Interpretations of questions and answers given by the C's in the transcripts

Saman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi @seek10 and all.

This is the continuation of our tangent discussion on the Romantic Novels thread here.

Seek10 you asked this question:

I am trying to understand what is you are trying to say. I am sorry for that. Do you mean to say I took C's quote out of the context when they answered a specific question( in your opinion)?
I mean that you said that "the C's said" this and then used quotation marks with the following on page 35 of the Romance Novels thread:

In this sense, I find it interesting C's saying "You don't need anybody to evolve by yourselves" and it is all there in the architecture of the Human species makeup and triggers.

The C's never said this and when I asked you to please point to the the session where you were quoting so I could read the context of it, you quoted the following:

Q: (L) Well, I don't exactly get what you mean. The whole point of this article is to say that ET's who abduct people are here to help us evolve and that it is only us, if we have dark and dirty unconscious minds, who perceive them as negative.

A: Wrong, you do not need "help" evolving, nor does anything else.

The above quote or exact excerpt from the sessions above that you replied with, is not what you originally said in the manner of quoting the C's, and this is why when I tried to find "You don't need anybody to evolve by yourselves" in the sessions, I was not able to find it because it doesn't exist. That is the main problem: saying you are quoting the C's when that is not the case.

As for the interpretation of the answer that the C's gave to Laura within the context of the session you quoted above, which is apparentely based on your reply what evoked you to write the aforementioned misquote, it is of my opinion that this not what they meant by that answer as you interpreted and not what they mean in general over the whole volume of the transcripts either. No one can do it alone, and even as a groups all over the world, just by ourselves only; this is because we do need some help evolving, but the catch here is that this sort of help seems to be given by DCM/Prime Creator when sincerely asked with the "unweighted choice" of Working on ourselves and changing our assumptions of inner and outer worlds realities--the "catch 22" to experience the Wave in a positive way in relation to what I quoted before about with "whereas when one has complete faith and multi-density understanding, their activities are indeed truth and useful as prescribed and this is the correct way to pursue them." This creation of a conduit with the help of ourselves in the "future" through by our own efforts and network group efforts to meet the conditions "simple and karmic understandings" to be halfway on the process of the creation of his "hatch"/conduit due to having received the necessary "antenna's" to tune to this "help", is I think further explained by reading this quote:

June 9, 1996
Frank, Laura
[...]
Q: (L) Okay. Let's toss that. My question is: is the information we are receiving similar to what Al-Arabi calls an 'opening?'

A: Yes.

Q: (L) You say that you are unified thought forms in the realm of knowledge.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Al-Arabi describes unified thought forms as being the 'names of God.' His explication seems to be so identical to things you tell us that I wonder...

A: We are all the names of God. Remember, this is a conduit. This means that both termination/origination points are of equal value, importance.

Q: (L) So, it is a blending of the aspects of God?

A: No.

Q: (L) What do you mean? Does this mean that we are a part of this?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, it has to do with...

A: Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this too!

Q: (L) What quality in us, what thing, enabled us to make contact. Because, obviously a lot of people try and get garbage.

A: You asked.

Q: (L) A lot of people ask!

A: No they don't, they command.

Q: (L) Well, a lot of people do ask or beg or plead, but they get all discombobulated with the answers.

A: No, they command. Think about it. You did not beg or plead... that is commanding. After J.W. left, purification began.

Q: (L) This recent 'awakening' or period of seeing things with such clarity, as they really were, and the whole picture of the interactions between people and how truly ugly it can be. I plunged into a terrible depression. I needed to get my balance from seeing so much all at once. Can you explain to me what was going on?

A: Growth.

Q: (L) I tried to share this perception with other people, and almost without exception, when I said to people that I was finally seeing things in their true state and it was NOT a pretty picture, they all said "well, you are obviously seeing this through the eyes of some major spirit possession!" Why would they say this?

A: First of all, it is not correct to perceive "everything in such darkness and gloom, etc." That is merely the result of a cocoon of falsehood being removed. Celebrate the balance. Don't mourn the death of an illusion of an imbalance.

Q: (L) Where do I go from here? Where do we all go?

A: Everywhere.

FWIW, I hope this reply assists in clarifying my thinking for you and others.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi Saman,

English is not my mother tongue and I find its grammar very confusing for me. There are reasons for it. I switched to English medium at the late in studies just before joining Engineering. That means, I learned English while translating the technical names to my local language. So my English is sort of thought to language translation based what I read on newspapers and remember of its meaning etc. In my mother tongue has very less grammatical restrictions and so nobody found it to be too vague. So, If my English is confusing, I apologize for it.

