FOTCM Statement of Principles

[anart]

? Perhaps I'm making a wrong conclusion here, but is that a personal 'you' instead of a generic one? When I reread it I got the impression s/he was saying I lack objective information in the sense that I have no objectivity -- me personally. I'm wondering if that is why you suggested that I didn't get something.

I think she's suggesting that more information on your part would solve much of your confusion, which is really quite logical since your confusion is directly related to a lack of understanding of some fundamental principles.

I suppose I'm calling it "bleak" because I figure if there's more of a chance for psychopaths to gain a Conscience,

It would be greatly appreciated if you could read up on psychopathy so you understand that a psychopath cannot, by nature, grow a conscience. Your confusion seems to stem largely from a lack of background knowledge of the subjects discussed here, so as suggested earlier, reading up on the relevant topics (The Wave Series, Political Ponerology, Mask of Sanity, Darkness Over Tibet, etc.) will help you a lot - and help the forum since you'll be up to speed.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Buddy, interesting and a little over my head right now with that 'quantum impetus' thing. But may I ask for clarification on something: when you say 'You might want to read Oxajil's reply and quote more carefully' are you referring to when s/he said,

When you lack objective information, Maranatha, I think you can get easily confused.

Nah, I meant the reply taken as a whole which allows for some unknowns rather than claiming a pathological certainty.

I suppose I'm calling it "bleak" because I figure if there's more of a chance for psychopaths to gain a Conscience, then there's more hope across the board for everybody to grow their Conscience.

Ok, but as anart indicated, current understanding suggests lack of correlation there.

I just keep thinking of the P's in Bringers of the Dawn saying that the "the black T-shirts" ARE us.

You mean like that argument that makes a case for how the Jedi were really the first to start and escalate the conflict with the "dark side" which was so named simply because it opposed their 'enlightened' selves and their ostensible lack of political motivation? Anyway, I'm not as well versed in "Bringers" as I am in various forms of old Gnostic thought (which PaleoChristianity reconnects with) though, so I may be misunderstanding the reference.

In the gnostic works I've read, we are all in IT and IT is in us all. Gnostics are careful to avoid undermining their own work of providing the missing depth to monocontextual, bivalent, 'us vs them' thought. Perhaps that's what you're getting from the "P's"?

At any rate, I think you would benefit from reading the works that trace PaleoChristianity to its roots as well as other suggested reading.

 

[mkrnhr]

Hi Buddy,
I think you're not helping as you would like to. Try to explain you point/s in the most simple manner if possible :)

 

[Marcus-Aurelius]

To me it's crystal clear that in this context no statement of ontological value about the intrinsic state of psychopaths is meant to be made. It merely states that it's highly unlikely --given the nature of the beast, so to speak-- that any declaration about whatever coming from psychopaths will have much truth or faithfulness in it. Implicit in this is a warning to exclude psychopaths and their ilk from the Fellowship, just because they cannot change their ways. Nor should we expect them to do so, or demand that they change their nature. This gives the passage a whole other emphasis than Maranatha appears to have read into it. Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

The bolded part above is essentially what is trying to be conveyed in that passage.

In agreement as this was what I tried convey in my previous post with different words and apparently less clarity.

Maranatha, I think the above actually clarify your issue with the "nor should they" remark in the Principles you expressed above.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Buddy,
I think you're not helping as you would like to. Try to explain you point/s in the most simple manner if possible :)

Oh, ok. Assuming the last part of my reply was the problem, I'll do it like this:

I just keep thinking of the P's in Bringers of the Dawn saying that the "the black T-shirts" ARE us.

You mean like we are at fault for identifying psychopaths or do the P's mean that we all have the potential for evil within us?

I second the suggestion to get up to speed on the recommended reading so you'll learn to understand psychopaths in their own context.

 

[Maranatha]

Hi Buddy,
I think you're not helping as you would like to. Try to explain you point/s in the most simple manner if possible :)

I think Buddy's reply was helpful. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something else I was missing, and he cleared it up for me. As for the last part about the Jedi reference, that's very possible that I'm thinking along those lines but I need to see the movies again!

You mean like that argument that makes a case for how the Jedi were really the first to start and escalate the conflict with the "dark side" which was so named simply because it opposed their 'enlightened' selves and their ostensible lack of political motivation? Anyway, I'm not as well versed in "Bringers" as I am in various forms of old Gnostic thought (which PaleoChristianity reconnects with) though, so I may be misunderstanding the reference.

