Session Date: October 14th 2017
Laura, Andromeda, and Artemis at the board
Pierre, Joe, Chu, Ark, Mikey, Scottie, Niall, Opal the Majesticat, Noko the Wonderdog, Princess Leia
Q: (L) This is October 14, 2017. [Review of those present] Anyway, here we are.
A: Good evening kinder! Zillineaea of Cassiopaea family.
Q: (L) Okay. We don't have any proper questions.
(Ark) We had these strange events... There were a number of events recently, like 10 days or so, which were kind of unusual. Sometimes for me they were mysterious, like disappearing things … like in a different reality or something. And then we had our cat that somehow went on the tree and we didn't see her for an entire day. Well, finally she was found in the tree. There were booms, explosions; breaking of electrical lines by digging; Cherie injured; the peacock sick. So, nothing really terrible happened, but it could happen. So, the question is: Is there any meaning that we should be aware of in this sequence of events?
A: General chaotic energies of transition affect environment in many ways. Creatures often suffer thereby. You are doing well with attention and vigilance.
Q: (L) You say the word, "transition"... What kind of transition are we talking about here?
A: Planetary movement through space-time area of realm border.
Q: (Joe) We hit some turbulence flying through space.
(Artemis) It's like when you're giving birth and like the head comes out?
(L) I don't get that...
(Artemis) Is it something like that?
A: Not exactly. More like dissolution followed by reconstitution.
Q: (L) So it's like something being dissolved. Once everything is dissolved in the solution, and everything is chaotically mixed up, then the solution will be evaporated and the dissolved substances will precipitate out? Is that closer?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) So, we are in a period where the energies around us are basically dissolving things. Is that it?
A: Close. If subject to that. Other things are solid and merely experience the surrounding chaos externally.
Q: (L) So maybe that relates to like some people who are disintegrating. It kinda goes back to: do you go under the Wave, or do you surf it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Those that go under the Wave get dissolved. Those who ride the Wave or surf it... And it affects our critters and things around us, but because of their interaction with us, we can pull them along with us on the crest of the Wave. Is that it?
A: Yes
Q: (Artemis) But it was interesting that it was Cherie and Opal who were most affected.
(L) My particular critters.
(Andromeda) Cherie, Opal, but then Penelope too. And Mr. Peacock. And the sparrows.
(L) Mr. Peacock is my critter. Why is it that my particular critters - my dog, my cat, my peacock - are being hit?
A: Lensing effect.
Q: (Artemis) What does that mean?
A: "Agents" attempt to focus energies of environment on you.
Q: (Pierre) So what's happening is these changes are related to these chaotic environmental energies. And some agents are trying to redirect those disturbing chaotic energies on you. The lensing effect means not only it will affect you, but it will affect any creature - human or non-human - that is close to you.
(Andromeda) Or maybe they're taking the effect, the brunt.
A: Yes
Q: (Artemis) That would explain why Castelsarrasin is getting crazier. People are driving very crazy lately. Being very aggressive.
(L) So even the region is experiencing this?
A: Yes
Q: (L) That's why I don't go anywhere. I'm staying home!
(Ark) Am I one of these creatures?
A: No!
Q: (L) Well, can I ask one other little line of questions before you take over, Joe?
(Joe) I'm not gonna take over. I only have a couple of questions. But go ahead.
(L) Recently, I read some works by R.G. Collingwood, _The Idea of History_, which was kind of the philosophy of history and of thought. And then his kind of main philosophy called _Speculum Mentis_. It's more like just pure philosophy. It struck me that he presented a far more interesting interpretation of reality, as in the material world vs. the world of thought, information vs. matter, in almost a way similar to what Gurdjieff did except that his {Collingwood's} was better and more self-consistent.
Following reading this book, I read this hermeneutic examination of Gurdjieff's work, which was in a way rather disturbing. On the one hand, I could kind of understand Gurdjieff, but on the other hand the book was very disturbing - especially since I had just previously read about half of another book that was kind of written to tear Gurdjieff apart. I didn't finish that one because I was so upset at the guy's efforts to demean Gurdjieff, or so it seemed to me. So I quit reading it.
Nevertheless, the facts that this book that I didn't read all of put into place in terms of all of the controversies about Gurdjieff's life, the fact that various people had gone to investigate many of his claims and so forth, and essentially, nothing he ever wrote - for example in Meetings with Remarkable Men, or things he told people about his past - could possibly have been true; or if it was true, it was only a seed of truth here and there; the end result being that basically, his whole life was a lie!
I found that extremely distressing because it just seemed to me that something based on so many lies, even if people try to excuse him by saying he was trying to do a good thing and he had a specific purpose and he was maneuvering people or whatever for their own good, the fact is that he told SO MANY LIES even to his closest confidants. So how can something based on so many lies serve as a foundation for other people to build a Work on? This is one part of my question.
And the other part is that not only was his life, his doings, and his supposed quest a lie in the terms he described it, but it turns out that many of the things that he presented as his teaching were pretty much made up out of his head though he claimed it was an ancient tradition. I mean, for example, the Enneagram and the system of hydrogens and so on and so forth. What struck me after reading Collingwood was that Gurdjieff got caught in this trap that Collingwood writes about: the trap of the scientific thought that prevailed at that particular point in history.
It wasn't that scientific thought was wrong or that science didn't proceed, but that Gurdjieff didn't understand it completely and he got caught by it and tried to make a so-called "scientific" system. He had his scientific Enneagram, and his scientific table of hydrogens, and his so-called scientific exercises for self-development all claimed to be an ancient system that he was bringing back to the world from his adventures. And it was all just Gurdjieff experimenting on people based on a really distorted view of the world, or the cosmos, and of reality.
