FOTCM Statement of Principles

[Tchaka]

That's good enough for me. Thanks for that. Just didn't want to keep e-smoking if anyone heard tell that they were completely horrible for one, or (albeit paranoid to say so) had some crazy effect like a strobe lights hypnotic inducement, or some such outcome in which they actually cancelled out the productive effects of nicotines enhancing elements (much like i imagine the gums, patches and pills probably have as again, i suspect the inhalation is symbolically part of the inspiration...just a theory).

And I hear ya on that which they lack. Definitely not the real deal, but I still wonder personally how much my own conditioning is related to the social link, years of habit and the tiny part of me that (albeit a total contradiction of self) actually likes that "tiny death" I spoke of previously. Add to this that it took 5 different styles until i found one that packed the punch i so desired.

I still go analog about an eighth of the time. but the struggle lessens as i realize it's less of a war against that which is "problematic" (as most people tout the party line that cigs are evil and i've always found this suspect) and more about my own personal battles with overuse and respecting that which is a tool and not a toy. thanks again.

 

[Guardian]

I have a couple electronic cigarettes that I carry in my bag in case I want one in a place that forbids them. I just don't like them. I'd say they are close enough to regular cigarettes...

That's my take on them too, not as good as a real ciggie, but will do in a pinch where the real thing is not allowed.

I have to recharge my own cartridges (you can pry the end off the commercial refills) with organic juice because I'm real sensitive to chemicals. Also saves on cash too. I have a friend who saves me her commercial carts when she's done with them, and I pry off the ends with an exacto knife and "re-juice" them. Each "disposable" cart is actually good for about a dozen or so refills.

This is my favorite supply site for the organic juices:
http://www.vaperite.com

 

[Mr. Premise]

Nice link, Guardian, I'll have to check that out. Now if someone would only come up with Xylitol nicotine gum.

 

[aragorn]

Nice link, Guardian, I'll have to check that out. Now if someone would only come up with Xylitol nicotine gum.

I second that, about the gum! I've found gums without aspartame (which is rare), but they have sorbitol in them. Then there's the 'micro tabs' that are without sweeteners, but those have some chemicals like betadex and krospovidol. I'm not sure what those chemicals do exactly, but they give me a head ache.

I've also tried the supplements that supposedly enhance acetylcholine (vinpocetine etc), but nah, couldnt feel any difference. My favorite nicotine product without the smoke is definitely snus, but the 'third reichian' legislation where I live prohibits selling and buying that, even via mail order.

I'm sticking to non additive cigarettes, bu it would be nice to have a smoke free option to use indoors at work. Maybe I'll check out those e-cigarettes...

 

[Psalehesost]

My favorite nicotine product without the smoke is definitely snus, but the 'third reichian' legislation where I live prohibits selling and buying that, even via mail order.

Have you looked into snus-making kits?

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,84.msg369041.html#msg369041

Don't know if these are also forbidden, but if they are, the ingredients are not - so if you find a more detailed recipe, you could then easily make your own. (If the pre-prepared kits are not forbidden, the particular one I've used is "Prillan Stark".)

Bonus: The snus becomes very cheap when you make your own.

 

[Maranatha]

There is something I'm a bit confused about: in several places the Statement of Principles explains that psychopaths cannot change; they don't have the genetic template, they don't have Conscience, and if they don't have Conscience they can't build anything from the inside out, because change comes from the inner. So far so good. Then, in 4.4 "On Ponerogenesis" we have "Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they."

My first thought was, because they have to die, get recombobulated in 5D or whatnot, then come back with a tiny bit more awareness or Conscience and give it a go again, maybe being a shred less of a psychopath.

Then I thought, is it because they are pure STS, or heading toward it, and to try to change would actually upset the momentum? I remember Ra saying that if you go STS to the almost-extreme (95%) then sometimes you can flip over to STO. It's the people that are mediocre that waste the most time (sinkhole of indifference, etc).

Does anyone want to weigh in on this? I just keep getting stuck on that should word. If they don't possess a true Will, then I could see where logically they can't make a real choice to change (in 3D). But should seems to be suggesting something deeper.

