07-20-2019, 11:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021, 09:21 AM by Asolsutsesvyl.
Edit Reason: add "Further links and notes"
)
Looking for a greater synthesis, I have begun to compare the material which came out of the Ra contact with that of the "Cassiopaean Experiment".
I understand that the approach of the Cassiopaean community is not in alignment with that of the Bring4th community. I have yet to read a clear and full explanation of the differences, but it is obvious that, relative to what has been expressed here, the Cassiopaean community and the key people involved block the green ray, and this is reflected in the differences in views which have grown over the years.
Assuming that 6D STO communication is involved in both projects, a key difference is that the Ra contact was narrow-band, and the Cassiopaean contact wide-band. What does this mean in terms of what is and is not transmitted?
Going by what Ra claimed, what was communicated cleanly reflected Ra's thinking. I.e., there seems to have been a straight line between the 6D mind and what was verbally "rendered". Errors appear to have entered at the level of syntax - words and numbers - with Ra's full knowledge, and sometimes followed by corrections.
In the case of the Cassiopaean material, it became clear and was expressed early on that what was communicated reflected those involved in each channeling session in addition to a higher source. The "wide-band" approach seems to have limited the depth of 6D connection relative to the material which was spelled out at the board. One benefit has however been a flawless syntax - no errors with words or numbers. Any errors appear at a higher level - the level of what is being expressed in the first place.
To the extent that 6D STO chooses what comes through in the case of the Cassiopaean material, errors are likely to be accompanied by symbolic information which makes it possible to find the errors. Finding them may however happen much later, and only if someone notices and figures something out. (My theory is that as long as the channeling is not detuned, all significant errors will be expressed or put in context in such a way that "debugging" is possible.)
Below, I have inserted one extremely clear-cut example of an error in the Cassiopaean material. It related to the accuracy of the Ra material. (That part of this post was also posted as a thread on the Cassiopaean Forum on the 8th of July, though discussion there has yet to take off.)
Added: Cassiopaean accuracy in the years of the earliest participants was explained as, "balancing fields are correct", which Laura Knight-Jadczyk interpreted as STS "Frank" vs. STO Laura cancelling out, allowing 6D STO through cleanly enough. But given the fundamental principle that STS constricts and distorts the flow, a compromise combination of the two does not explain it. But two opposed STS agendas cancelling out logically works. "Frank" left after the mid-90's, leaving one of the two STS agendas, no longer cancelled out.
Added later: A new section at the end of this post now provides "Further links and notes", following later discussion.
Truth percentages and Bad statistics
Cassiopaean Session 1997-12-31 mentions truth percentages, and the following numbers have been provided for the (older) Cassiopaean material and for the (old published version of) the Ra material:
Ra: ~63%
C's: 71.7%
The algorithm is: Total word count divided by true word count.
Added: This matches the language of the C's, but is really multiplicatively inverse to the percentage. (The concept may have temporarily changed from percentage to ratio without words to the effect.) So to make sense of it, and of the alternative algorithm below, swap what is on each side of "divided by". (End of addition.)
Counts of true, false, and neutral words are possible (by non-mechanical means), according to the information in the session. (Since words can be individually classified, it follows that a count of neutral words is also possible.)
The neutral word count is unused in calculating the percentages. The C's said that neutral "belong to the 37% as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate".
However, there is one more alternative. Instead of counting neutral words as true (the rejected option) or as false (the option the C's used), they can be subtracted from the total word count for a non-neutral word count.
Alternative algorithm: Non-neutral word count divided by true word count.
Added: Again, there is the need to swap what is on each side of "divided by". (End of addition.)
This would increase the percentages. It would almost certainly increase the percentage more for the Ra material than it would do for the Cassiopaean material, given the style difference.
The Cassiopaean algorithm is bad because it lets noise skew the measurement, instead of filtering it out. The means for filtering are pre-provided if counts are available for all three word categories, as they apparently are.
This leads to the question: Why did the C's provide bad statistics, compared to what they could have provided with a trivial improvement of their algorithm? (Only the purely mechanical part of the process needed a small change.)
They also made a false claim in presenting the false dichotomy motivating their choice of algorithm (their choice of how to treat neutral words).
