"Bibliotheka Cassiopaea" the Cassiopaean material by topic
- Thread starter dougquaid
- Start date
I have a few things I'd like to say here. If I'm totally off-base, I'd really appreciate any input.
Dougquaid is a relatively recent member of this forum (registered less than 4 months ago).
As such, and based on the limited interaction (mostly commentary on the raw transcripts), I'm not really convinced that he has the authority to deem what is or is not important in the transcripts (which already are not recommended to be read alone -- let alone edited by a party relatively unknown).
From what I can tell so far in this thread, there is a lot of wishful thinking run amok. Nobody has yet claimed to have gone through the subjectively edited works presented, yet many have gone out of their way to thank, congratulate, and show gratitude - but for what? Does anyone really know?
Without any notation of what has been edited, without even an indication of the date of the sessions mentioned - I can say that without having read or corroborated or verified any of the walls of text in this thread - that it is all essentially useless at best, or dangerous at worst, until (and that is the keyword behind my intent) such a minimum amount of research has been done, or said information cohesively provided.
Again, I am emphasizing (at a minimum) that until we know what has been removed, or when it was said, or who this person is (let alone what books he has read, what is his diet, how does he think about this that or the other?) how can it possibly be objectively evaluated?
Dougquaid, I'd also like to add that I do not mean for any of this to appear or come across as a personal attack - I do not know you, so I'm not really capable of taking it to that level. I would address this situation the same, regardless of who it was, so long as all the circumstances were the same. I hope you do not take offense to my critical questioning, of what may very well end up being a valuable resource to us all. But I must ask the questions - it is simply in my nature. I hope that is understood.
I've often fallen prone to wishful thinking myself. And by no means am I saying that the work here is without merit - I'm just saying I can't possibly know that. And until the missing information (clarification of what exactly has been deleted, as well as dates) is provided or researched by someone, I don't know how anyone else is able to tell either. Has anyone else who has posted in this thread actually read everything that was posted, and if so, do you have any clue just how much editing has taken place? Sounds like a monumental time consuming task (especially without dates), and based on the responses I don't think this has even begun to happen yet...
The other thing that is bothering me is that zero networking has taken place during this endeavour, rather it was done alone and secretively. If we really knew who this person was (and perhaps someone does and can chime in here), it may be a different situation. But based on the interaction with the forum, which is all I have to go on, I don't understand why this wasn't brought up earlier.
And further, I don't understand why permission hasn't been asked, in any way shape or form, from the copyright holders - or even if they think it is a vaguely good idea to do what has been done here (even after the point was gently brought up). That seems a little rude to me. Who is teaching who about what here exactly I guess is another question that comes to mind. And to know that answer, I must at least have an idea of what this New Teacher knows about the material in question - and I do not...
Additionally, in Dougquaid's first post less than four months ago he states that he had only read the transcripts up to 2002 via a third party website which is not even confirmed to have a 'pure record' of them to my knowledge. And all transcripts after that point have been studied for weeks at most, not years....especially when taking into account the hundreds of replies in each thread for all transcripts during the period being discussed.
He also implies that as of that time, he had not yet re-read any logs so far, in addition to not having read past 2002 form an unconfirmed source. So, when he says that he has read them ALL 2 and 3 times over the course of several years, and his earlier posts directly contradict this information, I also have then more questions.
Apologies if I'm sounding harsh, but to me it feels like I am just stating the obvious...
Everybody wants a copy, but nobody really knows what it is they are asking for...nor have I seen even an indication of skepticism that perhaps what has been produced could possibly even be incorrect. I don't know - but I think there are quite a lot of important questions that need to be asked here, before this can be taken seriously. Depending on the answers - the unwarranted spread of this subjectively edited information could potentially even be dangerous. I feel it necessary to point out a possible other agenda here (or at least the importance of remaining open to that possibility until further info is known), as many seem to be focused on blind belief in the absence of evidence, despite several clues from mods here. Again, if I am out of line, or totally misinterpreting this situation, I apologize and will openly listen to any input anyone has to offer.