This, in a sense, explains why his... How do I want to say it? It explains why his groups are so barren. They are barren. You don't see them talking about anything that really makes a difference in even their own lives. They sit around and have these meetings and they're silent and supposedly observing themselves; they practice movements and so on. And they achieve nothing if William Patrick Patterson is anything to go by. And they do nothing for society. A person who achieves some kind of enlightenment or development - if he's not sharing or doing something towards the people around him or humanity or the universe, just being a good workman for the universe in whatever way it's possible for him to be - then what's the point of it? It's a barren system!
So, having said all of that, you once said that Gurdjieff's Enneagram system was something like 50% correct. Does anybody remember it?
(Andromeda) I don't remember it exactly, but I know what you're talking about.
(L) So, I would like to know in what sense is this Enneagram a useful tool?
A: Even lies have a bit of truth. Gurdjieff used his imagination and mediums to construct his system. In a project of that sort, it is not unusual to get some truth. Otherwise it would make no sense at all! The Enneagram system is accurate enough for 3rd density systems with no input from awareness.
Q: (Joe) No input of awareness from people, or... Just a cold reading of someone.
(L) So the Enneagram is kind of the way the mechanical system works.
(Joe) No input from the person, and no input from people who might know the person...
(L) I think they're talking about the Enneagram being 3rd density systems.
(Joe) Okay.
(Pierre) The Enneagram the way the C's define it finally, is similar to the whole cosmogony that Gurdjieff developed, this mechanistic cosmogony. I find two major flaws in it. First, everything is reduced to mechanics. There's no more soul, consciousness, or spirit. Plus there's a breach of free will in his way of trying to spread this knowledge. Not hypnotizing people without their informed consent is of prime importance, and he did not respect the free will of his followers.
(L) So, Gurdjieff had the idea that human life exists to feed the cosmos, that the living system exists to feed His "Allness" or whatever... the great cosmic cycle or system. Is that the case?
A: No!
Q: (L) And I guess since you have already told us that the universe exists because it's a school and free will is the most important law, and learning and growing is the purpose we won’t get distracted by re-asking those questions; but why would Gurdjieff say something like that?
A: He observed life and that was the materialistic interpretation he put on what he perceived. However, as we have explained, such matters reflect the nature of 4D STS and its need to survive against its own diminishing nature. It acts as a catalyst for growth at 3rd level.
Q: (L) So you're suggesting that Gurdjieff observed the way life was and the craziness and the manipulations and how people get into wars and kill each other and hurt each other and the pain and suffering and misery, and he thought that it was all designed as a big feeding system for the Great Sun Absolute, when what he was really perceiving was just the 4D STS manipulations of our reality which acts as a medium for our growth. Is that what you're saying so to say?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) So he saw life objectively, but he just didn't see it in the context as a medium for growth (or against other densities).
(Andromeda) Right.
(Pierre) And he didn't ascribe it to the proper authors because actually in Tamdgidi's book in the beginning, he talks about the Great Absolute and the creation, the Big Bang. And he mentions before the Big Bang, the Great Absolute, became aware of - almost word for word what the Cs just said - its diminishing nature because of this kind of entropy. And to counteract those forces...
(L) And so basically what he was describing as the Great Sun Absolute was really just the nature of 4D STS in its interaction with the Earth and humanity.
(Pierre) Yeah.
(L) The diminishing nature.
(Pierre) It's almost word for word what Gurdjieff uses.
(Joe) And the way he saw... his solution... he didn't see it as an opportunity for growth or for learning. He didn't really have a way out of it, did he; he doesn't present a definitive alternative or another way to perceive reality?
(L) His solution is for the human being to crystallize.
(Joe) Right.
(L) And become a companion to the Great Sun Absolute, right?
(Joe) At least to not be subject to the predations of the consuming universe... you can escape it. But where does that put you? What function do you have then? Are you part of it then? You just become higher up on the pecking order or something?
(L) Yeah. And then there's also...
(Joe) Did Gurdjieff not describe the reason for the work on the self?
(L) Well, his way of working on the self is not dynamic. It's very static and mechanical. It works probably for... And like I said, the Gurdjieff groups are barren!
(Joe) Right.
(L) I mean, O__ went around and hooked up with different groups around the world, and questioned them. None of them seemed to be remotely aware of hyperdimensional realities. None of them seemed to have ANY social conscience or feeling of giving or sharing to others, responsibility to the universe, at all! It's like working in a Gurdjieff group destroys that. It's designed to destroy that.
(Joe) And that's part of Gurdjieff's teaching.
(L) No, it's not! That's the effect it has...
(Pierre) The little compassion and conscience people might have gets destroyed when this purely materialistic paradigm is imposed on them, this idea that the Universe is ultimately going to eat them. And then this giving or sharing to others and responsibility to the universe doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter.
(Mikey) How much of Gurdjieff's teachings came from mediums as opposed to transmissions of a tradition?
A: 83 percent
Q: (Andromeda) That's a lot.
(Joe) 83 percent from mediums that he didn't have any real control over.
(Chu) But then if he thought everything was material, how could he believe in mediums?
(L) Because supposedly, you could go inside a medium's head and they would be able to perceive the material universe.
(Joe) Tapping into deeper truths.
(L) Just because he was using mediums didn't mean that he thought he was contacting really spiritual realms. He was supposedly just tapping the subconscious mind that he believed knew everything.
(Joe) I mean, his whole teaching is about the mechanical nature of man, and how to get over it, right? How to master yourself, ya know...
(L) In a mechanical way.
(Joe) But to what end? Simply to not be a victim to the vicissitudes of life and your own nature, basically. But that's it, right? You just overcome that, and then...
(L) Yeah, well, he talks about crystallizing a soul.
(Joe) Right.
