Session 3 September 2008

[Kesdjan]

This is completely contradictory. One cannot see objectively if one is prone to wishful thinking. 4D STS (hypothetically!) may be able to see 'more' than 3D STS - but that does not mean they see objectively.

Well, I thought it was contradictory too and asked about it a long time ago on casschat (_http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/casschat/message/24365).
In the above excerpt, it says that STS graduates by skipping the higher emotional center and connecting with the higher intellectual center. The C's, in a roundabout way, say this as well. For example, Cassiopedia says:

Contact with the higher intellectual center is linked to the highest state of consciousness spoken of by the 4th Way, the objective consciousness of the cosmos or divine consciusness. This is so rare that it is nearly impossible to say anything about this. See Enlightenment.

The C's say there are both STS and STO enlightened beings. Enlightened meaning that they have reached the highest state of consciousness, or in other words, connected to the higher intellectual center. The function of this center is described as "seeing the world as it is":

'Their functions are different. In the Tradition they are sometimes called the eyes of the Soul. Thus, St Isaac The Syrian said: 'While the two eyes of the body see things in an identical way, the Eyes of the Soul see diferently: one contemplates the truth in images and symbols, the other face to face." In other words, messages received through the higher emotional center can be translated into pictures or language, but they always take the form of images or symbols. This is the case, for example, with the Book of Revelations. [...] As for communications received through the higher intellectual centre, they are of such a transcendent nature that there is no way in which they can be translated into human language.

So what is wishful thinking?

The core idea of wishful thinking is that one prefers one's personal subjective preference over knowledge of the objective state of matters.

What was explained to me was that 4D STS *can* see objectively by virtue of being Enlightened, but that they prefer subjectivity. If they could not see objectively at all, they wouldn't be able to polarize to STO (which the C's have said is possible). Again, my understanding was that the psychopath cannot see objective reality at all (no concept of fact, etc.).

This makes little sense at all - you are, again, twisting things to make round pegs fit into square holes - and confusing concepts.

Could you please explain why it makes little sense. I have never claimed "hierarchy of values" was anything more than a prerequisite for change, and it seems to me that Approaching Infinity agrees.

 

[John G]

What was explained to me was that 4D STS *can* see objectively by virtue of being Enlightened, but that they prefer subjectivity. If they could not see objectively at all, they wouldn't be able to polarize to STO (which the C's have said is possible). Again, my understanding was that the psychopath cannot see objective reality at all (no concept of fact, etc.).

I wouldn't think they would actually go around saying they prefer subjective to objective. It's more like wishful thinking about what they can do is always more powerful than the impressive things they objectively know. No matter how bad things look objectively, they subjectively think they will win in the end. In other words they are simply subjective. It's like if Ark reads a paper full of impressive physics very few people on the planet can understand but there's one little piece of disinformation thrown in... in other words it's wrong Ark might say (in spite of the impressive physics it contains). As for polarization to STO from STS at 4D, well that's a huge probably rare change and after the switch one would have to use a hugely different description. If Laura's cats can get to 3D by hanging around Laura even though there's no communication we can recognize, then I wouldn't want to overly speculate about what OPs and psychopaths can and can't do with respect to 4D.

Could you please explain why it makes little sense. I have never claimed "hierarchy of values" was anything more than a prerequisite for change, and it seems to me that Approaching Infinity agrees.

You may have a problem grasping what Approaching Infinity meant by "living it". Words like ideals, emotional, ethical, and values may not be overly helpful. Heirarchy of values is not something you strive for. You are researching and learning lessons. Yes STO objectivity seems objectively better than STS wishful thinking but you still get there when you get there if you get there. For now there's firm intent without expectation and I'm still a work in progress for that.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Right, but I was thinking was that the STS candidate (and for now, lets assume that they are neccessarily non-psychopathic, souled individuals) experiences a kind of reverse multilevelness- that is, he will experience psychopathic characteristics as higher, and devalue the "higher emotions" that are developed in normal Positive Disintegration. Could a person with normal emotions and high overexcitablity go through a personality disintegration, suppess their emotions, and integrate at a lower psychopathic level while retaining goal-orientedness (something a psychopath doesn't have)?

Your thinking is somewhat jumbled here. First of all, one of the key concepts of multilevelness is the objectivity of value judgments. This is "Conscience", as Gurdjieff called it, the concept of an "esoteric circle" in which all members see things the same way. They "speak the same language", and that language is conscience. You're thinking about these concepts strictly intellectually, i.e. wiseacring/intellectualizing/thinking verbalistically. Values are based on an emotional understanding of the world. Take away the emotion you take away the value.

