(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) On July 16, 1994, the information about the "project to create a new race" was given with a completion date of 13 years in the future.
...
Could it just be possible that they [The Cassiopaeans] are, as they have said, probable future selves whose reality as 6th density beings is increased in direct proportion to our level of knowledge, and subsequent APPLICATION? In other words, are we not dealing with probable futures, and the only way of determining which future we experience is to choose based on accurate knowledge of the present?
[Comment - What does it mean to be a probable future self? Where does this ‘probable future self’ reside, and how does it function? What are the metaphysical and ontological dynamics of a ‘probable future self’? How does a ‘probable future self’ know, and why don’t other ‘probable future selves’ communicate? Why was it that only one particular ‘probable future self’ chose to communicate?
How does one know that the choices one makes in the future are based on accurate knowledge? What constitutes knowledge? If we choose incorrectly now, then, what are the implications for the probable future selves who are supposedly communicating with us? Do they cease to exist as a probable future?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Remember the most important principles that the Cassiopaeans have given us are Free Will and Knowledge Protects. These two concepts are inseparable. The more knowledge you have, the more awareness you have; and the more awareness you have, the more Free will you have.
[Comment - Having more free will does not necessarily follow from having more awareness. We may have maximum free will right now, but our problem is that we are not using it effectively, or we are abusing it, or we have turned over our free will to someone else to make decisions for us.
We have the capacity to choose truth, and we have the capacity to choose falsehood. Becoming more aware of what is true and what is false doesn’t alter the character of our capacity to choose, but rather only serves to identify where our choices should be directed.
Finally, awareness is not necessarily a function of knowledge. Awareness may be an orientation toward the contents of consciousness rather than something which grows as knowledge increases.
By changing the hermeneutical angle of engagement, one’s understanding of what is known may become enriched or deepened or qualitatively - rather than quantitatively - altered. Insight, unveiling, wisdom, spiritual states, and so on, may all constitute different hermeneutical angles of engagement of what is known, rather than a matter of increased knowledge automatically generating expanded awareness.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) First of all, it is important to note that the law of Free Will contains within it the explicit condition of non-linearity.
[Comment - The term ‘non-linearity’ is generally understood in relation to mathematical descriptions which are linear. The latter are systems of equations which yield solutions that involve direct proportions, or can be represented through linear graphing. Given the foregoing, non-linear refers to systems of equations which do not lend themselves to linear solutions.
What does it mean to say that Free Will “contains within it the explicit condition of non-linearity”? Does it mean that Free Will entails systems of equations which are capable of yielding solutions which are other than linear, and if so, then, in what way, exactly, are they other than linear, and why should one suppose that Free Will can be adequately described through mathematics of any kind?
Mathematics is a language of description and modeling. As is the case with any kind of language, to the extent that the structural character of a mathematical description or model is reflective or heuristically valuable in trying to understand the structural character of some aspect of experience for which a given form of mathematics is to be used as a descriptive system or model, then, the use of such mathematics may have applicability to a given problem or issue.
The problem is, no one has, yet, come up with a modality of mathematics which has proven to be either accurate or useful with respect to describing or modeling the phenomenon of Free Will, and one of the reasons for this is that no one seems to understand just what Free Will is or how it works or what makes it possible or what its parameters of operation are. Until someone does understand such things, then, to speak of Free Will as being either linear or non-linear seems to be not only premature but problematic.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Implicit in non-linearity is the fact that the future is, as the Cassiopaeans have said a thousand times, if they have said it once: OPEN. Not only is it open, it is multiple in probability. In their own words, there is an uncountable infinity of "quasi-quantum propensities."
[Comment - Just because the Cassiopaeans have said the future is open does not make it so. Currently, we still don’t know who or what they are - other than how they, themselves, have described themselves.
In addition, we have only the Cassiopaeans contention that the future is not only open, but, as well, the future gives expression to some kind of probability distribution. Even if one were to accept, at face value, what the Cassiopaeans say in these respects, what does the idea of an ‘open future’ actually mean, or what does it mean to say that the future gives expression to some sort of probability structure.
