Do WE have a name? Should we?

[Etevarran]

I was wondering if followers of the teachings and messages of the Cassiopaeans such as us should have a name as a whole. In other words, a unique name that would identify us as a group and that we could call ourselves. I'm not saying I'm looking for a name that I want to use to call myself, but rather a name I or anyone else could hypothetically use to refer to us and any other "fan" of the Cassiopaeans, other than a generic "fans/followers/etc. of the Cassiopaeans".

Now, I bet you might think "We can call ourselves Cassiopaeans!" since after all they are "us in the future". That actually sounds like a good idea. But after giving it some thought, I honestly see some issues with that.

First, I think it would be little bit confusing to tell someone that we are followers of the Cassiopaeans AND that "we" are the Cassiopaeans. It could be misinterpreted as saying that we wrote what the Cassiopaeans have said and that's what we believe in! It could take some time to explain to anyone what I REALLY mean if I said "I am a Cassiopaean".

Furthermore, it seems to me that calling ourselves "Cassiopaeans" flat out is kind of arrogant. I know there is a lot of discussion about what "you in the future" means per se, if it refers to some but not all of us, or even just Laura's group, if it's still open, etc. But I don't think we could be so arrogant as to say that each of us is sure "we" are the Cassiopaeans and thus call ourselves that. This just my opinion; maybe some of you see this differently.

My question would be, do you think we should call ourselves something, or not? Maybe Cassiopaeans? Maybe something else? Or maybe, there is something you already use as a name for "us"? I would love to know!

 

[anart]

I was wondering if followers of the teachings and messages of the Cassiopaeans such as us should have a name as a whole. In other words, a unique name that would identify us as a group and that we could call ourselves. I'm not saying I'm looking for a name that I want to use to call myself, but rather a name I or anyone else could hypothetically use to refer to us and any other "fan" of the Cassiopaeans, other than a generic "fans/followers/etc. of the Cassiopaeans".

Now, I bet you might think "We can call ourselves Cassiopaeans!" since after all they are "us in the future". That actually sounds like a good idea. But after giving it some thought, I honestly see some issues with that.

First, I think it would be little bit confusing to tell someone that we are followers of the Cassiopaeans AND that "we" are the Cassiopaeans. It could be misinterpreted as saying that we wrote what the Cassiopaeans have said and that's what we believe in! It could take some time to explain to anyone what I REALLY mean if I said "I am a Cassiopaean".

Furthermore, it seems to me that calling ourselves "Cassiopaeans" flat out is kind of arrogant. I know there is a lot of discussion about what "you in the future" means per se, if it refers to some but not all of us, or even just Laura's group, if it's still open, etc. But I don't think we could be so arrogant as to say that each of us is sure "we" are the Cassiopaeans and thus call ourselves that. This just my opinion; maybe some of you see this differently.

My question would be, do you think we should call ourselves something, or not? Maybe Cassiopaeans? Maybe something else? Or maybe, there is something you already use as a name for "us"? I would love to know!

Hi Cesar,

I think 'calling ourselves something' might encourage identification and belief, both of which are things everyone involved in this Work should be struggling to rid themselves of. We have a Fellowship for those so aligned, but I'm not really sure that 'a collective name' would really serve anyone well?

 

[Joe]

I think that calling ourselves something would limit what we do, unless it was something like Truth-seekers? Seekers after Truth? But that's so general as to not really be a name that we could go by, but then I don't really want to go by any particular name, ;)

 

[Denis]

Hi Cesar.

I think that what you are suggesting here could cause some "ego boost" in members' self perception making them feel as if they are something special or "more than others" if it were ever accepted by the group's consensus (however I don't think this will happen, just for the record :)).

My name is Denis, your name is Cesar. Other members also have their respective names and/or nicknames. We are HUMAN BEINGS and Earthlings. To me, this is quite enough to go by and it also represents a fact. FWIW

 

[Etevarran]

Hmm, I'm a bit confused. So you do not see yourselves as part of a group of people that follow the teachings of the Cassiopaeans, at all? Of course we are human, and of course we are truth seekers, but so are many other people who have never even heard of the Cassiopaeans. Do you not want to be identified as part of a group of people who seek the truth based on the Cassiopaeans' message?

Hi Cesar,

I think 'calling ourselves something' might encourage identification and belief, both of which are things everyone involved in this Work should be struggling to rid themselves of. We have a Fellowship for those so aligned, but I'm not really sure that 'a collective name' would really serve anyone well?

Hi Anart, I think I need a bit of clarification. What exactly do you mean by "identification and belief"? Also, are you saying that you'd need to be a member of the Fellowship in order to claim that you follow the messages of the Cassiopaeans? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you said.

 

[mcb]

...My question would be, do you think we should call ourselves something, or not? Maybe Cassiopaeans? Maybe something else? Or maybe, there is something you already use as a name for "us"? I would love to know!

Nope. Certainly not anything with "follower" in it. "Reluctant, skeptical, thick-skulled student," maybe. I think "nothing" would be better than that.

And I can't speak for anyone else but I began doing the same sort of work 20 years before I learned about Laura and the C's; just not doing it nearly as well.

So it's there to do no matter what, but pretty hard to do alone, and being part of a quality group makes a huge difference. Whatever it is, it's not so easy to name.

Edit: 16 years -> 20 years

 

[anart]

Hi Anart, I think I need a bit of clarification. What exactly do you mean by "identification and belief"? Also, are you saying that you'd need to be a member of the Fellowship in order to claim that you follow the messages of the Cassiopaeans? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you said.

