Cassiopaean sessions

[TheSpoon]

Cassiopaean transcripts beyond 020928

Hi, quick question for Laura if she's available:

Were further sessions with the Cassiopaeans recorded/transcribed after 020928?

If not, can you say why you stopped?

Best Wishes,
Peter

 

[Vulcan59]

Cassiopaean transcripts beyond 020928

Have a read of this thread and you'll understand why.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9420.0

Added later - the original discussion seems to be missing, so I've linked it to transcripts beyond 020928 thread.

 

[TheSpoon]

Cassiopaean transcripts beyond 020928

Woo yes, that totally answers that question, thanks Vulcan.

I did do a search before I asked, but unfortunately I didn't think to search for "Cassies" ;)

Cheers,
Peter

 

[diomedesxx]

Hello Cassiopaea

I wanted to formally say hello. I have been lurking over SOTT, (and just recently cassiopaea.org) for nearly a year now. What really drew my attention to SOTT was the broad range of topics covered, and the broad manner in which they were approached. To an extent, I would say my preliminary interest was SOTT's appeal to my cynical nature, as one criticism of SOTT was its coverage of "bad news"; after a time, my interest shifted due to SOTT's quest for objectiveness - especially when I could see the stark contrast with the local "newspapers" circulating in my area. To that end, I have been able to look a somewhat-more objective at myself, and see a small portion of my fallacies that need to be amended. More on that in a bit.
It may seem laughable that after lurking SOTT for such a period, but I had not never realized cassiopaea.org existed; I must say, though, that I haven't had even the time to finish pouring through the articles available on the SOTT page when I noticed I could not connect, and the SOTT forum link redirected me to the Cassiopaea forum. The feeling of awe that I had encountered with SOTT's content was multiplied when I stumbled across cassiopaea.org; I've seen that there is much for me to learn. Learning is something I've always enjoyed, partly because I'm insecure and selfish enough to want to know, but experience has also taught me that I feel better about myself by sharing that knowledge with other people.
I was raised in a deeply conservative family, with a Christian (Baptist) viewpoint introduced before I could even think for myself. To add insult it injury, I was raised in a deeply racist town. The town was predominately Caucasian, with around 15 to 20% of the population Hispanic, and the sum on all other ethnicities did not exceed 4-5%, in a town of less than 8,000. To this end, I have been endeavoring to remove myself from the bigoted conceptions I was raised in; while I have made significant headway, I find that I react in a bigoted manner on the inside on occasion, more often than I would like. While it is a great source of consternation, it also gives me a large amount of motivation to improve; one can hardly give an objective opinion, or spot an objective fact, when blinded by preconception and bigotry.


On a completely separate note, while reading a political blog I frequent, I stumbled across http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316235/. I find myself saddened by this community's reliance upon religion at the expense of a sect of people. As it would happen, I was reading this article while on lunch (I work at a local Wal-Mart); I nearly feel that I made a mistake in looking at such a story while on lunch, as having a laptop at such a place is nearly unheard of. I tend to show my emotions on my face, and the look of consternation on my face when I was reading the article drew a co-worker's attention to the article I was reading. I briefly (and quietly) explained what transpired in the Florida school, and the very first reaction among the three people near me was "and that's exactly how it should be handled[referring to how the principle acted]." A few people around give a short affirmation (nodding of the head, etc) leaving me to wonder about the community I live in. I blinked a few times, shrugged my shoulders, put my headphones back on, and backed out of the conversation to my previous activities.
I feel that the Principle was incorrect in his actions towards the students affected, but the experience left a bit of doubt in me: "Am I being conceited to think that my coworker should have been aghast, as I was, at the principle's behavior?" "Am I being a mirror of intolerance consistent with the principle by thinking my coworker should believe as I?"

For more information on the article I linked to, here is the court case (The PDF is too large to attach, ~152kb)
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file980_36150.pdf

 

[anart]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

Hi diomedesxx,

The experience you had with your co-workers is very common - and, no, it's not about you being conceited at all - it's simply the fact that your eyes are open just a little bit more widely then theirs. It can be a difficult thing to get used to, and there are many threads on the forum discussing what this feels like and how to handle it. Ultimately, it's ok - all there is is lessons, after all, - and everyone is 'where they are', so to speak. So, read, read and read some more - and, welcome!

