Those of Q'uo

Neil

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I have been an off and on reader of Carla's Q'uo transcrpits. Is there anyone else who follows the Q'uo channelings? I know they tend to skirt the deep and dark issues that the Cassiopaeans bring up regarding the Reptoids and the manipulation of mankind. However, I can also see that they say a lot of the same things that the Cassiopaeans do. What do you think of these Q'uo? I've been using their material as an alternate perspective on what the Cassiopaeans have said. Do you think the Q'uo are a "good" source, even if their messages are a little overly love and light oriented?
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Neil said:
I've been using their material as an alternate perspective on what the Cassiopaeans have said.
Wouldn't not be better if you use your brain as an alternate perspective? If you are looking for "non-critical" channeling - why to stop at Q'uo? There are hundreds of other channelings of the same kind. Each one will give you a different perspective - if this is what you are looking for. But if you are looking for the truth - better use your neurons. :)

You see, the proof of the pudding is in eating it. So, do not just look for "channelings" - take a piece of it, and analyze it, see what it gives you. Does it fit to the reality that you see around you, when you look objectively? Can you apply it? How? If you have already applied it - tell us how and what is the result. We are practical here. Results is all that counts.

And if you do not care about critical analysis, you do not care about the results, you just want to "talk about it" - then the right forum for you is something like "Noble Realms". But probably you know it already....
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
Ark, Neil said he was looking for perspectives, not truth. To get at truth it is necessary, IMO to view as many perspectives as possible. In fact, the C's said that one should cross-reference other channeled material with theirs and they did mention Ra in that regard.

ark said:
Neil said:
I've been using their material as an alternate perspective on what the Cassiopaeans have said.
Wouldn't not be better if you use your brain as an alternate perspective? If you are looking for "non-critical" channeling - why to stop at Q'uo? There are hundreds of other channelings of the same kind. Each one will give you a different perspective - if this is what you are looking for. But if you are looking for the truth - better use your neurons. :)

You see, the proof of the pudding is in eating it. So, do not just look for "channelings" - take a piece of it, and analyze it, see what it gives you. Does it fit to the reality that you see around you, when you look objectively? Can you apply it? How? If you have already applied it - tell us how and what is the result. We are practical here. Results is all that counts.

And if you do not care about critical analysis, you do not care about the results, you just want to "talk about it" - then the right forum for you is something like "Noble Realms". But probably you know it already....
 
G

Guest

Guest
I don't think there is a real disagreement here.

Niel is asking for the Cass opinion on the Q'uo material, and the thread Laura indicates has a list of links that pretty much provides all those perspectives. Of course, perspectives are needed, but they are meaningless unless we think for ourselves and in so doing take nothing as a given.

The tricky part is making the connection between perspectives and truth. I may be wrong, but I got the impression Ark was trying to emphasize the importance of that link, giving some useful pointers in how to activate it.

After all, it can be tempting to simply look for perspectives to just memorize them rather than being stimulated to think for oneself by them. That is a tempation that cannot be countered enough, especially in the inexperienced.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
Ark, Neil said he was looking for perspectives, not truth. To get at truth it is necessary, IMO to view as many perspectives as possible. In fact, the C's said that one should cross-reference other channeled material with theirs and they did mention Ra in that regard.
There's a principle in IFR flight very much like that - called cross checking. The instruments give you overlapping data on the attitude of the plane. Sometimes the instruments can go bad and give out silly readings. Without cross checking the other instruments, you'd never know it failed, nor would you be able to compensate for the loss.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
John Chang said:
There's a principle in IFR flight very much like that - called cross checking. The instruments give you overlapping data on the attitude of the plane. Sometimes the instruments can go bad and give out silly readings. Without cross checking the other instruments, you'd never know it failed, nor would you be able to compensate for the loss.
But in order to do the cross checking one needs to cross-check with the reliable data. If you cross check good data with bad data (or with data of unconfirmed reliability) - you will be even more confused than you were before. To cross check a channeling you should cross check it with the objective reality, not with another channeling.
 

Neil

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Well, I think all of you got part of what I was saying, so let me clarify a bit.

John Chang and Donald J Hunt- Yes, I was using Q'uo material as a cross reference for what the Cassiopaeans said. I was seeing what was the same and what was different, in hopes that I could THEN compare both of them to my reality. I've developed my opinion of the source, but my opinion is of course subjective, and so my reasoning was to bring more members in on the topic so that we could discuss our opinions, compare them, and illuminate the typical dis/misinformation tactics. Why? Because I've seen members come here and post a questionable piece of material that they weren't sure of and the group usually figures out what is what within a week.