In the gnostic works I've read, we are all in IT and IT is in us all. Gnostics are careful to avoid undermining their own work of providing the missing depth to monocontextual, bivalent, 'us vs them' thought. Perhaps that's what you're getting from the "P's"?

Perhaps. But I'm not exactly sure what you mean by undermining. Could you say, they avoid falling into dualistic thinking? Maybe you could give an example of what would happen if they weren't careful to provide the depth you speak of.

In my current understanding, I'm a version of an offshoot of Self that acquired various qualities, a certain percentage of leaning toward STO or STS, particular "distortions" as Ra puts it. The C's often say to Laura that they are her in the future. I read that as a possible version of her (us), a possible offshoot of Self. Psychopaths are another possible offshoot of the Self (or so I thought -- this remains to be cleared up through further reading)...

I just keep thinking of the P's in Bringers of the Dawn saying that the "the black T-shirts" ARE us.

You mean like we are at fault for identifying psychopaths or do the P's mean that we all have the potential for evil within us?

Neither. That the evil that we see IS us, another offshoot of the Self.

A quote from Bringers of the Dawn that gets at this:

"There is a convergence of your selves about to occur on this planet. The selves that you are going to meet are coming from all over the universe. There are selves that petrify you when you think about them and selves that you could die of a heart attack looking at. They are selves that are you.[...] The battle between light and dark doesn't really serve you. It is part of the separation story that keeps you confused. In actuality, there are simply aspects of individual souls taking different guises in conflict with themselves. You are battling yourself. The battle of light and dark and good and evil is only between portions of yourself. These portions are multidimensional extensions or reincarnations of the same collective of energies that you are a part of as an individual. Because you don't understand something, you fear it. As separated forms of consciousness that are part of Prime Creator's game, you are in a universe that is made up of dualities. Prime Creator brought this universe into being with the components of free will so that free will could lead to chaos and then to a realignment of energy and a realization of the Creator within all things. With free will, all things are allowed and oppositions occur. These oppositions split off of the self just as the Prime Creator is in all things and allows all things. The things you meet that you fear are you. So when you focus on the story of good and evil and want to figure it out, all you need to realize is that you are playing ball with another aspect of yourself that allows you to play ball from your point of view." -- Bringers of the Dawn p. 80, 81-2

The FOTCM principles state that the darkness serves as the "setting" for the light. I'm posting from the stance that this is all a temporary "game" and that in the end we have the possibility of integrating our collective shadow and becoming like the C's -- or actually becoming them, if they are "future us"...

I think part of the confusion is the aspect of perspective -- I understand the principles are set up so that we have a good framework to operate in within the game. I think it makes sense to say psychopaths cannot change within the game. But ultimately, they are a part of the Creator too! Maybe they are a less-favorable possibility for us on another timeline, if we don't make courageous choices! But to say they cannot change, period, seems to be making an absolute statement within time. That is why I was thinking "nor should they" was a sly clue to some deeper meaning as the wording seemed to at least "allow for some unknowns..."

Am I tossing the word salad yet? Alright.

 

[Maranatha]

To me it's crystal clear that in this context no statement of ontological value about the intrinsic state of psychopaths is meant to be made. It merely states that it's highly unlikely --given the nature of the beast, so to speak-- that any declaration about whatever coming from psychopaths will have much truth or faithfulness in it. Implicit in this is a warning to exclude psychopaths and their ilk from the Fellowship, just because they cannot change their ways. Nor should we expect them to do so, or demand that they change their nature. This gives the passage a whole other emphasis than Maranatha appears to have read into it. Or so it seems to me. FWIW.

The bolded part above is essentially what is trying to be conveyed in that passage.

In agreement as this was what I tried convey in my previous post with different words and apparently less clarity.

Maranatha, I think the above actually clarify your issue with the "nor should they" remark in the Principles you expressed above.

Yes, the bolded words get at what the passage apparently means... putting the burden on "us" (the non-psychopaths) to not expect them to be anything other than what they are. I think it would be much clearer if it were worded this way.

 

[Psalehesost]

I just keep thinking of the P's in Bringers of the Dawn saying that the "the black T-shirts" ARE us.

You mean like we are at fault for identifying psychopaths or do the P's mean that we all have the potential for evil within us?

I second the suggestion to get up to speed on the recommended reading so you'll learn to understand psychopaths in their own context.

I'm reminded of this:

There's the idea, in part of The Wave, that the nasty buggers (4D STS) may well be ourselves in one possible future.

So that we have different, conflicting possible futures (STS, STO) interacting and "competing" regarding the choices of our present, and who and what we become as a result.

