May 11·edited May 20Liked by The Cassiopaea Experiment
In Salvador Freixedo's book "The Human Farm", I "suspect" that he unknowingly had contact with "Clandestines or Cryptoterrestrials"... In the chapters that talk about Lula, José Luis and Rufo there are good examples.
I was searching on the internet and I think there is no English version, but it is possible to get it in .PDF in Spanish and translate the text to read it.
I would like to give a summary of the indicated chapters, but I think that could contaminate all the details, which are many, I can only tell you that in each chapter of this book there are details that follow the same line as almost all the cassiopaea.substack.com published until now.
I'm talking about reading like 40 pages of the 165 pages or so that this book has.
If you want you can contact me privately via email.
Hello, sorry for the late answer: Thank you very much, there is one I have in stock for a while now, I will try to formulate it then post it here, with the hope it's something usable.
Hello, I would come up with one question that I would like to request being asked, if possible, please:
Lobaczewski studies psychopathology and manages to write a book in which he does not stumble upon any obstacle. He successfully makes his way through whatever, writes things down, understands things, and reaches some grounds where he's even able to lay down a valid generic & macro model - "pathocracy".
Clinicians such as Robert Hare, or very recently Karen Mitchell seem to be stuck, precisely with their approach. They walk slowly, to find themselves endlessly discerning "clinical traits", a process restricting future outcomes to "a grid". It's not that it's wrong or useless but this is what I see. I believe you get my point. Hare provides us with "The PCLR test", and his valuable contribution is a grid with "Cluster A, Cluster B, etc". No kidding... When Lobaczewski's limpid road is very accessible, clinicians submit people towards an additional difficulty. "Cluster B" refers to something, we'd need to study this to get it.
Question is:
"what [in the world] is the spec that clinicians studying psychopathology stumble upon, preventing them to efficiently move further, and that Lobaczewski bypassed, please?"
*
An additional question would be: "the study of psychopathology is an important matter; would you please hint us at a specific we may want to direct our attention to, please?".
Something susceptible to drive the boat further.
Thank you very much! Overall, a care for the study of psychopathology: suggestions, new inputs(?)
I’m not sure I understand your question yet. Lobaczewski certainly had obstacles - and his work was the result of 30 years of hands-on experience. Western researchers never had the benefit of that experience. If they are stuck, it is at the initial stage of identifying “what exactly is this thing we call psychopathy.” Lobaczewski spent many years on that question, as well as identifying the features of an already fully developed pathological political system that took over his country. Again, western researchers don’t have the advantage of that experience. As for your second question, it is still a bit vague, so let’s try to work on that. What do you imagine an answer might be? Doesn’t have to be the right answer, but trying this as an exercise might help refine the question.
I guess that I may clarify my line of thought for clarity:
°C's help, help humans, humanity
°Let's think of a "good question" meeting the above frame of mind
°Some said one day "in the end, it all amounts to psychopathology, the degree of it, its presence, etc"
°Lobaczewski kind of requested ponerology to become a mainstream science
°What's the present state of affairs?
°Not much. Harrison Koeli is basically carrying on the whole train by himself
°Still - Here we got Karen Mitchell, susceptible to mainstream her research - she's very "mainstream" and represents society studying those matters - the continuity dreamt by Lobaczewski
°She seems stuck at "XY"
°"let's help such a precious voice"
:) A bit idealist I would agree but well, to pursue what some hinted at the most important field of study that should make us busy
I forgot to say thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you for having considered my request and for having taken the time to answer it, to develop and to clarify, especially through your perspective of the "Westerners".
I really see those clinicians kind of stuck and slowly progressing - and you are expressing that Westerners don't yet have the same "knowledge capital".
I would be tempted to go
"Hum. Is this some "Aren't we supposed to grab other's experiences and teachings so as to progress" situation?