 

[Buddy]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

Hi diomedesxx. Welcome to the forum.

I have a similar upbringing so I can understand where you're coming from.

Quote from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316235/:

"We are a small, rural district in the Bible Belt with strong Christian beliefs and feel like homosexuality is wrong," said Steve Griffin, Holmes County's school superintendent, who keeps a Bible on his desk and framed Scriptures on his office walls.

I read the article you mentioned. The above quote is a clue as to how this can happen. When the superintendent mirrors the prejudices of the community (and he most likely will if he wants the position), this is the kind of behavior that can be expected from him.
You will run across a lot of examples like this all over the country and will most likely experience a lot of emotional reactions to them.
You've come to the right place for help as you begin to deal with reality in the context of the Work. There are a ton of articles and posts here by those who have dealt with, and are dealing with issues such as what now concerns you.

I feel that the Principle was incorrect in his actions towards the students affected, but the experience left a bit of doubt in me: "Am I being conceited to think that my coworker should have been aghast, as I was, at the principle's behavior?" "Am I being a mirror of intolerance consistent with the principle by thinking my coworker should believe as I?"

1) I don't think you were being conceited with regard to your coworkers reaction. Perhaps unreasonably expectant? Maybe your coworker is as heavily invested in the status quo as most everyone else seems to be.

2) I don't see that you demonstrated any 'intolerance'. Your reaction was mostly passive. You stated: "I blinked a few times, shrugged my shoulders, put my headphones back on, and backed out of the conversation to my previous activities."
That was probably the best thing to do until you are able to expose the prejudices for what they are without caving in to the negative reactions that may follow.

 

[anart]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

That was probably the best thing to do until you are able to expose the prejudices for what they are without caving in to the negative reactions that may follow.

Hi Buddy, not sure that this portion of your post is really the best idea. What is there to gain for someone, in this context and work situation, to 'expose the prejudices for what they are'?

Giving when not asked is not really the point - and ignorance is its own reward, if you get my drift. If it were a different situation, and the people involved were asking to be edified - to understand how asleep and bigoted they are, then that would be different - but when one is working to awaken, it is vitally important to step carefully and to never underestimate the power of the General Law - in other words, no need to go poking a bear in the nose... ;)

 

[gwb1995]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

Hi Diomedesxx,

I personally have been lurking around all of the sites available here for many years. I have only recently come to the realization that 'Doing the Work' is the key to actually gaining any REAL KNOWLEDGE! We can read and read and read, but without making a real commitment to our SELF and doing the REAL WORK that this entails, we are all just wasting time. I would suggest that you focus on the main site and read all the material available there first, followed by reading the list of suggested books on getting yourself read to actually do the work. I do apologize for not finding the link to place here for you.

As I understand it, one must prepare one's self before one can actually begin to learn and move forward. I was a slow learner, and wasted a lot of this life and what I am hear to learn, because I did not do so initially. This is a HUGH lesson learned for myself. I will commit to finding the list of reading for you and posting it for you.

As for the questions and concerns listed in your post, I will defer from commenting now. I do not have enough information to provide any meaningful input at this time.

I have made few posts , so take that into consideration, as you go forward in your quest for knowledge. This site has many who can assist you, if you are willing to take on the challenge of seeking to do the WORK!

Regards,

GWB1995

 

[Buddy]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

If it were a different situation... ...then that would be different

You're entirely correct anart. I dropped context, forgetting about the relevant 'context and work situation'.
Sorry 'bout that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

 

[Renaissance]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

I feel that the Principle was incorrect in his actions towards the students affected, but the experience left a bit of doubt in me: "Am I being conceited to think that my coworker should have been aghast, as I was, at the principle's behavior?" "Am I being a mirror of intolerance consistent with the principle by thinking my coworker should believe as I?"

