Tom Cox AKA "Montalk"

[NormaRegula]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

I am aiming for converting from a public forum to a more harmonized, personalized, individualized, and private means of networking. <snip> So I am advising switching to email, phone, instant messaging, private forums / IRC rooms, and face-to-face meetings with those who are mutually compatible with you.

Looks like Montalk wants a walled garden where he can control the information flow.

As someone who once read Ken Hadachi's Educate Yourself.com and followed a link to Noble Realms, this doesn't surprise me. Didn't take long for me to realize that the aforementioned sites contained far too much disinfo, questionable predictions and word salad articles. Despite that, something helpful did come out of my brief association with Noble Realms. I eventually stumbled upon Laura's work with the C's.

After wondering why Hadachi and Montalk had something in for Laura Knight-Jadczyk - although not necessarily the C's which are ostensibly Laura in the future - I also came to the conclusion that an internet hoodoo artist named Vinnie Bridges and his sleazy pals Stormbear, Colleen Johnson and Jay Weidner's warnings about Laura were slanderous. In Vinnie's case it was his outright lies, damning back and forth emails to Laura and lack of legal documentation that didn't support his version of events. Laura and her husband Ark had plenty of documentation against Bridge's claims, as well as those of his parroting co-horts.

To come to any objective truth or conclusion, one has to carefully research all materials and weigh the evidence. Laziness and blind belief in statements that have no evidence to back them up can be hazardous to one's physical and spiritual health. (In the case of an Eric Pepin who tried unsuccessfully to sue Laura and the QFG possibly using Bridges' outrageous accusations as part of his lawsuit, it can be disastrous.)

Thankfully, the above-mentioned names with their oft times pathological persistence in claiming something is without the benefit of evidence got me to thinking that Laura and the C's might be on to the truth.

So, Farewell Noble Realms. FWIW, without you, a few persons wouldn't have been able to move on with their lessons in this world.

 

[Palinurus]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

So, Farewell Noble Realms.

Just for the record, it seems some of the participants of Noble Realms went further along on their own here: _http://nobledreams.co.uk/ and are still exchanging views apparently: _http://nobledreams.co.uk/search.php?action=show_24h

Sorry for the noise...

 

[NormaRegula]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Just for the record, it seems some of the participants of Noble Realms went further along on their own here: _http://nobledreams.co.uk/ and are still exchanging views apparently: _http://nobledreams.co.uk/search.php?action=show_24h

Sorry for the noise...

I don't think you posted noise. The site you linked to doesn't appear to be run by Montalk and is titled Noble Dreams, not Realms. Looks like there are some old articles posted from the former...and possibly some members from Noble Realms.

 

[Palinurus]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

and possibly some members from Noble Realms.

I definitely would think so from this source: _http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?pid=73740#p73740 (about half way through).

Sorry if I wasn't completely clear about mentioning this 'noise' - I was referring to the NobleDreams forum content I linked to.

 

[NormaRegula]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Sorry if I wasn't completely clear about mentioning this 'noise' - I was referring to the NobleDreams forum content I linked to.

Putting a _ in front of the link helps. :)

 

[sbeaudry]

Re: Cassies

I'm also concerned that the Cassiopaean material is kept somewhat secretive, it is like there is an inner club that is the keeper of the information and it slowly filters down to us.

Please don't feel that way about it. It has nothing to do with an "inner club." We have just simply learned a LOT from the attacks.

This strategy of regulating such information as the C's provide is a proven one. It is the best way for people who can benefit from knowledge to benefit, and the best way to avoid throwing pearls before the swine that would trample them under foot.

The receiver of knowledge is like the gardner who is given seeds to plant. The gardner just doesn't throw the seeds to the four winds to hope for the best. They seek the best conditions to cultivate the growth of the seeds, and this includes the right time, place and audience in the case of knowledge.

No matter how objective any knowledge is, the subjectivity of those receiving it never ceases to be a factor, simply due to the variations of human individuality. A receiver of knowledge must, therefore, also be a proficient transmitter of knowledge, and this transmission is a conscious deliberate process, not a reflexive one.

True knowledge can embody multiple forms. As human beings and individuals we are for the most part receptive to certain forms, and less receptive to others. So real knowledge must be given in such a way that it can "cook" within each receiver and trigger greater receptive capacity, understanding and transmission capability in those benefiting from the understandings.

Such knowledge is not simply information. It is not the evening news. It has purpose, and often that purpose is quite complex. It is designed to activate something in people, to bring them to a state of greater vibratory complexity and aliveness. It is often designed to do this by applying itself in specific ways.

One of the greatest blocks to knowledge transmitted from a sincere source, IMO, is the emergence of dogmatism. Dogmatism emerges when the seeds of knowledge do not take root in individuals receiving it. To continue the metaphore, although seeds can be eaten, they do not supply the necessary nutrients of growth to people. For that, the seeds must sprout and the plants must bear fruit.

The tree of knowledge must grow in each and every person open to the planting of the seeds of knowledge within them. We are the soil of those seeds, and the fruit that results from them is adapted to the soil in which the trees of knowledge grow. When they bear fruit the knowledge is one with us, and then it transcends dogmatism because it is vibrant and alive, and from the fruits more healthy seeds can come.

