The following was originally a response to a post in another thread: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=11515
Painter, perhaps it would help if you read "The Wave" so that you could understand that our beginning point is NOT Gurdjieff, it is rather direct initiation via the Cassiopaean Experiment . We find Gurdjieff's work to be very full of rich and helpful concepts, but it is not the foundation here. You could say that it is more the layout of the rooms. We also utilize concepts from Mouravieff who, we clearly understand didn't have the whole cheese (neither did Gurdjieff, but he was a lot closer than Mouravierr), and Castaneda who, it is clear, borrowed a lot of his ideas from Gurdjieff and re-worked them. We also find many clues in modern psychological research.
In general, we have observed that a "direct connection to the work" can be a hindrance rather than a benefit. We do, in fact, have several members of QFS who have been long-time members of various Gurdjieff groups around the world and have discussed and analyzed how they operate. In The Wave, you will come across a discussion of my husband's meeting with Henri Tracol years ago and the result of their discussion. You might find it interesting.
The bottom line is: Gurdjieff's work is only part of the puzzle, though it is a large part.
Let me share a few comments from the Cs - who are, as I mentioned, the foundation, the frame of the puzzle, and the filler inner of many obscure details that would otherwise not be clear - on the subject of Mouravieff and Gurdjieff. The following excerpts are all which discuss either, or mention them in an interesting context. You may find some of these discussions with the Cs to be interesting - or not.
Painter said:I've bolded and underlined parts of the quote above because I wish to emphasize something which is commonly overlooked in the Gurdjieff ideas, especially by those who do not have access to a direct connection to the work. And that is, as stated, self-observation rightly conducted itself is the beginning of growth and change.
Painter, perhaps it would help if you read "The Wave" so that you could understand that our beginning point is NOT Gurdjieff, it is rather direct initiation via the Cassiopaean Experiment . We find Gurdjieff's work to be very full of rich and helpful concepts, but it is not the foundation here. You could say that it is more the layout of the rooms. We also utilize concepts from Mouravieff who, we clearly understand didn't have the whole cheese (neither did Gurdjieff, but he was a lot closer than Mouravierr), and Castaneda who, it is clear, borrowed a lot of his ideas from Gurdjieff and re-worked them. We also find many clues in modern psychological research.
In general, we have observed that a "direct connection to the work" can be a hindrance rather than a benefit. We do, in fact, have several members of QFS who have been long-time members of various Gurdjieff groups around the world and have discussed and analyzed how they operate. In The Wave, you will come across a discussion of my husband's meeting with Henri Tracol years ago and the result of their discussion. You might find it interesting.
The bottom line is: Gurdjieff's work is only part of the puzzle, though it is a large part.
Let me share a few comments from the Cs - who are, as I mentioned, the foundation, the frame of the puzzle, and the filler inner of many obscure details that would otherwise not be clear - on the subject of Mouravieff and Gurdjieff. The following excerpts are all which discuss either, or mention them in an interesting context. You may find some of these discussions with the Cs to be interesting - or not.
22 June 2002
Q: We have recently been working with some material from Boris Mouravieff. We can see many relationships. I would like to ask about some of his political views, his ideas about creating some elite corps to help the world graduate to what he calls the cycle of the Holy Spirit. How accurate are those views of Mouravieff?
A: Mouravieff, like many who have protected and passed on the "tradition" are merely carriers and not interpreters of the capacity of a Master. The True Master understands the nature of the "worlds" in terms of real, Hyperdimensional Interpenetration. Thus Mouraveiff and others misunderstand and misinterpret, thinking in 3rd density Hierarchical terms which simply do not apply.
13 July 2002
Q: We have recently been working with some material from Boris Mouravieff. We can see many relationships between that work and so many of the clues and hints scattered throughout the C's transmissions. What seems to be important is his information about the Centers - three lower and three higher that are not "seated" in the body. Then, he talks about the difference between "A" influences and "B" influences, and the necessity for assimilation of "B" influences in order to fuse the "magnetic center" which then enables the soul - or higher centers - to "seat" in the body. Is the information from Mouravieff about these matters fairly accurate?
A: Not just fairly. It has been preserved from the time of the "Fall."
Q: Mouravieff states clearly that this teaching is a "thin thread" of an oral tradition, and that the monks themselves - in various locations - admit that it has not only not been put into writing, but has not ever even been "gathered together" in a single place. This is, of course, problematical, but it seems that Mouravieff has made a sincere effort to present the material of the Tradition itself, even if he has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to weave through it some of the occult traditions of Europe that have been so very popular for so long, particularly the synarchic views of Guenon and so forth. In seems that, in this respect, Mouravieff has interpreted many things in an "A influence" sort of way. And then, there is Mouravieff's presentation of the "worlds." It seems to be very similar to the teaching about "densities," though without the balance of STS and STO.
A: If it is understood in the original context of hyperdimensional realities. Also, there are some distortions and gloss on the subject of the "worlds" and
"notes." But even this is only minor.
Q: Mouravieff says that there are two kinds of humans - he calls the "pre-Adamic" and "Adamic," (discussed in book III). The idea is that pre-Adamic human types basically have no "soul" nor any possibility of growing one. This is a pretty shocking idea, but there have been recent scholarly discussions of this matter based on what seems to be clinical evidence that, indeed, there are human beings who are just "mechanical" and have no "inner" or "higher self" at all. [See: "Division of Consciousness"] Gurdjieff talked about this and so did Castaneda. Are these ideas Mouravieff presents about the two basic TYPES of humans, as far as they go, accurate?
A: Indeed, though again, there is a "Biblical Gloss."
Q: Mouravieff says that the "pre-Adamic" humans do not have the higher centers, nor the possibility of developing them in this cycle - which we assume to be the Grand Cycle you have previously described, the length of which is around 300,000 years. Is this an accurate representation of "pre-Adamic" beings?
