Session 21 March 2015

[luc]

I feel like I'm one of these people. Sometimes while reading Laura's post's on the forum I feel like she comes of as a bit of a cow (cranky old woman.) However, I don't feel like I'm as much of an a-hole as the previous sentence makes me look like, I really am trying to help, although I think my ego can get in the way. One night I was lying in bed and I had moment of clarity where I realised that Laura had a quite sizeable chunk of knowledge which would take me a long time to acquire. This feeling went away, it only happened once.

I'll try to explain my feelings with an example. Yesterday, I read the first chapter of High Strangeness, the beginning really annoyed me because Laura talks about herself all the time. But by the end of the chapter I was enjoying the book and was looking forward to the next chapter.

I feel like now I'm going to get in trouble for writing this post, but I figured if I'm one of the bad guys or one of the bad guys puppets then that's OK. Also I think now that I've talked a little bit about it, maybe it'll go away.

Thank you Archaea for these comments - I can relate to that, since I had similar thoughts sometimes in the past. Nothing to be ashamed of I think, if these thoughts are not taken to the other extreme, they just show that we are capable of critical thinking, even if we don't "get it right" all the time. The key seems to be to allow the thought that indeed we do not get it right every time. We all have our programs, and some words/behavior/theories can trigger them big time, and this forum and Laura's work are full of those thoughts that can trigger all kinds of programs! What I found useful when something irritates me is to entertain the thought: What if what was said is true? Where would it lead me? How does it relate to me, my history and my previous thoughts, my family, upbringing etc.?

I think there are/were some new members who have an attitude like "I like the C's and Laura's work, but I still can cherry-pick what I like here and what not, and many things I know better." What they fail to realize, I think, is that the knowledge brought together by Laura and this group is directly linked to the process here, as the C's called it. So if we value the knowledge here, or even part of it, I think it would be a good exercise to trust the process - including the comments that may irritate us - for the moment, at least tentatively. Like "okay, they have brought me so much valuable knowledge, maybe they're doing it right also in this specific situation where I feel repelled? Let's think about that for a while..."

Also, I think what can sometimes undermine how much we value and trust the network, is a failure to see what an incredible amount of work went and still goes into this project and the gathering of useful knowledge here. When we read the Wave, other books by Laura/the group and all these forum threads, it becomes clear that they worked and work extremely hard, something we should value very much. However, I think we have few role models of people doing hard, conscious work, which can blind us to the real value of their effort. What I mean is this: Most of those "famous", hard-working people we learn about in the media and history books, are mechanical - with their "hard work", they're just living out various obsessions, are driven by a hunger for power and fame, are schizoid types who are totally obsessed with their own theories, or compensate some psychological defect/trauma with an extreme drive towards some goal. So it's easy to assume that this is the same with Laura and this group.

However, if we read her books carefully, and most importantly when we begin to struggle against our predator's mind ourselves, fighting between "yes" and "no", I think we can begin to grasp the enormous Work that went into this group's work, the incredible struggle and suffering that brought about all this. Once this is realized, it can help us tremendously in seeing the huge value of this work, which is based on "the process", which we can then more easily "trust" - not based on blind faith, but on knowledge and being. Fwiw

 

[Cici]

I feel like I'm one of these people. Sometimes while reading Laura's post's on the forum I feel like she comes of as a bit of a cow (cranky old woman.) However, I don't feel like I'm as much of an a-hole as the previous sentence makes me look like, I really am trying to help, although I think my ego can get in the way. One night I was lying in bed and I had moment of clarity where I realised that Laura had a quite sizeable chunk of knowledge which would take me a long time to acquire. This feeling went away, it only happened once.

I'll try to explain my feelings with an example. Yesterday, I read the first chapter of High Strangeness, the beginning really annoyed me because Laura talks about herself all the time. But by the end of the chapter I was enjoying the book and was looking forward to the next chapter.

I feel like now I'm going to get in trouble for writing this post, but I figured if I'm one of the bad guys or one of the bad guys puppets then that's OK. Also I think now that I've talked a little bit about it, maybe it'll go away.

The following just came to mind. (But English is not my native language either. And I really have a hard time sometimes to explain my thoughts but): If the messenger sends a message of huge knowledge who cares about the characteristics of the messenger him/her self? Does it matter for the message? And if the message is so profound, doesn't the messenger disappear to the back round in the great scheme of things?

This is probably the reason why we have all these programs inside ourselves. To be easily manipulated and to divert us away from the real truth. Just by turning us off from little things in some ones character. We need to keep on looking at the big picture. And recognize that every time we judge someone on something in their way of doing or being that it is a diversion of what we really do need to see.

My fault is that I come of as someone who wants to know things better than other people. But I hope one can see through that and just picks out of whatever I am saying, the things that do resonate with themselves.

 

[duyunne]

In regards to the skiing question from the Cs:

"Head for the hills" is something people usually shout out in certain areas of low elevation whenever a flood or tsunami happens.

What if being asked if you could ski was more of a reference to mountains, hills, higher elevations, and not entirely about snow and winter conditions.

Just a thought!

 

[ooglyboogly]

Why haven't you approved my comment regarding this session?