There are lot of different, possible interpretations with respect to the foregoing ideas. Not all of these possibilities need to conform to the Cassiopaeans ‘vision’ of things.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Even if they often oppose one another, belief in reductionism and mechanism go hand in hand with religious faith. God or Darwin are in heaven and "all is right with the world." Phenomena are orderly and everything can be explained with some sort of cause and effect scheme represented by differential equations. Either God started things at some point in space/time, to follow a single linear path, at which point He will bring it to an end, saving some people and not others, according to "survival of the fittest" in terms of who has obeyed his commands; or everything began with the Big Bang and has followed the linear path of evolutionary "survival of the fittest" in terms of Natural Selection. Same song, different verse.
[Comment - There is a considerable amount of ‘either-or’ thinking expressed in the foregoing. Among other things, to suppose that one has worked out all the possible combinations and permutations of how things might be arranged by Divinity - Who could be imminent even while, simultaneously, being transcendent - is rather presumptous.
Secondly, not all cause and effect scenarios are necessarily reducible to a set of differential equations. In fact, such a claim presupposes that, ultimately, reality is reducible to mathematical descriptions - which may be a comforting thought for some, but hardly provable.
There is another assumption in the claim that God was required to start things at some point in space/time. Actually, ‘things’ may have started in a spiritual realm to which neither space nor time apply and only ‘subsequently’ have been translated into terms that can be manifested on a physical plane with spatial and temporal qualities.
Furthermore, there is nothing which requires Divinity to follow a linear path from beginning to end. Nor, does one even know what such a claim actually means in concrete terms - unless, of course, one supposed that Divinity was a mathematician and constrained by what mathematics does and does not permit, as well as supposing that Divinity was too slow to have imagined the idea of non-linear mathematics - requiring the appearance of human beings to come up with such complex stuff.
In addition, there is nothing which requires God to save only those individuals who followed certain commands. After all, perhaps Divinity has the capacity to extend Divine forgiveness to whomsoever Divinity pleases and, as a result, even those who were not all that great at following certain commands might, nonetheless, be ‘saved’ by a forgiving and compassionate God.
Moreover, following the letter of the law with respect to a set of commands may not be what Divinity is interested in. Maybe, Divinity is more interested in human beings who use their imagination to come up with creative ways to serve the truth and Creation - ways that may either bend some of the rules a little in order to give emphasis to other rules which may be more important, or ways that are capable of exploring the degrees of freedom inherent in commands as flexible principles rather than rigid rules.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Very quickly science, and religion, came to rely on linear differential equations. Phenomena such as the flight of a baseball or the end of the world, (which necessitates the damning of certain souls on a particular trajectory, and the saving of others), could be described by differential equations. You throw the ball a certain way with a certain force, and there are certain conditions, and it will land at a specified place. If you have faith in a certain system, and hold firm to that faith, or conversely, deny that faith, you will end up in heaven or hell; or you will die in a pole shift, or be translated to the great new pie-in-the-sky. In such systems, small changes produce small effects and large effects are obtained by summing up many small changes.
[Comment - The hermeneutics of experience is one thing, and the reality to which such hermeneutical systems attempt to make identifying reference may be quite another. What people feel, think, believe, and do in the name of science and/or religion may have little, or nothing, to do with the way things are in truth.
The fact there were scientists who used differential equations to describe reality says nothing more than that this was the universe of discourse through which they engaged reality. Such techniques permitted some problems to be solved, while other physical/material phenomena proved to be impervious to such methods.
Similarly, in the case of religion, some people found linear modalities of thought to be comforting and capable of lending certain kinds of stability, meaning, and a sense of identity to their lives. To this extent, such forms of thinking had some degree of heuristic value even as the use of such methods created a variety of other unanswered questions, anomalies, and problems - just as was true in science.