A: Yes, they are "organic" portals between levels of density.
Q: Based on what Mouravieff has said, it seems to be so that any efforts to try to raise the consciousness of such individuals is doomed to fail.
A: Pretty much. Most of them are very efficient machines. The ones that you have identified as psychopaths are "failures." The best ones cannot be discerned except by long and careful observation.
Q: (V) Have I, or anyone in this room, ever encountered any, and if so, can you give us an example for reference?
A: If you consider that the population is equally distributed, then you will understand that in an ordinary "souled" person's life, that person will encounter half as many organic portals as souled individuals. BUT, when someone is in the process of "growing" and strengthening the soul, the Control System will seek to insert even more "units" into that person's life. Now, think of all the people you have ever met and particularly those with whom you have been, or are, intimate. Which half of this number would YOU designate as being organic portals? Hard to tell, eh?
Q: (BT) Is this the original meaning of the "pollution of the bloodline" that the Bible talks about?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) This certainly gives a whole new meaning to all the experiences we have had with people like "Frank" and Vincent Bridges and Terri Burns, Olga and the rest of the gang! What this means is that the work of discerning these organic portals from souled human beings is CRUCIAL to the so-called ascension process. Without the basic understanding of transformation of, and conservation of energies, there is no possibility of fusing a magnetic center. No wonder the Bridges gang and the COINTELPRO types went bananas while I was publishing the Adventures Series! And sheesh! They will go bonkers with this organic portal stuff! (V) In thinking back over my life, it seems to me that my father is certainly one of these organic portals.
A: Now, do not start labeling without due consideration. Remember that very often the individual who displays contradictory behavior may be a souled being in struggle.
Q: (L) I would say that the chief thing they are saying is that the really good ones - you could never tell except by long observation. The one key we discovered from studying psychopaths was that their actions do not match their words. But what if that is a symptom of just being weak and having no will? (A) How can I know if I have a soul?
A: Do you ever hurt for another?
Q: (V) I think they are talking about empathy. These soulless humans simply don't care what happens to another person. If another person is in pain or misery, they don't know how to care.
A: The only pain they experience is "withdrawal" of "food" or comfort, or what they want. They are also masters of twisting perception of others so as to seem to be empathetic. But, in general, such actions are simply to retain control.
Q: (A) What does having a soul or not having a soul have to do with bloodline?
A: Genetics marry with soul if present.
Q: Do "organic portals" go to fifth density when they die?
A: Only temporarily until the "second death."
Q: (V) What is the "origin" of these organic portal human types? In the scheme of creation, where did they come from?
A: They were originally part of the bridge between 2nd density and 3rd density. Review transcripts on the subject of short wave cycles and long wave cycles.
Q: (A) Now, I was reading in the transcripts that sleep is necessary for human beings because it was a period of rest and recharging. You also said that the SOUL rests while the body is sleeping. So, the question is: what source of energy is tapped to recharge both the body and the soul?
A: The question needs to be separated. What happens to a souled individual is different from an organic portal unit.
Q: (L) I guess that means that the life force energy that is embodied in Organic Portals is something like the soul pool that is theorized to exist for flora and fauna. This would, of course, explain the striking and inexplicable similarity of psychopaths, that is so well defined that they only differ from one another in the way that different species of trees are different in the overall class of Tree-ness. So, if they don't have souls, where does the energy come from that recharges Organic Portals?
A: The pool you have described.
Q: Does the recharging of the souled being come from a similar pool, only maybe the "human" pool?
A: No - it recharges from the so-called sexual center which is a higher center of creative energy. During sleep, the emotional center, not being blocked by the lower intellectual cener and the moving center, transduces the energy from the sexual center. It is also the time during which the higher emotional and intellectual centers can rest from the "drain" of the lower centers' interaction with those pesky organic portals so much loved by the lower centers. This respite alone is sufficient to make a difference. But, more than that, the energy of the sexual center is also more available to the other higher centers.
Q: (L) Well, the next logical question was: where does the so-called "sexual center" get ITS energy?
A: The sexual center is in direct contact with 7th density in its "feminine" creative thought of "Thou, I Love." The "outbreath" of "God" in the relief of constriction. Pulsation. Unstable Gravity Waves.
Q: Do the "centers" as described by Mouravieff relate at all to the idea of "chakras?"
A: Quite closely. In an individual of the organic variety, the so-called higher chakras are "produced in effect" by stealing that energy from souled beings. This is what gives them the ability to emulate souled beings. The souled being is, in effect, perceiving a mirror of their own soul when they ascribe "soul qualities" to such beings.
Q: Is this a correspondence that starts at the basal chakra which relates to the sexual center as described by Mouravieff?
A: No. The "sexual center" corresponds to the solar plexus.
Lower moving center - basal chakra
Lower emotional - sexual chakra
Lower intellectual - throat chakra
Higher emotional - heart chakra
Higher intellectual - crown chakra
Q: (L) What about the so-called seventh, or "third eye" chakra?
A: Seer. The union of the heart and intellectual higher centers.
[Laura's note: This would "close the circuit" in the "shepherd's crook"
configuration.]
Q: (V) What about the many ideas about 12 chakras, and so forth, that are currently being taught by many new age sources? [Barbara Marciniak, for one.]
A: There are no such. This is a corrupted conceptualization based on the false belief that the activation of the physical endocrine system is the same as the creation and fusion of the magnetic center. The higher centers are only "seated" by being "magnetized." And this more or less "External" condition [location of the higher centers] has been perceived by some individuals and later joined to the perceived "seating" locations, in potential. This has led to "cross conceptualization" based on assumption!
Q: Are the levels of initiation and levels of the staircase as presented
by Mouravieff fairly accurate?
A: Yes, but different levels accessed in other so-called lives can relieve
the intensity of some levels in "another" life.
Q: (L) So work on the self in different incarnations - assuming one is not an organic portal - can be cumulative? You can pick up where you left off if you screw up?