 

[Marcus-Aurelius]

There is something I'm a bit confused about: in several places the Statement of Principles explains that psychopaths cannot change; they don't have the genetic template, they don't have Conscience, and if they don't have Conscience they can't build anything from the inside out, because change comes from the inner. So far so good. Then, in 4.4 "On Ponerogenesis" we have "Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they."

My first thought was, because they have to die, get recombobulated in 5D or whatnot, then come back with a tiny bit more awareness or Conscience and give it a go again, maybe being a shred less of a psychopath.

Then I thought, is it because they are pure STS, or heading toward it, and to try to change would actually upset the momentum? I remember Ra saying that if you go STS to the almost-extreme (95%) then sometimes you can flip over to STO. It's the people that are mediocre that waste the most time (sinkhole of indifference, etc).

Does anyone want to weigh in on this? I just keep getting stuck on that should word. If they don't possess a true Will, then I could see where logically they can't make a real choice to change (in 3D). But should seems to be suggesting something deeper.

Hi Maranatha,
I think "nor should they" refers to the fact that we should not wish or force psychopaths to change as they cannot. They are just part of nature and we must accept nature as it is. This however does not prevent us of withdrawing from their influence if we spot them around: just run away in order not to be food.

This is my understanding and someone with more knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Maranatha]

There is something I'm a bit confused about: in several places the Statement of Principles explains that psychopaths cannot change; they don't have the genetic template, they don't have Conscience, and if they don't have Conscience they can't build anything from the inside out, because change comes from the inner. So far so good. Then, in 4.4 "On Ponerogenesis" we have "Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they."

My first thought was, because they have to die, get recombobulated in 5D or whatnot, then come back with a tiny bit more awareness or Conscience and give it a go again, maybe being a shred less of a psychopath.

Then I thought, is it because they are pure STS, or heading toward it, and to try to change would actually upset the momentum? I remember Ra saying that if you go STS to the almost-extreme (95%) then sometimes you can flip over to STO. It's the people that are mediocre that waste the most time (sinkhole of indifference, etc).

Does anyone want to weigh in on this? I just keep getting stuck on that should word. If they don't possess a true Will, then I could see where logically they can't make a real choice to change (in 3D). But should seems to be suggesting something deeper.

Hi Maranatha,
I think "nor should they" refers to the fact that we should not wish or force psychopaths to change as they cannot. They are just part of nature and we must accept nature as it is. This however does not prevent us of withdrawing from their influence if we spot them around: just run away in order not to be food.

This is my understanding and someone with more knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong.

But what is the scope of this "cannot change" thing -- cannot change in their current incarnation? If all beings have at least a seed of evolving Consciousness (fragmented soul consciousness), however dormant, then psychopaths will eventually move up too, right? At what point does this happen? I'm guessing it is in between lives, somehow, but I'm just curious why the language in the text is so final.

Should it be read as, they should not currently try to change?

I'm not disagreeing with your stance on how to deal with psychopaths -- run away in order to not be food -- but what, ultimately, about the psychopath him- or herself? If we believe that "all are moving up," including 2D animals, plants, rocks, should that not include everybody, even the most evil STS?

 

[anart]

There is something I'm a bit confused about: in several places the Statement of Principles explains that psychopaths cannot change; they don't have the genetic template, they don't have Conscience, and if they don't have Conscience they can't build anything from the inside out, because change comes from the inner. So far so good. Then, in 4.4 "On Ponerogenesis" we have "Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they."

My first thought was, because they have to die, get recombobulated in 5D or whatnot, then come back with a tiny bit more awareness or Conscience and give it a go again, maybe being a shred less of a psychopath.

I think this might be where you are getting confused. Why do you think they must come back with a tiny bit more awareness? There is a downward path and an upward path - they are, to my understanding, on the downward path that ultimately results in 'being' primal matter.

Then I thought, is it because they are pure STS, or heading toward it, and to try to change would actually upset the momentum? I remember Ra saying that if you go STS to the almost-extreme (95%) then sometimes you can flip over to STO. It's the people that are mediocre that waste the most time (sinkhole of indifference, etc).