The C's never said this and when I asked you to please point to the the session where you were quoting so I could read the context of it, you quoted the following:
It looks the contention here is in the interpretation of these statements w.r.t scope of applicability , context and so on.

Me Saying: "You don't need anybody to evolve by yourselves"
vs
C's: you do not need "help" evolving, nor does anything else.

As I clarified here and here about the impressions C's quote created, background and how I felt to know "Kinetic Sensate" is key etc. The basic dynamic of loving families seems normal to me( though i didn't have much on that), though each region have their own traumatic pasts that brought us to the current state where we have to read these novels to find out what is "Love".

Being in IT profession, we parse the data and see the relevance of the individual unit in other places where it fits. This is my daily job. Validity of relevance depends on the raw data. If it doesn't fit in, we ignore it. Naturally, I did with C's too, given that initial sessions has lesser contexts and we only know what is written, that approach.

If find it curious that you decided mention that. If you find this as an issue, you can find LOT more not only in my writing and probably many other people. This forum flows very fast. I don't claim to understand what I read about everybody wrote. I had my own lessons to acknowledge that people come with different backgrounds, temperaments and different thinking processes. That why i find you mentioning 'exact' meaning somewhat puzzling.

Regarding other quotes, I am aware of it and understand them, though you seems to have different opinion. I am open to the input.
 

Glenn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi Sam.
Just an observation, take it with a grain of salt...

I think there is a problem of people understanding the point, or the crux of what you are trying to say. Maybe it would help if you start out by stating your point, in maybe a sentence or two, then go on to explain that point using your quotes and such.

Otherwise you are just making long explanations and leaving it up to the reader to figure out what your point is. And like seek10 says, things move fast in the forum, so being clear and concise is greatly appreciated.

Just some thoughts.
Thanks
 
Last edited:

Zar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This is a very confusing thread and I think you are right H2O, there is way too much unnecessary information that it leaves one scratching their head when reading it.

From what I gather, and I could be wrong, it seems like seek10 paraphrased a quote from the C's to explain a broader idea
I find it interesting C's saying "You don't need anybody to evolve by yourselves" and it is all there in the architecture of the Human species makeup and triggers.
The idea Seek10 was talking about didn't have too much to do with the quote.

Saman seemed to think that seek10 was actually quoting the C's directly and also misinterpreting the quote. Then Saman wrote an elaborate regurgitation of information, most of which was unnecessary, to explain that seek10 misquoted and why he misinterpreted the actual quote.

Seek10 interpreted the quote as meaning that no one needs help to evolve, while Saman thinks that quote meant no one needs help from higher STS sources to evolve but they need it from STO sources?? I'm a little confused on Saman's interpretation since I think he's mixing several ideas; namely evolving with "escaping the prison"/awakening or something like that.
 

Saman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
English is not my mother tongue and I find its grammar very confusing for me
I think your English better than you are claiming it is. I have read many of your posts and the issue of understanding your English has not been a problem in my case.
It looks the contention here is in the interpretation of these statements w.r.t scope of applicability , context and so on.

Contention: "a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument." Seek10 are we now arguing or is this what our Predator Mind's wants to happen?

Me Saying: "You don't need anybody to evolve by yourselves"
So by you Bolding above "Me Saying" and now not claiming that it was the C's saying, what else can I say that hasn't been already said to clarify the crux of the matter that Hello H20 was seeking my further clarification of? By you Bolding "Me Saying", it is very clear to me that you understand what I meant by quoting and your English or grammar isn't the issue here.

If find it curious that you decided mention that. If you find this as an issue, you can find LOT more not only in my writing and probably many other people.
Why do you find it curious? Isn't misquoting any source, in this case the C's, not an err that should be pointed out for the sake of the source and for the sake of our own current and ongoing understandings?

This forum flows very fast. I don't claim to understand what I read about everybody wrote. I had my own lessons to acknowledge that people come with different backgrounds, temperaments and different thinking processes. That why i find you mentioning 'exact' meaning somewhat puzzling
The exact meaning is not the crux of the matter in this case, and I thought I was clear about this when I said 'it looks like we agree to disagree' in regards to the interpretation and 'lets move on.' However, here we are since you asked for further thoughts to try to understand my opinion and impressions. So again, what I was trying to point out to you is first the following in point form:

1. Misquoting of the source
2. How your misquoting could result in your own interpretation of what the C's had said being confused by others (which was the case in my case when I first gave you the credit of the doubt and searched for it to no avail) as being actually said by them.