(L) {Addressing Cs} You have already said that all souls exist from the beginning, and that souls are not created as we go along through time. We asked about that some time ago when we were asking about Messages from Michael and so forth. And you've also talked about instances of large soul groups such as organic portals or whatever - group souls, souls of animals, and so on and so forth. So basically, we already have kind of a system here that you have given that is quite different from what Gurdjieff proposed, which was that people had to GROW a soul. It was like something that if you didn't have it, when you died, you died. And if you were only partly crystallized, well then a certain number of days after you died, that you would be kind of like floating in some atmospheric area and then even that part of you would die. That's kind of what I got from reading this book. And I think that was partly from some of the ancient traditions, actually.
(Joe) That's what the Cs have said about kind of a "pool".
(L) Well, going into a pool is one thing – there is still soul involved even if it is a fragment of a larger soul - but here Gurdjieff had the idea that there is no such thing as soul as we conceive it; a soul had to be “grown” or crystallized in a given lifetime and even then, it was material.
(Mikey) Which parts of Gurdjieff's teachings are still most useful to read?
A: Psychology, up to a point.
Q: (Joe) Maybe we should cut Gurdjieff some slack, ya know? Because the way he described the mechanical nature of man is a very good basis on which to build like what you and the Cs have done. What they've added to that is certainly very compatible. He fleshed it all out very well, and it fits with a lot of the stuff the Cs have said. It's the first installment, and Gurdjieff could only go so far. I suppose you can't expect someone to have the whole banana, right?
(L) Right.
(Chu) What was Gurdjieff trying to achieve?
A: His own salvation and immortal life.
Q: (Joe) And was he successful?
A: Not by his terms. He was actually rather surprised!
Q: (Pierre) Was the surprise that after dying, he...
(Joe) That he got a lot wrong, yeah.
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) He was a really tragic figure for me because he was smart. He was observing things. He was so above all these people that he had NO HELP from anyone because...
(L) No one was equal to him.
(Ark) Yes. But on the other hand, he was not looking for help I don't think... He thought he was above everybody.
(L) He WAS above everybody, but because he knew he was, he cut himself off from the help that he could possibly have gotten. A network of others to give feedback is invaluable. That is one thing the Cs have taught us.
(Joe) I wonder... His own fixation on materialism and seeing the material universe as the be-all and end-all ... I mean, it kinda reflected in his approach to life. You talked about Idiots in Paris and the way he ate and how he abused himself with food and alcohol and bad living habits basically and probably caused himself an early death. The descriptions of the feasts he used to have were extreme, just eat and eat and eat...
(L) And that was contradictory to his whole thing: that you've got to learn about your machine in order to take care of it properly in order to preserve your life long enough in order to be able to have time enough to figure things out and to work on yourself.
(Joe) But how did he not see the negative health effects that he had from how he was eating?
(Pierre) In his mind, he was above it. (He thought he was crystallized and could do what he pleased.)
(L) I think he thought that he... Well, it was kind of like Edgar Cayce. He, too, died fairly young, and he was doing all these health readings for all these people, but he wasn't applying it to himself.
(Artemis) So was Gurdjieff depressed?
(L) I don't think he was depressed.
(Artemis) Or unhappy?
(L) No, but he just ate sugar like it was the only thing in existence.
(Pierre) And drank alcohol.
(L) Wine, Armagnac!
(Pierre) Driving like a maniac.
(L) Keeping late hours, never sleeping... Oh, and that was another thing! He thought that sleeping was a complete waste of time, and we know that sleeping is when your soul recharges itself. He thought that dreams were a sign of something wrong, and we know that dreams are important. Yes, dreams can be used to program negatively like via 4D STS or whatever; but we also know that they are big clues or cues. They can be prophetic, they can be profoundly revealing. Jungian analysis demonstrates the value of dreams.
(Niall) Dreams can tell you that something's wrong, and it's not that they, in themselves, are wrong.
(L) Yeah, these wonderful Jungian explorations. That's when you come into contact with the greater part of your soul or soul group. So Gurdjieff got a LOT of things really mixed up because...
(Joe) He defined the human problem really well, but he didn't have a proper context in which to put it. A spiritual context.
(L) Well, let's face it: neither did we. When we started talking to the Cs, the kind of stupid, ignorant, New Agey, Madame Blavatskyite kinds of things I would ask...
(Artemis) They were endearing.
(L) They embarrass me now that I was so stupid!
(Artemis) Oh, don't judge yourself so harshly. I ask banana questions all the time.
(Pierre) You know, if you put it back in the context of the 1930s... Gurdjieff's alone, doing all what he did, writing those ideas he had, by himself... In this context, it's an amazing achievement. This guy is a genius.
(Joe) Yeah.
(Pierre) But maybe he fell for the main threat that looms over the heads of geniuses: ego.
(Niall) At the same time, Collingwood was his contemporary, and had he come across Collingwood, he might have been more informed...
(Chu) But notice the Cs said he was trying to achieve his own salvation and immortal life. With the stuff about hypnotizing others and other things, there doesn't seem to be any altruistic motive. Your own salvation at what price to others?
(L) He made it clear that he was experimenting, but that the people he was experimenting on would benefit as a side effect of his objectives. And he said that clearly in his book Herald of the Coming Good.
(Pierre) And you're right, but when you embrace a materialistic paradigm, each individual is just a piece of meat. There's nothing that links us. There's no soul, there's no spirit, there's no community.
(Joe) But maybe he was a victim of his own analysis of the very mechanical nature of human beings. He saw very clearly that people were just machines. So he just thought well, these people are lost, so at least if I do something with them, they might benefit. But he didn't see the whole reason for 3D existing for learning lessons. He didn't have a rational cosmology, basically.
(Pierre) He threw out the baby with the bathwater.
(Andromeda) It seems to me like he didn't have a heart because he was kind of lonely.
(L) Yeah, and of course he had experiences as a child that probably scarred him. That’s what Tamdgidi suggests.
