Session 10 October 2015

[Deleted member 11729]

what if nature choses for one group to dissapear, one to survive? how do you define which group is suffering imbalance that requires a bit of knowledge? those are some interesting questions, maybe, it all depends on the beings or group who knows how to ask, and it depends if they ask or not.

That gets in the whole thing about being able to discern what constitutes sincerely asking and giving all to those who ask. Laura has written about it a bit and it is covered pretty well in the Cass Wiki http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=All_to_those_who_ask I don't have anything to add to it. It is probably the most difficult lesson to learn on the STO path, in my opinion.

Quoting form http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=All_to_those_who_ask

"In this world of mixed contents, the motives of giving, whether for personal satisfaction or as an expression of alignment with an impersonal principle cannot always be distinguished nor do they occur separately. Pure expressions of service to others or service to self are rare.

From Ra:

RA: I am Ra. Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be projected as things. In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted through failure to accept that which is given.

QUESTIONER: Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the "failure to accept that which is given?"

RA: I am Ra. At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive energies. This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say. It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup. It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation."

If I understand this right, what is explaind here is that those who are STO oriented, can't fully accept that which is given by STS forces, because it contradicts their STO orientation, and by that inbility to fully accept enslavement, that is actually what forms duality that is pushing STO oriented person to slip into the STS orientation of confrontation through defense ... so actually the goal is to work on itself to be capable to accept enslavement, but not to fall into it, and at the same time to be fully aware of it, and that awareness is what protects from confrontation with it, what is actually one of the main games of STS forces? For STO oriented person it is not about fighting with STS enslavement, but it is more about acknowledging it and showing to the manipulative forces that you do see through them, and that is kind of the "power" that locks STS manipulative work, as when you know the mechanics of manipulation, you simply cant be manipulated, but you can still suffer and understand the pain and manipulation of others .... ?

And Neil thank you very very much for your posts and comments here.

 

[Oxajil]

If, as described early in the transcripts, 4th D STS requires enormous amounts of energy in order to sustain their race, then perhaps the torment of an entire global population of blind livestock isn't sufficient. Perhaps first giving them the option to know where the fence is, what is on the other side of it, to maybe sit on it for a while, only to ultimately choose the predator's side.., polarizes them in a manner which increases their value.

Interesting idea Woodsman, but in the example you gave, I get the impression that you were not considerate towards your friend. You were giving, without her truly asking. And mostly, in such cases, it can backfire and make the other person's beliefs in certain lies even stronger, as was the case with your friend. In the example you mentioned, I wouldn't say that 4D STS gave her "the option to know where the fence is, what is on the other side of it, to maybe sit on it for a while, only to ultimately choose the predator's side". I'd rather say that the arguments and disagreements between the two of you only made her beliefs stronger. Gurdjieff said on external consideration:

External considering is based upon an entirely different relationship towards people than internal considering. It is adaptation towards people, to their understanding, to their requirements. By considering externally a man does that which makes life easy for other people and for himself. External considering requires a knowledge of men, an understanding of their tastes, habits, and prejudices. At the same time external considering requires a great power over oneself, a great control over oneself.

I understand it though, it would be nice to talk about things we're interested in with others. But we have to understand that they have their own lessons to learn and to give them the space to do so, and to always be there in case they ever come to us and ask for our thoughts on any given situation/political matter.

Just some thoughts, in case it might help. It's good to know you're more careful now. :)

 

[Woodsman]

If, as described early in the transcripts, 4th D STS requires enormous amounts of energy in order to sustain their race, then perhaps the torment of an entire global population of blind livestock isn't sufficient. Perhaps first giving them the option to know where the fence is, what is on the other side of it, to maybe sit on it for a while, only to ultimately choose the predator's side.., polarizes them in a manner which increases their value.

Interesting idea Woodsman, but in the example you gave, I get the impression that you were not considerate towards your friend. You were giving, without her truly asking. And mostly, in such cases, it can backfire and make the other person's beliefs in certain lies even stronger, as was the case with your friend. In the example you mentioned, I wouldn't say that 4D STS gave her "the option to know where the fence is, what is on the other side of it, to maybe sit on it for a while, only to ultimately choose the predator's side". I'd rather say that the arguments and disagreements between the two of you only made her beliefs stronger. Gurdjieff said on external consideration:

External considering is based upon an entirely different relationship towards people than internal considering. It is adaptation towards people, to their understanding, to their requirements. By considering externally a man does that which makes life easy for other people and for himself. External considering requires a knowledge of men, an understanding of their tastes, habits, and prejudices. At the same time external considering requires a great power over oneself, a great control over oneself.

I understand it though, it would be nice to talk about things we're interested in with others. But we have to understand that they have their own lessons to learn and to give them the space to do so, and to always be there in case they ever come to us and ask for our thoughts on any given situation/political matter.

Just some thoughts, in case it might help. It's good to know you're more careful now. :)

Thank-you. That's pretty much the conclusion I came to as well. It was a practical lesson in a lot of areas. How to avoid hurting people. How to keep my big mouth shut. Lessons are fine, but hurting your lab partner is the worst. We had a lot of good times together when we weren't talking about our thoughts on the deeper structure of things. We both enjoyed talking about science and science fiction books and films, and we'd get into these excited discussions only to conflict over ideological land mines and we couldn't seem to let things go. I certainly wasn't graceful or smart enough to back off.

As per the notion of having ideas to choose against being connected to why some space is allowed...

I had a strong glimpse of something regarding that, but I've been suffering from head aches, mostly due I think to far too much desk and computer work, heavy deadline projects and conflicting work hours and not enough sleep resulting in brain fuzz over the last several days. The result was that I lost my own thread and was only able to supply the anecdotal elements of my notion and hoped those might be worth something on their own, but I don't think I was up to the task.

I'm still dealing with that right now; I'm off to stretch and yoga a bit and put my house in better order.

I apologize for any channel noise.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author=Prometeo]Well the answers sounds like a priest teaching one interpretation about the bible. but not necessarily the facts.[/quote]

It actually involves logic. Try to follow:

[quote author=Prometeo]How sure are you that the lizzies are not up there because they understand the ray of creation better than you and I?[/quote]

Answer given:

[quote author= Bjorn]They may 'understand' it but they would not be able to realize its importance. Big difference. They serve self to the extreme so they are completely out of sync on how creation should function.[/quote]

How did I come to this conclusion? See:

[quote author= bjorn]Ray of Creation entails ‘’How creation should properly function’’[/quote]

Properly function = as a school. Lizzie’s don’t learn. They just ‘feed’ on others. Hence they wouldn’t be able to realize its importance since they are completely out of sync on how creation should properly function.

Creation is a school, what happens if the bullies (4STS) run the school and just do what they like. Not teaching everyone. What does that say about the bullies? You think the bullies would realize the importance of the function (‘’Ray of Creation’’) of the school.

No they just use it for their own selfish means.


[quote author=Prometeo]I guess I may understand. So, from your point of view, what's the aim of the work? what's it's purpose? I just want to understand your point correctly, if is related to the work, then I suppose it is also related to the results you are supposed to achieve with "the work".[/quote]

Maybe if we had some kind of literary, like: ‘’The work for dummies’’ for starters. Anyhow Prometeo you have to be familiar with the following material: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33092.0.html (2. Narcissism "Big Five" + 8. Fourth Way) It gives the necessary guidance.

But to answer your question I will try to explain it as I would to a child. Not to insult but this approach always helps me if I fail to understand something.


- To ‘’Know Thyself’’ Why is it urgent to Know Ourselves? Because we lie to ourselves.

Our ‘’Self Importance’’ could tell us we are good at drawing, math or sports. Even when the results tells the opposite. In that case, we lie to ourselves.

But what happens if a bully believes he is a good person. Because he lies to himself he hurts other people. If the bully would see himself as he is. The bully would chance right and not hurt other people. But because of his ‘self-importance’ he is not able to see himself what he truly is. In order to chance he would need to confront himself in order to see the truth. He would need to realize that his ‘’Self Importance’’, which is a lie and telling him differently, is soulless and needs to go.

What is achieved is a better person. If you strip away self-importance, what is left? Conscience.

Next example. What if a volcano a few miles away from your house is set to erupt but you choose not to believe it because its to uncomfortable to deal with. In that case you would lie to yourself against your own good.


If everyone would be honest with themselves the world would look completely different. For the world to chance we first need to chance ourselves. ''The Work'' provides the necessary tools.

 

[Joe]

And from my analysis the Queen is Germany...

That's another strong possibility I think.

Since the Queen is the strongest piece on the board, I thought it had to do with the US financial system(petrodollar), which projects far more soft power and reaches it's tentacles into far more people's lives than any military campaign or political agreement. It is really the underlying source of all the US is able to do. A geopolitical locus of this attack might manifest as Saudi Arabia being forced to cave to Putin such that it no longer had any authority to effectively lead OPEC according to US diktat. Once the petrodollar collapses, the US is really nothing.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I said US "control over the Saudis Gulf States and their oil and the Middle East in general". The petrodollar is, as you say, that which has largely created the US as we know it today and that which continues to prop it up.

 

[Joe]

As mentioned by Cs, the cosmos will come to clean things up and possibly be "harvested" who are ready for it.

I'm glad that you put "harvested" in quotes there, because it's not a good term, I think, although it has been much used in the 'new age' community for a long time. The problem is that it posits some kind of deliberate conscious action by someone/thing, some "selection" of some people and "rejection" of others. There is obviously a value judgement there. What seems closer to the truth, and this is why the term "the wave" is better, is that it's a natural function of the universe, there is no judgement. It's like a real wave flowing through an area, if you see it coming and choose to stand in its way with the right equipment, you ride it to wherever it is going. If you don't see it coming or choose not to stand in its way, or don't have the right equipment, then you don't ride it. Either way, whatever happens, the wave is not "judging" anyone. It just is.

 

[Oxajil]

I had a strong glimpse of something regarding that, but I've been suffering from head aches, mostly due I think to far too much desk and computer work, heavy deadline projects and conflicting work hours and not enough sleep resulting in brain fuzz over the last several days. The result was that I lost my own thread and was only able to supply the anecdotal elements of my notion and hoped those might be worth something on their own, but I don't think I was up to the task.

I'm still dealing with that right now; I'm off to stretch and yoga a bit and put my house in better order.

I apologize for any channel noise.

I'm sorry to hear that Woodsman, that doesn't sound like a healthy situation to be in. Do take good care of yourself.

 

[Hesper]

Session Date: October 10th 2015

Laura, Andromeda, and Galatea at the board

Pierre, Perceval, Niall, Chu, PoB (Possibility of Being), Data, Scottie, Approaching Infinity, Timótheos, Alana, Heimdallr, Nicolas, Noko the Wonderdog, Kitty the Cat

[SNIPPED]

(Perceval) There's been talk before of a kind of secret government that is not the overt government. Is it possible that they are in some way restraining the Americans like you just described?

A: The secret government did not anticipate Putin.

Q: (L) Well we had a funny talk the other day where we speculated that we moved into a different timeline. In previous years, we were in a timeline where there was not or could not be a Putin - or at least a Putin as he is in this one. Then, somehow some way, we moved ourselves into a different timeline. Well, I know it's a little egotistical to say that our efforts to send a signal could have shifted us into this other timeline and in effect helped with the manifesting of the changes of today... Is it a possibility that we helped even in a small way?

A: More than you have given yourselves credit for!

The more I think of this the more stunned I am at the accomplishments of this network. "Using the present to repair the past and prepare the future" has never made so much sense.

The days following 9/11 were so dark, and the future, from that point, was absolute horror. I don't think any of us ever anticipated to see something so evil manifest on the world-stage, growing worse year after year. But, using 'the present' wisely for the past decade and a half, this network has helped prepare a future wherein Putin has walked onto the world-stage and has begun to go Odysseus on NATO's butt; and there are even more changes on the way. This is something I don't think any of us could have anticipated - and I think that taking the smallest bit of credit for this means we accept the responsibility that comes with it. We need to work smart, focus even more with the time we have left, and help those 'creative forces' as they look for a place to land in this crazy world.

Q: (L) Can anybody think of another question to get me where I want to go here? (shellycheval) As
individuals, what's the single most important thing we should do to Do, and to not try, but to actually
take actions? What can we do to motivate ourselves as individuals? Is there something we can say or
do...?
A: Service to others. Notice that the people with the most problems that always talk only about
themselves and their troubles, are the ones who do and give the least. They do not have confidence in
the universal law of LIFE: Get things moving and you create a vacuum in your life into which energy
can flow

Thanks for posting!

 

[cubbex]

Not to insult but




If everyone would be honest with themselves the world would look completely different. For the world to chance we first need to chance ourselves. ''The Work'' provides the necessary tools.

Please stop, if someone needs to be honest with its own person this might be you bjorn, as long as you realize you may have no idea what you are talking about.

See, I knew you would take the passive agressive. Yes bjorn, I get it completelly, you think I am a dummy, but to this point you can't bring up any source or material that explains this "logic" and "ray of creation" mumbo jumbo, you just avoid the issue and talk about narcissism and some other projection from yourse. You are not talking to a caveman, I'm studying hard to know what consciousness is and so on and so on, so when I read this creation stuff from you, it's natural for me to be curious of such approaches. I'm not new to that stuff, and as far as I see narcissism is not related to this topic. If I ask is because I read your ideas with such a security that I want to read the same you read to learn about that "ray of creation". Logic is not included in your ideas, but just a simplistic relation of the cassiopaean lore with probably, self attached beliefs from you, hence, you come with this link and relation of ideas to come to that weird ray of creation idea. Logic or not, I don't know what you think as logic, I see an interpretation, equal to the interpretation of psychoanalist to what Freud said. Thing is, you base your ideas on what's been said, and everyone can say things, just like sigmund freud said a lot of nonsense along some few not so wrong ideas, even Einstein said a lot of things, and in present days a lot of people think he was absolutely wrong on many things. So again, cool logic, if you can give me a source where I can read these ray of creation clauses it'd be good.

Maybe the point of the work and all that, is to learn of the ray of creation, which is a poetic way to say learn "about just everything one can, so let's be like Bill Nye and say, let's consider the facts: We are humans - there are aliens - you are STS - they are STS - they are more intelligent than you and I combined - you aretheir food. Another is, relating to the cassiopaean lore, that to be this "people of the future" one got to pay attention to <<strict reality>>, well, I don't see how this "the lizzies don't know the ray of creation, but the cassios STO do" is strict reality, it is a recall of what the cs said but... just that, and probably wrong. Bottom line is bjorn, you really don't know if that's true, but you can assume it is and call it logic. I'm being completely honest as you recommend.

You also talk about the lizzies as STS eaters, god, you also eat and I bet you like the taste of bacon and meat, and they apparently dominate the world.

The question about the work was not for you, it was for scottie, who also side stepped the question and brought a link when I asked for <<his>> opinion. You see, the problem with this is that I rarely see a unified definition of what the work is, everyone come and say "oh yes. this is the work, and that is the work, and that work... yeah is the work too"; it's exactly the same syndrome one finds when one dwells into studies that talk about "intelligence" or "consciousness", there is no agreement on the definition. Something completely dumb psychology has done is, that if they can't define "intelligence" for example, then they come with emotional intelligence, social intelligence, math intelligence, all types of intelligence.

Im not an idiot bjorn, I'm asking sincerely and you just avoid stuff with some "heal your inner child, heal the self importance, they are bullies they are evil", NO! I trully want to know which facts you are basing on that idea of the ray of creation.

 

[cubbex]

You will see that In Search of the Miraculous and the Gnosis trilogy is mentioned a lot as this is the source material for the concept. You will have to read those books and then cross reference it with what Laura has deciphered from the Cassiopaean transmissions in the Wave to be able to understand it at a really deep level.

Thanks for the link, I already read them all long ago. My problem is with this generalization of the work, and on just some forum members find a bit of coindence on the discourse here and there, some words all far there, and then they create all types of ideas out of nowhere. It's like just memorizing words and books, and giving some lip service without realizing what they are talking about.

And about "knowing the self", well maybe, what about what the cs said about "mastering the self"? Some people know themselves quite well, what they don't know is to master themselves, which includes to stop lying to the self, and to do a whole gamma of stuff that I admit, that is truly hard. I mean what's the point of knowing the self? like how many things you can contemplate about yourself? how infinite or vast the self is to contemplate it forever, also, the self is discovered by discovering the exterior, to see how you react like you say, but it is like a minimal part of.

I propose the work as the method to learn how to master the self, based on a few ideas. For example, I've read the 2013-2014 sessions, in need to find that answer where it says Mouravieff provides the great work stuff, but you see all I saw, is forum members being insecure of what they had to do. And to this day, they still want some "directions", lot of the questions in those years were about <<what do I do?>> <<should I follow this job?>> <<should I do this? should I do that?>> how many times they've said they can't lead by the hand? and folks still go and forget about this stuff. Also, observing some of the dynamics in the FOTCM communities, one realizes that people do quite know themselves, what they don't do is exactly that, they don't do, not because they don't know, probably because they don't want to or they can discipline themselves. But when they do they achieve cool stuff. So I think is a balance of knowing not the self, but what is around you which is not necessarily the self, to master yourself, and to go and do follow the aim. Gurdjieff always talks about having an aim. The cs also said that self contemplation was ok, every once in a while, but the best is to think what you can give and do for others, one way or the other. So this "know thyself" it applies, but not always. It appears that is more relevant which <<facts>> of the world you accept and which you don't.

Another of my frustrations is people talk like some member of the inquisition or something, like <<oh those lizzies STS eaters, they are bad and they don't know!!>>, like what the hell are you talking about? you also eat, you also enjoy chewing dead animals, that doesn't make you better or does it? and I personally do enjoy chewing dead innocent creatures, because I do enjoy eating healthy (just in case some think I patronize this habit). Where is objective perception? some answers are full moralizations, full blaming, full interpretations. when will people stop thinking humanity is the center of the universe? Another problem is, when you talk about this people jump with <<you are a fear mongering agent!!>> come on, what's going on!! Andrew was so right when he exposed the "Hysteroidal cycle", people start reducing their capacity of accepting truth as harsh as it is in convenience to a happy outlook.

 

[Buddy]

Prometeo, I may be biased since bjorn wasn't addressing me, but actually I'm not reading passive-aggression in his response. I actually thought "the work for dummies" was a good idea and my mind didn't think of you at all when I read that, even though I knew who he was talking to.

So, with regards to the Work, maybe what Mouravieff said was true...about how the negative part of the emotional center receives the disagreeable impressions and then serves as a vehicle for the expression of negative emotions?

I see that you didn't get a concrete answer for your question about the ray of creation nor a nutshell answer to "what is the work?" I can't help with that ray of creation stuff because I don't understand it myself, but we could go a very long way in the Work, a la Gurdjieff, without that understanding, I think.

My reply is inspired by a recent re-examination of that Swerdlow piece in the Newage Cointelpro section on the main website:

http://cassiopaea.org/2010/09/18/swerdlow-controlled-via-satellite-or-reductio-ad-absurdum/

...and the massive amount of context and background needed for that piece in order to totally outflank Swerdlow's claims and leave him no recourse for answering without being caught in that contextual web of explanation.

THAT's what the Work is all about to me...being THAT response-able! And the Work that is required to get to that point.

Hope this helps someone...

 

[cubbex]

Prometeo, I may be biased since bjorn wasn't addressing me, but actually I'm not reading passive-aggression in his response

That was the way I found how to communicate it, but anyways I can be wrong. What I ask is simple, in particular to bjorn. What are the sources and facts that made you come with the ray of creation conclusion - god I hope is not an answer of some "read the wave", I've read it and even if it is mentioned in poetic type of ways, the focus of the volumes focus on many topics, in one chapter in particular talks about the tree of life for example - also, what are these ray of creation mechanics, dynamics, elements? I mean, damn, the entire gama. It's ok, the lizzies create tons of damage here, that is correlated to a sort of bulliness, but that may be incorrect since the hellhounds is the secret government who are the bullies we know and define, who are programmed to hurt and destroy to produce energy. Hell, we are also bullies with animals in several ways, but we have a need to eat and perform to survive. Thing is, one paradigm is made by the strict reality sort of attitude, when you consider the available facts and general research which provide data, but when one tries to make cs lore fit, the paradigm shifts, the lizzies and all those creeps appear like us, they hurt us, well they need to eat in massive amounts of energy to survive, just like we need to produce massive amounts of meat and food too. The logic is a bit broken when tried to make the cs fit along some moralizations, because like solarmind said which I agree in a sense, to make the cs lore fit absolutely along the other research, one have to take a sort of accepting attitude about the world and just do the best to help one way or the other. But these "they do not understand the ray of creation!" discriminations and prejudices... jesus.... it sounds like <<satan does not understand the glory of the angles, and blablabla, I do because Jesus loves me!!>> whatever.

And no, I don't try to refute or deny the cs material, I am focusing on bjorn <<logic>>.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Prometeo]Yes bjorn, I get it completelly, you think I am a dummy.[/quote]

Calm down. I did not attack you. You just perceived it as that. I suppose I was not external considerate enough with my words since obviously ‘’Dummy’’ set you of.

But you did said this:

[quote author= Prometeo]I guess I may understand. So, from your point of view, what's the aim of the work? what's it's purpose? I just want to understand your point correctly, if is related to the work, then I suppose it is also related to the results you are supposed to achieve with "the work"[/quote]

By asking this I assumed you were not familiar with the material because ‘’the work’’ is not subjective. Nobody’s aim in the work is differently. It’s working towards objectivity.

cool logic, if you can give me a source where I can read these ray of creation clauses

It was already given Prometeo. See the links Nail shared.

[quote author= Prometeo]NO! I trully want to know which facts you are basing on that idea of the ray of creation.[/quote]

See the links already shared. Different research material describe the laws or how creation functions. It’s just trying to complete the puzzle by cross-references it. That’s all.

I don’t have proof as in the material sense. How could I prove anything in that matter what is not psychical. Referring to the densities above us. But just look at the Abduction Phenomenon. Taking 1 report serious is not objective. But ignoring several thousands is also not objective. Clearly something is going on what needs our attention. Problem is we are dealing with a phenomenon, which is clearly not psychical. So the only logical next step would be to cross-reference the known reports and look if you can find a pattern to find clues of what may be going on.

We have to work with what we have. The C’s have a successful track-record. Search of the Miraculous makes sense but you may have to reach a certain threshold to fully appreciate it. Gnosis material wise like. All speak about how creation functions. They just not all use the same names for it. But what they describe is the same.

[quote author= Prometeo]I am focusing on bjorn[/quote]

Are you sure, Several people mentioned ‘’The Ray of Creation’’ I am the one you pick. Besides you mentioned before that people here have a habit of responding kind of angry on you when you ask something. May it be that focusing on bjorn is more like venting on bjorn.

 

[cubbex]

Are you sure, Several people mentioned ‘’The Ray of Creation’’ I am the one you pick. Besides you mentioned before that people here have a habit of responding kind of angry on you when you ask something. May it be that focusing on bjorn is more like venting on bjorn.

I get passionate yeah, it looks agressive because I get pumped on this stuff like popeye with spinach. I ask for pardon. And yeah, I'm talking to you, I'm asking you directly, quoting you. This forum has members who always praise science and its methods, the evidence, etc, and it does and it does amazingly, mostly from the advanced members like the mods. So I read the ray of creation stuff, I gotta keep the tradition and question these things. So I'm being honest like you ask, and I think you are not being objective, yes you smartly relate concepts from the glossary, who can't anyways, but as I said, recalling an author's theories do not mean producing a fact, it means just recalling and doing conceptual cross reference. Just like some have said, let's start from somewhere, so I take you as example to discuss what I think, is common thought errors. So is not really personal, so to speak.

By asking this I assumed you were not familiar with the material because ‘’the work’’ is not subjective. Nobody’s aim in the work is differently. It’s working towards objectivity.

Not really, the work and every study of any kind is subjective, as representations, concepts and imprints are absorbed and formed by the subject, then with discussion on the topics objectivity might be achieved. As I mentioned, one of the problems I've found by studying what "intelligence" is, is that for example science thinks they are objective by defining intelligence or consciousness with psychometric tests, but they don't, they all end up understanding these concepts depend mostly on what the psychometric test measures and on arbitrary definitions from human society. The <<work>> is not an exception, also, the work is subjective because no matter if you think if it is about knowing thyself or mastering thyself, or whatever, you still need to focus on two parameters, your own person and your environment, so clearly the subjectivity of the individual, along all of the subject's bias are important to consider, in order to consider an individual as an objective element, with all of its subjective traits that define the individual as one singular element.

I don’t have proof as in the material sense. How could I prove anything in that matter what is not psychical. Referring to the densities above us. But just look at the Abduction Phenomenon. Taking 1 report serious is not objective. But ignoring several thousands is also not objective. Clearly something is going on what needs our attention. Problem is we are dealing with a phenomenon, which is clearly not psychical. So the only logical next step would be to cross-reference the known reports and look if you can find a pattern to find clues of what may be going on.

The C’s have a successful track-record.

That's the point, you don't have proof neither do I, hence we cannot claim victory and state these ideas as facts, they are simply not. And I understand the cs so well, for example I became interested on artificial intelligence, and from there to study consciousness along studying Mouravieff. One thing that shocked me was when they mentioned the <<work>> as working on one's <<awareness>>, because that's a conclusion I was getting at, at first I thought I wouldn't define it like that, but searched and the <<awareness>> <<consciousness>> definitions are close to the same. I also began to find books about consciousness and study what some had to say, and I was surprised they described consciousness and its workings like the cassios, but they do had facts, and it's mostly working on awareness by an assimilation of information, through representations. Basically, lots of them end up describing consciousness as forming <<knowledge>>, again you can read "Consciousness and the Social Brain", and the one you can get for free on Stuart Hameroff page the book "The Emerging Physics of Consciousness". So clearly, there are ways to research <<phenomenon>>, but is totally different to state things like <<the ray of creation and so on and so on>>, sorry if others mentioned it too, throw me the pitchforks, but I take that as absolute BS. Other think is that I know what STO is, I've read those links several times, I got to this forum since I was 16 years old, so I've been hanging around for a time. That doesn't mean I need to just memorize that stuff, repeat it like a robot, avoid asking more questions and shut up. NO! It means to ask more, find what's wrong.

Taking 1 report serious is not objective.

Taking one seriously is objective, isolating definitions based on one report is not.

Search of the Miraculous makes sense but you may have to reach a certain threshold to fully appreciate it. Gnosis material wise like. All speak about how creations functions. They just not all use the same names for it. But what they describe is the same.

You still don't get it, is not that I dismiss search of the miraculous, what's wrong is that ray of creation stuff. And when I ask, and people do just mention links, I already know it, I get the theory, but how sure are you that even the definitions in the glossary are that correct? because it is a general consensus in the forum? maybe, but the world has also a general consensus on many things which are plain wrong. For example, you could have mentioned Mouravieff's stages of creation and octaves. I think he dissociated a bit, but I do think the 4th density guys do absolutely understand this ray of creation, they just chose to use such knowledge in ways we may not agree. This logic of <<this person doesn't do this, hence this person does not understand this>> is wrong, is deterministic, and it is black and white, and does not consider that not every understanding ends in action.

 

[thorbiorn]

Regarding the Queen, what if the UK dropped out of the US alliance, that would be a loss of US influence in Europe and other places too; the UK also has the world record of debt per capita.