Knowledge Shortcut

[Kmicic]

Hello everyone,
What would you say if we could try to summit up our knowledge in short message? A lot of people says that you understand something when you could say it in simply words. All of it would be just a topics for further investigation but maybe we could try to create those topics of our knowledge to know what we know and what others know. Maybe it would be helpful for others to better understand things on forum. I will start to show what's on my mind:

I've learned that we live in world with seven layers/dimensions. Each of them shows other regulations. Everything starts on 1D and go to 7D. We are know on 3D. We are not just material things but also spiritual. We're connected with our future beings and all world. We need to properly take care of our spirit and material body. We are here to learn and because of that this world is looking like this so we shouldn't push ourselves to higher spirit connection or something like that. Just do our things. There are two kinds of being: Self To Others and Self To Self. It's our decision what we would choose but for people with soul the STO is probably better. We live now in STS world. We have free will and our choice are most important in our current lives. To make them we must learn proper knowledge. The best way to do that is to exercise our mind and intuition. We are reincarnating in cycles before we could pass our tests so it's not determined that when we fail now that all ends but we must do our best. After death the best option is to go to light - after that we are in 5D where we could summ up our lives and plans our reincarnation. To stay here after death we need energy from living things and we still are some kind of 3D so it's not very good idea

 

[Zar]

I would quote Laura with "There is no free lunch and if you believe there is, then you are it"

 

[whitecoast]

Hello everyone,
What would you say if we could try to summit up our knowledge in short message? A lot of people says that you understand something when you could say it in simply words. All of it would be just a topics for further investigation but maybe we could try to create those topics of our knowledge to know what we know and what others know. Maybe it would be helpful for others to better understand things on forum. I will start to show what's on my mind:

It sounds like you're looking for an "elevator pitch," or something you could write on a postcard to synopsize everything. I wouldn't make any summary to a stranger unless I knew more about them and their beliefs, since each person believes different lies and so they may listen to some parts and not others. I would find commonalities between what they believe and you believe, and then work it out from there. Like Zar said though, you can't give another person your understanding - all you can give is information, and they may reject that.

Better than relating what is "believed here" (we don't believe in belief, if that makes sense), it is also better to emphasize the APPROACH taken by the group, which is to synthesize as much information as possible while constantly questioning our assumptions and our vested false beliefs and emotional interests due to programming and trauma and etc, relying on the help of others to see our own blind spots.

Laura actually sums up some of this with the Knowledge and Being video series (which is where Zar's quote is from originally):

 

[Gawan]

The problem with simplicity is imo that there can be danger that important information can get lost and as others have said, there is no shortcut. Though I can understand where you are coming from, because in daily life we always make information easier that we can digest and work with them, and it is also happens with "the work" terms.

 

[Kmicic]

I understand your point but how we could say when something is free meal in this situation? What's difference between reading book of people and discuss them and doing something like this summ up? In this point of view book of someone is free meal for us because that person do work for us. My point is to be as objective as we can to compare our ways of thinking. I don't want to be stubborn here, it's just a question

 

[zoidbergh77]

I can only speak for myself of course, but I think there is a big difference between being able to sum something up in more simple terms and trying to sum something up in a short way. If someone would have tried to give me a short synopsis about all the things that make up the basis for this forum BEFORE I was familiar with it, I would have dismissed it instantly. Again, it´s only my own experience, others will have different thoughts about it, but to me, all the things I found in Laura´s writings and on SOTT made me look into so many different topics over the years, I wouldn´t even know how to pack all of this into a few sentences or paragraphs without losing important aspects of it, as Gawan also pointed out.

 

[theos]

I understand your point but how we could say when something is free meal in this situation? What's difference between reading book of people and discuss them and doing something like this summ up? In this point of view book of someone is free meal for us because that person do work for us. My point is to be as objective as we can to compare our ways of thinking. I don't want to be stubborn here, it's just a question

People come to this forum because they are interested in the information presented here. There is nothing wrong with summaries per se, but generally people who are looking for summaries all the time want a shortcut. For some people, a summary is a good starting off point to encourage further research and learning. For other people it can shut off all efforts to pursue the information as it has been handed to them with no effort on their part so they didn't really "earn" it. An over-reliance on summaries can take away the joy of discovery and bring a halt to continuing on the path (even if that path involves twist and turns and backtracking) they would have pursued if they acquired information relying on more of their own efforts.