A: Enneagram is useful for understanding machine.
Q: (L) So that helps you to really understand mechanical programs. It IS very useful for that. And what about his tables of hydrogens?
A: He was onto something though again it was materialized. But you might have more success interpreting the "foods" as stimuli to the nervous system and its consequent release of neurochemicals and hormones. It was actually a quite clever description of same!
Q: (L) I think what they're saying is that Gurdjieff was trying to explain how external events and stimuli and impressions and so forth and interactions like physical or sexual or food or whatever come in and interact with the body and cause the body to produce neurochemicals and hormones which then change the state of the body. This can be at different levels. It can be physical, it can be emotional, it can be mental, and it can change the emotional state or mental state so that these hydrogens or so-called "foods" were basically just him trying to describe the dynamic interaction of the physical system with its environment.
(Joe) And with the non-physical environment.
(L) Yes. Very often what impinges on the person is non-material. There are thoughts and ideas and spiritual or non-material things, but they produce very definite physical effects in the body.
(Andromeda) Physical or emotional.
(L) Well, emotional is largely physical; it's hormones and neurochemicals.
(Ark) I don't think he could invent it all by himself. I think he learned something from the yogis somewhere.
(L) Well, they said eighty-some percent was him making stuff up and using mediums, so that leaves a certain percentage to come from yogis and monks. Okay, I guess that's enough on Gurdjieff right now. I guess it's time for Joe to have his heyday since he called the meeting tonight.
(Artemis) Joe, can you hold off for a minute?
(Joe) Mm-hmm.
(Artemis) Since you spoke of dreams, I wanted to ask: I had a dream about somebody trying to break into our house. Was that a vision, or just symbolic, or what was that dream about?
A: Reflective of attempts of agents to direct negative energies of chaos.
Q: (L) Yeah. So we should always be alert and aware and pay attention to these dreams. And when we have such dreams, to tighten up our awareness and be awake and alert.
A: Yes yes yes!
Q: (Artemis) Can the same be said about the dreams I've been having - and I don't want to creep anybody out - about the devil coming?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Well things are CRAZY out there, sweetie! It's like so unbelievably crazy right now, we must really be passing through a realm border. There is no other way to explain what... I mean, it's like the whole... I can't even... I don't even want to talk about it right now.
(Andromeda) It's gone past Insane Asylum...
(L) Yeah, it's past that. It's... Yeah.
(Artemis) Should we leave the devil comment out? I'm afraid that'll freak people out.
(L) No.
(Joe) People might be having similar dreams.
(L) Yeah, other people may be having other dreams like that, too. Okay, you want to ask about your Vegas thing, Joe? Do you have a clearly formulated series of questions that you're going to ask?
(Joe) Just one.
(L) Just one? Okay. [laughter]
(Joe) Was there more than one shooter?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Oh, well that leads to another question! [laughter] How many?
A: 3
Q: (Joe) How many were in the hotel room?
A: 2
Q: (Joe) Did Paddock do any shooting, or was he dead already?
A: Dead
Q: (Joe) There was a security guard who came up to the floor. Is that security guard, Jesus Campos, a legitimate security guard?
A: He is and is not
Q: (L) In other words, he was hired as a security guard, although he wasn't licensed?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) But was he one of the conspirators?
A: No
Q: (Joe) Okay, so he's a useful idiot in a certain sense. And the drilling sound that he allegedly heard in the room, was that these shooters inside the room drilling in order to escape unseen?
A: Yes.
Q: (Artemis) Why do they sometimes write "Yes." and sometimes just move to "Yes" on the board?
(L) I dunno. Maybe it’s emphasis.
(Joe) What's the location of the third shooter? There were two in the room and one more shooter. Where was he, roughly?
A: Triangulated.
Q: (Joe) Okay.
(Niall) The other casinos on the strip...
(Joe) How many people were involved in this operation in total in terms of spotters and...?
A: 27
Q: (Niall) Did some of these other people shoot outside or at other casinos that had active shooters?
A: Yes
Q: (Niall) So that's a lot of people...
(L) There could have even been people in the crowd shooting.
(Joe) Well, no, they said there were three shooters. Well... Was the third triangulated shooter on the ground in the crowd, or was he further back?
A: Further back but on ground.
Q: (Joe) And of course the FBI and all these people are well aware of all of this, and they're just covering it up, right?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) That FBI dude is such a creep.
(Pierre) And the third shooter was 270 yards from the crowd?
A: No
Q: (Pierre) Ah... How far?
A: 80
Q: (Pierre) 80 yards. Wow...
(Niall) Fuel tank, right?
(Joe) We can triangulate it.
(Pierre) There was an acoustic analysis that said 270.
(L) The guy on the ground could have been using a silencer, too. Alright, now you guys have gone over your one question.
(Joe) Well, they keep answering... [laughter] So there were two shooters in the room. Was one of the guns up in the room a heavier caliber gun as we have surmised?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Alright. That's all. Done.
(L) Is that it? Any more questions on OTHER TOPICS?
(Joe) Why did they do it? Is this just one more, "Remind the people why they need us"?
A: Chaos.
Q: (Joe) They kinda seem to have left a lot of things... loose threads here. Is this...?
A: Chaos affects them too!
Q: (Joe) Psychos gone wild.
(Niall) Yeah. Is the death toll as officially reported accurate?
(L) What is the death toll?
(Niall) 59 plus 500+ wounded.
(Joe) 58 dead.
A: Almost.
Q: (L) So there might be one or two others that they're not talking about.
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) The Paddock guy, the patsy, he was alive when he came into the hotel. He was shot on the day of the shooting in the hotel?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) And he just had a "mind job" done on him by agents of the...?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Okay. Thank you.
(L) Alright, I'm tired. Anything we need to know that we haven't asked?
A: Goodbye.