This is a riddle. This is exactly the kind of thing that someone can discern and point out on purely intellectual grounds. If the C's had wanted to lie, they could have presented a good algorithm and provided bad numbers, and there would have been no rational, clear-cut way to find and point out the flaw.
Instead, the C's did provide a bad algorithm, and this is the only thing I criticize regarding the percentages. The percentages are bad because the algorithm is flawed. Beyond that, other questions regarding the numbers remain as before.
Perhaps there is some kind of symbolic message in the choice of a bad algorithm. The theme is this: Counting the neutral as negative instead of counting according to (or focusing on) what matters. ("Counting" may symbolically be mapped to thinking, and/or perceiving, more generally. That's the track I'm exploring, anyway.)
I think it certainly wasn't an accident, whatever the specifics turn out to be. The C's know too much for it to be an accident. (Were it accidental, it would then be possible to immediately rule out the option that they are what they have claimed to be.) It may also be the case that they wanted the error to be found; otherwise, quite trivially, they could have presented something different.
On Ra and language
Comparing the language of Ra and the C's, the latter is obviously simpler. It is more straightforward to begin delving into, and more easy to work with point-by-point. At the level of concepts, Ra however presents them more cohesively. Those who focus on larger, abstract concepts as they read might find that Ra gives things in larger chunks, which are more precise and clear as a whole, compared to assembling units of meaning of the same size from the Cassiopaean material.
There's also style differences that I think have to do with differing aims of the communications. I think Ra knew the future and planned the material according to the future of the project, as it developed. Some symbolic information changed part-way through (Ra suddenly "corrected" some information which fairly obviously is not literal). Perhaps in order to make non-literal material current with a new timeline.
I think the Ra material may be a compressed information package for a time after it was delivered. Ra suggested that if only a few would "get it", then it could greatly help. What was meant by "getting it"?
There's also interesting little hints here and there when Ra cannot speak clearly for the sake of free will. Don Elkins asks about the life of Jesus, and Ra indicates that there's a problem with the question as it was asked, rather vaguely and for no apparent reason. A possible explanation is that the question could not be answered accurately, since the person asked about never existed. When Don rephrased the same question, Ra decided to fill the gap with a little metaphorical story-telling (where changes to the narrative, as it goes on, hints that it isn't to be taken as literally valid).
The most obvious level of indirection in the material is in terms of breaking up a piece of information, delivering the pieces independently, and making the retrieval of the information a matter of logical deduction. I'll give the example I have in mind.
Ra used the name prefix 'Mal-' for the planet which blew up, and indicated that the prefix meant it "stank", simply put. Then, later, of all the choices Ra had for naming the Earth while mentioning its "vibration", Ra used the name 'Malkuth'. Applying Ra's rule for the meaning of names in the material, simple logic has it that Ra unambiguously included "The Earth stinks" in the material. (The type of "bad smell" indicated is presumably the same for Earth and for the planet which blew up.)
There's also a greater open-endedness to Ra's presentation of the cosmology. Formulations are in terms of large, cosmic processes, with much of it left unexplored. Some questions of the limits of 6D knowledge are also covered. (In short, 6D cannot see beyond 6D, except in terms of perceiving how it relates to 7D. The structure of the cosmos requires the use of some type of 7D connection in order to read certain things pertaining to individual souls, though 6D is bounded in its use of such. Everything else appears to be an open book for 6D.)
Further links and notes
The Cassiopaean material can be found on the Cassiopaea forum, and older (1994-2002) sessions can also be found here.
A link shared several times by others is Montalk's Cassiopaea.org Disclaimer, which seems to be from 2006 but is still relevant. Describes the early Cassiopaean material as good, but 2003 as the year when cult-like psychological and spiritual corruption went beyond the point of no return for the Cassiopaean channel and community.
In posts below there's discussion of both the Cassiopaean material and community, but the later "Cassiopaea forum" thread focuses more on the community.
The RationalWiki article on Laura Knight-Jadczyk has changed a lot in 2021 and now gives a broad skeptical overview of everything tied to the Cassiopaean Experiment, describing some (but not all) of the most questionable stuff in the Cassiopaean channeling.