Does anyone want to weigh in on this? I just keep getting stuck on that should word. If they don't possess a true Will, then I could see where logically they can't make a real choice to change (in 3D). But should seems to be suggesting something deeper.

I am not sure why the 'should' word was used and understand the confusion it is introducing. Perhaps it's just a comment on the fact that there must be balance in the Universe thus psychopaths serve their purpose and have their place just like all entities. Others might have a stronger idea.

If we believe that "all are moving up," including 2D animals, plants, rocks, should that not include everybody, even the most evil STS?

It's not that "all are moving up" - all are both moving 'up' and moving 'down' - that is balance. All can't just be 'moving up' - else the system would be out of balance. There is learning potential both in 'moving up' and in 'moving down'. This is just my current understanding, however, and subject to change.

 

[Maranatha]

There is something I'm a bit confused about: in several places the Statement of Principles explains that psychopaths cannot change; they don't have the genetic template, they don't have Conscience, and if they don't have Conscience they can't build anything from the inside out, because change comes from the inner. So far so good. Then, in 4.4 "On Ponerogenesis" we have "Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they."

My first thought was, because they have to die, get recombobulated in 5D or whatnot, then come back with a tiny bit more awareness or Conscience and give it a go again, maybe being a shred less of a psychopath.

I think this might be where you are getting confused. Why do you think they must come back with a tiny bit more awareness? There is a downward path and an upward path - they are, to my understanding, on the downward path that ultimately results in 'being' primal matter.

Then I thought, is it because they are pure STS, or heading toward it, and to try to change would actually upset the momentum? I remember Ra saying that if you go STS to the almost-extreme (95%) then sometimes you can flip over to STO. It's the people that are mediocre that waste the most time (sinkhole of indifference, etc).

Does anyone want to weigh in on this? I just keep getting stuck on that should word. If they don't possess a true Will, then I could see where logically they can't make a real choice to change (in 3D). But should seems to be suggesting something deeper.

I am not sure why the 'should' word was used and understand the confusion it is introducing. Perhaps it's just a comment on the fact that there must be balance in the Universe thus psychopaths serve their purpose and have their place just like all entities. Others might have a stronger idea.

If we believe that "all are moving up," including 2D animals, plants, rocks, should that not include everybody, even the most evil STS?

It's not that "all are moving up" - all are both moving 'up' and moving 'down' - that is balance. All can't just be 'moving up' - else the system would be out of balance. There is learning potential both in 'moving up' and in 'moving down'. This is just my current understanding, however, and subject to change.

Thank you Anart, your response was very thought-provoking. I wonder if my current model of understanding needs revision. Currently how I see it is, it is not possible for any being to lose their place -- they can either sit where they are and waste time and traverse a lot of side roads playing evil, or they can move up. I think if somebody lives a life of pure evil, they die, their false selves fall away and the little seed of Consciousness goes into the next incarnation in exactly the same condition. All the crap that person accumulated is "food for the moon" or, as I like to think of it, floating around in the astral space waiting to come back into 3D as another soul's problems/addictions/proclivities. But I think the Consciousness/Conscience/Self of a person cannot be lessened. They can only pile lots of delusions and false selves on top of their Self, and waste time.

It's not that "all are moving up" - all are both moving 'up' and moving 'down' - that is balance. All can't just be 'moving up' - else the system would be out of balance. There is learning potential both in 'moving up' and in 'moving down'. This is just my current understanding, however, and subject to change.

I thought the balance came from the One Creator creating more and more beings and worlds to take the place of us as we move up, filling up from 1D to 2D etc.

Didn't Gurdjieff say that in the end the light always wins, but it's the job of those that are temporarily evil to "make it more interesting"? (I read this in a thread that I now cannot find, but I think it was from ISOTM)

How could there be learning potential in "moving down" if (by my definition) that would mean a lesser density of Consciousness? Consciousness depending on knowledge and all. Maybe you can define "moving down" in more detail. This is helping me, thank you.