END OF SESSION
Laura, Andromeda, and Artemis at the board
Pierre, Joe, Chu, Ark, Mikey, Scottie, Niall, Opal the Majesticat, Noko the Wonderdog, Princess Leia
Q: (L) This is October 14, 2017. [Review of those present] Anyway, here we are.
A: Good evening kinder! Zillineaea of Cassiopaea family.
Q: (L) Okay. We don't have any proper questions.
(Ark) We had these strange events... There were a number of events recently, like 10 days or so, which were kind of unusual. Sometimes for me they were mysterious, like disappearing things … like in a different reality or something. And then we had our cat that somehow went on the tree and we didn't see her for an entire day. Well, finally she was found in the tree. There were booms, explosions; breaking of electrical lines by digging; Cherie injured; the peacock sick. So, nothing really terrible happened, but it could happen. So, the question is: Is there any meaning that we should be aware of in this sequence of events?
A: General chaotic energies of transition affect environment in many ways. Creatures often suffer thereby. You are doing well with attention and vigilance.
Q: (L) You say the word, "transition"... What kind of transition are we talking about here?
A: Planetary movement through space-time area of realm border.
Q: (Joe) We hit some turbulence flying through space.
(Artemis) It's like when you're giving birth and like the head comes out?
(L) I don't get that...
(Artemis) Is it something like that?
A: Not exactly. More like dissolution followed by reconstitution.
Q: (L) So it's like something being dissolved. Once everything is dissolved in the solution, and everything is chaotically mixed up, then the solution will be evaporated and the dissolved substances will precipitate out? Is that closer?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) So, we are in a period where the energies around us are basically dissolving things. Is that it?
A: Close. If subject to that. Other things are solid and merely experience the surrounding chaos externally.
Q: (L) So maybe that relates to like some people who are disintegrating. It kinda goes back to: do you go under the Wave, or do you surf it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Those that go under the Wave get dissolved. Those who ride the Wave or surf it... And it affects our critters and things around us, but because of their interaction with us, we can pull them along with us on the crest of the Wave. Is that it?
A: Yes
Q: (Artemis) But it was interesting that it was Cherie and Opal who were most affected.
(L) My particular critters.
(Andromeda) Cherie, Opal, but then Penelope too. And Mr. Peacock. And the sparrows.
(L) Mr. Peacock is my critter. Why is it that my particular critters - my dog, my cat, my peacock - are being hit?
A: Lensing effect.
Q: (Artemis) What does that mean?
A: "Agents" attempt to focus energies of environment on you.
Q: (Pierre) So what's happening is these changes are related to these chaotic environmental energies. And some agents are trying to redirect those disturbing chaotic energies on you. The lensing effect means not only it will affect you, but it will affect any creature - human or non-human - that is close to you.
(Andromeda) Or maybe they're taking the effect, the brunt.
A: Yes
Q: (Artemis) That would explain why Castelsarrasin is getting crazier. People are driving very crazy lately. Being very aggressive.
(L) So even the region is experiencing this?
A: Yes
Q: (L) That's why I don't go anywhere. I'm staying home!
(Ark) Am I one of these creatures?
A: No!
Q: (L) Well, can I ask one other little line of questions before you take over, Joe?
(Joe) I'm not gonna take over. I only have a couple of questions. But go ahead.
(L) Recently, I read some works by R.G. Collingwood, _The Idea of History_, which was kind of the philosophy of history and of thought. And then his kind of main philosophy called _Speculum Mentis_. It's more like just pure philosophy. It struck me that he presented a far more interesting interpretation of reality, as in the material world vs. the world of thought, information vs. matter, in almost a way similar to what Gurdjieff did except that his {Collingwood's} was better and more self-consistent.
Following reading this book, I read this hermeneutic examination of Gurdjieff's work, which was in a way rather disturbing. On the one hand, I could kind of understand Gurdjieff, but on the other hand the book was very disturbing - especially since I had just previously read about half of another book that was kind of written to tear Gurdjieff apart. I didn't finish that one because I was so upset at the guy's efforts to demean Gurdjieff, or so it seemed to me. So I quit reading it.
Nevertheless, the facts that this book that I didn't read all of put into place in terms of all of the controversies about Gurdjieff's life, the fact that various people had gone to investigate many of his claims and so forth, and essentially, nothing he ever wrote - for example in Meetings with Remarkable Men, or things he told people about his past - could possibly have been true; or if it was true, it was only a seed of truth here and there; the end result being that basically, his whole life was a lie!
I found that extremely distressing because it just seemed to me that something based on so many lies, even if people try to excuse him by saying he was trying to do a good thing and he had a specific purpose and he was maneuvering people or whatever for their own good, the fact is that he told SO MANY LIES even to his closest confidants. So how can something based on so many lies serve as a foundation for other people to build a Work on? This is one part of my question.
And the other part is that not only was his life, his doings, and his supposed quest a lie in the terms he described it, but it turns out that many of the things that he presented as his teaching were pretty much made up out of his head though he claimed it was an ancient tradition. I mean, for example, the Enneagram and the system of hydrogens and so on and so forth. What struck me after reading Collingwood was that Gurdjieff got caught in this trap that Collingwood writes about: the trap of the scientific thought that prevailed at that particular point in history.
It wasn't that scientific thought was wrong or that science didn't proceed, but that Gurdjieff didn't understand it completely and he got caught by it and tried to make a so-called "scientific" system. He had his scientific Enneagram, and his scientific table of hydrogens, and his so-called scientific exercises for self-development all claimed to be an ancient system that he was bringing back to the world from his adventures. And it was all just Gurdjieff experimenting on people based on a really distorted view of the world, or the cosmos, and of reality.
