162. Never Regurgitate Information
It’s practically impossible in a fast paced world to not, at times, regurgitate information. Perhaps you see something on the internet, and then you quickly tell a friend. Perhaps you don’t look too far into the source, to figure out if it’s in alignment, if it’s “truth”, or maybe any other relevant context and information which would be helpful. We are often times immediately triggered by information, and lack follow up. There’s such an extreme sense of urgency in our society, that it’s easy to act before we think. But is this a good thing?
In my opinion, probably not. I am for one, not a fan of regurgitation, but i acknowledge that it’s at times, necessary. It’s not like we can always come up with the precise source of information, and it would be practically impossible to look that far into one piece of information. We must keep the flow of information going, of course. And perhaps at times, we are just meant to be mindless messengers.
But does this become a problem? Of course. Particularly with the current political climate, people are often times spreading fake facts and figures, or even to an extend, dangerous ideologies. On a personal level, I certainly would not want someone perpetuating a false or negative comment about me, so I can understand how it may negatively impact others. Not to mention when it’s more pervasive than personal, and it ultimately affects a larger number of people, whether that be a particular cultural group, a certain location, or even an entire country.
So what’s the danger in regurgitation? If we constantly simply perpetuate something that we’ve heard from someone else, we really lack consciousness interjection. In other words, we are just passing along information as a messenger. We don’t really add any value to this information. And I admit that often times this isn’t necessary. But is it a problem that we’re not really thinking about what this information is, and where it’s going? I’m sure that we are all at fault of telling someone a particular piece of information, and it having a negative effect on them. Of course there’s a balance between sharing information which is required, but also sharing information which is intended to hurt someone else.
There’s a personal responsibility aspect to sharing communications. What if with pieces of information we receive moving forward, we really consider if it’s truthful, relevant, or making he world a better place? It could be anything, even something which is well-known, or arguably not up for debate.
Maybe if we don’t necessarily change the information, we become a gatekeeper of it. But does this lead to censorship, ultimately? Not unless we restrict ourselves or others in a way which becomes a detriment. I think there’s a fine line between saying something for good, versus stopping oneself out of fear.
Part of the problem in an intuitive and metaphysical community is the tendency to simply share information which was channeled from others. The issue with regurgitating channeled information is that it’s really singularly from someone’s own perception value. Not that this is an issue, as any one person could be a brilliant channeler and move forward the collective, but there’s a lack of checks and balances. When we are not so aligned to our intuition, it’s possible we may simply believe anyone and everyone. This abstract “fact checking” isn’t about reading from a book, but simply the resonation that we feel when it enters our mind, body and spirit. The fact checking is resonation, which means we must have some level of it. It’s likely that as a result, those who are not tuned into their resonation may try to intellectualize channeled information, which is ultimately kind of… a waste of time. Don’t get me wrong, I love a parallel between science and spirituality, but there are some things which can’t be quantified in the way that we quantify other things. And we can’t dismiss something altogether simply because we don’t have physical proof of it. This, again, is where our intuition comes in.
I truly believe that true channelers don’t regurgitate information. So what do I mean by this? They don’t simply repeat information just because they’ve heard it. Particularly just because they’ve heard it from a trusted source. Every single trusted source must consistently be audited. When you hear a piece of channeled information, run it through your body to determine how you feel about it. Does it feel to be your truth, or not? Consider that just because you don’t feel it’s truth, doesn’t mean that others don’t. It will ultimately be up to them. But it’s an important step in the process of sharing ideas to have resonation and a discerning ability. I find that not only does this help limit incredibly untrue statements (essentially things which are so far beyond the scope of collective’s consciousness). but it also starts to gate keep who’s voices we are listening to over others. If we start this resonation technique, we can start re-spreading the ideas of those who are truly at the cutting edge of our evolution as a species. We can start elevating and highlighting those who are intended at that particular moment in time to be at the forefront of the discussion.
I find that as a whole, there’s too much emphasis on those who hare views which don’t align with the collective. We are really promoting how “bad” their ideology is, rather than turning our efforts to elevate those who do. I challenge anyone and everyone to start elevating those who you feel do good work and are spreading good messages. Consider if it’s truly necessary to call someone out. Perhaps your time, effort and negativity would be more productive somewhere else. And those who are speaking from a place of fear, negativity, or regurgitation will eventually fade into anonymity.