 

[Carl]

There is something I'm a bit confused about: in several places the Statement of Principles explains that psychopaths cannot change; they don't have the genetic template, they don't have Conscience, and if they don't have Conscience they can't build anything from the inside out, because change comes from the inner. So far so good. Then, in 4.4 "On Ponerogenesis" we have "Psychopaths cannot change their nature, nor should they."

My first thought was, because they have to die, get recombobulated in 5D or whatnot, then come back with a tiny bit more awareness or Conscience and give it a go again, maybe being a shred less of a psychopath.

I think this might be where you are getting confused. Why do you think they must come back with a tiny bit more awareness? There is a downward path and an upward path - they are, to my understanding, on the downward path that ultimately results in 'being' primal matter.

Then I thought, is it because they are pure STS, or heading toward it, and to try to change would actually upset the momentum? I remember Ra saying that if you go STS to the almost-extreme (95%) then sometimes you can flip over to STO. It's the people that are mediocre that waste the most time (sinkhole of indifference, etc).

Does anyone want to weigh in on this? I just keep getting stuck on that should word. If they don't possess a true Will, then I could see where logically they can't make a real choice to change (in 3D). But should seems to be suggesting something deeper.

I am not sure why the 'should' word was used and understand the confusion it is introducing. Perhaps it's just a comment on the fact that there must be balance in the Universe thus psychopaths serve their purpose and have their place just like all entities. Others might have a stronger idea.

If we believe that "all are moving up," including 2D animals, plants, rocks, should that not include everybody, even the most evil STS?

It's not that "all are moving up" - all are both moving 'up' and moving 'down' - that is balance. All can't just be 'moving up' - else the system would be out of balance. There is learning potential both in 'moving up' and in 'moving down'. This is just my current understanding, however, and subject to change.

Thank you Anart, your response was very thought-provoking. I wonder if my current model of understanding needs revision. Currently how I see it is, it is not possible for any being to lose their place -- they can either sit where they are and waste time and traverse a lot of side roads playing evil, or they can move up. I think if somebody lives a life of pure evil, they die, their false selves fall away and the little seed of Consciousness goes into the next incarnation in exactly the same condition. All the crap that person accumulated is "food for the moon" or, as I like to think of it, floating around in the astral space waiting to come back into 3D as another soul's problems/addictions/proclivities. But I think the Consciousness/Conscience/Self of a person cannot be lessened. They can only pile lots of delusions and false selves on top of their Self, and waste time.

It's not that "all are moving up" - all are both moving 'up' and moving 'down' - that is balance. All can't just be 'moving up' - else the system would be out of balance. There is learning potential both in 'moving up' and in 'moving down'. This is just my current understanding, however, and subject to change.

I thought the balance came from the One Creator creating more and more beings and worlds to take the place of us as we move up, filling up from 1D to 2D etc.

Didn't Gurdjieff say that in the end the light always wins, but it's the job of those that are temporarily evil to "make it more interesting"? (I read this in a thread that I now cannot find, but I think it was from ISOTM)

How could there be learning potential in "moving down" if (by my definition) that would mean a lesser density of Consciousness? Consciousness depending on knowledge and all. Maybe you can define "moving down" in more detail. This is helping me, thank you.

This is probably how most of us here have thought at some point. However the truth, as we know it currently, is that there really are two sides to the Universe, all the way up and down. Think about the yin-yang symbol. None is objectively "bad" or "good" as we understand those terms, but just the expression of either expansion or contraction.

Hence why psychopaths 'should' not change their fundamental nature. This means that it is not up to us to pass judgment on them in an objective sense, and to try to bring all the darkness to the light would actually be an expression of STS, not STO. A violation of free will, in other words. And you can't change a psycho even if you wanted to.

I recommend reading Illion's 'Darkness over Tibet'. It's a very small, easy book, but it sheds a lot of light on this whole duality thing.

Also, Laura goes into this in great detail throughout The Wave.

 

[anart]

This is probably how most of us here have thought at some point. However the truth, as we know it currently, is that there really are two sides to the Universe, all the way up and down. Think about the yin-yang symbol. None is objectively "bad" or "good" as we understand those terms, but just the expression of either expansion or contraction.