Only in this way can humanity become the garden of knowledge, where all trees are sacred, instead of just that one which the bible tells us was forbidden.

So the transmitter of knowledge, the gardner, is not just a frivolous tosser of seeds into hungry mouths, but a diligent planter whose purpose is the growth of the garden in and of humanity. As such, and because we are dealing with living human soil, response-ability lies in the receivers to cultivate their soil so the trees are not only healthy, but reflective of the souls in which the seeds are planted.

Receiving knowledge, understanding knowledge and applying it are difficult tasks that require much cooking in the crucible of life. Transmitting and creatively seeding knowledge in others makes the former look quite effortless.

If people beginning or even quite far along their paths of development have some difficulty in understanding how someone can recieve unending streams of knowledge, and how they can understand and apply it, how much more difficult is it to understand the more complex and involved process of seeding knowledge in the way in must be seeded?

And there IS that very important issue of the swine that rut around. These are fools with no concept of the nature of true knowledge. They cannot comprehend that it is its fruits we seek. Yet the swine grovel in the soil of human nature, and profane it in doing so. They can never reach to grasp the sacred fruits, for they must stand tall with integrity to do so.

Their greatest fear is their own reflection, which assaults them every time a human standing tall and ensouled is in their midst. So they consume the seeds of knowledge to prevent the growth of those seeds into trees too strong for them to damage. They rut in the soil of human nature to tear out tender sprouts of knowledge, and although they drive themselves with fantasies that knowledge will give them power over others, all they can produce is the excrement of dogma.

It is this they force the masses to eat, to poison them, and insure they will never realize the truth of what it means to be human. The swine do not know this truth. They only know that the very idea of its existence makes them shake with fear.

The seeds are precious, and until the ground is ready, they must be protected from the swine. And even when the ground is ready, the sprouts must be concealed from those rutting about overturning and profaning the soil of human nature.

Eventually, the time will come when the trees have a presence that cannot be hidden. At that point the swine will be powerless to hurt the garden, and the fruits will be out of their reach. At that point we will notice great changes that we could not see before. And even if storms of change will buffet humanity, the deeper changes, the ones that will make the difference, are those that came about in the same quiet and unobtrusive manner as slow but deliberate growth in a lush and fertile garden.

I hope this rather colorful metaphoric presentation added abit of clarity to this issue.

Wow! Very interesting and oh so pertinent from a "guest"... Seems to be 'right on', yeah? I'm left wondering who is this guest but the message seems to be appropriate. Anyone else have any comments on this very lucid post?

 

[mkrnhr]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Hi sbeaudry,
Have you read the entire thread? You are quoting a message from 2006.

 

[sbeaudry]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Not entirely. I was aware it was old but I found the comment particularly interesting. Sorry if it's noisy. Will try to finish reading the whole thing. ;)

 

[Palinurus]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Wow! Very interesting and oh so pertinent from a "guest"... Seems to be 'right on', yeah? I'm left wondering who is this guest but the message seems to be appropriate. Anyone else have any comments on this very lucid post?

Hi sbeaudry,

This 'guest' was going under the forum name of EsoQuest in those days and he was a rather prolific contributor for some years, until he proved to be of a predatory nature with corresponding conduct -- for which he was eventually banned if I remember correctly. However, his posts were retained and although his moniker was removed and changed to Guest his name can still be found in the posts of others when you do a search throughout the whole forum for it. I got 30 mentions in all.

 

[sbeaudry]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Maybe there is a lesson there on how easily I can be duped. Thank you

 

[Palinurus]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Yes, it happens to all of us from time to time -- no matter how vigilant you (think you) are... ;)

EsoQuest's departure has been discussed in the Swamp in this thread: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,2343.0.html but you cannot read that one right now as it is in the restricted area and you need to have contributed at least fifty posts I believe, before you can have access to those topics.

 

[Mrs. Peel]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Yes, it happens to all of us from time to time -- no matter how vigilant you (think you) are... ;)

EsoQuest's departure has been discussed in the Swamp in this thread: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,2343.0.html but you cannot read that one right now as it is in the restricted area and you need to have contributed at least fifty posts I believe, before you can have access to those topics.

And just saying "hi" to 50 newbies won't really count!

 

[Laura]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Maybe there is a lesson there on how easily I can be duped. Thank you

Actually, since it appears that Esoquest was in the mode of pretending alignment while fishing, his posts were actually interesting and often quite good. The main problem was the wordiness and the sometimes subtle twists that weren't intentional, just revealing of the fact that he did not entirely understand what he thought he did. He was very bright, but ruled by a pretty big ego.

 

[sbeaudry]

Re: Cassiopaea and Montalk

Hmmm... Well there certainly were some subtleties to that post I didn't really see until a second and third read through. As for ego, I've really struggled with that one. Ever since watching the movie Revolver I've been trying to play spot the ego, which is not so easy for me. Thank you Laura. In many ways you're my hero. Sincerely. Oh and Mrs. Peel, I will try not to just say hi to a bunch of newbies in order to jump to the esoquest thread. :P

 

[RecklessAllegory]

Just caught wind of this issue, I'm new and decades behind it seems in regard to the C's message. I'm reading both sides of the argument "LKJ vs Montalk" and using my own discernment. My discernment says focus on the C's message not messenger. Just sayin'...