I understand that the approach of the Cassiopaean community is not in alignment with that of the Bring4th community. I have yet to read a clear and full explanation of the differences, but it is obvious that, relative to what has been expressed here, the Cassiopaean community and the key people involved block the green ray, and this is reflected in the differences in views which have grown over the years.
Assuming that 6D STO communication is involved in both projects, a key difference is that the Ra contact was narrow-band, and the Cassiopaean contact wide-band. What does this mean in terms of what is and is not transmitted?
Going by what Ra claimed, what was communicated cleanly reflected Ra's thinking. I.e., there seems to have been a straight line between the 6D mind and what was verbally "rendered". Errors appear to have entered at the level of syntax - words and numbers - with Ra's full knowledge, and sometimes followed by corrections.
In the case of the Cassiopaean material, it became clear and was expressed early on that what was communicated reflected those involved in each channeling session in addition to a higher source. The "wide-band" approach seems to have limited the depth of 6D connection relative to the material which was spelled out at the board. One benefit has however been a flawless syntax - no errors with words or numbers. Any errors appear at a higher level - the level of what is being expressed in the first place.
To the extent that 6D STO chooses what comes through in the case of the Cassiopaean material, errors are likely to be accompanied by symbolic information which makes it possible to find the errors. Finding them may however happen much later, and only if someone notices and figures something out. (My theory is that as long as the channeling is not detuned, all significant errors will be expressed or put in context in such a way that "debugging" is possible.)
Below, I have inserted one extremely clear-cut example of an error in the Cassiopaean material. It related to the accuracy of the Ra material. (That part of this post was also posted as a thread on the Cassiopaean Forum on the 8th of July, though discussion there has yet to take off.)
Added: Cassiopaean accuracy in the years of the earliest participants was explained as, "balancing fields are correct", which Laura Knight-Jadczyk interpreted as STS "Frank" vs. STO Laura cancelling out, allowing 6D STO through cleanly enough. But given the fundamental principle that STS constricts and distorts the flow, a compromise combination of the two does not explain it. But two opposed STS agendas cancelling out logically works. "Frank" left after the mid-90's, leaving one of the two STS agendas, no longer cancelled out.
Added later: A new section at the end of this post now provides "Further links and notes", following later discussion.
Truth percentages and Bad statistics
Cassiopaean Session 1997-12-31 mentions truth percentages, and the following numbers have been provided for the (older) Cassiopaean material and for the (old published version of) the Ra material:
Ra: ~63%
C's: 71.7%
The algorithm is: Total word count divided by true word count.
Added: This matches the language of the C's, but is really multiplicatively inverse to the percentage. (The concept may have temporarily changed from percentage to ratio without words to the effect.) So to make sense of it, and of the alternative algorithm below, swap what is on each side of "divided by". (End of addition.)
Counts of true, false, and neutral words are possible (by non-mechanical means), according to the information in the session. (Since words can be individually classified, it follows that a count of neutral words is also possible.)
The neutral word count is unused in calculating the percentages. The C's said that neutral "belong to the 37% as they cannot be counted subjectively as accurate".
However, there is one more alternative. Instead of counting neutral words as true (the rejected option) or as false (the option the C's used), they can be subtracted from the total word count for a non-neutral word count.
Alternative algorithm: Non-neutral word count divided by true word count.
Added: Again, there is the need to swap what is on each side of "divided by". (End of addition.)
This would increase the percentages. It would almost certainly increase the percentage more for the Ra material than it would do for the Cassiopaean material, given the style difference.
The Cassiopaean algorithm is bad because it lets noise skew the measurement, instead of filtering it out. The means for filtering are pre-provided if counts are available for all three word categories, as they apparently are.
This leads to the question: Why did the C's provide bad statistics, compared to what they could have provided with a trivial improvement of their algorithm? (Only the purely mechanical part of the process needed a small change.)
They also made a false claim in presenting the false dichotomy motivating their choice of algorithm (their choice of how to treat neutral words).