This, in a sense, explains why his... How do I want to say it? It explains why his groups are so barren. They are barren. You don't see them talking about anything that really makes a difference in even their own lives. They sit around and have these meetings and they're silent and supposedly observing themselves; they practice movements and so on. And they achieve nothing if William Patrick Patterson is anything to go by. And they do nothing for society. A person who achieves some kind of enlightenment or development - if he's not sharing or doing something towards the people around him or humanity or the universe, just being a good workman for the universe in whatever way it's possible for him to be - then what's the point of it? It's a barren system!
So, having said all of that, you once said that Gurdjieff's Enneagram system was something like 50% correct. Does anybody remember it?
(Andromeda) I don't remember it exactly, but I know what you're talking about.
(L) So, I would like to know in what sense is this Enneagram a useful tool?
A: Even lies have a bit of truth. Gurdjieff used his imagination and mediums to construct his system. In a project of that sort, it is not unusual to get some truth. Otherwise it would make no sense at all! The Enneagram system is accurate enough for 3rd density systems with no input from awareness.
Q: (Joe) No input of awareness from people, or... Just a cold reading of someone.
(L) So the Enneagram is kind of the way the mechanical system works.
(Joe) No input from the person, and no input from people who might know the person...
(L) I think they're talking about the Enneagram being 3rd density systems.
(Joe) Okay.
(Pierre) The Enneagram the way the C's define it finally, is similar to the whole cosmogony that Gurdjieff developed, this mechanistic cosmogony. I find two major flaws in it. First, everything is reduced to mechanics. There's no more soul, consciousness, or spirit. Plus there's a breach of free will in his way of trying to spread this knowledge. Not hypnotizing people without their informed consent is of prime importance, and he did not respect the free will of his followers.
(L) So, Gurdjieff had the idea that human life exists to feed the cosmos, that the living system exists to feed His "Allness" or whatever... the great cosmic cycle or system. Is that the case?
A: No!
Q: (L) And I guess since you have already told us that the universe exists because it's a school and free will is the most important law, and learning and growing is the purpose we won’t get distracted by re-asking those questions; but why would Gurdjieff say something like that?
A: He observed life and that was the materialistic interpretation he put on what he perceived. However, as we have explained, such matters reflect the nature of 4D STS and its need to survive against its own diminishing nature. It acts as a catalyst for growth at 3rd level.
Q: (L) So you're suggesting that Gurdjieff observed the way life was and the craziness and the manipulations and how people get into wars and kill each other and hurt each other and the pain and suffering and misery, and he thought that it was all designed as a big feeding system for the Great Sun Absolute, when what he was really perceiving was just the 4D STS manipulations of our reality which acts as a medium for our growth. Is that what you're saying so to say?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) So he saw life objectively, but he just didn't see it in the context as a medium for growth (or against other densities).
(Andromeda) Right.
(Pierre) And he didn't ascribe it to the proper authors because actually in Tamdgidi's book in the beginning, he talks about the Great Absolute and the creation, the Big Bang. And he mentions before the Big Bang, the Great Absolute, became aware of - almost word for word what the Cs just said - its diminishing nature because of this kind of entropy. And to counteract those forces...
(L) And so basically what he was describing as the Great Sun Absolute was really just the nature of 4D STS in its interaction with the Earth and humanity.
(Pierre) Yeah.
(L) The diminishing nature.
(Pierre) It's almost word for word what Gurdjieff uses.
(Joe) And the way he saw... his solution... he didn't see it as an opportunity for growth or for learning. He didn't really have a way out of it, did he; he doesn't present a definitive alternative or another way to perceive reality?
(L) His solution is for the human being to crystallize.
(Joe) Right.
(L) And become a companion to the Great Sun Absolute, right?
(Joe) At least to not be subject to the predations of the consuming universe... you can escape it. But where does that put you? What function do you have then? Are you part of it then? You just become higher up on the pecking order or something?
(L) Yeah. And then there's also...
(Joe) Did Gurdjieff not describe the reason for the work on the self?
(L) Well, his way of working on the self is not dynamic. It's very static and mechanical. It works probably for... And like I said, the Gurdjieff groups are barren!
(Joe) Right.
(L) I mean, O__ went around and hooked up with different groups around the world, and questioned them. None of them seemed to be remotely aware of hyperdimensional realities. None of them seemed to have ANY social conscience or feeling of giving or sharing to others, responsibility to the universe, at all! It's like working in a Gurdjieff group destroys that. It's designed to destroy that.
(Joe) And that's part of Gurdjieff's teaching.
(L) No, it's not! That's the effect it has...
(Pierre) The little compassion and conscience people might have gets destroyed when this purely materialistic paradigm is imposed on them, this idea that the Universe is ultimately going to eat them. And then this giving or sharing to others and responsibility to the universe doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't matter.
(Mikey) How much of Gurdjieff's teachings came from mediums as opposed to transmissions of a tradition?
A: 83 percent
Q: (Andromeda) That's a lot.
(Joe) 83 percent from mediums that he didn't have any real control over.
(Chu) But then if he thought everything was material, how could he believe in mediums?
(L) Because supposedly, you could go inside a medium's head and they would be able to perceive the material universe.
(Joe) Tapping into deeper truths.
(L) Just because he was using mediums didn't mean that he thought he was contacting really spiritual realms. He was supposedly just tapping the subconscious mind that he believed knew everything.
(Joe) I mean, his whole teaching is about the mechanical nature of man, and how to get over it, right? How to master yourself, ya know...
(L) In a mechanical way.
(Joe) But to what end? Simply to not be a victim to the vicissitudes of life and your own nature, basically. But that's it, right? You just overcome that, and then...
(L) Yeah, well, he talks about crystallizing a soul.
(Joe) Right.