A: Yes. To some extent.
31 July 2002
(L) Okay, I want to ask a question. What is the energy behind this Zulu guy and his little contingent? {I was very disturbed that this group of people came to see me and wanted to "worship" me as the representative of the Divine Mother on Earth.}
A: He has a valid connection, however there is a lot of static around him.
Q: (L) Is the static coming from {the people} with him?
A: No! They follow his lead.
Q: (S) What does a valid connection mean?
A: His source.
Q: (S) Is that Credo Mutwa?
A: Yes
Q: (I) So all his theory about this Light Warrior thing may have some kind of credibility?
A: In a sense, but not precisely in the way thought. Groups of people represent energy portals in cosmic rather than global terms.
Q: (S) Does that mean that we are seeing him as a force that was a representative...
A: Light warriors are "connectors" on a cosmic level.
Q: (L) Connectors between what and what?
A: Transducers of energy of transition rather like capacitors!
Q: (L) What's a capacitor? (M) It's an electrical way of collecting and dumping a flowing charge; a way of accumulating charge and releasing it later in a sudden burst of energy. You can send enormously strong pulses from capacitors by putting in small amounts of energy over a long period of time. They used to be called accumulators. (J) What transition?
A: Transition of your sector of space/time.
Q: (I) So are they accumulating energies and is it at a particular point that we may need help to transition they...(S) Give us the energy necessary, is that what you mean?
A: Partly. It will depend on how much awareness you manage to generate to direct the energy.
Q: (I) It's like he was right. (A) So for these capacitors (J) Partly. (L) Zulus, Light Warriors. Is this a genetic function?
A: More or less.
Q: (I) What do we want to say on this? (L) You know they throw you something you don't expect and what do you do? You have all your little preconceived notions and you have it all figured out and you think you're going to get a little confirmation and then they toss you something that says uh-uh. (S) Well this is a whole new concept...well not really. (I) Well they are more in tune with the Earth so, and they say it's the awareness they manage to generate. So if we don't generate this awareness they're going to transduce a different kind of energy? (L) They'll tranduce into STS I guess. The energy is free it's just...(S) It just depends on our awareness. (I) Yeah because STS needs light also. (S) So should we ask does it...(I) Depend on how much awareness we generate?
A: They can be "food for the moon" or food for the soul.
Q: (I) Well, God they've been food for the Moon for a long time. (L) So has everybody else. (S) It's the same for all of us though, so is there anything special about them or different than anybody else?
A: Absolutely.
Q: (J) So their genetics...it's a function of genetics... (A) I would ask if there is any other say nation or tribe of similar make-up? (S) Yeah, maybe there's a tribe in every section of the world, or something.
A: There is a "spectrum" as Mouravieff suggests, however the Zulu compose a sort of "drone" tone.
Q: (S) So is this something they do deliberately or is it something unconscious?
A: It is a function of the 4th density energies they "represent."
Q: (A) Okay, so it is a drone tone. That is the main tone which is foundational to the harmonics. You build the music on this infrastructure, so to say. (L) There's the drone, there's the bass, there's the melody. (I) Listen to his voice, what does his voice sound like to you? I don't know...(J) Yeah, there is a resonance. (I) Yeah, in his voice. (J) They said a spectrum as in Mouravieff, the spectrum of the genetics able to carry light or to act as a light for transition. I'm not really sure on how that...(L) I think they're talking about a soul tone. (I) That singing that they do, that special kind of singing is it symbolic of that drone tone.
A: Indeed, as is all of reality symbolic of things at other levels and "depths" of being.
Q: (I) Okay, think of the Lion King and that singing and what it induces and when you hear that humming. (A) I would ask if there is anything we should pay specific attention to important with these guys, if there is some caution?
A: Be sincere and direct and see what transpires.
Q: (S) I guess that would mean that you would say that you're a little nervous about the whole thing and you're not sure what's up. (L) Yeah.
A: Also tell them that "yes, the ancestors are also the future selves." Those are specfic terms that carry meaning unfamiliar to your cultural context.
14 September 2002
Q: (L) Okay, now we have a couple of questions we want to get to here. You said before that OP's were originally intended as a bridge between second and third densities and that they were used. Is Mouravieff right about the potential for OP's to advance being dependent upon souled beings advancement to STO at the end of this cycle?
A: Not exactly. A soul imprint can grow independent of the cycle. However, it is more likely for a soul to "grow" when interacting with 4th Density STO. STS tends to drain energy for its own use.
Q: (L) The question came up about the remark as to the numbers of OPs and you said something about encountering half as many OP's as souled humans. It was pointed out that, in mathematical terms, that would work out to encountering or interacting with more souled humans than OPs. So, you said the population was evenly distributed, when you say the population was evenly distributed does that mean that there are half organic portals and half souled humans, more or less?
A: Yes
Q: (L) So when you say encountering 'half as many,' what does that mean?
A: It means that "souls" run in families for the most part. Thus a souled, and we mean "potentially fully souled, individual is likely to encounter and interact more with other souled humans. However, when awakening, they may encounter even more OP's.
Q: (L) So they tend to run in families so they can have aberrations. Or a family that's mostly OP's could have an occasional souled human, which they don't know what to do with. And, in the same way, a family of mostly souled people could have an occasional OP, or a line of them that pops up in the family every now and then. But for the most part, people with souls marry people with souls unless there is some danger of them awakening in which case there's special situation where they insert OP's into their lives. But I would say that in a general sense what they're saying, and y'all can correct me if I'm wrong here, is that, what, water seeks its own level, so to speak.
A: More or less.
Q: (L) So in other words, the people who noticed that remark were right, and the way I took it was wrong. Okay, another question, are there other types of soulless beings more than those reanimated or remolecularized dead dudes and OP's? Is there such things as holographic projection beings running around on the planet at this point and time?