 

[Beau]

Why haven't you approved my comment regarding this session?

There doesn't appear to be any unapproved comments in waiting, so it may have gotten "lost in the ether". I'd say post it again if possible.

 

[Alvalsen]

thanks for the session

Q: (L) What do you mean? Specific people, or the whole group?

A: Many. And those who have faith in the process will rise with them.

Q: (L) In other words, even if certain individuals are not yet "there", the fact that they're connected with the group and doing the best that they can, they will brought along anyway?

A: Yes

perhaps not only I have a problem
but I can not quite figure out what I can here be useful
especially given the fact that my English is poor

Alvalsen,

I found one of your earlier posts that I had just "overlooked" and realized that sounds really interesting so I checked it out. Before there were other things on my mind I guess. Anyway I am glad you are here because you have many things I think others should think about. It may seem like our experiences don't matter but you never know just who might benefit from that one piece of information you share.

Sometimes it seems like no one is interested in our posts but I think that is because so many events are happening that our attention goes in many directions at once. I have made posts that seem to go nowhere. But then I just realized that there were others posts that were made close to mine that were just more in tune with the events of the day.

I admire all the forum members who post here from all over the world and English is not their first language. I think you are doing better at English than I would do at Russian, Spanish, Polish, German, French, Portuguese etc.. I could understand your posts fine and I am sure others do too. :)

I definitely would need Google Translator or some translator to get by.

Unfortunately I also can not live without Google translator

that the meaning is not distorted, it is necessary to express thoughts in short sentences, often easier than in their native language

happened that I complained
but it was just thinking out loud

p.s.:probably the most interesting of my message here in the forum was to give a more realistic bust of Caesar)) /using photoshop/

 

[goyacobol]

Unfortunately I also can not live without Google translator

that the meaning is not distorted, it is necessary to express thoughts in short sentences, often easier than in their native language

happened that I complained
but it was just thinking out loud

p.s.:probably the most interesting of my message here in the forum was to give a more realistic bust of Caesar)) /using photoshop/

Alvalsen,

My posts would be short from English to Russian I think (Мои предложения были бы короткими с английского на русский, я думаю.).

I now remember all the versions of Caesar you worked on. It kind of made Caesar come to life for me. I think that is a very "useful" talent. I have worked with some older Adobe Photo shop versions so I know it takes a lot of time and patience (for me anyway).

Thanks :)

 

[Kenny McCormick]

"A: How good are you at skiing?
Q: (Data) I'm good at skiing! [laughter]
(L) What kind of question is that?
A: You may need such skills soon."

Wow, but I suppose they meant rather cross-country skiing rather than skiing downhill...

By the way... How can one apply to see private parts of sessions? I am FOTCM member, but not too active on forum... ;/

"(Perceval) When they said that entities love tech, is that why they said in a previous session that Wi-Fi is evil?"

...and very interested in "Wi-Fi is evil" informations...

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I feel like I'm one of these people. Sometimes while reading Laura's post's on the forum I feel like she comes of as a bit of a cow (cranky old woman.) However, I don't feel like I'm as much of an a-hole as the previous sentence makes me look like, I really am trying to help, although I think my ego can get in the way. One night I was lying in bed and I had moment of clarity where I realised that Laura had a quite sizeable chunk of knowledge which would take me a long time to acquire. This feeling went away, it only happened once.

I'll try to explain my feelings with an example. Yesterday, I read the first chapter of High Strangeness, the beginning really annoyed me because Laura talks about herself all the time. But by the end of the chapter I was enjoying the book and was looking forward to the next chapter.

I feel like now I'm going to get in trouble for writing this post, but I figured if I'm one of the bad guys or one of the bad guys puppets then that's OK. Also I think now that I've talked a little bit about it, maybe it'll go away.

To me Laura just comes off as frank, and writes very matter-of-factly. She seems to write the way she would talk, which is a congruent quality though it may seem jarring if you're used to the written word being different from the spoken word. She's busy and doesn't have time to write prose with colorful words to cater to someone's ego when commenting, so it comes off blunt simply because she's trying to get to the point fast and hit the heart of the matter without taking any backroads. And as for cranky, which means "irritable", she doesn't seem averse to letting her feelings show through her writing. So if someone is being annoying, or thick, she (and many others) can be justifiable irritated, and often she will say what many others are thinking, so it's actually refreshing, and never unjustified. There is a difference between being polite/patient, and being polite/patient when the situation asks for something different. But honestly I think it comes down to the matter-of-factness and getting the the point without being wordy (I often have an issue with being too wordy, which isn't a good thing). And as you said, knowledge plays a huge role so she is justified in being more confident in her statements and less wishy washy because she's been there done that.

The key seems to be to allow the thought that indeed we do not get it right every time. We all have our programs, and some words/behavior/theories can trigger them big time, and this forum and Laura's work are full of those thoughts that can trigger all kinds of programs! What I found useful when something irritates me is to entertain the thought: What if what was said is true? Where would it lead me? How does it relate to me, my history and my previous thoughts, my family, upbringing etc.?