If a person experiences "psychopathic characteristics" as higher, he or she is functioning on a unilevel, not a multilevel, basis. In this case it's incorrect to say they experience them as "higher". They simply "experience them", because there is nothing "higher" to contrast it to. Unilevel individuals (psychopaths, OPs, characteropaths, and perhaps multilevel individuals still functioning on the upper level of unilevel disintegration) are completely controlled by the first and second factors (psychopaths are completely controlled strictly by the first factor). There are no "values", just conformity to biology and society.

While it says they are capable of elaborate planning, I am not sure essential psychopaths would be capable of long-term planning over decades.

That's an assumption on your part, and on researchers like Hare. They were largely studying "failed psychopaths", i.e. those with small hippocampi, lower than average intelligence, violent criminality, etc. Ponerogenesis is a long process and requires some degree of patience and long-term planning. So it IS possible. Think of the cat that slowly and patiently stalks its prey. It does so in the service of itself.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Adding to the confusion, the C's and Lobaczewski seem to be talking about to different things:

Q: (L) That leads me to my next question. You've said that psychopaths are defective OPs?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Well, how do they get to be defective? I'm trying to figure out how to ask this... Are they defective because they're born that way?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Are they defective because of something that happened in their childhood?

A: Sometimes...

Lobaczewski uses "characteopath" to describe acquired emotional pathology and "psychopath" for inherited pathology.

Not necessarily. You're not reading the text closely. The question was if defective psychopaths are the way they are because of something that happened in their childhood. You're missing the distinction between "successful" and "defective" psychopaths. It is entirely possible that "failed" psychopaths are the way they are because they "learned" violence and criminality as a result of childhood abuse.

 

[Nienna]

Kesdjan, I think that you are using different definitions for a couple of words from the C's so thought I would point you to a couple of pages from Cassiopedia.

Enlightened, defined by the C's is not being at the highest state of consciousness, but that they are "smart". See Enlightenment from Cassiopedia.

The Cassiopedia also has a page on Wishful Thinking that you might like to read.

It seems to me that you are confused on several points made by the C's, which I do too at times so looking at the Cassiopedia or the Cassiopaea Glossary helps me out when I cannot remember, or want to refresh my memory on different terms that have been used by the C's.

Having different definitions for the same words is one of the things G talked about people not being able to understand each other even when they talk the same language. Everyone has a different meaning for everything, each to their own subjective way that they think and see things.

Your definitions seem to me a little "new agey." But that's just how they look to me and I could be wrong on that count.

fwiw

 

[Bernhard]

I just listened to the very interesting interview with Franck Biancheri from the SOTT article "Understanding the Next Phase of the Global Systemic Crisis" http://www.sott.net/articles/show/170854-Understanding-the-Next-Phase-of-the-Global-Systemic-Crisis.

Very well laid out. In the research he presented he also talked about the "Impact Phase" of the economic collapse that had started in September, lasting until the end of the year, followed by a "Decantation Phase".

Interesting to note that the C's talked about the "point of no return" at the September session as well.

Session Date: September 3rd 2008

(List of those present deleted for privacy)

(planchette begins to move... )

A: USA heading for destruction!

Q: (L) Hello. Can we say hello first?

A: Hello

Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening?

A: Yeaionnia of Cassiopaea.

Q: (L) Do you transmit through Cassiopaea?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay. Why do you introduce tonight's adventures with "US is headed for destruction"?

A: Passed the point when anything could possibly be done to change the outcome.

Q: (L) What is this outcome?

A: Increasing inner turmoil. Review what happened in Germany.

 

[Kesdjan]

That's an assumption on your part, and on researchers like Hare. They were largely studying "failed psychopaths", i.e. those with small hippocampi, lower than average intelligence, violent criminality, etc.

Of course! Certain characteristics such as lower intelligence, violence, inability to perceive the future, etc. could be artifacts of maladaption rather than criteria for psychopathy. Ponerology.com made reference to Hare's Checklist with no caveat that he studied mostly failed psychopaths, so perhaps someone can add a footnote to address this.

The question was if defective psychopaths are the way they are because of something that happened in their childhood.

I think they were talking about defective OP's there, not defective psychopaths.

 

[mamadrama]

Q: (DD) Well, that makes me feel better. (G) I wanted to ask about vitamin D supplements. Is it harmful to those infected with L bacteria?

A: Yes

Q: (DD) Silver should take care of that bacterial infection.

A: Partly, but here the problem is not enough of the right bacteria.

Q: (DD) Probiotic supplementation.

A: Yes.