Regarding other quotes, I am aware of it and understand them, though you seems to have different opinion. I am open to the input.

This remark is too vague for me to be able to respond to specifically when you say "though you seem to have different opinion" about the other quotes that you already understand. I attempted to corroborate my understandings with the what I think are the relevant quotes about higher STO sources and their assistance in our Being's evolving already in previous posts, so I don't think repeating myself is again is going to be helpful unless there is something specific that you are seeking clarification about. If not, lets move on.

Seek10 interpreted the quote as meaning that no one needs help to evolve, while Saman thinks that quote meant no one needs help from higher STS sources to evolve but they need it from STO sources?? I'm a little confused on Saman's interpretation since I think he's mixing several ideas; namely evolving with "escaping the prison"/awakening or something like that.
Not exactly. As already alluded to Seek10 in previous posts, I think STS sources don't directly "help" when asked, but "help" only whenever it suits their agendas and regardless of honoring Free Will--the "abductions" example; their primary mode of Being is infringing Free Will, and they only violate Free Will when they get very desperate. This latter 3D/4D STS intent helps other Beings evolve indirectly within the Grand Cycle since all are lessons and part of the balance of things in Cosmos. On the otherhand, I think STO sources only help directly and indirectly when it has been sincerely asked, and the transmissions by the C's to Laura and the creation of the "conduit" between her Being in the "past" and the her Being in the "future" is in my opinion proof of that, which was what I posted about here with the relevant quoted excerpt from the October 16, 1994 session as one example.
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Seek10, I think what Saman was trying to say in a very long and not needed way was that when you quote something someone said using quotation marks, you say exactly what was said by the person who said it. That's what quotation marks mean when used in that way: That it is exactly what was said. This seems to be the problem Saman was strying to point out, as I see it. If it is not exactly what someone said, then you don't use the quotation marks. You can say that you are paraphrasing what was said or say something like what you are saying is something like what was said.

I hope that this makes things clearer. And, I have to question whether all of this was really even necessary?

And, PLEASE, let's keep things a bit more concise, shall we. I agree with Hello H2O and Zar that these posts are way too long with unnecessary verbiage.
 

Saman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I hope that this makes things clearer. And, I have to question whether all of this was really even necessary?

And, PLEASE, let's keep things a bit more concise, shall we. I agree with Hello H2O and Zar that these posts are way too long with unnecessary verbiage.
No it wasn't. I think I need to work even harder to one day finally learn how to be more concise with my thoughts and be able to simply get to the point instead of elaborating needlessly depending on the situation. It is a continual struggle for me, to say the least, and thank you for pointing it out. Hopefully reading enough of the recommended romance novels will remedy this wrong use of energy one day.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Seek10, I think what Saman was trying to say in a very long and not needed way was that when you quote something someone said using quotation marks, you say exactly what was said by the person who said it. That's what quotation marks mean when used in that way: That it is exactly what was said. This seems to be the problem Saman was strying to point out, as I see it. If it is not exactly what someone said, then you don't use the quotation marks. You can say that you are paraphrasing what was said or say something like what you are saying is something like what was said.
Thank you Nienna. Honestly, I didn't know that. I thought quote as a separator for a group of words in a sentence with an interesting meaning. :-(
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thank you Nienna. Honestly, I didn't know that. I thought quote as a separator for a group of words in a sentence with an interesting meaning.
Yes, sometimes it is for that. Also, you can put quotes around something you think someone would say, such as: I can just hear him say, "I never did that!" But you are telling everyone that he didn't really say that, but that you could imagine those word coming out of his mouth.

I understand that for a non-native English speaker, this is confusing. I hope that other people can understand this as well.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Seek10, I think what Saman was trying to say in a very long and not needed way was that when you quote something someone said using quotation marks, you say exactly what was said by the person who said it. That's what quotation marks mean when used in that way: That it is exactly what was said. This seems to be the problem Saman was strying to point out, as I see it. If it is not exactly what someone said, then you don't use the quotation marks. You can say that you are paraphrasing what was said or say something like what you are saying is something like what was said.

Yes that's basically it. If you quote something it is meant to be the exact thing the original source said. If you are not sure what the exact wording was in the original, but you remember some details, you just have to (and should) add the word "paraphrasing", so that people know that you are just remembering something and thus what you quote maybe way off the original meaning/wording.