A: In a sense, you are all "holographic" projections. But to answer the question, it is rare.
Q: (L) So, there are holographic projection type beings or there can be, but there's not too many of them. Alright, on to the next question. Are there any particular clues that we could have about identifying OP's?
A: Is it necessary to have more clues? Remember some things are to be learned.
23 October 1994
Q: (L) I would like to know if the teachings of Gurdjieff
were in any way accurate or near the truth?
A: Open.
4 March 1995
Q: (L) Georges Gurdjieff
proposed the idea that the earth is, in a sense, food for
the moon. What he meant was, what he had learned from
these ancient teachers was that earth was a food source
for some level of being, and that possibly these beings
had encampments or bases on the moon, but that earth was
eventually to become a star and that then the moon would
become an inhabited planet as the earth was, and so on...
Is this a fairly...
A: Close.
7 May 1995
Q: (L) One of the persons who talks of the ocatave cycle is
Gurdjieff, the Sufi teachings, several of the great
philosophical teachings talk about the octave effect.
There is the cycle of seven and the next cycle is at a
higher level and is called an octave like the segments on
the musical scale.
A: Who are we?
Q: (L) The Cassiopaeans.
A: Yes, now, we have volunteered to assist you in your
development, yes?
Q: (L) So, throw all that other crap out the window?
A: If there were a level eight, do you think we would have
failed to mention it at this point?!?
Q: (J) Good point. (SV) They forgot! (J) Oh, by the way,
did we mention level eight?! (T) Well, maybe these other
people are perceiving the recycling as moving into another
octave rather than just doing it all over and over. They
just haven't got the information straight yet. A: There
are many who speak, and some who speak the truth! Q:
(J) Yeah, but which ones are speaking the truth? (L) The
truth is out there! But why Seven? What is the
significance of the number seven?
A: Why not?
Q: (T) Could there as easily have been eight or nine or six?
A: Is there "significance" to anything?
Q: (L) Only the significance we give it, I guess.
A: And if so, what is that?
Q: (T) Well, it is interesting to me because it means there
was a structure to the way things were set up. There must
have been a reason it was selected this way as opposed to
another way.
A: Really?
Q: (T) It didn't just happen. Nothing just happens! (J)
Now, hold on a second, base 10 is because we have 10
fingers.
A: Who says?
Q: (T) You did.
A: Oh yeah?
Q: (L) Are you saying, essentially, that it is the way it is
because things are just arbitrarily that way?
A: No, we are trying to teach you how to complete the puzzle.
Q: (T) So the reason it is what it is and why is something we
have to figure out.
A: And you have to figure out what is reason?
Q: (T) The reason for what? (J) For the seven.
A: No. No. No. Pay attention, please. What is reason?
Q: (J) As in reasoning?
A: Much of your learning to this point is based upon
assumption of definitions of reality.
Q: (L) And, all of our assumptions are completely wrong?
A: Not all.
Q: (J) Anything that is rooted in 3rd density doesn't apply
in most of these things and that's where we have to let
go.
A: Logic is subjective.
Q: (L) Is symbolic logic as is used in mathematics
subjective?
A: No.
Q: (L) But you always come up with different things using
math than mentation. Okay. Well, we opened a can of
worms here. (T) We do that every time. (J) Worms are us!
[Laughter]
A: Ongoing project.
Q: (T) Teaching us is an ongoing project. (J) We are a can
of worms. (L) Is there any point in time when these
communications will end?
[Tape ends abruptly and snaps off to surprised laughter at
the synchronicity.]
Q: (L) Was that a symbolic answer to that question?
A: Open.
3 July 1999
Q: (A) Okay, if it is sincere, then it means I should answer him. Last question: I was thinking about what is the most important for me at the present, and I think that I want to understand and implement this concept of densities; to implement it into physics and mathematics. But, it seems to me that I am completely alone with that. I would like to know where should I look, because certainly other people have already tried to do it. I don't want to start from scratch if there is something that I can look at or study before I really jump into this difficult project. Were there people, scientists... where to look?
A: Study the works of Gurdjieff and Jung, for starters. Also, Vallee is on a similar path, and a little ahead of you. He would be most approachable, if you can convince him of your sincerity.
Q: (A) Vallee? Okay, I finished my questions...
A: Okay, so until the next, goodbye.
10 July 1999
Q: (A) Now, the two main concepts that we are using are dimensions and densities. Again, you use the concept of dimension in not quite the way physicists and mathematicians use it. {...} (L) Define dimension. (A) I have tried to guess what you mean by dimensions from all the things that you have said about it...
A: Our "meaning" is closer to that of the general public definition.
Q: (A) Very good, yet you have said certain things in a context that was more related to the structure of the universe. And we were talking about dimensions also in the context of Kaluza-Klein theories. At one point, you said there are infinitely many dimensions, and at another point it was implied that different dimensions meant different universes, which would mean that there are infinitely many universes. I would like to represent these dimensions in some mathematical model. My idea was that these dimensions were like slices; and each slice is a universe and, indeed, there are infinitely many possible slices. So, that was my idea of dimensions: slices. Is it correct?
A: That is good.
Q: (A) There are infinitely many dimensions because there are infinitely many slices. Now we come to densities. There are not infinitely many densities, there are only seven. Or, are these seven just for the general public and there are really infinitely many of them as well?
A: No.
Q: (A) Good. So, there are seven densities. Now, how come, there are seven, and not three or five, or eleven? Does it follow from some mathematics?
A: What form of mathematical theory best describes the concept of balance?
Q: (L) Algebra. (A) So, I had the idea that these seven densities were related to what Gurdjieff relates to the number of laws that apply in the various densities; the higher the density, the fewer the laws that apply, which means there is more freedom?
A: That is very close. Consciousness is the key here.
Q: (A) Yes, so my question relates to the geometric model of gravity and consciousness.