However, from the earliest times, there also were esoteric or mystical methods inherent in the realm of spirituality which provided insights, solutions, understandings and transformational effects in ways that the surface-hugging, fear-laden, and knowledge-scarce exoteric approaches to spirituality could not match. Consequently, one makes a mistake when one seeks to reduce all of spirituality down to what some particular modalities of religious hermeneutical activity tried to impose on truth.
Even the way Laura speaks about faith in such a dismissive way indicates a certain lack of understanding and insight into what real faith involves. Faith is not about blind belief but, rather, faith is about a willingness to accept certain things as true - although not, yet, provable or verifiable - based on what is actually known already.
The problem is that many people claim to know certain aspects of spiritual realities, when, in truth, all they know is the structural character of their own hermeneutical or belief system which may have little to do with the way reality actually is. Consequently, when they accept certain ideas or premises as true - but, not, yet, proven or verified - based on what they suppose they know, more often than not under such circumstances, the ‘certitudes’ of faith are built upon a foundation of sand, because what they think they know, and, therefore, what they are rooting their faith in, actually is not real knowledge ... so, instead of faith being guided by knowledge, faith is guided by mere belief, speculation, opinion, or conjecture.
Because we are not omniscient beings, there is almost always a chasm between what we actually know and what there is to be known. Faith - whether of a practical, philosophical, political, economic, scientific, or spiritual nature - tends to inhabit the terrain of the aforementioned chasm. The better our base knowledge is, then, the more tools there are with which faith can work, but human beings never really escape the need to rely on some level of faith in their lives as they go about making choices about how to proceed into the unknown.
Contrary to what Laura says, the end of the world does not necessitate the damming of souls. The end of the world may merely indicate that we have run out of time to respond to the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities which this plane of existence offers.
Whether one is talking about some system of karma or one is talking about some other system of spiritual accountability, the underlying idea is that what we do in the time we have in this realm of existence matters and that it affects - or may affect - what transpires subsequently. It is not the end of time which damns one or sends that person on some kind of karmic journey, but, rather, it is our own actions and choices which bear upon our future spiritual condition and circumstances.
We are not the score-keepers and judges of our earthly tests. Instead, what we do or choose is measured against the standard of truth and reality.
Many people have theories about how the scoring system works. Many people have theories about how the judging system is structured.
Many people have faith that their theories about all the foregoing are reliable. Unfortunately, the faith of many people is rooted in false systems of understanding concerning the way things are and will be, and we will just have to wait and see who is right and who is wrong about all of these matters. In the meantime we must choose based on the dialectic of faith and knowledge - or what we take to be knowledge.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Nonlinear equations are "math from the Twilight Zone" where the normal mathematical landscape can suddenly become an alternate reality. In nonlinear equations, a small change in one variable can have a disproportionate impact on other variables. This can be catastrophic or serendipitous.
[Comment - Whatever the truth of the foregoing statements may be, we still do not have the slightest clue about how, or if, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in South America will lead to a tornado in Oklahoma. Non-linear equations are famous for requiring hand-fed variables to be plugged into such equations so that one might be able to proceed to generate solutions for a particular situation, and in a lot of cases, we just don’t have access to the right sort of hand-fed variables to make a given non-linear equation yield useful solutions.
Moreover, unlike linear equations which, when they work, are applicable to a variety of problems that can be solved by using a generalized form of equation, non-linear equations tend to resist providing a generalized form of equation through which a given class of problems can be solved (although there are exceptions to this general rule). Non-linear solutions tend to be tied to the aforementioned hand-fed variables which reflect the structural features of particular situations, rather than constants and variables whose nature is common to all such situations.
Finally, reality is not divided into two dimensions -namely, those which are tractable by linear methods, and those that are amenable to treatment by non-linear means. There are vast areas of life and human potential which fall beyond the capabilities of both linear and non-linear methodology.
There are no systems of llinear or non-linear equations which can generate solutions to the mysteries of consciousness, intelligence, creativity, language, critical thinking, or spirituality. To suggest this is not the case is belied by the current inadequacies of mathematics to solve, let alone describe, any of the real important issues of life and being - including: purpose, meaning, identity, choice, morality, and wisdom.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Nonlinear equations can be used to model the way an earthquake erupts when two tectonic plates shove against one another, building up irregular pressure along a fault line. The equation can show how, for decades this jagged pressure mounts as the subsurface topography squeezes closer until in the very next millimeter of movement a critical value is encountered. At this value, the pressure pops suddenly and one plate slips, riding up on the other and everything shakes, rattles and rolls in the aftershocks of instabilities. Sure gives new meaning to the expression "The straw that broke the camel's back!"
Now, while scientists can model how such complex events manifest, they cannot predict exactly where or when the next quake will happen. This is because in the nonlinear world - which includes most of the real world - long term prediction is both practically and theoretically impossible. Nonlinearity dashes the reductionist dream of science, and an open future dashes the dream of the faithful in standard religions and philosophies based on prophecy and determinism.
[Comment - While it may be true to say that the idea of non-linearity undermines the quest of reductionist to encapsulate Being within some simplistic set of equations, nevertheless, non-linearity is, itself, a methodology - a methodology with limits beyond which it cannot say much about what is the nature of Being. At best, a non-linear methodology might be able to give some insight into what the possible, general shape of things to come may look like, and, as such, non-linear methodology describes the attractor basins toward which certain systems may gravitate over time or to which they may give expression across time. However, no matter how much information one has concerning a given system, the nature of Being which is present in that system, and makes such a system possible, is always greater than any of our methods can encompass or comprehend - whether linear or non-linear.
Being can be determinate without being determinable. Being can be ordered, but the complexity and subtlety of that order can transcend our capacity to understand or know the nature of such order.
Just as the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg is a declaration of methodological limits, so, too, is non-linearity a declaration of methodological limits. These are not declarations about ontology, per se, but, rather, they are declarations about the problems inherent in our methodological ways of engaging ontology.
Our inability to predict is a reflection on our state of knowledge and understanding and not a reflection of the structural character of the reality which makes the mirror, us, and such methodologies possible. What we see in the mirror of our methodology is ourselves looking at the mirror through the lenses of the methodology. Reality is filtered according to the structural character of that methodology.
Different lenses yield different kinds of reflection. Elements of truth may be contained in such reflections, but the whole truth lies beyond the yield of such lenses, even when considered collectively.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The teachings of the Cassiopaeans are based on a nonlinear, complex, self-referencing and self-organizing cosmos. That is to say, when they answer our questions at any given moment, the answers are exactly correct for that moment in space time; that "branch of the universe" in which the question is asked. However, that information, if it is utilized, changes the complex system via a process of "back-propagation" or "feedback," and the universe can branch and change in a nonlinear way.
[Comment - How does one know that the answers given by the Cassiopaeans are “exactly correct for that moment in space time”? What are the standards or criteria of correctness? Isn’t it possible that even if we assume the Cassiopaeans are sincere in what they are doing that, nevertheless, they utilize methodologies which, like all hermeneutical systems, have their own set of limitations, problems, and blind spots?
What does it mean to speak in terms of a self-organizing cosmos? Does this mean the cosmos is capable of looking after itself and is not dependent on anything beyond it in order to be? How can we know this? Isn’t this just an assumption in which one has faith? Or, if this is not the case, then, how does one access the truth concerning such matters?
Furthermore, to say our actions feed back into one or more systems and, thereby, affect the way such systems unfold over time does not mean the universe is not ordered or determinate. Such feed-back may only mean that there are degrees of freedom inherent in such order whose natures are so complex and subtle that it exceeds human - but not Divine - capacity to fully understand.
The inability to predict is a reflection on us and our capacity to know in relation to certain methodologies. Such an inability doesn't necessarily carry any implications at all about the nature of the ontological and metaphysical character of the Universe or the One Who makes such a Universe possible.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) What quality in us, what thing, enabled us to make contact?
A: You asked.
Q: (L) A lot of people ask!
A: No they don't, they command.
Q: (L) Well, a lot of people do ask or beg or plead, but they get all discombobulated with the answers.
A: No, they command. Think about it. You did not beg or plead... that is commanding.
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) And this is an important point. Until an individual realizes that "having faith" is a form of "commanding," they have no hope of truly "asking" the universe for answers.
[ Comment - While it may be the case that some forms of faith may be implicit ways of commanding and demanding that the universe behave according to the dictates of the belief system which underlies such modalities of faith, it does not follow that all faith is necessarily of this nature. Jesus (peace be upon him) is reported to have said that if we had the faith of a mustard seed, we could move mountains.
What might this mean? Does it mean that if we believe blindly, then, such blindness will be rewarded with telekinetic powers being bestowed upon us? Does it mean that if we are dogmatic, narrow, and rigid in our faith, then, wonders will happen?
Or, might it mean that if we become what our God-given essential identity and spiritual capacity has the potential to be, then, faith in such potential - when correctly understood - will enable us, God willing, to do whatever it is that God has given us the capacity to do - including the moving of mountains ... both literally and metaphorically? Just as a mustard seed becomes, God willing, what it has the capacity to be by giving expression to that which it is, so, too, we may become, God willing, what we have the capacity to be, by giving expression to what we are.
One might say a mustard seed ‘knows’, in its own way, what it is and has faith in the nature of the plan which lies as a potential within it. Human beings, unfortunately, do not know what we are, and, therefore, it is next to impossible to have an authentic faith that is surrounded by darkness concerning such a potential.
Mustard seeds are not confused about their identity, and, as a result, they are free to become what they are. Human beings are confused about our identity, and to that extent, we are not free to become what we are.
Mustard seeds live by faith. Human beings live by belief. There is a huge difference.
Authentic faith is neither a commanding nor demanding but, is, rather, rooted in an understanding of the way things are and a willingness to work with that - even if one does not, yet, have all the knowledge one might like concerning how to proceed in such work. A mustard seed goes about its business of being a mustard seed, but human beings do not go about our business of being human beings - in terms of what our essential potential is - because we have no real understanding of what being human involves. A mustard seed has faith in its nature to be what it been given the capacity to be by Divinity.
Authentic faith is humble in its realization that there is much which it does not know. Authentic faith seeks to push back the horizons of ignorance in order to expand the knowledge base in which faith is rooted and, thereby, strengthen the way faith relates to truth and the real.
Real knowledge helps authentic faith, and false understanding undermines such faith. Many people - and, perhaps, the Cassiopaeans do so as well - confuse belief with faith.]
(From the Axioms of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor) ...There is no such thing in the entire Cosmos as equality. There is, instead a hierarchy, not as something tyrannical, and especially not based on birth, riches, or the power of the stronger, but as a "sacred authority" sanctioned by the nature of things. There is only one royalty, one aristocracy: that of intelligence. ...This alone can lead to cosmic equilibrium and happiness. [From the Axioms of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, published in Revue Cosmique, III and IV, quoted by Godwin, Chanel, and Deveney in The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, Initiatic and Historical Documents, 1995]
[Comment - All sacred authority is an expression of what the Truth is. Truth is not hierarchical - it is what it is ... something whole and indivisible.
There is no royalty of truth. There are those who serve, and are servants of, the truth, and there are those who seek to rebel against the truth.
Human beings are not the ones who make cosmic equilibrium and harmony possible. Nonetheless, human beings do have duties of care concerning the manner in which they participate within that which is already the way it was intended to be.
God’s purpose can be realized without help from human beings. But, human purposes cannot be realized without Divine support. To whatever extent we are able to merge horizons with the Divine purpose (or purposes), to that extent we become human in some essential way.]
| Next | Part Three | Food Menu |
|