Hi diomedesxx, welcome to the forum. While I don't think 'conceit' is accurate, I think it's helpful to ask these things as it seems to loosen the hold that lower instincts and emotions have over us. It looks like there were two conflicts you mention: one between your inner state and that of your coworkers; the other between you and your forming ideal of who you 'ought to be'. These struggles are an essential part of 'The Work', which is a specific type of development sought here.

In relation to the first conflict, it seems much to do between varying forms of syntony and empathy.

Dabrowski wrote this about it:

The feelings of syntony and empathy

On a low level of development, i.e. primitive integration, we observe forms of syntony so primitive that, depending on circumstances, they can easily change into asyntony. Primitive forms of syntony find their expression in union with a collective mood, in union with the psychomotorics of a dancing group, in common laughter, in the impulses of a crowd (such as fighting, “living it up,” drinking, primitive forms of rivalry, etc.). Such primitive syntony involves spontaneous, rhythmic, dynamic, or explosive forms of behavior in the area of sensory needs and primitive emotional interests. This is a constitutionally compulsive behavior determined physiologically.

On a somewhat higher level, i.e. on the level of unilevel disintegration, we observe instinctive forms of the desire to help others. This is accompanied by ambivalent and changeable overexperiencing of other people’s problems. These feelings, however, are so unstable that from positive emotions they may easily turn to resentment, jealousy, stubbornness and hatred. Such coupling of the stimulation of primitive levels of the self-preservation instinct with an awakening of the feelings of syntony shows a disequilibrium of syntonic and asyntonic attitudes. Hence the ambivalence, ambitendencies and changeability displayed through a disharmony of thought, feeling, and action. It also manifests shifting away from the rigidity of primitive integration towards the greater plasticity of initial disintegration.

On a higher level, i.e. at the first stage of multilevel disintegration, there appears a hierarchy of values. We observe more alterocentric, unselfish attitudes expressed by a readiness to help; we observe more consistent sensitivity towards the need of others forsaking primitive selfishness. This attitude is characterized by a more or less strong participation of thoughtfulness and reflection. This is empathy.

On the level of the organization of multilevel disintegration we observe conscious forms of syntony coupled with an ability to perceive and to systematically weed out residual forms of primitive syntony, such as understanding and love. Deeper syntony and kindness are united here in an understanding of the developmental level and type of each encountered individual (identification with others). A disapproval of his more primitive moral attitudes and actions does not diminish the desire to help him. Typical examples are: a tendency to defend others, a heart-warming attitude, understanding, and the like, which are accompanied by reflection and critical evaluation.

On the highest level, that is to say, in secondary integration, we encounter deeper understanding of every human being in respect to his developmental level, inner potential and similar functions. This expresses a form of syntony that is multi-dimensional and multi-level; it goes parallel with an increased understanding of the whole psychic structure of encountered persons. With the understanding of the deeper needs of others, with constant readiness to help, with identification with others and profound empathy comes peace of mind. Its mark is an attitude of “syntonic” wisdom, understanding, kindness and generosity. What is primitive is not approved of, neither is it condemned.

In regards to the second conflict, Dabrowski wrote the following about 'positive maladjustment':

Another aspect of reaction to frustration is the problem of maladjustment. In our opinion, much too often in psychology, educa­tion, and psychiatry, adjustment is discussed as positive and maladjust­ment as negative. In the attitude of adjustment, we can easily isolate two forms. First we can see a form of adjustment to the low level of reality of everyday life. This is a noncreative, nondevelopmental, automatic adjustment. The second form of adjustment is adjustment not to that which is actually present, but to that which arises as a new, higher level of mental life. It may be called adjustment to that which “ought to be”. In this form of adjustment there is an element of development and creativity connected with autonomous hierarchiza­tion of needs and values. Only this second form of adjustment is truly developmental. However, this adjustment of a higher type is, at the same time, a positive maladjustment to lower levels of reality.

What is the source of the phenomenon of positive maladjustment? It arises from psychic hyperexcitability particularly emotional, imaginational, and intellectual, from the nuclei of the inner psychic milieu, and from the instincts of creativity and self-perfection.

Collisions with the environment within a smaller or larger social group, at the period of early childhood, and throughout later life cause the development of positive maladjustment. In people endowed with a favorable potential these collisions create a basis for an elaboration of a program of development.

Positive maladjustment characterizes all forms of creative and positive development and characterizes also most of the psychoneurotic dynamisms which we consider to be positive and creative.

All the phenomena discussed above, that is to say, positive psychic hyperexcitability, low frustration threshold, maladjustment, are marks of the process of positive disintegration, i.e. the process of psychic loosening, disintegration and even possible breakdown. In some cases disintegration has a negative character leading to psychotic dissolution. But in the vast majority of cases, the phenomena of disintegration point to a very great developmental potential. They form the basic dynamisms of mental growth, of sensitivity and creativity; they indicate the possibility of rich positive development which an individual could be capable of.

You may also want to look into the subject of organic portals. There's a great thread on the topic if you do a search. There was also a recent news article on Sott, Moral Endo-skeletons and Exo-skeletons: A Perspective on America's Cultural Divide and Current Crisis which is a great read on the same area.

 

[Laura]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

You may also want to look into the subject of organic portals. There's a great thread on the topic if you do a search. There was also a recent news article on Sott, Moral Endo-skeletons and Exo-skeletons: A Perspective on America's Cultural Divide and Current Crisis which is a great read on the same area.

Good suggestion. And yes, I think that Organic Portals are an important aspect of this issue.

As I continue to peel away the historical layers in my research, it becomes more and more obvious that the largest segment of the population are the "moral exoskeletons." They rely on "authority" to give them their "world view" and this is a particularly bad thing when the authorities are pathological - psychopathic.

The world wasn't always this way and one of the things that is exercising me at the moment is trying to pinpoint where, when and how psychopathy originated. At the moment, I'm toying with the idea that it is a cross between the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal with the "creative drive" of the Cro-Magnon emotional nature and the superior Cro-Magnon brain, being modified by the Neanderthal instinctive substratum (moving center and sex center of Gurdjieff and Mouravieff).

That's my very loose working hypothesis for the moment and I'm digging for clues.

In her book, The Civilization of the Goddess, archaeologist Marija Gimbutas wrote about the differences between the Old European system, which was goddess and woman-centered, and the later Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal culture which replaced it. The archaeological evidence shows that gynocentric and gylanic societies were peaceful, they honored homosexuals, and they espoused economic equality for all. There were either no psychopaths in these societies, or they understood pathology and actively eliminated it when it was found.

Such a society has the ability to give structure to the OP - those requiring authority to guide their lives - in such a way that their following of authority is healthy and beneficial not only for themselves, but for all others in society.

Psychopathy seems to be at the root of the "androcratic", or male-dominated societies such as the Kurgan peoples that invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchical rule of male warriors.

In our world today, the chief vector of this type of society is, of course, Judaism and its offshoots, Christianity and Islam. What can be noted in closely studying Judaism is that the "male dominator god" was something of a late-comer and the early Semites worshipped the goddess and had a female centered society.

A careful examination of the "Q" texts of the New Testament (see Burton Mack) reveal, in my opinion, a goddess oriented worship as well. See these threads: Gog Magog and The Black Madonna. But that was quickly overtaken by the male-dominator religion of the Judahites.

In any event, until it is clearly understood that a large segment of the population are OPs and a small fraction of them are psychopaths that have risen to the top, there is no hope for solving the problems of our world. The lunatics have, indeed, taken over the asylum.

 

[Buddy]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

They rely on "authority" to give them their "world view" and this is a particularly bad thing when the authorities are pathological - psychopathic.

The world wasn't always this way and one of the things that is exercising me at the moment is trying to pinpoint where, when and how psychopathy originated.

Laura, I would like to hear what you think about the following:

Back in the early 90's, when I was into the Neo-Tech literature, I discovered a remarkable amount ofconcepts developed from the work of Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".
Generally speaking, it was said that man was incapable of the kind of dishonesty and manipulation, etc., before this time, and that it was kind of like when things started going south.

Consciousness is described as a metaphor generated analog world that closely parallels the real world. ('real' being understood in this context as meaning the same as 'objective', or that which reduces to perceptual phenomonon).
To the extent one entertains ideas, concepts and beliefs that don't reduce to the 'real' world, is the extent one is being subjective.
Perhaps that explains my difficulty understanding objectivity as defined in the Work...but I diverge.

I'm not entirely sure how this relates to OP's, as such, but the quote above stimulated this recollection.

It's possible you have already looked into this and dismissed it as nonapplicable, but that is why I'm asking.
If you have already been through it before, is it as important a work as I was led to believe?


Here's a reference to some thoughtful reviews if needed:

_http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=pd_sim_b_1/002-5219719-0380802


PostScript:
I apologize in advance if any of my Neo-Tech references disturb anyone. It's just that I've already been through it, so it influences my thinking a lot.
I do NOT advocate anyone getting involved in the Literature unless your ONLY long-range objective is to figure out, yourself, how to stay in your body and live forever in 3rd Density.

 

[ark]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

From "The Big U" by Neal Stephenson


"Ephraim had been talking the entire way. "So if you were the religious type, you know, you could say that the right side of the brain is the 'spiritual' side, the part that comes into contact with spiritual influences or God or whatever-- it has a dimension that protrudes into the spiritual plane, if you want to look at it that way-- while the left half is monistic and nonspiritual and mechanical. We conscious unicamerals accept the spiritual information coming in from the right side mixed in subtly with the natural inputs. But a bicameral person would receive that information in the form of a voice from nowhere which spoke with great authority. Now, that doesn't contradict the biblical accounts of the prophets-- it merely gives us a new basis for their interpretation by suggesting that their communication with the Deity was done subconsciously by a particular hemisphere of the brain."

 

[mamadrama]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

The world wasn't always this way and one of the things that is exercising me at the moment is trying to pinpoint where, when and how psychopathy originated. At the moment, I'm toying with the idea that it is a cross between the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal with the "creative drive" of the Cro-Magnon emotional nature and the superior Cro-Magnon brain, being modified by the Neanderthal instinctive substratum (moving center and sex center of Gurdjieff and Mouravieff).

That's my very loose working hypothesis for the moment and I'm digging for clues

In the introduction of a book I read a while ago there is a reference to Loye's book, Darwin's Lost Theory of Love, which explores Darwin's final work, The Descent of Man. It explains how in The Origin of the Species, Darwin describes how ages of mutation, selectivity, and survival of the fittest gave rise to mammalian life in general but then in The Descent of Man, he shows how evolution then employed markedly different forces - "higer agencies." as Darwin called them - to bring about the far more advanced human species. Recently, geneticists at the Howard Hughes Medical Center traced DNA records of the major species preceding us and made the claim that the human brain's evolutionary appearance was far too sudden to be accounted for by Darwin's selective mutation and the survival of the fittest. According to Loye, however, this discovery fits with Darwins thesis in The Descent of Man in which the human brain that the geneticists refer to is the fourth and latest development in the human brain which relied on the earlier neural systems to develop. During many decades as the head of the National Institute of Health's Department of Brain Evolution and Behavior, neuroscientist Paul McLean mapped out the evolutionary nature and structure of our brain. He showed that in our head lies Darwin's mutation/selection process of an ancient reptilian or hind brain, which served as the basis for a forebrain consisting of an old and new mammalian brain. Upon these three evolved structures, the fouth human brain could be added with little of the slow, trial and error processes of the evolution leading up to it. This process discussed in Darwin's later work, The Descent of Man, of a human brain operating from the higher agencies of love and altruism apparently brought us about as recently as forty to fifty thousand years ago.
I thought this might be a clue...FWIW

 

[Laura]

Re: Hello Cassiopaea

Problem is, catastrophism makes a monkey of evolution. It's not survival of the fittest, but survival of the lucky.