A: Picture an endless octagonal... in three dimensions.
Q: (A) A lattice, you mean?
A: Okay.
Q: (A) Are these densities related to the mathematical concept of 'signatures of the metric?' I would like to model densities with slices of different geometric properties, in particular slices with different properties of the distance.
A: Yes...
Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing... they are almost on the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar ideas without having access to channeling?
A: Who said they they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.
Q: (A) Today, on this list there was a guy by the name of Boyd who talks about his shamanistic experiences in talking to rocks. He doesn't sound whacko, but he talks to these stones on a daily basis and these stones talk to him, and these rocks have consciousness, they have memories. I wrote to him, but I would like to know if his experiences are authentic and not just his imagination?
A: That is a very broad question, which assumes limits or barriers where none may exist.
20 August 2001
Q: (L) What is the general approach that all of us should take to Vincent? Should we try to explain anything to him?
A: No.
Q: Will he ever get it?
A: Most likely not.
Q: That's a shame. (A) We don't know. It's "most likely not." (L) Well, I know, but "most likely not" it would really, really take a big event in his life to... does he WANT to get it?
A: No.
Q: Well. (A) It's not the right question because it assumes there is a "he" and there are 20 of "he's." He's not an "I." He's a typical example of what Gurdjieff said, there is no Master, there are several of them, and they want to serve different gods. We ask about "he, " but there is not even a major "he." There is "he" on Thursday and "he" on Wednesday. There is "he" in the night and "he" in the day. That's it.
A: True.
26 February 2002
Q: (A) I have a question because when I was asking about quantum jumps, the answer was, I don't know if I will be able to read because it is in cipher, it's coded. I cannot decode okay. Reads With respect to ummm... (Ark and Rickard are reading from a paper) (R) "With room for alterations, the way to quantum jumps the key to quantum jumps is always in discovering new mathematics." My first question is about this 'room for alterations' which sounds very suspicious - like hinting. 'Room' here is a strange word. I suspect that it has hidden meaning like for instance Hilbert space. It is my guess that the room here has a double meaning correct?
A: Di/bi/double.
Q: (L) Di like dipole, bi like a bipole and double, which is triple meaning.
Q: (A) Now this new mathematics was the answer I was given when I was asking about the p-adic numbers, which relates to the prime numbers. So I got a book on p-adic numbers. And I am ready to jump into this new mathematics, but I don't want jump into the wrong thing, okay? So the question is: what is this 'new mathematics?' Can it be related to quantum jump?
A: In this respect you are going to have to put the puzzle together from many pieces.
Q: (L) So there is no one form of mathematics that's going to cover everything. (R) We have fractals, we have p-adic numbers, primes, rings, and groups. Ah! Should we ask if the Benzene Ring was also related to group and ring algebra, not just algebra, is that a good question? (A) Yeah, we know that algebra is important, we know that algebra is the main math, so that if we ask about algebra the answer would certainly be 'yes,' so it is not specific enough. (R) Okay. Should we ask whether it is ring algebra in combination with prime numbers? (A) Yes, certainly the answer is 'yes' because when we study prime numbers it automatically comes with the rings. There's no way to avoid it. (R) I have only one question left on that and that is whether the detectors are consciousness interface points, is that where consciousness is interfacing with reality?
A: Frequency awareness boundaries.
Q: (L) What are frequency awareness boundaries made of? Whose awareness? (R) But it makes sense. (L) Yeah, but whose awareness is it a boundary of? (R) I guess ours. (A) Who is 'ours'? Whose awareness? Universal? (R) General, for any awareness I suppose.
A: 7th density nature/divisions.
Q: (A) Okay, so there is this general -what Gurdjieff calls worlds - he had a very good description. (R) Okay so my question would be if consciousness, for example us three in this room, are we interacting with reality through 7th density which uses these frequency awareness boundaries? Right so it's kind of a middle step. I'm not sure how to phrase it.
A: 7th density interacts with divisions through you.
Q: (R) Ah! So it is not us interacting with reality through 7th density it's the other way around. 7th density is interacting with the concept of divisions through us. It makes sense to me in a strange kind of way. (A) That is how it works. (L) We're it. (R) We are the interface. (R) Of course, duh! (L) We could've had a V-8.
30 March 2002
Q: (V) Okay. I was going through some of the transcripts and reading, and I found the statement in there that said "consciousness is the half-life of energy" and I thought this was just so interesting. Let me ask this: is that half-life, because with chemistry and chemicals they know exactly what the half-life is of certain, say uranium, that it has so many years until it changes into what ever it changes into...(L) But it is statistical. (V) Statistical. Okay. What is the time span or frame of reference where its energy degenerates, morphs, whatever the word is, into consciousness?
A: You are assuming that physical understanding applies. In this case the better question would be: What is energy?
Q: (L) What is energy? [asking Ark] (A) Don't know. (L) What do you mean, "don't know?" (A) Nobody knows. (L) Oh! I see what they're saying. Energy can't be compared to a physical process such as the half-life of an atomic element or something. (V) Alright, and also maybe this is my assumption as I am relating energy to thought processes.
A: How do you know that "thinking" is energy?
Q: (V) Well, I don't think that I know that it is, I'm just postulating and thinking about it.
A: How about "utilization?"
Q: (V) Okay, what is energy? I know the atom and the nucleus, and I basically understand the physics of energy, but is that what you're talking about?
A: Take an example: Light is an energy expression of gravity. Utilization of gravity "generates" light.
