibrational frequency' might require a certain amount of practice, doing, and development. Learning to communicate effectively is in fact important, whether it's writing, composing music, or carving a sculpture.

One should also be careful to avoid the assumption that death would terminate one's DoK Center proclamations. We can all agree that Mikhail Bulgakov is still broadcasting!

Like you, I also discard the main notion of the Age of Reason - Descartes' famous dictum of "I think therefore I am". I feel that we humans are a sum total of three equal parts - body, mind, and spirit - and it would be a mistake to concentrate on just one of them, the mind, like we've done for the past couple of hundred years with the "Humanist" philosophies. To merely THINK is not enough, we also have to Breathe and Feel, in order to really Be.

This is, I suspect, a very important point. Limiting ourselves to the duality of Descartes has, one must assume, turned out to be an horrendous error. About the only thing I can think of with regard to Descartes' contribution to life, is that upon his funeral they had his funeral cart pushed by the horse all the way to the grave. It was the first known example of 'putting de cart before de horse'.

As for spell checks... as I am writing the above, any misspelled word shows up with a small, red, dotted line beneath the word. The moment I get the spelling right it disappears. It also allows me to check the word with a right click. Doesn't everyone have that capability... or is it confined to the One and Only True and Authorized DoK Center on this particular thread?

DocPtah

[Sol]

Respectful readers, a very Fun Update!

On 4-4-2008 Sol wrote:
> And the way to test if this theory works would be of course to see just how quickly it spreads, how many people around the world hear about the DoK in how short a time. <

So today on 8-8-2008, exactly 4 months and 4 days after that hopeful statement (evidently the DoK-T works best in fours...) we are ready to make an assessement. And since I don't know if it's just my illusion, a coincidence, or the New Google Algorithm befuddling any true meaning of "popularity" - I urge everyone reading this to try it now at home.

Plug the word "dok" into Google, just that word. It seems reasonable that such a short word would be mentioned many times - and sure enough, my result says that there are 34 million pages that have such a word on them.

And check it out - this discussion thread is listed at number 16 on my results! Out of 34 million! I ask myself, how is this possible. Granted - I do believe the DoK-T *DOES* indeed work, and I myself don't really "need" such proof, hehe. But still, this is pretty stunning.

The question is, just how much "proof" this really is. I have read that Google has changed their algorithm last year into being "really smart" - and now they give you the results you *expect* to see, based on all your previous searches and pages visited (which they keep stored of course.) I myself hang out on these Halexandria forums all the time - and I'm sure this is tallied there. So it'll be interesting to check if anybody else gets the same result, where we are listed at number 16 our of 34 million, after only four months. Funky! (Not to say absolutely unbelievable and mostly unexpected. )

The thing is, our own Board Index says this thread has only been viewed about 650 times. Is that enough to get to the top millionth percentile in the world? Just doesn't seem reasonable - but who knows how Google "really" works. (By the way, I've tried doing the Search For DOK again after clearing all my board cookies and emptying the Temporary Internet Files directory - and this time it came in at number 45, *still* pretty dang high up out of all those millions.)

Does this mean that the DoK is *really* up? I guess it does...

Interestingly, "dok" is not at all such a popular word or acronym. The Wiki page on "doc" with a "c" gives a very long list of meanings (though they did miss "Doc Ptah", hehe.) But for "dok" there isn't even a general Disambiguation Page that gives several possibilities - and instead it redirects you straight to the website of the Donetsk International Airport - whose international abbreviation is "DOK".

Now this is a *really* bizarre twist for me personally, because in fact, of all the totally obscure places in the world - Donetsk, Ukraine just happens to be the town where my own father was born and comes from. (And I myself was born in Kharkov, which is not too far away.) So it's a pretty fun coincidence.

Anyways, the next step in our Great Test (of the DoK-T validity) will be to see how quickly a disambiguation page does appear on Wiki, seeing as we now already have two definitions for "DOK". Any Wiki editors out there?

I guess now I'm even more eager to see the subsequent developments.

Sol

(Oh yeah by the way, Doc (or Dok...) - the reason you see the red dotted line under the misspelled words, is because you use the Mozilla Firefox browser. Windows Internet Explorer does not have that feature. But don't tell me to switch, because the Firefox doesn't have several other vital features that I use daily and which IE *does* have. )