I think the confusion here is that you seem to think we encourage belief. Belief is antithetical to what we do here. We don't want you to believe! We want you to know - to learn to know, to figure things out for yourself, to question everything and to do the research necessary to answer these questions in your own mind. This is SO important.

Since you're here, you use this forum and the C's transmissions as part of that research, but at no time should you ever believe simply because you read something on these pages!

Considering Strategic Enclosure, I'm not sure why anyone would want to 'claim to follow' the messages of the Cassiopaeans. Following implies belief - and we're not about belief! The C's themselves have said, "don't deify us". Does that make more sense?

Of course a person doesn't have to be a member of the Fellowship to do anything at all, to read the sessions, to participate here, and that's certainly not what I meant by bringing up the Fellowship. I brought it up because you appear to be interested in 'being part of a group' and the Fellowship is such a group.

If it came down to it and we were required to have a name, I think an adequate name for us would be Fools. We are on the Way of the Fool. But - I think this forum is filled with such diversity of humanity that to group us under one title wouldn't only be limiting, it wouldn't be a true reflection of what goes on here.

I think, perhaps, that there are certain things that can't be named - and perhaps this is one.

 

[anart]

Ah, I didn't address your question on identification. Here is the definition.

It basically means being so attached to something that you take it as yourself, or part of yourself, when it's not. People get identified with everything from their thoughts to their shoes - and even what coffee they drink - but the definition explains more.

 

[Psalehesost]

Do you not want to be identified as part of a group of people who seek the truth based on the Cassiopaeans' message?

In short, no - the C's message is not the core of the process of the search for truth. It is a material, the same way the works of Gurdjieff and Mouravieff is material.

It can be used as inspiration - and things read can "click" - and new thoughts, new ideas of possibilities can be seen. It sometimes shakes up our minds, gets us thinking.

And that is just a part. All the rest, the essence of the network and its search is in the Work done. Work that brings knowledge - and results.

OSIT.

 

[Gimpy]

Nope. Certainly not anything with "follower" in it. "Reluctant, skeptical, thick-skulled student," maybe. I think "nothing" would be better than that.

And I can't speak for anyone else but I began doing the same sort of work 20 years before I learned about Laura and the C's; just not doing it nearly as well.

I'd second Megan's above comment. ;D

If it came down to it and we were required to have a name, I think an adequate name for us would be Fools. We are on the Way of the Fool. But - I think this forum is filled with such diversity of humanity that to group us under one title wouldn't only be limiting, it wouldn't be a true reflection of what goes on here.

I think, perhaps, that there are certain things that can't be named - and perhaps this is one.

This topic brought back memories of visiting Reservations, and seeing so many New Agers chasing tired Elders for "names". Doing that can end up leaving the seeker with a moniker that is NOT flattering.

Its also one of many ways of locking in a meaning, in order to subvert/change it. An example would be 'redneck.' The original definition of a redneck was a coal miner seeking to unionize in the Appalachian mountains against dangerous conditions in the coal mines there. They wore red bandanas around their necks to help them find each other in the crowds protesting against the Mining Companies. They were beaten, and shot by the Pinkerton security men hired by the Mining companies at that time. Being called a 'redneck' back then was considered a good thing...it meant someone who was willing to stand up against corruption.

What does it mean today? Where I live it means someone who is ignorant, hostile, and bigoted.

Completely opposite of what it meant originally, isn't it?

Its one reason among many others that I'm in agreement that we have a Fellowship, and not a 'name'. ;)

 

[Roger]

First let me say, welcome to the Forum... then my comments are similar to Anarts, that a name is similar to being labelled and can go either way , good or bad according to some Psychopaths hateful thinking... I seen it happen to a lot of good people who tried to organize different political, sport, or philosophical sessions...The way Laura and the group has set it up is perfect, the truth is out there, use your brains and catch not only the hints, but the instructions being taught...best I have seen in years

 

[weasel3d]

Exploration and research should be focused and open towards the unknown.

This is a living, thinking, network. To get locked into naming conventions, I would think that you'd get locked in place, box yourself in and end up focusing on yourself. To live and think clearly, you need to look outward.

Names and identity lean towards the narcissistic. Narcissism is about self (the inward), not the world we're trying to understand and live in; but the world we're consumed by.

It's my feeling that one of this site's goals is come to seek information that assists us in not allowing ourselves to be consumed by both hyper-dimensional intelligences---and ourselves, as best we can.

 

[Denis]

The title of this thread reminds me of Lao Tzu's quote from Tao Te Ching:

The Tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the
eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of
heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten
thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the
mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the
manifestations.

These two spring from the same source
but differ in name; this appears as
darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

 

[Etevarran]

Thanks for all your replies. I understand more clearly now why you say that looking for a name is not recommended. But IMHO that shouldn't take from the fact that we indeed form part of a group, an open network that has come together around a common aspect--the C's material--to work on a collective understanding of our reality... regardless of whether this network may have a name or not. I hope at least I'm not totally off about this...

 

[mamadrama]

Well not 'totally off,' but not quite complete either. ;) This forum's focus is not only to search for objective truth based on the Cassiopaean Experiment but also relies on the Fourth Way Work of Georges Gurdjieff, Mouravieff, Ouspensky, with a little Castaneda thrown in as well as many modern psychological studies. If you haven't had a chance, read Anart's link above about identification. I think that will clear up any confusion you may have. :)