Q: (A) The point is that we can't define concepts. We can show simply how they work in certain, how you say...(B) Framework. (A) Okay: framework, by relating them to other concepts and by pointing out that this is the correct use of this word and this is the incorrect use of this word. And this is not mathematics. In mathematics everything is defined in terms of primitive concepts. Here, we don't know what are the primitive concepts. So we say" now here is light and it's an expression of energy. Now what is so particular about light? You can think about what you learn from physics. From physics you know that light has no mass, it is pure quantum of energy. What it means, we really don't know. We know that when light is absorbed, it has a physical effect, but in the meantime where does it go? It is not mass. It's something that can hit you like energy; but not a piece of a solid something; it is pure energy. And then we know something from the Theory of Relativity, that when light travels a distance from one point to another point in the 4th dimensional Einstein space, the distance measured in this 4th dimension is zero. If you sit on a ray of light you are instantaneously everywhere. Time does not flow for light which travels. That's energy. For a mass, time flows. Mass understands what is time. For light everything is instantaneous. So we learn a little bit of what energy is even if we can't seem to define it, right?
A: And, as you already guess, consciousness "precedes" light as an energy expression. So the question is: How do your quantifications apply?
Q: (A) Which is true of the following two possibilities: a) In certain circumstances energy can create consciousness. b) In certain circumstances consciousness can create energy.
A: B: consciousness can create energy.
Q: (V) And isn't light also information?
A: Light is utilization.
Q: (V) Okay, light is utilization. How is that done? Is this a process? Maybe I would understand it better if it said "the utilization of light."
A: What would you utilize light for?
Q: (V) Well, to raise consciousness. To raise awareness.
A: How would light raise consciousness?
Q: (V) If light is energy, I mean, if light is information...(A) Light is not information. It's not what you learn in physics. You can use light to send information. (V) Why does it have to be about physics? (L) What else can it be about? Physics is concerned with the most fundamental questions of reality. (A) What is light? What do you know about light? What is light for you may be another definition of light. (L) This is what they've said before: They've said that light is produced by utilization of knowledge. That light is an energy expression of gravity. They've also said that light is an expression of the utilization of knowledge. So we come to the idea that knowledge is gravity in a certain sense. In other words knowledge consists of all things that could or could not be in all contexts, in all realms, in all dimensions, in all universes, that the sum total of everything is like this non-existent, non-dimensional point of everything that could ever exist. It's almost like this zero point from which all potential could erupt given the proper circumstances. We're getting into something where there's not many words to describe it. There's a huge limitation here that if you don't know math, your words can only take you so far because as precise as you can get with your words, you can't get as precise as you can get with numbers. Numbers say things that words cannot, and they say it in a way that communicates directly to some part of the mind that bypasses this word processing organ. Well I don't want to say bypasses, I mean it goes to a place that's higher than a word processing organ, so to speak. Another interesting thing is all the knowledge that we can gather is like gravity, and collecting gravity is like becoming heavier. But then when you utilize it, you share it and there is a burst of light and this is the utilization. In other words utilizing your knowledge is doing something with it. And that goes back to that thing that Gurdjieff said that for those in the higher esoteric circles, at that inner level their understanding is immediately expressed as action. Understanding and action are like two sides of the same coin. And then of course there's other levels where they have understanding but they have no action. We've all seen that in the gurus who sit around and contemplate their navels saying they understand everything but they're not doing anything. They just sit there contemplating their navel. Until one can do and act based on their understanding it is not utilized and they then have not produced light unto the world. A simple example is - We can sit here and collect 700 pages of gravity of information, or knowledge and until we utilize it, until we do something with it, until we share it, it's not light... we've just collected it and it's gravity. But the minute we start writing it, the minute we start processing it through us into our reality in some way, we write web pages or we do some activity or we do as the C's say, "You will do what you will do" and that's entirely a function of your understanding. (V) Of light as utilization. (A) Light when it stops it becomes matter. Maybe it is so that, at another level, when consciousness hits something, it becomes light. (V) What is it hitting? (A) For instance a consciousness is hitting another consciousness. So, there is a reaction. And as a result of this reaction, light is created which carries somehow the information, the knowledge of the interaction. (L) So we end up almost coming around in a circle. (V) So what you're saying then is light is not the first. (A) No we know already that consciousness creates light. We've got this answer, consciousness is more primitive. There are these levels of matter/reality I would say, okay? (V) Okay. I had it backwards in my head. I thought light was more primitive than consciousness. (A) Light is very close to matter, you stop light and you get matter. (L) Matter is nothing but congealed light. Another thing: light is an energy expression of gravity. It's an energy expression. That suggests that gravity is energy unexpressed. And when it expresses it's light. And when it expresses here and then it expresses there we have these units of consciousness which are unexpressed energy prior to light. When gravity is expressed it is consciousness - perhaps manifesting as some other range of the EM spectrum - and then the next level of the expression is when one consciousness energy and another consciousness energy interacts with each other and then light is produced. Possibly. (A) Another possibility is that consciousness is the organizing principle. Light is something that is already organized. (L) What if consciousness is an unstable gravity wave. (A) We don't know what that is. We don't even know what are gravity waves. (L) The bottom line is, we're probing into realms that have been probed and probed and probed for ages with no definitive results. (A) Oh, we'll find out. (B) The sad thing about it is this whole process is cluttered with so much misdirection and semantics. (L) Yeah, and the battle factor.
18 August 2002
[Planchette is recognized by Laura and Terri to just be "bouncing" around the board.]
Q: (L) Alright you trade off, see what happens.[Terry removes his hand from planchette.]
Q: (L) Hello, hello, anybody?
A: Give rest to Terry.
Q: (L) What do you mean "Give rest to Terry?"
A: He is detuned due to long absence.
Q: (L) What's this about ill?
A: Ill fitting energy resonance. Terry needs to regroove.
Q: (L) How does Terry regroove? (T) Yes, how do I regroove? (L) How does a person regroove?
A: First by spending time in learning to the same level as others in
resonance.
Q: (T) It moves quick yet. (L) So in other words, umm...well I don't know. (A) We are not talking to Cassiopaeans, we are talking to someone unknown.
A: Yes Cassiopaea.
Q: (L) Why was it spelled funny the first time?
A: Lack of resonance.
Q: (T) Well I guess I'm out of resonance. (L) Why is Terry out of resonance?
A: Too long absence and cares of life.
Q: (T) Too much 3rd density?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) It's been a busy summer. (J) There's been a lot happening. (L) Yeah really, I know. Alright so, tell us what to do about it, do you want to know what to do about it? (T) What do we do about it?
A: Interaction is highly desirable. Even if only he is in contact via email.
Q: (T) Email? Do they have email at 6th density? (J) No.
A: Grooving is long process.
Q: [Terry looks at Laura inquiringly] (L) Well ask. Grooving is also a process of asking. (T) So being away too long is a loss of the groove, frequency? (L) I don't think it's a loss. (T) A change? (L) I don't think it's a change, you ask. (T) Well if it's a long process what is required to start it?
A: Not loss, failure to keep with pace of rapid advancement of process of network.
Q: (T) Well, that could be. (L) Well you didn't lose anything. (T) I just
haven't gained anything. (J) We haven't been keeping up with the story because we've been focused on other things. We've been away for four years. But I think up until maybe the past whatever, he still kept in touch and kept involved in it. But I think with everything that's been happening he hasn't had time. (L) Well too damn busy. (T) Gotta survive here too.
A: He is holding steady.
Q: (T) Well steady's better than nothing I guess. At least I can be considered steady. (L) That's funny. (T) Can I touch this again? (L) Try it, just keep kicking in. (T) Well I'm asking them if I can touch it.
A: Yes keep signalling.
Q: (T) Hello. Hello. (L) We've been doing a lot of thinking about it and it's
a noise to signal thing and then of course...(J) It's almost like tuning in a radio station. (L) Yeah.
A: Cow.
Q: (Laughter) (L) Okay, I've got to find out what cow means. (T) Are you
calling me a cow? Moooo (Laughter).
A: Sacred cows.
Q: (T) I'm a sacred cow? (L) Do you have sacred cows? (T) I've got cats, there sacred cats. We've got cows down the street. What kind of sacred cows? (L) Sacred cows to the group is like when we hang on to certain ideas that we ought to let go of and we're hanging on to assumptions and ideas...(J) They're holding you back...(L) Right. In fact did you see our little refrigerator magnet--No Sacred Cows, NO BULL. (L) Are you saying Terry has sacred cows?
A: Somewhat.
Q: (T) Well doesn't everybody? (L) We don't. Not anymore. We learned how to get rid of them, very painfully. It hurts. (T) They always hurt. And me I always considered myself a sacred cow buster.
A: Terry needs to get in the groove.
Q: (T) How do I get in the groove?
A: Networking works.
Q: (T) Does that mean I need to post on the message board occasionally? (L) I don't know do you read the messages? Even if you don't post. (T) For the most part. I'm not there every day. I try to keep up with what you're writing. That in itself is a lot of work. (L) I can't even do that! I forgot it all already.
A: Attention is a bi-directional signal. It works best in an exchange.
Q: (J) So where just reading the posts doesn't keep the energy up as much as participating, is that what you mean? (A) That's kind of like when you learn something and you do not do exercises, it's not the same. Exercises flow from you to answer, only when you answer it really gets some help processing. If you just read without answering it is different processing. Maybe that's it. (T) It very well could be. How well did the board work with everybody else when they were all here? People who never touched the board before? (L) Well, nobody ever touched it. We just do it and everybody sits around the table. I guess resonance or whatever. We just got used to working it by ourselves. (A) But in the beginning we had trouble. (J) How often is there someone other than just the two of you on the board? (L) Never. We don't anymore, we just don't even do it anymore. (J) So it's always just the two of you? (L) Yeah, that's the resonance I guess. (J) So that it's as much the fact no one else has been involved in it and it's grooved to the two of you... (A) Yes, this is probable. (J)...coupled with the fact that Terry's been away and maybe not as grooved into the energy because of everything that's been going on. (T) Can it be the energy itself has changed? Or that each person brings different energy? (J) Well we know that.
A: Resonance that is pure is a property of co-linearity. It can resonate thereby to a stronger signal of similar purity.
Q: (A) Co-linearity essentially means going in the same direction. (J) Running along the same lines in similarity. (L) So when you become co-linear...(J) You guys are co-linear right now, you have been since you've connected, you've always been co-linear. So that's how it's grooved to your resonance to each other. (L) Yeah. (J) That's how I take that, whether it's right or not, I don't know. (T) Does that mean we're co-linear, with more twists maybe (to Jan)? (J) Well I think we are. (L) Well the one thing that I think happened or is happening with the group because of the interaction is that everybody is becoming more or less co-linear. It's like increasing, it's like everybody is...their all coming to the same...I don't even know how to say it. It's not the same because everybody has their own particular perspective, it's like they contribute to it. It's like a whole bunch of different people in a circle looking at something, and they're all describing their particular perspective of it... (T) Like their describing an elephant. (L)...and the whole elephant is growing out of it. (J) In other words it's building upon everyone's concentration and their particular focus. It's like everyone's bringing their...(L)...And contributing ...(J)...focus to the table and it's all building from that. (L) Yeah, that's the only way I can describe it because everybody has individual perceptions, but what we're learning is something in the middle that's growing out of everybody's contribution. And then of course this person over here, by contributing their view, that person over there is able to have access to it, to know it. (J) Well if it's building as you go along, everyone's perception of it changes as it builds because it's changing. And they are looking at it, and as they're seeing it and keep contributing different things as it changes. (L) Yeah, and then the very act of that exchange links...(T) That makes sense. I've always felt that by having the material out on the net, the more people read it the more they become attuned to it. Those who fight it don't get anywhere. Those who don't do. (L) Well, what do you think about that?
A: Terry has much of value to contribute as well as much to gain.
Q: (T) Okay, what are my sacred cows somewhat?
A: Your opinions.