Q: (A***) Are the probiotics good for me too?

A: Absolutely.

Q: (discussion of probiotics and using them along with any antibiotic). (DD) The silver I've got... this BioPharma in India can't understand why this particular type of silver does not disrupt probiotics because every single colloidal silver experimentation that they've been doing, they had to supplement, and nobody knows why this process that makes this silver doesn't affect probiotics. That's something that they're undertaking a study on now. Because ionic silver will kill the probiotics... (A***) I wanna ask, do I have a problem with this bacteria as well?

A: Yes.

Q: (A***) If so, is lying in the sun bad for me because of the vitamin D it produces?

A: Yes.

Q: (A***) Sun is bad? Just a little bit of sun?!

A: Not direct.

Q: (A***) Whatever!! (laughter) Is that the reason I'm getting these white spots?

A: Fungal overgrowth.

Q: (DD) Quick question about the probiotic thing. Why is that this elemental colloidal silver doesn't disrupt intestinal bacteria?

A: Does not bind in the same way due to "shape".

Q: (DD) Yeah, well, we saw these TDM photographs that showed the shape, but it doesn't have anything to do with the negative particle charge as opposed to the positive charge of ionic silver? Does the positive particle charge, as opposed to the negative particle charge of ionic silver, have some effect that spares the probiotics?

A: Has some effect, but the main issue is the shape which does not fit the same binding site.

Q: (DD) Hmm. That's interesting. (Z) I have a low vitamin D. Is it because of L bacteria infection?

A: Yes and other resident "critters."

Q: (DD) Are they protozoan?

A: No.

There is so much information on the benefits of taking vitamin D lately but in light of what the C's say here, I'm wondering if these supplements are really beneficial afterall? Are they just cautioning against it (seems as if both the solar source as well as the vitamin supplement are contraindicated here) if someone has L bacteria? Any further information about this would be appreciated :)

 

[mamadrama]

But my main concern is the supplement. I remember reading a few articles such as this one on SOTT http://www.sott.net/articles/show/152136-New-Research-Challenges-Concept-Of-Vitamin-D-Deficiency that suggest some contraindications in taking supplemental vitamin D.

In a report published in the current issue of the journal BioEssays(1), Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia's Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.

"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body's ultimate response to infection," Marshall said. "Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."

"Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness," Marshall added. "Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively."

Marshall's research has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D can actually block VDR activation, the opposite effect to that of sunshine. Instead of a positive effect on gene expression, Marshall reported that his own work, as well as the work of others, shows that quite nominal doses of ingested vitamin D can suppress the proper operation of the immune system. It is a different metabolite, a secosteroid hormone called 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, which activates the VDR to regulate the expression of the genes. Under conditions that exist in infection or inflammation, the body automatically regulates its production of all the vitamin D metabolites, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the metabolite which is usually measured to indicate vitamin D status.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The question was if defective psychopaths are the way they are because of something that happened in their childhood.

I think they were talking about defective OP's there, not defective psychopaths.

Ahh, yes, my mistake. If the C's were talking about an OP who is "defective" and NOT a psychopath in the way we use the term (essential psychopathy, which ranges from full clinical manifestation as in Cleckley types, to subclinical subcriminal types), then yeah, they're using a different terminology more in line with Dabrowski. He used psychopath to refer to any rigidly integrated psychological structure with a genetic block on development. The block was genetic (and applied to more than half the human population), but a negative environment, or really strong genetics both could produce "psychopathy". (He used sociopathy to describe blocks placed on development strictly by social/environmental factors.)

It's also possible that by "psychopaths" the C's were referring to the Cleckley type of psychopath, and not the so-called "successful" psychopath. Reading over the exchange again, we see that 1) defective OPs = psychopaths, 2) they're defective because of genetics and sometimes because of environment. Therefore, some psychopaths (which is a genetic thing) are "defective" on account of environmental influences in childhood. Now we just need to know how exactly they are "defective". I think this refers to the exposure of their true nature, a lowering of their mask.

An OP lives a "normal" life in the pursuit of basic instincts and drives (self-preservation, primarily). To a multilevel, souled individual, they may appear entirely "normal", but this is mostly due to projection. But this also applies to that small portion of OPs, psychopaths. Some are successful in donning their masks of sanity, some are not. So it would make sense that, just as there are successful and defective OPs, there are successful and defective psychopaths. Perhaps the defective OPs/psychopaths, that are that way because of environment, are the Cleckley type psychopath?

 

[Ruth]

That's an assumption on your part, and on researchers like Hare. They were largely studying "failed psychopaths", i.e. those with small hippocampi, lower than average intelligence, violent criminality, etc.