In a way, it also comes down to intent of the summarizer. If someone reads a book and gives a summary of some main points in order to spark the interest of another or to cement certain information in their own minds there is nothing wrong with that. But to just give a summary with the intention that this is all the other person needs to know about given topic would be abridging someone's free will and deciding for them what they need to know, IMO.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

[Mark7]

People come to this forum because they are interested in the information presented here. There is nothing wrong with summaries per se, but generally people who are looking for summaries all the time want a shortcut. For some people, a summary is a good starting off point to encourage further research and learning. For other people it can shut off all efforts to pursue the information as it has been handed to them with no effort on their part so they didn't really "earn" it. An over-reliance on summaries can take away the joy of discovery and bring a halt to continuing on the path (even if that path involves twist and turns and backtracking) they would have pursued if they acquired information relying on more of their own efforts.

In a way, it also comes down to intent of the summarizer. If someone reads a book and gives a summary of some main points in order to spark the interest of another or to cement certain information in their own minds there is nothing wrong with that. But to just give a summary with the intention that this is all the other person needs to know about given topic would be abridging someone's free will and deciding for them what they need to know, IMO.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

The only 'shortcut' I can see is that someone has 'done that, been there, and got the T-shirt' in previous lifetimes.

 

[mkrnhr]

I can only speak for myself of course, but I think there is a big difference between being able to sum something up in more simple terms and trying to sum something up in a short way.

This is a very important distinction indeed. One can take mathematics as an example. It is possible to teach it in a progressive way that makes sense (most teachers don't do that), and each step is explained simply with examples, without rush. This is not explaining shortly but explaining simply. However, summaries do not make sense if one does go through all the steps and subtleties first. This is why in books on any subject, summaries, if there are any, are placed at the ends of the chapters. A summary is an high level view that connects all the dots that have been explored in that chapter, but if there are no dots to connect in the mind of the reader then it is empty of sense.

A statement on the other hand can be a teaser to what's going to be discussed. It arouses curiosity but offers no meat. The bulk of the material, and the mental effort that's necessary to follow the logics of its arguments, is in the end necessary to have a true understanding and not a mere vague idea about a subject.

 

[Candice]

A lot of people says that you understand something when you could say it in simply words.

My first question to you would be who are you ultimately trying to relay this “simplified” information to and for what purpose?

I ask this because I don’t think the knowledge available on the forum is difficult to comprehend. If one reads Laura’s books, she lays everything out in easy to understand terminology in combination with real life events. Which act as a vehicle to further “simplify” the terms used by the C’s. I have not found any other author with such a profound ability to achieve this.

Even so, one can read something, no matter how “simplified” and “think” you understand it. Yet only when you face something in reality can you fully “understand” not only with your mind but physically with your body. There comes about some form of alchemical change brought about from theoretical knowledge into whole being “understanding”. I’m not sure how to explain this.

So no matter how you “simplify” something, without the practical real life experience, true “seeing” or “knowing” will be out of reach. These practical real life experiences only come about through each choice we make, this is our work. You can have a library filled to the brim of spiritual teachings but having never left the library you may never fully activate that knowledge into its highest potential.

Also, how do you know what small snippet of knowledge is important enough to be incorporated into a “summary”? What makes me have an “aha” moment will be very different to the next individual.

I grew up in an esoteric interested family with a very extensive library. As an avid reader from young, as well as curious about the mysteries of life, I read a lot of those books. I grew really frustrated, no matter what I read most of it was so convoluted, with pearls of wisdom squirreled away. I finally gave up as I realized if they truly wanted to help humanity they wouldn’t make it so difficult to understand the teachings. Years later I discovered Laura’s work and I was blown away by how readily she shared her discoveries but also how easy they were to understand and the accompanying internal change that occurred within me.

So I’m not sure why anything presented on this forum needs to be simplified or summarized further.
Maybe I misinterpreted the original post, if so please could you elucidate the reasoning or need for further “simplification”.

 

[Kmicic]

My intention was rather to gather subjective opinion to compare them to create as much as it could be objective way of thinking. Some times there are some good conclusion when someone ask about something and in that moments people start to talking about something else that could help to understand the "work". In that moments I see that not in everything they are agree - in most cases they know about work but they don't agree in some cases. But also I understand that all of this information here are complicated and it could be that word of " Work" Couldn't never be simple.

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Kmicic, let me set a different context a bit that might be more useful. Instead of talking about shortcuts, let's talk about the foundations.

So instead of talking about Knowledge Shortcut, let's say Fundamental Knowledge.

When it comes to working on the self, the most important ideas seem to be the idea of Free Will and Service To Others.

Cassiopaeans, when asked about one of the most important principles that govern our lives, respond that it is the law of Free Will. The fragment below is confirming:

(...)Some fundamental law of creation?

A: Free will.

Of course, our will is limited, we live in bodies, we live in material reality, there are 4 Density STS beings that influence our reality at global level, and we are too small to do anything about it, however, we are left to decide what happens in ourselves and in our immediate surroundings.

The next thing is Service To Others. Cassiopaeans talk many times about the division into Service To Others and Service To Self, so I will not mention any specific fragments, because it would be too much, but I will try to outline the general concept.

In the Service To Others, the individual tends to dissipate energy, he/she adds this energy to the ocean of life so that others can also grow and develop. In Service to Self, energy is blocked and captured by the individual.

It seems that spiritual growth for us here on Earth is to utilize these two conceptions of Service to Others and Free Will in our daily relationships with other people. But what is it about and how to use it in everyday life?

Let's make two examples, the easiest way to talk is based on examples...

We have two friends who decide how to spend time together. Suppose things happen in two alternate realities. In one [ 1) ], this pair of friends choose the STS path, and where Free Will is also broken. And in the second [ 2) ] reality, friends choose STO and Free Will.

1) It's Saturday, a day off, one of two friends decides to spend his free time. He comes up with an idea to meet up while watching comedy series. He buys good food and drink. He wonders who to invite. He invites the person in whom he subconsciously recognizes someone who, like him, will accept this way of spending time and a similar view of reality.

Then they meet, laugh and talk together, feel the pleasure that comes from laughing. It's good, their bellies are full and they enjoy drinking sweet drinks. Entertainment is easy and fun, the series do not require effort from them, you just need to look at the screen.

At some point, the episode of the series ends and the guest proposes to play something else now, some other movie that he would like to watch, but the host does not want it, attacks the guest, of course not directly, but begins to undermine the level of the guest's taste, the quality of the film that the guest wants watch, looking for ways to get him to choose the movie he wants, crushing the individuality and sympathies that his guest has, leaving him feeling humiliated and choosing the movie he wants to watch.

What can we say about this situation? The host is focused on his pleasure, he chooses what gives him comfort and joy. He surrounds himself with a person he thinks will be better for his personal purposes. There is no interest in objective reality here, no effort to understand the film, no form of conscious suffering. It even breaks the visitor's free will by imposing his choice of the film on him, trampling his own view and will.

I think this attitude reflects the 3 Density STS way of being, plus Free Will is broken which leads to Karma. Karma will manifest itself in such a way that at some point in his life the host will be a guest in someone's home (or something similar will happen) and placed in a situation that he once created.

2) Second example. In that different reality, where the person has a choice of how to spend the Saturday, he wants to do it differently. He decides to watch a documentary on a topic he does not know, but which could potentially bring the person closer to understanding objective reality. He states that it would be nice to invite one of his colleagues to also give him the opportunity to learn new knowledge from the movie watched, of course after accepting the invitation.

Besides, he may not be his best friend, but he knows that this person has interesting ideas and it would be fun to give himself a chance to get to know him better. After watching the movie together, they started arguing. In the first few minutes it turned out that they had a lot in common, but it soon became apparent that they disagreed on several important points. After trying to translate and persuade each other, they weren't too pleased with the other side's lack of understanding, but held back their reactions. Neither of them attacked the other. They decided to split up and the guest went home.

For some time after the meeting, the host thought to himself that he had invited such a guest for the last time and that he should have invited his best friend, it would not be so. But at some point he doubted his own narrative, he stopped being offended at his friend and returned his thoughts to what they were talking about and at some point he was surprised, he already knows what his friend was about. Suddenly the phone rang and it turned out that it was the same friend he was seeing, who told him that he was right, because he had checked something in the book, calmly, after returning home.

In the second example, the situation is different. The goal is to learn something about reality from a documentary. Friends do not focus on the well-being of eating, drinking and "good humor", but on discussions where they share their knowledge and, despite a lack of mutual understanding, inhibit their reactions that could hurt their interlocutor. There is a clear difference between the first and second ways of spending time.

The first is to focus on subjective perception of reality and well-being. Free Will is also broken by imposing one's own (STS and Karma). The second example is focusing on objective reality and sharing information. Understanding a documentary takes focus and is not easy. Negative reactions towards the other person resulting from a lack of mutual understanding are prevented, leading to friction and bypassing the behavior that could break the other person's Free Will and gain Karma.

In conclusion, I think there are no shortcuts to anything, neither in knowledge, nor in development, but we can talk about some foundations. Fundamental Knowledge.

These foundations seem to be the distinction between STS and STO, seeing Free Will in self and others, and when that Free Will is breaking. STO and STS, Free Will and Karma, these are all ideas that Cassiopaeans say are objective and govern the objective reality in which we exist, these are the foundations on which this universe stands and which permeate all existence in various forms.

And I think that on a practical, human level, this is exactly the kind of discernment, just like on the basis of these examples. I think the art is to choose behaviors that resemble those we see in example "2)" and avoid those in example "1)".

 

[Zar]

Hello everyone,
What would you say if we could try to summit up our knowledge in short message? A lot of people says that you understand something when you could say it in simply words. All of it would be just a topics for further investigation but maybe we could try to create those topics of our knowledge to know what we know and what others know. Maybe it would be helpful for others to better understand things on forum. I will start to show what's on my mind:

I think the problem is that you can't give knowledge to someone else. Knowledge is not something tangible and depending on the type of knowledge it can take years to learn, and it requires personal effort. It's like trying to teach someone how to ride a bike in one sentence without them knowing what a bike is. Even if you have a bike and take a day explaining how the process is done, the person is going to have to ride it to learn how it's done and therefore acquire this bike-riding-knowledge. With a good teacher the acquisition of knowledge can be shortened but that also depends on the student.

Even if you take something that isn't physically oriented, like math, it's still very difficult to teach someone that. I can't tell you how many people(nearly everyone) have complained that they were told to summarize mathematical concepts which ruined their acquisition of this type of knowledge. This seems like the type of "teaching" that goes on in modern schools that leave many people with false knowledge or no knowledge at all.

 

[Kmicic]

Kmicic, let me set a different context a bit that might be more useful. Instead of talking about shortcuts, let's talk about the foundations.

So instead of talking about Knowledge Shortcut, let's say Fundamental Knowledge.

When it comes to working on the self, the most important ideas seem to be the idea of Free Will and Service To Others.

Cassiopaeans, when asked about one of the most important principles that govern our lives, respond that it is the law of Free Will. The fragment below is confirming:

Of course, our will is limited, we live in bodies, we live in material reality, there are 4 Density STS beings that influence our reality at global level, and we are too small to do anything about it, however, we are left to decide what happens in ourselves and in our immediate surroundings.

The next thing is Service To Others. Cassiopaeans talk many times about the division into Service To Others and Service To Self, so I will not mention any specific fragments, because it would be too much, but I will try to outline the general concept.

In the Service To Others, the individual tends to dissipate energy, he/she adds this energy to the ocean of life so that others can also grow and develop. In Service to Self, energy is blocked and captured by the individual.

It seems that spiritual growth for us here on Earth is to utilize these two conceptions of Service to Others and Free Will in our daily relationships with other people. But what is it about and how to use it in everyday life?

Let's make two examples, the easiest way to talk is based on examples...

We have two friends who decide how to spend time together. Suppose things happen in two alternate realities. In one [ 1) ], this pair of friends choose the STS path, and where Free Will is also broken. And in the second [ 2) ] reality, friends choose STO and Free Will.

1) It's Saturday, a day off, one of two friends decides to spend his free time. He comes up with an idea to meet up while watching comedy series. He buys good food and drink. He wonders who to invite. He invites the person in whom he subconsciously recognizes someone who, like him, will accept this way of spending time and a similar view of reality.

Then they meet, laugh and talk together, feel the pleasure that comes from laughing. It's good, their bellies are full and they enjoy drinking sweet drinks. Entertainment is easy and fun, the series do not require effort from them, you just need to look at the screen.

At some point, the episode of the series ends and the guest proposes to play something else now, some other movie that he would like to watch, but the host does not want it, attacks the guest, of course not directly, but begins to undermine the level of the guest's taste, the quality of the film that the guest wants watch, looking for ways to get him to choose the movie he wants, crushing the individuality and sympathies that his guest has, leaving him feeling humiliated and choosing the movie he wants to watch.

What can we say about this situation? The host is focused on his pleasure, he chooses what gives him comfort and joy. He surrounds himself with a person he thinks will be better for his personal purposes. There is no interest in objective reality here, no effort to understand the film, no form of conscious suffering. It even breaks the visitor's free will by imposing his choice of the film on him, trampling his own view and will.

I think this attitude reflects the 3 Density STS way of being, plus Free Will is broken which leads to Karma. Karma will manifest itself in such a way that at some point in his life the host will be a guest in someone's home (or something similar will happen) and placed in a situation that he once created.

2) Second example. In that different reality, where the person has a choice of how to spend the Saturday, he wants to do it differently. He decides to watch a documentary on a topic he does not know, but which could potentially bring the person closer to understanding objective reality. He states that it would be nice to invite one of his colleagues to also give him the opportunity to learn new knowledge from the movie watched, of course after accepting the invitation.

Besides, he may not be his best friend, but he knows that this person has interesting ideas and it would be fun to give himself a chance to get to know him better. After watching the movie together, they started arguing. In the first few minutes it turned out that they had a lot in common, but it soon became apparent that they disagreed on several important points. After trying to translate and persuade each other, they weren't too pleased with the other side's lack of understanding, but held back their reactions. Neither of them attacked the other. They decided to split up and the guest went home.

For some time after the meeting, the host thought to himself that he had invited such a guest for the last time and that he should have invited his best friend, it would not be so. But at some point he doubted his own narrative, he stopped being offended at his friend and returned his thoughts to what they were talking about and at some point he was surprised, he already knows what his friend was about. Suddenly the phone rang and it turned out that it was the same friend he was seeing, who told him that he was right, because he had checked something in the book, calmly, after returning home.

In the second example, the situation is different. The goal is to learn something about reality from a documentary. Friends do not focus on the well-being of eating, drinking and "good humor", but on discussions where they share their knowledge and, despite a lack of mutual understanding, inhibit their reactions that could hurt their interlocutor. There is a clear difference between the first and second ways of spending time.

The first is to focus on subjective perception of reality and well-being. Free Will is also broken by imposing one's own (STS and Karma). The second example is focusing on objective reality and sharing information. Understanding a documentary takes focus and is not easy. Negative reactions towards the other person resulting from a lack of mutual understanding are prevented, leading to friction and bypassing the behavior that could break the other person's Free Will and gain Karma.

In conclusion, I think there are no shortcuts to anything, neither in knowledge, nor in development, but we can talk about some foundations. Fundamental Knowledge.

These foundations seem to be the distinction between STS and STO, seeing Free Will in self and others, and when that Free Will is breaking. STO and STS, Free Will and Karma, these are all ideas that Cassiopaeans say are objective and govern the objective reality in which we exist, these are the foundations on which this universe stands and which permeate all existence in various forms.

And I think that on a practical, human level, this is exactly the kind of discernment, just like on the basis of these examples. I think the art is to choose behaviors that resemble those we see in example "2)" and avoid those in example "1)".

I think the problem is that you can't give knowledge to someone else. Knowledge is not something tangible and depending on the type of knowledge it can take years to learn, and it requires personal effort. It's like trying to teach someone how to ride a bike in one sentence without them knowing what a bike is. Even if you have a bike and take a day explaining how the process is done, the person is going to have to ride it to learn how it's done and therefore acquire this bike-riding-knowledge. With a good teacher the acquisition of knowledge can be shortened but that also depends on the student.

Even if you take something that isn't physically oriented, like math, it's still very difficult to teach someone that. I can't tell you how many people(nearly everyone) have complained that they were told to summarize mathematical concepts which ruined their acquisition of this type of knowledge. This seems like the type of "teaching" that goes on in modern schools that leave many people with false knowledge or no knowledge at all.

Thank You Luks, foundation is best word I was looking for With shorcuts I rather mean to put words like Spartans - without "unnecessary" things I think that I understand your point Zar, someone learn something when he's ready but I don't see any problem with my idea here. Knowledge would be here, people will learn it when they were be ready. It's like book. It depends how we treat books, are they knowledge or just pieces of paper? If they are piece's of paper what's the problem if we give it to someone, and if they are knowledge we could give knowledge, it's depend from people which we will give it how they will use it. That's true that they could use it in bad way or against us but is my idea really that dangerous? If so I'm sorry for that

 

[Nienna]

This is how I view shortcuts to knowledge. By taking shortcuts, you may have the knowledge, but do you have the understanding of how and why it is so? Say someone tells you that psychopaths are bad. Well, that's good to know, but do you know why they are bad? Not really. Does knowing they are bad let you understand what to look for that would tell you who might be a psychopath? Not really.

Most books, and especially books written by Laura and some others really help people to understand what she is talking about. Yes, they are long and it takes time to read them; but the knowledge and understanding that they give is priceless.

Also, if one is not willing to put in the time to learn, you don't really get anything out of that little bit of knowledge (psychopaths are bad) you don't really learn anything. You just know a little bit about a subject that is fairly complicated, but not enough to really help you in your life.

fwiw