In summary: Further research is warranted, and with an open mind, IMO.
Dougquaid is a relatively recent member of this forum (registered less than 4 months ago).
As such, and based on the limited interaction (mostly commentary on the raw transcripts), I'm not really convinced that he has the authority to deem what is or is not important in the transcripts (which already are not recommended to be read alone -- let alone edited by a party relatively unknown).
From what I can tell so far in this thread, there is a lot of wishful thinking run amok. Nobody has yet claimed to have gone through the subjectively edited works presented, yet many have gone out of their way to thank, congratulate, and show gratitude - but for what? Does anyone really know?
Without any notation of what has been edited, without even an indication of the date of the sessions mentioned - I can say that without having read or corroborated or verified any of the walls of text in this thread - that it is all essentially useless at best, or dangerous at worst, until (and that is the keyword behind my intent) such a minimum amount of research has been done, or said information cohesively provided.
Again, I am emphasizing (at a minimum) that until we know what has been removed, or when it was said, or who this person is (let alone what books he has read, what is his diet, how does he think about this that or the other?) how can it possibly be objectively evaluated?
Dougquaid, I'd also like to add that I do not mean for any of this to appear or come across as a personal attack - I do not know you, so I'm not really capable of taking it to that level. I would address this situation the same, regardless of who it was, so long as all the circumstances were the same. I hope you do not take offense to my critical questioning, of what may very well end up being a valuable resource to us all. But I must ask the questions - it is simply in my nature. I hope that is understood.
I've often fallen prone to wishful thinking myself. And by no means am I saying that the work here is without merit - I'm just saying I can't possibly know that. And until the missing information (clarification of what exactly has been deleted, as well as dates) is provided or researched by someone, I don't know how anyone else is able to tell either. Has anyone else who has posted in this thread actually read everything that was posted, and if so, do you have any clue just how much editing has taken place? Sounds like a monumental time consuming task (especially without dates), and based on the responses I don't think this has even begun to happen yet...
The other thing that is bothering me is that zero networking has taken place during this endeavour, rather it was done alone and secretively. If we really knew who this person was (and perhaps someone does and can chime in here), it may be a different situation. But based on the interaction with the forum, which is all I have to go on, I don't understand why this wasn't brought up earlier.
And further, I don't understand why permission hasn't been asked, in any way shape or form, from the copyright holders - or even if they think it is a vaguely good idea to do what has been done here (even after the point was gently brought up). That seems a little rude to me. Who is teaching who about what here exactly I guess is another question that comes to mind. And to know that answer, I must at least have an idea of what this New Teacher knows about the material in question - and I do not...
Additionally, in Dougquaid's first post less than four months ago he states that he had only read the transcripts up to 2002 via a third party website which is not even confirmed to have a 'pure record' of them to my knowledge. And all transcripts after that point have been studied for weeks at most, not years....especially when taking into account the hundreds of replies in each thread for all transcripts during the period being discussed.
He also implies that as of that time, he had not yet re-read any logs so far, in addition to not having read past 2002 form an unconfirmed source. So, when he says that he has read them ALL 2 and 3 times over the course of several years, and his earlier posts directly contradict this information, I also have then more questions.
Apologies if I'm sounding harsh, but to me it feels like I am just stating the obvious...
Everybody wants a copy, but nobody really knows what it is they are asking for...nor have I seen even an indication of skepticism that perhaps what has been produced could possibly even be incorrect. I don't know - but I think there are quite a lot of important questions that need to be asked here, before this can be taken seriously. Depending on the answers - the unwarranted spread of this subjectively edited information could potentially even be dangerous. I feel it necessary to point out a possible other agenda here (or at least the importance of remaining open to that possibility until further info is known), as many seem to be focused on blind belief in the absence of evidence, despite several clues from mods here. Again, if I am out of line, or totally misinterpreting this situation, I apologize and will openly listen to any input anyone has to offer.