Exactly my point. As I said the difference between her and many of us is simply knowledge and experience. We have self-doubt in situations where she's much more confident of her assessment simply because of the knowledge/experience difference. So when others may err on the side of caution (for a good reason, because we're being honest in the situation and aren't acting like we SEE it objectively when we don't), she can be a lot less "wishy washy" and one day so will we once we have enough experience under our belt when we recognize what's happening a mile a way, and it's highly unlikely to be something else. Please note that many times when she needs more info, she will ask for exactly that, or she will specifically say she's not sure what the answer is and then reference something to read that may help, etc.

What they fail to realize, I think, is that the knowledge brought together by Laura and this group is directly linked to the process here, as the C's called it. So if we value the knowledge here, or even part of it, I think it would be a good exercise to trust the process - including the comments that may irritate us - for the moment, at least tentatively. Like "okay, they have brought me so much valuable knowledge, maybe they're doing it right also in this specific situation where I feel repelled? Let's think about that for a while..."

Exactly. Just ask what is it that is irritating about whatever it is? What part of you is irritated by this, why is it irritated? My suspicion is a lot of the time the answer may you trying to bring Laura down to your level, and perhaps feeling it's unfair that she can speak from a position that's different than someone else's. But the reality is, we're not all on the same level, as much as our ego/predator hate to admit this. Like you said Luc, most other "known writers" and so on are not doing the Work on themselves, so while they may be knowledgeable in this or that area from doing research, their psychological development is lacking, which creates an entirely different (and often counterproductive) dynamic when involved in any kind of general discussion.

The following just came to mind. (But English is not my native language either. And I really have a hard time sometimes to explain my thoughts but): If the messenger sends a message of huge knowledge who cares about the characteristics of the messenger him/her self? Does it matter for the message? And if the message is so profound, doesn't the messenger disappear to the back round in the great scheme of things?

I disagree I think the messenger is often inseparable from the message. Could an unconscious mechanical individual truly give a profound message? I think in very specific areas of research yes, but the profundity of something like the Wave would be impossible to write without the author's self-development being completely inseparable from the content. In partl, the Wave is about Laura's self-discovery and realizations about her own mind/psyche as it is about other research. So the development of the messenger has a definitive impact on the message. In a sense it's probably also why the C's said that in creating a conduit, both communicating parties are of equal importance. The C's couldn't transmit through an undeveloped dummy. Also, without self-knowledge and Being, how could Laura even do her groundbreaking historical research, much of which requires a very keen assessment of the psychological makeup of the actors (in order to separate the wheat from the chaff)?

I think the real issue is our predator/programs running into conflict with a statement that is free from those programs. The programs are very much linked to our emotions, so of course we could feel jealous, angry, irritated, and all kinds of things when we see someone being "different" from what we're programmed to "expect" from a person in their position, or expect from others in general. Perhaps it's like we're getting a tiny little mirror in the esoteric sense. Remember, the point of giving someone a true mirror is to help them realize a serious program running in themselves, and the only reaction to mirrors is anger/opposition/whatever. It's not a happy comfortable experience. So it is with everything else as well - just because you're uncomfortable, irritated, angry, whatever, doesn't mean that it's not your own predator/programs reacting to something that triggers them or even exposes them.

It's absolutely ok to feel it, and I think it's great to air it out and express it - it allows for a discussion where we can learn something about ourselves.

 

[Jacques]

By the way... How can one apply to see private parts of sessions? I am FOTCM member, but not too active on forum... ;/

Have a look at that thread: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35235.msg503130.html#msg503130

 

[Andromeda]

I feel like now I'm going to get in trouble for writing this post, but I figured if I'm one of the bad guys or one of the bad guys puppets then that's OK. Also I think now that I've talked a little bit about it, maybe it'll go away.

Not in trouble, but it certainly shows that you have a lot to learn about empathy and tact. There are 100 ways you could have thought about the issue and expressed your feelings in a less insulting way.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I feel like now I'm going to get in trouble for writing this post, but I figured if I'm one of the bad guys or one of the bad guys puppets then that's OK. Also I think now that I've talked a little bit about it, maybe it'll go away.

Not in trouble, but it certainly shows that you have a lot to learn about empathy and tact. There are 100 ways you could have thought about the issue and expressed your feelings in a less insulting way.

Exactly, Archaea. Couldn't have put it better (speaking of tact...).

 

[Kenny McCormick]

"Have a look at that thread: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35235.msg503130.html#msg503130"

By the way... How can one apply to see private parts of sessions? I am FOTCM member, but not too active on forum... ;/

Have a look at that thread: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35235.msg503130.html#msg503130

Thank you... Although I should have figured it myself...

 

[tschai]

Another interesting session to be sure-the Cs remark about spirits loving tech reminded me of a freaky thing a co-worker shared -his dad had passed away fairly recently and his mom received a text message from an unknown number of a heart and I love you that looked like it was written by a child - but it was signed with his dad's name! So maybe there is some way spirits can speak to us...hey ask the Cs to send s text and see if they respond!

 

[SMM]

Thank you for sharing this great session! It was certainly timely, and full of information! It has gives a lot of food for thought, and has a nice positive ending to it too :)

Time to save up for skis!