Hence why psychopaths 'should' not change their fundamental nature. This means that it is not up to us to pass judgment on them in an objective sense, and to try to bring all the darkness to the light would actually be an expression of STS, not STO. A violation of free will, in other words. And you can't change a psycho even if you wanted to.

I recommend reading Illion's 'Darkness over Tibet'. It's a very small, easy book, but it sheds a lot of light on this whole duality thing.

Also, Laura goes into this in great detail throughout The Wave.

I agree. In regards to this idea:

Currently how I see it is, it is not possible for any being to lose their place -- they can either sit where they are and waste time and traverse a lot of side roads playing evil, or they can move up.

You continue to define progress as your perception of "moving up" as if there is a limit to the type of learning a soul can engage in. Just because you have a certain perception of what is 'good' and what is 'evil' does not mean that the Universe sees it the same way. It's kind of ridiculous to think that any soul just "sits where they are" and doesn't progress in one direction or another (and I can't define those directions concretely because I can't see them from my vantage) in any lifetime. They would have to, otherwise why incarnate at all? There is no "place" for them to lose, all there is is lessons.

But I think the Consciousness/Conscience/Self of a person cannot be lessened.

Why are you equating advancing along the downward path as being "lessened"? I'd suggest that you're projecting your own ideas of "good and evil" onto a process that is not limited by such subjectivities.

I thought the balance came from the One Creator creating more and more beings and worlds to take the place of us as we move up, filling up from 1D to 2D etc.

That's not my understanding - how can there be balance in a system that only moves in one direction?

Didn't Gurdjieff say that in the end the light always wins, but it's the job of those that are temporarily evil to "make it more interesting"? (I read this in a thread that I now cannot find, but I think it was from ISOTM)

Not to my knowledge, though that does sound like a hefty dose of new age fluff.

How could there be learning potential in "moving down" if (by my definition) that would mean a lesser density of Consciousness?

No, again, you are equating "good" with a higher density of consciousness and that is just not true. A higher density of consciousness can also be (from your subjective perspective) "evil". While it appears to be true that an entity can only progress so far "up" on such a path, that does not mean they don't progress, it just has a different ultimate outcome. I think it would help if you tried to let go of your assumptions on this topic and re-read the Wave Series for more information. Darkness Over Tibet is also a great book that delves more into these ideas, as Carlise suggested. As the C's once mentioned, illumined doesn't mean good, it just means illumined. I tried to find the relevant session but am having trouble locating it - but the point is that a soul can advance on more than one path. Not sure if that clarifies at all.

 

[Alana]

No, again, you are equating "good" with a higher density of consciousness and that is just not true. A higher density of consciousness can also be (from your subjective perspective) "evil". While it appears to be true that an entity can only progress so far "up" on such a path, that does not mean they don't progress, it just has a different ultimate outcome. I think it would help if you tried to let go of your assumptions on this topic and re-read the Wave Series for more information. Darkness Over Tibet is also a great book that delves more into these ideas, as Carlise suggested. As the C's once mentioned, illumined doesn't mean good, it just means illumined. I tried to find the relevant session but am having trouble locating it - but the point is that a soul can advance on more than one path. Not sure if that clarifies at all.

Are you thinking of this segment? I found it in the Cass glossary:

Q: What I am trying to get to is an understanding of an enlightened being. Eddie and a LOT of other people have the idea that an enlightened being IS LOVE, and that is what they radiate, and that this is a result of being enlightened.

A: No, no, no, no, no. "Enlightened" does not mean good. Just smart.

Q: Okay, so there are STS and STO enlightened beings?

A: Yes, we believe the overall ratio is 50/50.

Q: Okay, what is the profile of an enlightened STO being?

A: An intelligent being who only gives.

 

[Palinurus]

Yes, that's the snippet most relevant. It has been cited here as well: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,22965.msg250440.html#msg250440

The whole session is available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20030219122251/http://www.cassiopaea.org/sessions/980919.html

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[anart]

Yep, that was the session - I knew ya'll would find it! :)