It's another example of balance - we have the possibility to go either way, and both potentials interact with us, "exist", until we manifest one potential or the other.

 

[Mr. Premise]

It just seems like a rather bleak outlook.

You might want to read Oxajil's reply and quote more carefully. I think no one has any idea what quantum impetus might influence future rounds of sorting and selecting in a genome or a family or individual's genetic algorithms or how genes are read by the transcription process.

So, there's probably less need for "bleak" to define an outlook on the potentials of psychopaths and more for danger from their authoritarian followers who serve as their 'mouths, hands and feet.'

Hi Buddy, interesting and a little over my head right now with that 'quantum impetus' thing. But may I ask for clarification on something: when you say 'You might want to read Oxajil's reply and quote more carefully' are you referring to when s/he said,

When you lack objective information, Maranatha, I think you can get easily confused.

? Perhaps I'm making a wrong conclusion here, but is that a personal 'you' instead of a generic one? When I reread it I got the impression s/he was saying I lack objective information in the sense that I have no objectivity -- me personally. I'm wondering if that is why you suggested that I didn't get something.

I suppose I'm calling it "bleak" because I figure if there's more of a chance for psychopaths to gain a Conscience, then there's more hope across the board for everybody to grow their Conscience. But from what Anart was saying, it sounds like they are on a different spiral separate from us where that would not make sense. I just keep thinking of the P's in Bringers of the Dawn saying that the "the black T-shirts" ARE us.

It seems like you are confusing psychopaths with STS. As I understand it, psychopaths are a subset of STS, kind of like STS in an extreme form. Then there are souled, conscious STS types. You also seem to be confusing "black T-shirts" with psychopaths.

I haven't read Marciniak in a long time but the black t-shirt thing seems to refer to STS aligned people. After all, everyone here is STS, but some are trying to polarize to STO and become STO candidates. These confusions are why people are suggesting you do more reading, I think.

 

[Buddy]

[...]
Am I tossing the word salad yet? Alright.

I don't know. I just know I'm not understanding references like "offshoots of Self" and Ra's "distortions". I think Psalehesost picked up on what was confusing me and phrased what I wanted to say much better.

Perhaps the recommended reading will provide enough information and if you can see correspondences between your concepts and the ones we are talking about, it will be easier for us to understand each other. It's a thought. :)

 

[PERLOU]

Merci à Lilou de m'avoir fait découvrir cette page... Un Grand Merci...

Thanks to Lilou for making me discover this page.... A big thank you...

 

[Mikkael]

Hi everyone,
I am finally reading Statement of Principles and I am enjoying it, trying to absorb as much as I can , reading it pretty slowly. Since Monday I'm through the section on Philosophy, absorbing, memorizing, thinking about it through day a bit. I don't know why I didn't pay attention to this interesting text yet, perhaps there was too much information to contend with, since the moment I have joined Cassiopean forum. But now I think this is good point to share my progress.
1.2 On Conviction

[..] we do not recognize any particular “belief system”, merely a list of convictions that, according to the totality of the available knowledge, most accurately reflect the reality in which we exist. We recognize that Unveiling of Truth is a continual process that unfolds depending on effort and development in Consciousness and Conscience , provided a robust feedback mechanism is concomitantly employed. A robust feedback mechanism consists of a network of individuals who are sincerely committed to Truth [..]

This paragraph is bothering me, That without robust feedback mechanism, 1. Which I don't have 2. I do not know where I'm at. Maybe I'm Kruger-Donning, how could I know? I'm on snail like pace, and I'm slowly filling some gaps but I feel like kicking into higher gear from this snailishnes.

 

[Esprit]

Hi everyone,
I am finally reading Statement of Principles and I am enjoying it, trying to absorb as much as I can , reading it pretty slowly. Since Monday I'm through the section on Philosophy, absorbing, memorizing, thinking about it through day a bit. I don't know why I didn't pay attention to this interesting text yet, perhaps there was too much information to contend with, since the moment I have joined Cassiopean forum. But now I think this is good point to share my progress.
1.2 On Conviction


This paragraph is bothering me, That without robust feedback mechanism, 1. Which I don't have 2. I do not know where I'm at. Maybe I'm Kruger-Donning, how could I know? I'm on snail like pace, and I'm slowly filling some gaps but I feel like kicking into higher gear from this snailishnes.

Use the forum for feedback. Also by reading other members exchanges, you might find a lot to ponder through.
If you go through some of the books in the suggested readings you will perhaps find yourself having more on your plate than you can chew. I was in a hurry too, now I'm trying to keep up !