This is a riddle. This is exactly the kind of thing that someone can discern and point out on purely intellectual grounds. If the C's had wanted to lie, they could have presented a good algorithm and provided bad numbers, and there would have been no rational, clear-cut way to find and point out the flaw.
Instead, the C's did provide a bad algorithm, and this is the only thing I criticize regarding the percentages. The percentages are bad because the algorithm is flawed. Beyond that, other questions regarding the numbers remain as before.
Perhaps there is some kind of symbolic message in the choice of a bad algorithm. The theme is this: Counting the neutral as negative instead of counting according to (or focusing on) what matters. ("Counting" may symbolically be mapped to thinking, and/or perceiving, more generally. That's the track I'm exploring, anyway.)
I think it certainly wasn't an accident, whatever the specifics turn out to be. The C's know too much for it to be an accident. (Were it accidental, it would then be possible to immediately rule out the option that they are what they have claimed to be.) It may also be the case that they wanted the error to be found; otherwise, quite trivially, they could have presented something different.
On Ra and language
Comparing the language of Ra and the C's, the latter is obviously simpler. It is more straightforward to begin delving into, and more easy to work with point-by-point. At the level of concepts, Ra however presents them more cohesively. Those who focus on larger, abstract concepts as they read might find that Ra gives things in larger chunks, which are more precise and clear as a whole, compared to assembling units of meaning of the same size from the Cassiopaean material.
There's also style differences that I think have to do with differing aims of the communications. I think Ra knew the future and planned the material according to the future of the project, as it developed. Some symbolic information changed part-way through (Ra suddenly "corrected" some information which fairly obviously is not literal). Perhaps in order to make non-literal material current with a new timeline.
I think the Ra material may be a compressed information package for a time after it was delivered. Ra suggested that if only a few would "get it", then it could greatly help. What was meant by "getting it"?
There's also interesting little hints here and there when Ra cannot speak clearly for the sake of free will. Don Elkins asks about the life of Jesus, and Ra indicates that there's a problem with the question as it was asked, rather vaguely and for no apparent reason. A possible explanation is that the question could not be answered accurately, since the person asked about never existed. When Don rephrased the same question, Ra decided to fill the gap with a little metaphorical story-telling (where changes to the narrative, as it goes on, hints that it isn't to be taken as literally valid).
The most obvious level of indirection in the material is in terms of breaking up a piece of information, delivering the pieces independently, and making the retrieval of the information a matter of logical deduction. I'll give the example I have in mind.
Ra used the name prefix 'Mal-' for the planet which blew up, and indicated that the prefix meant it "stank", simply put. Then, later, of all the choices Ra had for naming the Earth while mentioning its "vibration", Ra used the name 'Malkuth'. Applying Ra's rule for the meaning of names in the material, simple logic has it that Ra unambiguously included "The Earth stinks" in the material. (The type of "bad smell" indicated is presumably the same for Earth and for the planet which blew up.)
There's also a greater open-endedness to Ra's presentation of the cosmology. Formulations are in terms of large, cosmic processes, with much of it left unexplored. Some questions of the limits of 6D knowledge are also covered. (In short, 6D cannot see beyond 6D, except in terms of perceiving how it relates to 7D. The structure of the cosmos requires the use of some type of 7D connection in order to read certain things pertaining to individual souls, though 6D is bounded in its use of such. Everything else appears to be an open book for 6D.)
Further links and notes
The Cassiopaean material can be found on the Cassiopaea forum, and older (1994-2002) sessions can also be found here.
A link shared several times by others is Montalk's Cassiopaea.org Disclaimer, which seems to be from 2006 but is still relevant. Describes the early Cassiopaean material as good, but 2003 as the year when cult-like psychological and spiritual corruption went beyond the point of no return for the Cassiopaean channel and community.
In posts below there's discussion of both the Cassiopaean material and community, but the later "Cassiopaea forum" thread focuses more on the community.
The RationalWiki article on Laura Knight-Jadczyk has changed a lot in 2021 and now gives a broad skeptical overview of everything tied to the Cassiopaean Experiment, describing some (but not all) of the most questionable stuff in the Cassiopaean channeling.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
Jim, I was like, whoa Jim !! But I understand !!!! 
Cassiopeans of course 
) or the big