Q: (T) My opinions are sacred cows? Which opinions, I have too many of them. My opinions on what?
A: Many issues that might be opened to greater awareness by the act of networking with many perspectives. It is important to not close any doors.
Q: (T) True, but then my opinions are extremely outrageous and I offend a lot of people with them. (J) Or are you closing doors. (T) Am I closing doors by not expressing my opinions?
A: Doors are closed by not working with the challenges to opinions of equal "strangeness."
Q: (T) But opinions are opinions and offending someone is a totally different thing and I don't have any interest in offending people with my opinions. (L) I don't think that was the point. You only talk to people who don't have strange opinions. (T) Umm, well I talk to people with really strange opinions that make me look almost normal. (J) It says, "Doors are closed by not working with the challenges to opinions of equal strangeness." (A) Normally the point is that when you have a strong opinion and the opinion clashes with someone else's opinion there's a conflict and the question is: you can say I don't care or you can try to resolve the conflict by analyzing and being open to changing your opinion; not necessarily agreeing with someone else's opinion. But by analyzing the two different things you can make a step to see how changing your opinion in a certain completely new direction is possible. You see, this is black, this is white. Okay, what can we make of this? Well, we may find out that there is a whole spectrum of colors that we can discover a rainbow, you see. Oh my god, huh, a rainbow! (J) When I did not see your white to my black neither of us saw the stuff in between. (L) Well, one of the things we've seen that happens with the group is somebody will have an opinion, I'll have an opinion, anybody can have an opinion, but they'll say we don't really like to talk about opinions too much, you've seen this, you can say you have an opinion and somebody will say 'On what do you base your opinion, explain it.' And usually, in the course of explaining an opinion, they'll say 'Oh, huh, okay let's think about this opinion,' and then everybody will talk about the opinion. And then, in the end, we may still have the same opinion but for a different reason than we had when we started out. Or, we may change it. (A) But I think the main point is probably that people learn that this exchange or this networking is not just the obstruction of difficult discussion, but that it has direct application to their lives. They want to do something like to be free of programming or to see to some internal line or to see the matrix working on everyone of them; to note, to see, to interpret things that happen to them in terms of the general framework and better understand their own place. And then it becomes a practical thing and that's why people learn that being open to what is new, you can notice things that are useful.
[Further discussion]
Q: (T) So are there any particular opinions that you can begin with that can point out that I can work on? (L) Oh Terry you know you're not supposed to ask that, you know better! (laughter)
A: He is trying to fool Mother Cassiopaea. Not today!
Q: (T) Nice try, no cigar (laughter).
A: No short cuts!
Q: (T) Well I have a lot to work with don't I? I have opinions on everything. (L) Don't we all. (T) Which one...(L) Just start throwing them out there. (T) How do I throw them out there without being offensive? I just try very hard to not be offensive to people...'cause I have no reason...
A: Ask questions!
Q: (A) It's very simple, if I have just opinions and my thing is just to express my opinion to other people it's a signal that I don't want to learn anything. I know all, so how to change? Just suspend all opinion and just be curious and ask questions and see if you can learn. Just do--'I am suspending all opinions. Even if have one, I'm not going to express it.' Because sooner or later if you ask questions people will start asking:'Well, tell us what you think.' Right? 'It's suspicious he is just ask question and he is not giving anything from himself' (laughter). (T) That's good. Okay, do you have anything to...
A: Networking works!!!
Q: (T) Actually since we've been doing the antique shows I've been talking to more people than I have in a long time; people I've never met you know; people just all over the place out there. Boy, some of them have opinions that make me feel good!
A: Are they co-linear?
Q: (L) Co-linear. Co-linear means going in the same direction. (T) In other words, do they have the same opinions I have? (A) No. No. Going in the same direction. (L) You don't have to have the same opinions, but you want to go in the same direction. What are their goals? (T) I don't know, for the most part they're just people I talk to passing through on the shows. I'm only talking to them for a few minutes. (J) There's no co-linearity there. (A) They are not even co-linear in interest; except for commercial. (T) Well, it doesn't hurt to try and express the STO philosophy to them as they pass by; be nice and friendly. (A) Yeah, sure. (T) Show them that the whole world doesn't hate them. (J) Were not quite up to pulling people off the street yet. (T) Do you have any more to say on this?
A: First you must choose your goals. Then you network with others with similar goals to achieve them. What do you want? Graduation or repeating the grade?
Q: (T) Oh well graduation is always the best. (L) Well you know what Gurdjieff said - 'No one can escape alone. You have to have a group and you have to have a plan, and you have to work.' Nobody can do it alone and you have to do it with the help of somebody's who done it before. It's a very important thing he said about that. He said first you have to understand you're in prison and then you have to learn about the prison and you havet to learn about how to get out, and you can only learn about that from somebody who's already gotten out. And you can't do it alone because it takes a whole team. (T) To get out? (L) Yeah, that's what he said, and it's so true. Because the minute you start wiggling around in the matrix, it comes down on your head. (T) Well the matrix is programmed to keep us here. And keep us stupid. (L) Yeah. Okay, are we done with you Terry? (T) I think so! But I have a question. What happened to Ark and Laura's computer system this weekend?
A: Mainly it is a psychic signal of impending quantum shift.
Q: (T) Just because the computers went down? Uh, can you expand on that a little bit?
A: Fluidity of reality affects such "hardware" which is sensitive to such flux.
Q: (A) So something is going to shift, reality is fluid, hardware is affected, and all kinds of things happen probably due to the interaction of what is outside us and the hardware. It's hard to find the real prime reason, see. (L) I think what happens sometimes is the reality starts fluxing, that you're psychically aware of it and the psychic energy in your own system then affects those things in your environment that are attuned or sensitive to your psychic energy, and then depending upon your fluxing of your psychic energy it can signal you. I guess, it's like the black cat walking by twice, that would be one way of putting it. (A) I think it&#