(L) {Addressing Cs} You have already said that all souls exist from the beginning, and that souls are not created as we go along through time. We asked about that some time ago when we were asking about Messages from Michael and so forth. And you've also talked about instances of large soul groups such as organic portals or whatever - group souls, souls of animals, and so on and so forth. So basically, we already have kind of a system here that you have given that is quite different from what Gurdjieff proposed, which was that people had to GROW a soul. It was like something that if you didn't have it, when you died, you died. And if you were only partly crystallized, well then a certain number of days after you died, that you would be kind of like floating in some atmospheric area and then even that part of you would die. That's kind of what I got from reading this book. And I think that was partly from some of the ancient traditions, actually.
(Joe) That's what the Cs have said about kind of a "pool".
(L) Well, going into a pool is one thing – there is still soul involved even if it is a fragment of a larger soul - but here Gurdjieff had the idea that there is no such thing as soul as we conceive it; a soul had to be “grown” or crystallized in a given lifetime and even then, it was material.
(Mikey) Which parts of Gurdjieff's teachings are still most useful to read?
A: Psychology, up to a point.
Q: (Joe) Maybe we should cut Gurdjieff some slack, ya know? Because the way he described the mechanical nature of man is a very good basis on which to build like what you and the Cs have done. What they've added to that is certainly very compatible. He fleshed it all out very well, and it fits with a lot of the stuff the Cs have said. It's the first installment, and Gurdjieff could only go so far. I suppose you can't expect someone to have the whole banana, right?
(L) Right.
(Chu) What was Gurdjieff trying to achieve?
A: His own salvation and immortal life.
Q: (Joe) And was he successful?
A: Not by his terms. He was actually rather surprised!
Q: (Pierre) Was the surprise that after dying, he...
(Joe) That he got a lot wrong, yeah.
A: Yes
Q: (Ark) He was a really tragic figure for me because he was smart. He was observing things. He was so above all these people that he had NO HELP from anyone because...
(L) No one was equal to him.
(Ark) Yes. But on the other hand, he was not looking for help I don't think... He thought he was above everybody.
(L) He WAS above everybody, but because he knew he was, he cut himself off from the help that he could possibly have gotten. A network of others to give feedback is invaluable. That is one thing the Cs have taught us.
(Joe) I wonder... His own fixation on materialism and seeing the material universe as the be-all and end-all ... I mean, it kinda reflected in his approach to life. You talked about Idiots in Paris and the way he ate and how he abused himself with food and alcohol and bad living habits basically and probably caused himself an early death. The descriptions of the feasts he used to have were extreme, just eat and eat and eat...
(L) And that was contradictory to his whole thing: that you've got to learn about your machine in order to take care of it properly in order to preserve your life long enough in order to be able to have time enough to figure things out and to work on yourself.
(Joe) But how did he not see the negative health effects that he had from how he was eating?
(Pierre) In his mind, he was above it. (He thought he was crystallized and could do what he pleased.)
(L) I think he thought that he... Well, it was kind of like Edgar Cayce. He, too, died fairly young, and he was doing all these health readings for all these people, but he wasn't applying it to himself.
(Artemis) So was Gurdjieff depressed?
(L) I don't think he was depressed.
(Artemis) Or unhappy?
(L) No, but he just ate sugar like it was the only thing in existence.
(Pierre) And drank alcohol.
(L) Wine, Armagnac!
(Pierre) Driving like a maniac.
(L) Keeping late hours, never sleeping... Oh, and that was another thing! He thought that sleeping was a complete waste of time, and we know that sleeping is when your soul recharges itself. He thought that dreams were a sign of something wrong, and we know that dreams are important. Yes, dreams can be used to program negatively like via 4D STS or whatever; but we also know that they are big clues or cues. They can be prophetic, they can be profoundly revealing. Jungian analysis demonstrates the value of dreams.
(Niall) Dreams can tell you that something's wrong, and it's not that they, in themselves, are wrong.
(L) Yeah, these wonderful Jungian explorations. That's when you come into contact with the greater part of your soul or soul group. So Gurdjieff got a LOT of things really mixed up because...
(Joe) He defined the human problem really well, but he didn't have a proper context in which to put it. A spiritual context.
(L) Well, let's face it: neither did we. When we started talking to the Cs, the kind of stupid, ignorant, New Agey, Madame Blavatskyite kinds of things I would ask...
(Artemis) They were endearing.
(L) They embarrass me now that I was so stupid!
(Artemis) Oh, don't judge yourself so harshly. I ask banana questions all the time.
(Pierre) You know, if you put it back in the context of the 1930s... Gurdjieff's alone, doing all what he did, writing those ideas he had, by himself... In this context, it's an amazing achievement. This guy is a genius.
(Joe) Yeah.
(Pierre) But maybe he fell for the main threat that looms over the heads of geniuses: ego.
(Niall) At the same time, Collingwood was his contemporary, and had he come across Collingwood, he might have been more informed...
(Chu) But notice the Cs said he was trying to achieve his own salvation and immortal life. With the stuff about hypnotizing others and other things, there doesn't seem to be any altruistic motive. Your own salvation at what price to others?
(L) He made it clear that he was experimenting, but that the people he was experimenting on would benefit as a side effect of his objectives. And he said that clearly in his book Herald of the Coming Good.
(Pierre) And you're right, but when you embrace a materialistic paradigm, each individual is just a piece of meat. There's nothing that links us. There's no soul, there's no spirit, there's no community.
(Joe) But maybe he was a victim of his own analysis of the very mechanical nature of human beings. He saw very clearly that people were just machines. So he just thought well, these people are lost, so at least if I do something with them, they might benefit. But he didn't see the whole reason for 3D existing for learning lessons. He didn't have a rational cosmology, basically.
(Pierre) He threw out the baby with the bathwater.
(Andromeda) It seems to me like he didn't have a heart because he was kind of lonely.
(L) Yeah, and of course he had experiences as a child that probably scarred him. That’s what Tamdgidi suggests.
A: Enneagram is useful for understanding machine.