Of course! Certain characteristics such as lower intelligence, violence, inability to perceive the future, etc. could be artifacts of maladaption rather than criteria for psychopathy. Ponerology.com made reference to Hare's Checklist with no caveat that he studied mostly failed psychopaths, so perhaps someone can add a footnote to address this.

I think by 'failed psychopaths' they mean the ones who get caught!  Naturally, these people probably do have 'lower than average intelligence, violent criminality etc, etc.... that is why they get caught in the first place.  But they are still psychopaths i.e. they have no ability to empathise with others.  They see others as 'objects' and not as people.  The 'true psychopath' is a genetically deficient OP, but the 'failed' psychopath (?) must denote one who is not too smart - or he/she wouldn't get caught!

How many of them are there?  Well, its a bit difficult to know, as you have 'sucessful' psychopaths who put on that 'mask of sanity' thereby fooling everyone and not getting caught, plus you have the ones who get caught and then you also have some seriously badly behaving 'souled' people who are either struggling very hard, or are very closely alligned to the way of entropy (STS). These latter individuals - can they be termed 'true psychopaths'?  Probably not, not if they have empathy of any kind for others.  Are these the ones who go bad (or psychopathic) because of their environment?  Possibly.  But are they true psychopaths?  Depends by who's definition.

This has lead me to the question:  What is empathy?  Because it's obviously something that both OPs and the non-OPs have.  Is it different for both?  I think it is.  But it's never-the-less 'there' for both 'types' of humans, just working in a different way. Empathy is the one thing psychopaths don't have.

 

[domi]

This has lead me to the question: What is empathy? Because it's obviously something that both OPs and the non-OPs have. Is it different for both? I think it is. But it's never-the-less 'there' for both 'types' of humans, just working in a different way. Empathy is the one thing psychopaths don't have.

Ruth, Laura explains the difference between OP and higher center humans nicely in the podcast 'Organic Portals And Psychopathy' if my memory serves me right (Edit: 16min mark is where Laura starts explaining about the empathy aspect; transcript does not seem to be available at this time).

 

[Gaby]

I'm quite fascinated by this subject of L-form bacteria, but rather sceptical of prolonged antibiotic usage as well as sceptical about eliminating all sources of vit. D that the Marshall Protocol suggests.

Antibiotics kill healthy bacteria too, and that is no good. The Marshall Protocol sounds a bit drastic to me, I think people should try other things first like detoxifying and restoring healthy bacteria with probiotics, for example.

Dr. Mercola wrote an article about the Marshall protocol, it will be interesting to see further discussions that arise after his comments:

Clearing Up Confusion on Vitamin D -- Why I Don’t Recommend the Marshall Protocol
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/14/Clearing-Up-Confusion-on-Vitamin-D--Why-I-Dont-Recommend-the-Marshall-Protocol.aspx

Mercola is mostly against it and his reasons are good, although he suggests that maybe it is helpful in sarcoidosis. I think that the Marshall Protocol per se is bit drastic and would never recommend it . There are other things that could be tried: detox, FIR sauna, etc.

It seems that the only thing everybody is agreeing on, is that vitamin D is really a steroid hormone.

 

[Mountain Crown]

It seems that the only thing everybody is agreeing on, is that vitamin D is really a steroid hormone.

With all due respect psyche, this is a misleading statement. It presents a view of Vitamin D research as being without any consensus at best, or rife with confusion at worst. This isn't true.

I had the pleasure of working for a biochemist/nutritionist whose friend and colleague is a top research scientist at the FDA. He insisted that I read much of the vitamin D studies produced by the FDA's research wing over two decades. I've also had some discussions with my brother who is an M.D., and at times continue to read some of the current findings. All in all, I am quite surprised that anyone abreast of the topic would even suggest a lack of cohesion among the numerous reputable scientists and their studies in this field.

The truth is that the cat is now out of the bag about Vitamin D. It is essential for optimum health and its therapeutic value for curing disease is clear. Studies linking the current widespread Vitamin D deficiency to many various pathological conditions are conclusive as well.

 

[Gaby]

It seems that the only thing everybody is agreeing on, is that vitamin D is really a steroid hormone.

With all due respect psyche, this is a misleading statement. It presents a view of Vitamin D research as being without any consensus at best, or rife with confusion at worst. This isn't true.

Apologies if it sounded misleading. Clarifying my comment, what researchers in general seem to agree is that vitamin D (as 1,25-D) is a steroid hormone. That looks like the only thing that researchers in general (including Mercola) and the researchers of the Marshall protocol seem to agree upon.