EsoQuest- You mediated the topic, and I agree with you. I think what Ark said is correct ultimately, but I think doing an immediate comparison is skipping some steps. I think we need much data and many perspectives before we can really put it all together. Kind of like a final incarnation, you have all of these pieces, and you need to eliminate the extra and misshapen ones in order to put the puzzle together. After you have all of the data, you then make decisions. Some of the data will obviously not fit, and it can easily be eliminated. The rest of it is true to varying degrees, and you then have to cross refrence it with your own knowledge in order to find out what to keep and what not to keep.

Laura, I'll get to you in a minute, your post turned out to be a two hour read, and raised a few questions.

Ark- I'm still in the process of getting the data and knowledge so I can view reality objectively. My choices over the years led me to Cassiopaea, where I had an explosion of knowledge. If you strip away what I have learned from Laura and the Cassiopaeans, my realm of perception is very small, and was, quite egocentric. True, I would've never believed anything the Cassiopaeans said if it didn't coincide with what I had experienced during my life. But after I found out there really was something to the Cassiopaean contact, I took a lot of what the Cassiopaeans said on faith. Such things as the Wave, the 7 densities, the Lizzies, and Wanderers were simply things I cannot prove. Now based on what I can see and feel, I know these things are possible, and are most likely probable, but my perspective is subjective because I'm STS. STO channeled material is not, supposively. So, would it not make sense to gather as much "Objective Data" as possible, perhaps eliminate some of the corruption, and THEN apply it to yourself? With the Cassiopaean material there is always that 30% or so corruption to worry about, and much of it is about things you just can't walk out and prove. And what if that figure is corrupted. So, in my reasoning, I could find out more about hyperdimensional reality by comparing to a much different source, who has had only low-key contact with the original source; ie Laura and the Cassiopaeans, and Carla and the Q'uo. And before I did this, I thought it would be best to ask the group if I might be getting myself into an dangerous situation; which is why I asked their opinion on the Q'uo. I would love to be able to cross-check with objective reality, but I know I will be influenced in my decisions by what I've seen, heard, and read. Can you perceive reality with absolute objectivity? Now I think you and Laura are pretty close, but I think you'd be outta here if you could. So I want to use the data that is availiable, use what I can, and then apply it to myself when I have a good fit and then make changes here and there when I find errors or problems. I've only applied the Q'uo precepts to my life to a small degree, and as I already stated, I believe they are largely in agreeance with the Cassiopaean material, but tend to beat around the bush when it comes to negativity. I'm not someone who reads any channeling that comes across their desk, I wouldn't even believe that channeling was real if the Cassiopaeans hadn't activated so many triggers. I believe the Cassiopaean material is the best because of your semi-scientific approach of "critical analysis," but that doesn't mean that other channeling is garbage. Especially channeling by a channel the Cassiopaens themselves recommended, and whom Laura respects and holds in high regard. Other than Laura, Carla, and Barbara, I have taken no other channels seriously, and probably will not unless what they say fits firmly into what has been stated by the critically analyzed Cassiopaean material. I thought the closeness between the Cassiopaean material and the Q'uo material would make for some interesting reading that I could eventually get truth out of instead of comparing channeling of the Cassiopaeans to that of the Space Brothers, for example. And yes, I spent an extensive amount of time on montalk.net before coming here. I read his material and made a few posts on his forum, and I'm trying to move beyond just simply talking about it, because that is the equivalent of stopping in the middle of the road and getting run over by a semi. And that is why I ask these questions and make these comments, some of which may seem silly to you. It is part of my evolution.

Well Ark, I'm glad you give me these chidings because it shows you are commited to a no BS forum where the posts remain informative and as accurate as possible. If you see any fallacies in my presentation, feel free to comment, because your perspective can only help me develop mine.
 

Neil

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
This post is directed mostly towards Laura, because it is over the tread she reccommended and this seems to be her cup of tea.

I agree with Carla that a certain degree of subjectivity is required to advance, but I think you're supposed to get to a point where you have the power to analyze things more objectively, and this is where I'm trying to go. Once you get to this point, the old way becomes inefficient, and you should use your new abilities which will help you greatly on getting farther. I believe you will eventually stumble upon the truth if you continue going the subjective route, but it will take a lot longer, and puts you in potential danger. If you just go by what sounds good at the time, what happens when you come across an especially sensational piece of material that is full of all sorts of triggers for you, you may be pulled closer to the STS spectrum, and may "crash" altogether. I believe there is an objective truth which you and Ark are trying to find and establish, and varying lesser truths on down to outright lies. The objective truth is the ideal, the pinnacle of STO perceptions, I think, and by striving for it, your path is greatly accelerated. I think it helps you polarize to STO better, since their disposition allows them to see everything in absolute objectivity. The problem is, getting there. Which is my interpretation of what is referred to as "the work." So back to the original concern about the Q'uo, well, I like their material (highly subjective judgement) and I was simply wondering if the group had anything to say about them. I'm trying to avoid being narrowminded here by conforming to one school of thought. The Cassiopaean material has a near monopoly on my understanding of higher realms. So it would seem if I read other sources and compared them, it would open me to greater understanding of things and I may learn about things the Cassiopaeans never really covered. And then I can cross reference it with the Cassiopaean material, which I know is pretty reliable because of the way you and Ark test and analyze it. And hopefully the information that I eliminate/combine will be very pure and help me on my own quest. I asked for the help of the group because their combined scrutiny would be far more powerful than my assessment alone. I wanted to take into account that this nice material might be disinformation. Ark does have a point when he talks about "non-critical" channeling; it is open to much more corruption. So my whole point in posting this is so I would have a more diversified and objective base to go on besides MY experiences, based on MY life, seen solely through MY eyes, and judgments based solely on with MY thoughts. I think the more data you sift through and combine, the closer you can get to that ideal objective truth. You say Carla is a pretty good person, and I have no reason to disagree based on what she says on her site, even though I haven't dug very deeply into her psyche. So, just having your perspective helps me to see a tiny bit more of what is, and not just what I think is. Do you think I am correct in thinking this? And I ask again, what do you (forum members) think of the Q'uo material?
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Neil said:
Do you think I am correct in thinking this? And I ask again, what do you (forum members) think of the Q'uo material?
As I am also a forum member, I will answer you: From some little readings that I have done I do not find Q'uo material useful, except as an example of uncritical channeling. That does not imply that I do not find any other channeling material useful. For instance I find Seth material useful.

Now, you seem to be interested in Q'uo - then give us concrete examples of what you consider there to be useful for you and tell us why.
 

kenlee

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Neil said:
Do you think I am correct in thinking this? And I ask again, what do you (forum members) think of the Q'uo material?
Well, what I think is that this material is simply 'information.' But it does not become knowledge until it is tested and applied. I think some good questions to ask is whether this information helps you to describe the behavior of things? Can this information be used as a factor in determining behavior? Can the knowledge gained from this lead to a common understanding?

One aphorism from Gurdjieff is:

"To understand means to agree. Where there is not agreement there is no understanding"

I think Bertrand Russell said that truth is a relationship of correspondence. He said:

"Every belief is true if there is a fact having to the picture the kind of similarity that a prototype has to an image."
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
kenlee said:
Well, what I think is that this material is simply 'information.
The channeling and the channeled material is not an information. The channeling is a channeling. It may be (but need not be) an inspiration for seeking for information. It may provide "hints" and "clues" - but these hints and clues may have completely different meanings for different people. They may be useful for some, while they can lead astray others. But that is all. Information is something different. We are seeking for an objective information about the universe, not about what is in the mind of a particular channeler.

We get information by research. Research may be inspired by channeling (or may be inspired by many other things). Research, based on inspiration from the channeled material, may be successful and may "confirm" the ideas in the channeling (or disprove). But for this a critical approach is needed.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
DonaldJHunt said:
Maybe not information but a datum or data?
Datum about what is in the channeler mind (whatever is the way the "content" entered the mind, conscious or not). It can be useful for some people, but lead astray other people. It is, in this sense, subjective, though some people, having appropriate knowledge, may be able to use it in their search for objective data.
 

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi Neil, I also think it would be useful if you could post some Q'uo material that you find value in. I read Q'uo for a while a couple of years ago but it made no clear impression on me, thus I abandoned it and have only a vague memory of "mumbo jumbo" -- though of course I was different at the time -- sometimes timing makes a difference and I have been thinking of revisiting Q'uo.
 
Top Bottom