In summary: Further research is warranted, and with an open mind, IMO.
Jason (ocean59) said:
Jason, doing work alone is nothing special. Until any work is shared openly, we/you can call it secretive, if you wish, but that doesn't mean anything.
Regarding permission, what else is Dougquaid doing? He is asking for help/council in publishing his work. He is not hiding, is he?
Just my thoughts, which have nothing to do with the quality or accuracy of Dougquaid's product.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
I think that Jason brings up some very good points. Those who have asked for copies of this compilation have done so assuming that it is an objectively correct compilation. This is a rather enormous assumption. I think the largest concern from my point of view is that context is everything with the transcripts, which is why it is crucial that people actually read the Wave series and not just the raw transcripts. To take the transcripts out of context and list them according to topic, while an interesting idea (I understand the impetus for doing it) is rather dangerous due to the fact that often there are many layers of meaning in what is being transmitted, depending on what Laura was thinking and doing at the time of the session. Just my two cents.
anart said:
I second that. I did in my past also Japanese FB group with transcripts which ( how convenient ) were already translated through someone else. Without checking it for accuracy. Also I was to short on the forum to understand fully the power of network and it's benefits.
ROEL said:
Agreed. I am an incredibly solitary individual by nature, and can totally relate to this sentiment.
'Doing work alone' pretty much takes up the majority of my life lessons, and it is the hardest circumstance possible under which to do work that can exist, in my opinion. I wish it upon nobody. But this is the choice I have made, and it is indeed right for me, at this point in time. Osit - and as I continue to learn, I trust that thinking less and less.
Sure it does. When I say it was done secretively, I mean it quite literally - that it was done alone, without telling anyone else. I believe the meaning of the word/sentence has remained intact, and contrary to your opinion, that it does indeed 'mean something.'
In this case, it means that the transcripts were likely edited and altered from a completely subjective point of view - without any input from any other person. And without telling exactly what was removed (or added) - so that nobody else could possibly double-check the work without expending as much time and energy as the original poster. Why would this be done in such a way? What is the motivation here? I think these are also important questions to be asking.
Now? Remains to be seen. During the 'years' in which this was written? Quite possibly. How could we possibly know?
Again, I'm just asking questions here that I'm almost shocked nobody else has asked yet.
Yes, 'What else is Dougquaid doing?' was indeed one of my implied questions - I really don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either.
Again, this is not a condemnation - simply an obvious statement based on the available information. I am more than open to being provided with more information about it all. But, in my time here, there have been very few projects of this nature that had a 'happy ending' when individuals decide to 'go it alone' without networking on a project that they think is of monumental importance to the group (and world) at large.
So, I must remain skeptical and ask these questions - as I do not have the time (or desire) to do the research needed myself at this point to answer those questions. Additionally, I think it would have been more externally considerate for dougquaid to have included the evidence of revision in brackets, or any form whatsoever really. Perhaps this could still be done?
And perhaps it would be more externally considerate of me not to be so critical of someone who's work I know absolutely nothing of - and I trust that if I am out of bounds here someone will let me know. I would be most appreciative.
FWIW, I too started by reading only unedited transcripts - for years, back in the very early 00's. At that time, I thought I understood everything, (even out of context), and in many cases I convinced myself I knew better than Laura herself at the table. I read, re-read, and read again - and then my first instinct was to share the information with everyone I knew, because it was that important.
(edit: apologies for the slightly offtopic projecting in this post)
I still feel that way to an extent, but with the help of the psychological and philosophical studies and works in progress that take place here, I now know how to approach these topics from a more 'workable' point of view. It is not a process that has been without pain and suffering - and it is a fight and struggle on a very real and very daily basis for me. But I now no longer trust my own thinking as much as I once did - and am starting to understand how this incredibly small realization may end up saving my life. This is why I jump so quickly to defend the work being done here - I feel it is the least (and perhaps at this point, only) thing I can do, and do well here, in service to others.
After spending time reading the Wave, and the forum discussions, and other relevant posts (over a totally different period of years), I came to understand that I didn't know everything, and couldn't possibly have an objective understanding of transcripts that were only read out of context and from a questionable dictation. YMMV.
What 'help' has been asked for here? I only see an urgent offering of the unknown final product, as it is, and without proper citation/footnote. I've not yet seen a request for help editing, or concern expressed as to whether or not what has been produced is accurate - if I missed that post, please let me know.
Same here.
Dougquaid, you have not asked my permission nor the permission of QFG, to "arrange" and propagate the Cs transcripts according to YOUR understanding or artificial categories created by you. If you want to be helpful, please simply provide links to The Wave and this forum to other people and cease and desist this activity.
I, too, think that Jason has brought up some very good questions. I find it very interesting that no one else was questioning anything about dougquaid or what he was doing. Everyone was just blindly taking it on faith that everything was on the up and up. Sounds like what goes on in the world, everybody just believes that what they are being told by the government, media and medical establishments as true and nothing to question.
I'm not saying that dougquaid is doing this, but this is exactly how co-opting something happens. This is how cointelpro operates. By going in and tweaking and twisting things just a little to make the original ideas no longer mean what they originally did. And no one is the wiser because no one questioned anything.
fwiw
I'm not saying that dougquaid is doing this, but this is exactly how co-opting something happens. This is how cointelpro operates. By going in and tweaking and twisting things just a little to make the original ideas no longer mean what they originally did. And no one is the wiser because no one questioned anything.
fwiw
Iron
Dagobah Resident
douquaid , I don't think that the usefullness of your complitation has anything to do with different learning styles.
What ocurred to me is that you perhaps did this compilation as a sort of escape of not having to read all the works in context.
This compilation, besides distorting the material and narrowing it to what you feels its important, also greatly diminishes the value of the transmissions, reducing it to a variety of phrases about trivia and seemingly unrelated subjects. I feel this is the impression that someone who does not know the body of work of Laura would react, if this is the first text that they read about the cassiopaeans.
I know, the transcripts seem utterly awesome, specially in the beggining. They are entincing, its information you never saw before, and from out there.
But, dougquaid, the transcripts are only the starting point of what is done here. They are the inspiration, the research and the answers that appear as a result are what is truly magical!
What ocurred to me is that you perhaps did this compilation as a sort of escape of not having to read all the works in context.
This compilation, besides distorting the material and narrowing it to what you feels its important, also greatly diminishes the value of the transmissions, reducing it to a variety of phrases about trivia and seemingly unrelated subjects. I feel this is the impression that someone who does not know the body of work of Laura would react, if this is the first text that they read about the cassiopaeans.
I know, the transcripts seem utterly awesome, specially in the beggining. They are entincing, its information you never saw before, and from out there.
But, dougquaid, the transcripts are only the starting point of what is done here. They are the inspiration, the research and the answers that appear as a result are what is truly magical!
Biomiast
Jedi Master
Hi to all,
I think douquaid put lots of effort for this compilation, yet it is hard to read and understand the end result. He didn't approach the subject systematically, not thinking the details like "how can I present it such that the reader would benefit most?" which would be discussed if he would have used the network.
I can see usefulness in categorizing subjects of transcripts, but I think it is really fun to delve into Wave series to look for a C's session. When I look for one, I look at different chapters, trying to remember where I have read it before. I can use a search function, but this way I can read other things. For example, the other day I was trying to find a reference to perpendicular realities and ended up reading Shamanic Initiation chapters, which was much more relevant for my inner state at the time. If I had such a document, it would save time, but I may miss the gems along the road. :)
My two cents, fwiw.
I think douquaid put lots of effort for this compilation, yet it is hard to read and understand the end result. He didn't approach the subject systematically, not thinking the details like "how can I present it such that the reader would benefit most?" which would be discussed if he would have used the network.
I can see usefulness in categorizing subjects of transcripts, but I think it is really fun to delve into Wave series to look for a C's session. When I look for one, I look at different chapters, trying to remember where I have read it before. I can use a search function, but this way I can read other things. For example, the other day I was trying to find a reference to perpendicular realities and ended up reading Shamanic Initiation chapters, which was much more relevant for my inner state at the time. If I had such a document, it would save time, but I may miss the gems along the road. :)
My two cents, fwiw.
bngenoh
The Living Force
Jason (ocean59),
Those are all excellent points, and it serves as a lesson to me. But to dougquaid's credit, he or she was willing to make the necessary changes:
dougquaid,
Do not feel bad. We must respect the advice given, especially since the originator of this material in this realm, has requested that this line of activity be ceased. Remember Gurdjieff had to liquify what he had done and begin again after reality gave him the necessary input.
But always remember, that the results of conscious labors, are never wasted. Looking forward to your continuing participation. :)
Guess we'll have to make the search bar our friend, which it sometimes is, but not always. :D "I" agree with Biomiast:
Those are all excellent points, and it serves as a lesson to me. But to dougquaid's credit, he or she was willing to make the necessary changes:
However this is besides the point.dougquaid said:
dougquaid,
Do not feel bad. We must respect the advice given, especially since the originator of this material in this realm, has requested that this line of activity be ceased. Remember Gurdjieff had to liquify what he had done and begin again after reality gave him the necessary input.
But always remember, that the results of conscious labors, are never wasted. Looking forward to your continuing participation. :)
Guess we'll have to make the search bar our friend, which it sometimes is, but not always. :D "I" agree with Biomiast:
This has been my experience as well. Mosaic consciousness comes to mind, and being open to learning, wherever a lesson may come form.Biomiast said:
Palinurus
The Living Force
I didn't ask for a copy yet -strictly speaking- but I've indicated that I'm interested in this compilation. I'm fully aware this overview has its flaws (as any other view on the material would have, including my own) and I agree there has to be a discussion about this as Jason and others have signaled.anart said:
Nevertheless I'm still interested in it because I also would be equally interested in any other overview however compiled. Just to compare to my own stance vis a vis the material. I don't think there has to be a canonization of the transcripts other than the transcripts board on this forum. All transcripts will be available there in due course in their 'official' version, so any editing done by anybody where ever can be and should be verified by consulting the originals.
I wasn't planning on considering dougquaid's work as anything even remotely definitive in any shape or form. It just reflects his understanding of the C's input. For me it's just extra material to work with in a handy format. That's how I see this at the moment and I'm completely open to be convinced otherwise if deemed necessary.
shijing
The Living Force
Palinurus said:
I agree, in principle, that a thematic index of the Cassiopaean transcripts would be useful. That being said, from my point of view, the most important issue here is the way that the situation was handled. As pointed out above, Dougquaid is relatively new to the network, and hasn't yet interacted very extensively since joining at the beginning of last year -- like many of us, he was drawn here because of the Cs' information, but doesn't have much experience yet with the application. The problem is that he undertook this project on his own, and when it was finished he began uploading it (and offering copies to other forum members) without first asking for feedback about it or permission from Laura to use her information in this way. I don't have any reason to think that he had nefarious motives in doing any of this, but these are things that he should have considered, particularly since it is regularly emphasized that much of what is in the transcripts is context-dependent.
The thing is, any organization and editing of the transcripts is bound to be subjective, and without input from Laura and others who were actually present at the sessions, it's very difficult to control for distortion -- identifying information that was corrupt, as well as good information that may seem irrelevant if you don't have the full context. I can say this from experience because I've attempted to do something similar in the past for my own reference; however, I have never tried to share it because it suffers from exactly the same problems that have been brought up with Dougquaid's compilation. There have been several instances where I realized that my own judgments were off due to context that became clear at a later point in time; any project like this that isn't networked and vetted by Laura (the only person who was there for every session) is always going to run that risk.