So it should look something like:

The C's ones said (paraphrasing): "You don't need anybody to evolve by yourselves"
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
As I'm currently reading through all the sessions, something caught my eye that relates to the title of this thread.

Here is the exchange:

Session 27 June 1998

[...]

Q: Okay, I will keep searching. Ark is mad at you guys, you know {about the smoking responses}. So, I would like to know what is the advantage, if any, of this profile you have described - what is the evolutionary advantage of having this sick metabolism?

A: Who says this is "sick?"

Q: Well, I am saying this loosely. I mean, it's not normal, it's not natural, it's highly unusual... nearly everyone I have ever met who has a weight problem also has an eating problem and I can promise you that I don't!

A: Better metabolism for cat... Sorry, that was our attempt at an abbreviation!

Q: What were you attempting to abbreviate?

A: Guess.

Q: {Laughter} Is channeling the first word?

A: CAT.

Q: Next letter?

A: How about post cat-a-clysmic world.


Q: Well, Ark doesn't have that metabolism... I don't want to be in a post-cataclysmic world without him...

A: Then give him the food.

Q: What food?

A: What food you have, if... confronted with the situation.

Q: Are you saying that we are gonna be hanging out on a post-cataclysmic planet?

A: That is always a possibility.

I think this little exchange is a good example of something the C's said, that doesn't seem to make any sense at the first glance. Namely the word/phrase: "A: Better metabolism for cat..."

The sentence doesn't seem to make sense. When I read it, there was no way in the world that I would have ever thought it could mean "post cat-a-clysmic world". With that explanation the C's gave afterwards, all of a sudden the sentence makes sense...

What I'm trying to get at here is that the above is a good example where the C's seem to have something in mind which they communicate, and we interpret it as "it doesn't make sense" because we don't have their context/meaning in mind.

I would take a guess that a lot of stuff that is in the transcripts that doesn't seem to make sense has some meaning behind it, similarly to the above example. It is almost like sometimes they provide things in this way in "code" in order to not transgress free will but at the same time communicate something important.

I mean: Let's say the C's wouldn't have explained "cat" in the above exchange afterwards as an abbreviation for "cat-a-clysmic", I reckon we would have all still thought of it as "it doesn't make sense".

Which begs the question: Exactly how many such clues and abbreviations can be found in the transcripts that might reveal much more if we would only be able to figure out what was in the C's mind at that "point in time"?

Certainly something I will keep in mind from now on, especially every time I read something in the transcript that seems "cryptic" or "strange". I reckon that a lot of nuggets like the above example can be found in the transcripts, but we are simply not aware of them...
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
There is also the following the C's said in response to a direct question about the funny way they sometimes spell words. Notice that they seem to follow that one up directly with another clue/riddle!:

Session 12 December 1998

[...]

Q: Well, while we are on the subject of spelling, you DO use unusual spelling from time to time, though normally you are very good spellers. What rules direct your spelling since it is not always according to modern usage?

A: No rules, just clues, as allways.

Q: Does this refer also to the way you spell 'germain'? When you say 'it is not germain,' you spell it differently from the way someone would spell it if just saying that something is not relevant.

A: Tis French, as in clue to be.

I bet a lot of those grammatical peculiarities, spellings and so forth, that we initially interpret as "strange" or "it doesn't make sense" are in actuality "just clues, as always ... as in clue to be" that we just can't grasp at the point that they confuse us.

Another example of this are the number of sessions where the C's started to make references to Laura about studying "unstable gravity waves" seemingly "out of the blue". Why they said that was not apparent at the time and was sort of "out of place", but became astoundingly clear after she met Ark and it was discovered that at the exact moment the C's first brought up that term, "Ark was in Florence, Italy, sitting on a megalith, writing in his journal about “gravity waves.”"! In the end, the C's clues (and Lauras efforst afterwards) brought Laura and Ark together. It seems the C's knew something at that point in time that Laura didn't know and they could only communicate it in a hidden form that leaves free will intact and becomes only apparent after a person has put effort into finding answers. If Laura wouldn't have started to research that term/topic/area (tried to find an answer herself), she probably wouldn't have attracted Ark 19 days later and the meaning would probably still be incomprehensible.

Often the meaning/context seems to become only apparent after either a "lesson has been learned", an effort has been made, or something in reality has happened that puts a whole new meaning to the phrase/spelling, which makes it comprehensible. And then a light bulb goes off and we think "ohh... if we only had known back then!"

I have to say, it is absolutely fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom