Question about Cassiopaean channeling

Erna

The Living Force
In the Cassiopaean channeling sessions they often answer "close".

Is this close as in 'close to what you have just said' or is the word 'close' used in channeling when they don't respond, meaning the channel is closed.

Oh, and 'open', what does that mean?

Sorry, I'm new to this :/
 
Hi Erna,

My apologies for not being able to give a direct answer but for what it's worth this is what I understand of it thus far.

Close could mean your exactly right or it could mean that your getting warmer. From what I understand thus far the cassiopaeans do/cannot give direct answers. Being that they are STO, I think they are bound to a law of non-interference in terms of freewill. I believe Laura or Ark implied that they are the 10% inspiration that must be matched by 90% perspiration (meaning (I think) that they can help with giving some 'clues' but not direct answers and the rest has to be WORKED for, read/understood/discovered/mined.. to get the information). Of course I could be wrong and there's certainly plenty of room for growth so far as my understanding/knowledge.

On 'open' I'll try and give an example. Your driving down the freeway (major roadway for faster moving vehicle traffic) and you could make it to your destination, you could also potentially have an accident, the situation is open. Maybe that analogy sucks.. How about, nothing is fixed yet, there is the potential for this event (bad) or that event (good). It's open to all the forces that are capable of influencing whichever outcome, be they universal, solar system, political.. it's not yet written in stone, therefore it is open (?). That's probably a better analogy. Still this reply seems lacking somehow.

A place once pointed out to me for subjects I've little understanding on (definitions of some of the esoteric words like shocks, man 1,2,3- Gurdjieff etc..) can be found here as you may already know: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php

As a footnote I hope I didn't overstep my bounds, just FYI (For Your Information) Erna I'm not an editor.

Though this quote may not fit my analogy.. From Objectivity: http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=554

"Objectivity should not be confused with reductionism. Reductionism or determinism states that given complete information of a system's state, it is possible to make arbitrarily far reaching projections of the system's state into the past and future. There are many obstacles to strict determinism, starting from quantum uncertainty, probable non-local effects, no system being absolutely closed, possible effects of consciousness and observership and so forth. Partly relating to this, Godel has demonstrated that a system cannot be its own meta-system, i.e. contain complete knowledge of itself. This suggests that attaining objective knowledge of any universe from within it is an open-ended quest.

Salutations!
 
Erna said:
In the Cassiopaean channeling sessions they often answer "close".

Is this close as in 'close to what you have just said' or is the word 'close' used in channeling when they don't respond, meaning the channel is closed.

Oh, and 'open', what does that mean?

Sorry, I'm new to this :/
Hi Erna, it means "close to being correct".

Joe
 
Hello Erna,

Sometimes they seem to get cheeky too...

For example, consider a statement –
“My mum bakes the best damn cookies in the world.”
To that they could say, “Close” – but what it really means is that my mum buys the cookies at the local bakery and then passes them off as if she baked them herself.

Do you know what I mean…?


Edit:

As far as the "Open" statement is concerned, in my observation, this would indicate the uncertainty of the future events. They often state that reality is fluid and composed of a myriad of interconnected probabilities and consequences.

As this is apparently a free will universe, some events might happen but if the situation discussed is still undecided – things could go either way.

For example, on the basis of the previous example,
“Is my mum going to bake the best damn cookies tomorrow?”
could get an “Open” response because what is really happening is that mum is actually sick of the fraud she is committing and thinking about quitting. Really seriously considering that possibility and has not made up her mind about going to the bakery tomorrow.

I like cookies.
 
adam7117 said:
Hello Erna,

Sometimes they seem to get cheeky too...

For example, consider a statement –
“My mum bakes the best damn cookies in the world.”
To that they could say, “Close” – but what it really means is that my mum buys the cookies at the local bakery and then passes them off as if she baked them herself.

Do you know what I mean…?
I don't think that is a very good example of the Cs humor. In such a case, they wouldn't say "close" because it is not at all close.
 
Hey I hope this a good place to ask my question, can someone explain me how exactly do you see from all vantage points at once in 4d(oneness of all these vantage points maybe?). Is that close to a x-ray or you become one with the object or something..I really get confused my this "being one" with things in this case.
 
new_to_chess said:
Hey I hope this a good place to ask my question, can someone explain me how exactly do you see from all vantage points at once in 4d
I'm not sure how anyone in 3d would really know that without having been to 4d. Not to mention, this is still just an idea, it's not a fact. So before asking how it works, it makes more sense to ask if it is even the case at all, osit.

new_to_chess said:
Is that close to a x-ray or you become one with the object or something..I really get confused my this "being one" with things in this case.
While this may be interesting to contemplate, I wouldn't stress too much over not being able to grasp a concept that is most likely not really graspable at our level, and it doesn't even apply to our lives at this level. There are plenty of lessons to learn about ourselves and our world that do apply to our lives though, and I think it is much more helpful for our progress to focus on those at this time.

The C's have said that you do not need to learn the lessons of 4th grade to go to 4th grade. Just learn the 3rd grade curriculum first :)
 
You are right. But my questions don`t end here :) How does one contact the universal database that can tell him everything, the universal data base C's use? Maybe it is accessed through years of meditation?
 
new_to_chess said:
Hey I hope this a good place to ask my question, can someone explain me how exactly do you see from all vantage points at once in 4d(oneness of all these vantage points maybe?). Is that close to a x-ray or you become one with the object or something..I really get confused my this "being one" with things in this case.
This may be related, from http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=422

"It seems to me that DRL’s statement that if we live in 4 large spatial dimensions we could not tie our shoes is clear, but another commentator seemed to have difficulty with it, so here is another (more or less equivalent) formulation: If we lived in 4 large spatial dimensions there would be no way to distinguish left-handedness from right-handedness, thus invalidating a lot of particle physics experimental results (there was an old Outer Limits TV show about that point)."
 
Back
Top Bottom