Session 10 October 2015

[sitting]

Regarding the Queen, what if the UK dropped out of the US alliance,

I think that's highly unlikely.

The US & UK are joined at the hip. And the "City" itself may be nearer to the true power center than any other location on earth.

FWIW.

 

[Laura]

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. <snip>

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.

My goodness, you do have a lot of anger and projecting going on there. Bjorn is just trying to help and it really does look like you are doing the NIGYSOB number (or a variation thereof).

Thing is, Gurdjieff talks about the "ray of creation" and I'm not sure if anybody knows exactly what he meant though there is some considerable speculation. I don't talk about it except maybe in quoting Gurdjieff because I'm certainly not exactly sure what he means. He may have gotten the idea from some teaching he encountered, or he may have made it up. I do know that there is a lot of terminology that gets invented when people start philosophizing and/or theorizing, and that's nothing new.

Plato was an originator of many of the philosophical/metaphysical ideas and terms that have come down to us. Problem is, what he may have meant by a term may not be the way we understand it now thanks to the interpretations of the various schools that filtered things over the centuries.

An excellent book to get a grip on the basics of what these guys were doing, thinking, saying, trying to figure out, is Dillon's "The Middle Platonists." http://www.amazon.com/The-Middle-Platonists-B-C-A-D/dp/0801483166 There's an article about it on wikipedia also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Platonism

Among the things the Middle Platonists tried to work out were how energies of "higher realms" could move to "lower realms", how many realms there were (speculations varied), and a whole host of really fascinating things.

Things sort of congealed with Plotinus and the NeoPlatonists and it is probably from there that the ideas passed to/invented by Gurdjieff came.

Are they scientifically grounded? I don't think so, particularly not from the point of view of materialist science. However, having said that, you might want to look at some of the work of Ptolemy and Galen seen through the lens of Daryn Lehoux in his book "What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry into Science and Worldmaking". http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo12391506.html Both Ptolemy and Galen had some interesting ideas about optics and "rays" that seem silly to those of us who know how the eye/brain works, but recent ideas from Colin Ross and Rupert Sheldrake (and studies) make these ideas a bit less silly. Apparently, there are things that can be observed only by their effects... which is often a big problem for materialist science.


What does the "Ray of Creation" mean?

Well, I think that the "Ray of Creation" is possibly the "Life Principle" that can be observed as discussed in the works of Sir Alister Hardy and now, later, in Bryant Shiller's "The 5th Option." Just as a single-celled organism can diversify and branch out into more complicated systems via evolutionary principles, so may the "life principle/ray of creation" itself do likewise in information fields that inform matter. You can think of that as the action of a magnet on a handful of iron filings separated by a glass or sheet of paper, only more complex.

I don't know if I have gone any way toward answering the question that appears to be frustrating you so, but that's pretty much what I think about the topic. That is, I don't worry too much about it since it is all in the realm of theorizing and while I'm a great theorist, I like to do it based on observations, not just speculations based on some term that someone has made up. But I do try to find if there is any match between those older terms that people used when they didn't have precise scientific language and our scientific understanding today. An example would be the very close match between the psychological science of Martha Stout in her book "The Myth of Sanity" and Gurdjieff's "Many I" concepts. There is also some cognitive science that underpins both that is explicated in Mithen's book "The Prehistory of the Mind" and Wilson's "Strangers to Ourselves."

As Lehoux notes, if we drop the emphasis on terminology and instead focus on content, then the ancient sciences can be seen to be exactly that: science.

"Philosophers of the life science will be all too familiar with the tendency, until very recently, for modern accounts to treat physics as the paradigmatic science. Rich and complex philosophies of science have been developed that turn out not to be easily adapted to biology without assuming a harsh reductionism. One is reminded her of the old barb attributed to the physicist Ernest Rutherford, that 'in science there is physics, everything else is stamp collecting.' Philosophers of biology have been reacting against this conception for some time now, and recent work has begun to focus on possible problems with expecting biology to obey the kinds of specific laws that physics is so fond of."

 

[Oxajil]

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.

"Some people know themselves quite well", I'm not entirely sure about that unless these are people who have done much work on themselves already. Knowing and mastering yourself kind of go hand in hand, if you learn what triggers you to get emotional for example, you learn how to spot it, and control yourself from reacting emotionally. Also, knowing yourself isn't just about contemplating.

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.

Prometeo, have you read Timothy Wilson's 'Strangers to Ourselves'?

Blindness to one’s character can lead people to make poor choices, such as the man who assumes that he has what it takes to lead a fulfilling life as a lawyer when he is better suited to be a teacher, or the woman who turns down an offer to make an important speech because of the mistaken belief that she could never pull it off.

... research on the adaptive unconscious suggests that much of what we want to see is unseeable. ... The bad news is that it is difficult to know ourselves because there is no direct access to the adaptive unconscious, no matter how hard we try. Because our minds have evolved to operate largely outside of consciousness, and nonconscious processing is part of the architecture of the brain, it may be not be possible to gain direct access to nonconscious processes.

Networking is a crucial part of the Work. It enables us to see certain issues from points of view we ourselves could never consider, due to our blind spot(s).

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.

Well, I think there are lies on the one hand, facts on the other hand, and hypotheses based on certain facts and objective information. The point is to move to a reality that is as objective as possible; with regard to knowing the self, knowing the world, and knowing how to relate with one another in this world. Which involves doing as well. Fwiw.

 

[Joe]

What are the sources and facts that made you come with the ray of creation conclusion

What I find interesting Prometeo is that you demand a precise answer from others on the meaning of a certain concept (the one quoted above in this case) yet in making your demand you write long, rambling posts that make little sense and are full of personal invective against others.

To answer your question so that you don't engage in any further long, obscure soliloquies; there are no facts around the ray of creation idea, it is a theory based on Gurdjieff and then Mouravieff's interpretation of what seems to be process of life in the universe and how it is organised and the 'rules' that apply. So the source is therefore Gurdjieff and the source (unknown) that he got it from. I'm pretty sure you could have answered that for yourself though. Then again, answering your "precise" question doesn't seem to have been your goal, rather, your goal appears to have been to "strain at gnats while swallowing camels".

 

[Siberia]

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?

Hi Prometeo,

My understanding is that there is difference. It is true that we all need to eat other life forms in order to survive, but I think it's not the same when you only eat to fulfill your basic survival needs and the case when someone has insatiable hunger for everyone and everything. Also, I think it really matters if you give something back to the Universe in return. So, as I understand it, there should be balance: you consume food which gives you energy, and then with this energy you can create something useful for others.

I think Joe Quinn explained it great in this Sott article:

Ideally, what makes humans feel good would be synonymous with what they need to survive. At their foundation, human needs are quite simple: cooperation with others, a sense of community and access to adequate food, water and shelter. 'Mother nature' has provided more than sufficient renewable resources for all species on this planet to thrive. Some species of animals on this planet even kill their own kind, but always in the context of survival. So killing for survival is not a moral question, and therefore not a 'problem' for any society.

A hardwired genetic or moral 'code' in all normal humans and animals appears to act as a safeguard against any species on this planet deviating from the 'natural order' and engaging in wanton destruction of its environment or fellow beings, even in 'hard' times. In this way, the continuation of the species and its habitat is secured. By now, I hope you can see where I'm going with this.

Human beings are the only species on this planet that produces members who appear to kill for nothing more than the 'fun' of it. This seems to be a deviation from the 'natural order'; certainly, such individuals are not 'normal in the sense that they appear to be a relatively small minority. Trophy hunters are one example of this deviancy, but their ethical excesses are insignificant compared to the licentiousness of the aforementioned Western government policy makers.

I agree with that. Yes, we are all more or less STS in this 3D world. But some people tend to consume less and share more, while others do the opposite, and there is also a spectrum in between. So, I think it's everyone's choice who they decide to align themselves with.

Anyway, that's my current subjective understanding of it, hope it may be of help.

Also, thank you all for this great new session, there's much to ponder as always, this time about representation and self-representation, and other interesting things.

 

[sbeaudry]

Thanks very much for the session. I look forward to these and they are always very interesting.

Regarding the Queen, what if the UK dropped out of the US alliance,

I think that's highly unlikely.

The US & UK are joined at the hip. And the "City" itself may be nearer to the true power center than any other location on earth.

FWIW.

Yeah I was wondering about that as well. If they can't just kick the table and ruin the board what does losing the queen look like? The queen can stare down a lot of opponents at once and move very quickly, so... I am at a loss. My initial thoughts are economics. If the US economy crashed would we become like warring states or just very busy internally? That would be a major distraction from global hegemony. I don't know.

 

[Buddy]

I find myself going back and re-reading this session over and over and giving it a lot of thought. I think the idea of modeling oneself after the people we want to be LIKE and to be WITH is very important and directly connected with the idea of FRV...sort of like linking frequencies to expand influence in the outer world and, through feedback, making our individual and collective 'centers' stronger.

Having recently completed Alfred Korzybski's The Manhood of Humanity, I seem to have another excellent lens (the time-binding concept) through which to view the Cassiopaean Experiment. If anyone wants to discuss the work within a time-binding framework we can start a new topic, but for this post I just wanted to express a certain idea.

I started reading The Wave and The Adventures Series 8 years ago or longer. I'm still reading comprehensive works on a wide range of other topics on this site as well as doing independent research. The amount of information and knowledge here is incredible!

Back in the days when man was living more like a savage, it took a very long time to create just a couple of tools and a little bit of helpful knowledge to pass on to the kids. The next generation could add to that, but still it took a long time to make a significant advance somewhere and to leave something useful for the next generation. The notable thing here is that every generation did not have to start civilization from scratch. Knowledge and tools accumulate and all that came before was wrapped up in the accumulation of what we learned over time and all the advancements that have been made, were encoded in each generation's language, tools, skills and so forth.

Today we are blessed with Laura, her work and the activities of the Chateau crew who keep going day after day. The power to roll up continuously the achievements of generation after generation is fantastic in it's full value to humanity and as a representation of our time-binding capacity.

In the above mentioned book, it becomes easy to see that this ability is an exponential power or function of time. When you look at the sheer volume of knowledge of history, politics, religion and so forth that Laura and others before her have rolled up for all of us today, it seems almost like the only way to achieve further exponential growth is by blowing all this up, or expanding it as wide and deep as possible to the 'four corners of the earth', so to speak.

IMO, all of this proves that certain 17th century philosophers were wrong about humanity and many of us have inherited fatal flaws in our beliefs and conceptions of ourselves. IMO, we are NOT animals. We are not some animal-god hybrid, in such a way that when we strive to be "more divine" and fall short, we are then justified in giving in to some kind of animal-like behaviors. That is not what we are as I see it. We are another class of being and we can act with more class. :)

Some of this might be easy to dismiss, and even though I still agree with what Gurdjieff wanted to accomplish, I also think we can be stung into an awareness that many of us do still hold beliefs about how "base and animalistic" we are by nature and that, rather than be true by some designer plan, it rather becomes true by self-fulfilling prophesy for any who really believes it.

On a different note, I'm still thinking about that "discontinuity" reference in the session and find that sticking in my mind and I think exploring it might be useful. Right now and in the near future, there are lots of people, poor, homeless, or just working their butts off and who have no time to develop and practice their own time-binding abilities. I believe that's where we come in. We could work on widening, deepening and simplifying our own personal knowledge so that helpful information and knowledge tools can be passed around to others to help them really figure out what's going on and how to "get out alive."

That's kinda where I see us all today, for the most part.

 

[sitting]

My initial thoughts are economics. If the US economy crashed would we become like warring states or just very busy internally? That would be a major distraction from global hegemony. I don't know.

My initial thoughts were stock markets.

Now it looks less likely -- although the Chinese market IS down 40% and has stayed down. Now they also said this in latest session:

Q: (L) Okay. "Many changes" in reference to what?

A: Global politics and cosmic yet to fully descend.

Best to wait & see I guess.

FWIW.

 

[ka]

Hi Buddy,

Right now and in the near future, there are lots of people, poor, homeless, or just working their butts off and who have no time to develop and practice their own time-binding abilities. I believe that's where we come in. We could work on widening, deepening and simplifying our own personal knowledge so that helpful information and knowledge tools can be passed around to others to help them really figure out what's going on and how to "get out alive."

That's kinda where I see us all today, for the most part.

Your vision resonates with me. I can’t think of a higher calling than to make valuable knowledge available to people who need it, in a form they can understand and use.

The early Christian saints and holy men were often described as “Christ-carrying men.” An Egyptian monk who was later canonized as St Pachomius said of his teacher that, in his presence, he felt as if he was in the presence of Christ.

That ideal of wisdom was actually borrowed from the pagan philosophers, who aspired not only to become wise, but to BE truth, to embody wisdom in their own selves, their own lives, actions and words.

But when pagan civilization broke down into chaos and violence, it was the Christian version of wisdom that sustained people through the troubles.

Right now, Plotinus appeals more to me than St Paul; but I wasn’t born and acculturated to the kind of reality we seem to be heading into.

I intend to meditate on what I might need to change in myself if I want to be able to carry wisdom into troubled times.

 

[cubbex]

Yeah I demand precise answers, because I really consider that base my paradigm on things like "the ray of creation" and "the work" to be a waste of time, especially if nobody can really come to terms with it, in this case I could just as well invent whatever I want to name it "work" and dissociate with it. Another is that I notice people just go talking about <<the work>> just like talking about the holy spirit, they all talk about it, they all apparently do it and know it, but then when you ask them what is it, everyones says different things, and I understand there is partial subjectivity in all of this, but it gets confusing and one does not know who to listen, this or that other person. So yeah, I get annoyed when these pure theoretical interpretations are proposed as truth and facts, worse if someone comes with the <<I need to explain it as if you are a child>>, lol, the more advanced and technical you can go the better.

I got the book Strangers to Ourselves, I need to finish some other reading to go on it. Thanks.

So finally, just to add something after my rambling posts, I recently found this related to this self-presentation and self-representation, I found this in the book I mentioned <<Consciousness and the Social Brain>> in che chapter <<Multiple Interlocking Functions of the Brain Area TPJ>>

In the previous chapter I pointed out a strange coincidence, if it is a coincidence. A region of the brain, encompassing the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) and superior temporal sulcus (STS), is active during social thinking. This brain region is recruited when people think about other people’s minds. Yet the same general region of the brain, when damaged, can cause a devastating disruption in one’s own awareness of the world. It can cause clinical neglect. To me, the overlap of these two properties provided an initial clue. It suggested a deep connection between social thinking and awareness. It suggested that just as we use our social intelligence to attribute awareness to someone else, we may also attribute awareness to ourselves. Awareness itself may be a construct computed by some part of the social machinery.

Over the years, more findings have accumulated about the STS and TPJ, and each new discovery has tended to spark a round of confusion and skepticism. The TPJ in particular is piling up function after function. Either it is a cortical Rorschach, revealing any function you choose to see in it, or its many disparate functions are related in some deep manner that is not generally appreciated. To me, these many functions point clearly in one direction. They point toward the attention schema theory. They point toward awareness as a specific aspect of computing models of minds.

One set of experiments, however, obtained surprising results that seemed to conflict with the traditional view. When a person’s attention was shifted to a new location, especially to a sudden or unexpected stimulus, the brain showed elevated activity in a set of areas including the TPJ, some parts of the STS, and a region in the lower part of the frontal lobe. The brain activity was strongest in the right hemisphere.

Is the TPJ related to social thinking or to attention? In the attention schema theory, the attentional functions and the social functions are not in contradiction. One of the fundamental points of this theory is that modeling attention is an important part of modeling a mind. To understand and predict the behavior of another person, it is useful to model that person’s attentional dynamics. To understand and predict one’s own behavior, it is useful to model one’s own attentional dynamics. In this theory, the regions of the brain involved in social perception should also be involved in tracking or monitoring or modeling one’s own attention.

It has been argued that the two functions, the attention functions and the social cognition functions, are represented in separate areas in the TPJ that happen to be so near each other that the brain scanning techniques have blurred them. For example, one functional imaging study found that attention tasks and social cognition tasks recruited overlapping areas of activity in the TPJ, but the areas of activation had distinct, spatially separated peaks.

When people reminisce, recalling specific memories from their own past lives, a widespread set of brain areas is typically active, among them, consistently, the TPJ.

This apparent involvement of the TPJ with autobiographical memory provides another piece of the larger puzzle. In the attention schema theory, awareness is a constructed feature, a bundle of information, that can be bound to other information in the brain. One type of information particularly relevant to consciousness is self-knowledge—not just knowledge of your physical body, not just knowledge of your current emotions and thoughts, but also your autobiographical memories that help to define your sense of personhood and your sense of continuity through time. In the present theory, autobiographical memories are not a part of awareness itself. But they can be linked to awareness. They help define the “I” in “I am aware of X.” Whatever computes the proposed attention schema, it should have a special relationship to autobiographical memory.

Maybe awareness is a social attribution, it may be related to how we represent ourselves, a capacity to atribute traits to others and to ourselves.

 

[David]

Mentioning continuity and discontinuity...

My understanding related to ‘discontinuity’ is related to the ‘base and animalistic’ part of humanity, and its effect in causing a zoning out or filtering out of reality that is, leaving some in discombobulated state of existence, rendered inoperable in seeing reality as it is and acting on that reality appropriately... though only permanent, if there’s no help osit or rather I hopefully think so...

And if a great number of people, have been rendered inoperable in seeing reality as it is... And by not seeing that reality it flourishes, a pathological reality in some respects that simply produces more of the same, generation after generation, revolution after bloody revolution... though knowledge helps one to look at reality without flinching so much... and perhaps without becoming part of a mob.

And If some of us are just nothing more than reading instruments, well DCM might do more than just not blink... if some are really looking at the reality that is, without flinching... how else to merge or split realities...? How else to enable any change at all... without looking at the reality that is.

Just my thoughts... FWIW

 

[bjorb]

I know that the '5th option' is on the recommended list. I didn’t read it of yet.

If RD (Rational Design) fit’s. It could be 'translated' in how energies of ''higher density’s’’ take its effect on ''lower densities'' (3D biological life) If it’s done intelligently purposefully I suppose you can call it the ‘’Ray of Creation.’’ 6D through 4D STO beings acting together. Seeding the universe?

Of course it can also be perverted. (4STS)

But again I am not familiar with the material. What do I know. I am grateful with the referred material. Will look it up sooner or later.

It’s a puzzle worth solving I think. I just don’t know if its effects can ever be truly measured. But everything starts with a theory.

Anyhow, back on topic.

 

[Laura]

Yeah I demand precise answers, because I really consider that base my paradigm on things like "the ray of creation" and "the work" to be a waste of time, especially if nobody can really come to terms with it, in this case I could just as well invent whatever I want to name it "work" and dissociate with it. Another is that I notice people just go talking about <<the work>> just like talking about the holy spirit, they all talk about it, they all apparently do it and know it, but then when you ask them what is it, everyones says different things, and I understand there is partial subjectivity in all of this, but it gets confusing and one does not know who to listen, this or that other person. So yeah, I get annoyed when these pure theoretical interpretations are proposed as truth and facts, worse if someone comes with the <<I need to explain it as if you are a child>>, lol, the more advanced and technical you can go the better.

What IS clear is that one aspect of the work that you might concentrate on is what is called External Considering. Your social style leaves much to be desired.

 

[Buddy]

Another is that I notice people just go talking about <<the work>> just like talking about the holy spirit, they all talk about it, they all apparently do it and know it, but then when you ask them what is it, everyones says different things, and I understand there is partial subjectivity in all of this, but it gets confusing and one does not know who to listen, this or that other person.

Prometeo, did you ever finish reading The Wave?

 

[cubbex]

Prometeo, did you ever finish reading The Wave?

Yeah, if you think I need to read one chapter in particular let me know.