Q: (L) So that helps you to really understand mechanical programs. It IS very useful for that. And what about his tables of hydrogens?
A: He was onto something though again it was materialized. But you might have more success interpreting the "foods" as stimuli to the nervous system and its consequent release of neurochemicals and hormones. It was actually a quite clever description of same!
Q: (L) I think what they're saying is that Gurdjieff was trying to explain how external events and stimuli and impressions and so forth and interactions like physical or sexual or food or whatever come in and interact with the body and cause the body to produce neurochemicals and hormones which then change the state of the body. This can be at different levels. It can be physical, it can be emotional, it can be mental, and it can change the emotional state or mental state so that these hydrogens or so-called "foods" were basically just him trying to describe the dynamic interaction of the physical system with its environment.
(Joe) And with the non-physical environment.
(L) Yes. Very often what impinges on the person is non-material. There are thoughts and ideas and spiritual or non-material things, but they produce very definite physical effects in the body.
(Andromeda) Physical or emotional.
(L) Well, emotional is largely physical; it's hormones and neurochemicals.
(Ark) I don't think he could invent it all by himself. I think he learned something from the yogis somewhere.
(L) Well, they said eighty-some percent was him making stuff up and using mediums, so that leaves a certain percentage to come from yogis and monks. Okay, I guess that's enough on Gurdjieff right now. I guess it's time for Joe to have his heyday since he called the meeting tonight.
(Artemis) Joe, can you hold off for a minute?
(Joe) Mm-hmm.
(Artemis) Since you spoke of dreams, I wanted to ask: I had a dream about somebody trying to break into our house. Was that a vision, or just symbolic, or what was that dream about?
A: Reflective of attempts of agents to direct negative energies of chaos.
Q: (L) Yeah. So we should always be alert and aware and pay attention to these dreams. And when we have such dreams, to tighten up our awareness and be awake and alert.
A: Yes yes yes!
Q: (Artemis) Can the same be said about the dreams I've been having - and I don't want to creep anybody out - about the devil coming?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Well things are CRAZY out there, sweetie! It's like so unbelievably crazy right now, we must really be passing through a realm border. There is no other way to explain what... I mean, it's like the whole... I can't even... I don't even want to talk about it right now.
(Andromeda) It's gone past Insane Asylum...
(L) Yeah, it's past that. It's... Yeah.
(Artemis) Should we leave the devil comment out? I'm afraid that'll freak people out.
(L) No.
(Joe) People might be having similar dreams.
(L) Yeah, other people may be having other dreams like that, too. Okay, you want to ask about your Vegas thing, Joe? Do you have a clearly formulated series of questions that you're going to ask?
(Joe) Just one.
(L) Just one? Okay. [laughter]
(Joe) Was there more than one shooter?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Oh, well that leads to another question! [laughter] How many?
A: 3
Q: (Joe) How many were in the hotel room?
A: 2
Q: (Joe) Did Paddock do any shooting, or was he dead already?
A: Dead
Q: (Joe) There was a security guard who came up to the floor. Is that security guard, Jesus Campos, a legitimate security guard?
A: He is and is not
Q: (L) In other words, he was hired as a security guard, although he wasn't licensed?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) But was he one of the conspirators?
A: No
Q: (Joe) Okay, so he's a useful idiot in a certain sense. And the drilling sound that he allegedly heard in the room, was that these shooters inside the room drilling in order to escape unseen?
A: Yes.
Q: (Artemis) Why do they sometimes write "Yes." and sometimes just move to "Yes" on the board?
(L) I dunno. Maybe it’s emphasis.
(Joe) What's the location of the third shooter? There were two in the room and one more shooter. Where was he, roughly?
A: Triangulated.
Q: (Joe) Okay.
(Niall) The other casinos on the strip...
(Joe) How many people were involved in this operation in total in terms of spotters and...?
A: 27
Q: (Niall) Did some of these other people shoot outside or at other casinos that had active shooters?
A: Yes
Q: (Niall) So that's a lot of people...
(L) There could have even been people in the crowd shooting.
(Joe) Well, no, they said there were three shooters. Well... Was the third triangulated shooter on the ground in the crowd, or was he further back?
A: Further back but on ground.
Q: (Joe) And of course the FBI and all these people are well aware of all of this, and they're just covering it up, right?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) That FBI dude is such a creep.
(Pierre) And the third shooter was 270 yards from the crowd?
A: No
Q: (Pierre) Ah... How far?
A: 80
Q: (Pierre) 80 yards. Wow...
(Niall) Fuel tank, right?
(Joe) We can triangulate it.
(Pierre) There was an acoustic analysis that said 270.
(L) The guy on the ground could have been using a silencer, too. Alright, now you guys have gone over your one question.
(Joe) Well, they keep answering... [laughter] So there were two shooters in the room. Was one of the guns up in the room a heavier caliber gun as we have surmised?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Alright. That's all. Done.
(L) Is that it? Any more questions on OTHER TOPICS?
(Joe) Why did they do it? Is this just one more, "Remind the people why they need us"?
A: Chaos.
Q: (Joe) They kinda seem to have left a lot of things... loose threads here. Is this...?
A: Chaos affects them too!
Q: (Joe) Psychos gone wild.
(Niall) Yeah. Is the death toll as officially reported accurate?
(L) What is the death toll?
(Niall) 59 plus 500+ wounded.
(Joe) 58 dead.
A: Almost.
Q: (L) So there might be one or two others that they're not talking about.
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) The Paddock guy, the patsy, he was alive when he came into the hotel. He was shot on the day of the shooting in the hotel?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) And he just had a "mind job" done on him by agents of the...?
A: Yes
Q: (Joe) Okay. Thank you.
(L) Alright, I'm tired. Anything we need to know that we haven't asked?
A: Goodbye.
END OF SESSION