Akin to "they haven't read the book of the guy who just digged a trench in those matters"
But in any case, my question *may* remain, then, in the sense of
"what's their next step?"
"what's the next step that will make their work go on positively?"
In the hope, of course, to be able to provide those guys some C's tips :)
To provide an additional supernatural help, in a field requiring more attention than what today's feature.
I suppose my second question meets the above consideration. I would be glad to try to formulate a better questioning, but before, I feel it would be best for me to wait for your thoughts about the above. If you don't find it relevant, that's cool, but as you allow me to "defend my bone" - overall I was thinking of a question about psychopathology in order to "make the boat sail". This is it. What I had in mind was that today's efforts in that domain were:
- Harrison KOEHLI and an outstanding blog
- Dr Karen Mitchell filling up grids with clinical observations
And that's all. I understand all discussions and articles are surely "ponerological" - all the various efforts you guys do - but I was thinking of some precise ponerological tips :)
You might be interested in reading this book. (Review below)
Also keep in mind that John Keel of mothman fame later on started to think it was a psychological phenomenon.
It was also interesting to notice that poltergeists are impossible to capture on video, but usually involved a girl going through puberty which at the time of Catholicism caused a lot of disassociation in those stressed girls.
Perhaps that's why the c's said that psychedelics etc can open up one to these.... Much like a religious experience, one's beliefs can hijack perception... A waking dream or a nightmare!
Even though it wasn't "real" it does have real effects and can cause changes in people. For example multiple personalities in one person can have a blind one and a seeing one!
Even in the latest session they connect consciousness with why some see this and others see that:
"Ryan) Why do 3D window-fallers fall through one window but not another? For example, why haven't there been reports of chupacabras in Europe? What relates the consciousness of a window-faller to a specific locator?
A: The consciousnesses of those located at the locator. "
Perhaps you can ask the C's about Harpur's book. His theory seems very plausible as the deeper I tried to study the paranormal, the less I could find anything clear. It's 2024, cameras are everywhere and we get a Pentagon video of a jet following a dot. Guess what, the pilot was a contractor aka CIA 😂, not military. That agency primarily deals with psychological operations. I'm still open to it but nowadays it's so easy to deep fake it!
"Daimonic Reality by Patrick Harpur examines UFOs and a wide variety of “paranormal” phenomena from a rather unique angle. Although Harpur never fully defines the daimonic—“the daimonic that can be defined is not the true daimonic,” as Lao-Tse would say—it seems to exist both inside us and outside us. Like the Greek daemon and unlike the Christian demon, it takes both good/healing and bad/terrifying forms, depending on our commitment to rationalistic ego states.
In a sense, the daimonic is like the collective unconscious of Carl Jung, inside us as a part of our total self that the ego wishes to deny, outside us in all the other humans who ever existed and in the dreams, myths, and arts of all the world. But Harpur follows Irish poet (and Golden Dawn alumnus) W. B. Yeats as often as he follows Jung, and traces some of his ideas back to Giordano Bruno and the alchemical/hermetic mystics of the Renaissance. The daimonic is just a bit more personalized and individualized than Jung’s species unconscious.
Harpur’s major thesis is that unless we recognize the daimonic (make friends with it, Jung would say) it takes increasingly malignant and terrifying forms. For instance, the Greys of UFO abduction lore, he says, are deliberately mirroring our ego-centered and “scientistic” age—showing no emotions of the humans they experiment upon, just as the ideal science student feels no emotion and has no concern with the emotions of the animal being tortured in his laboratory."
Despite dealing with many subjects common to conspiracy theories, this book does not quite fit into that category. We are the conspirators, so to speak. We have repressed the most creative part of ourselves and now it is escaping in terrifying forms."
In Salvador Freixedo's book "The Human Farm", I "suspect" that he unknowingly had contact with "Clandestines or Cryptoterrestrials"... In the chapters that talk about Lula, José Luis and Rufo there are good examples.
Is "The Human Farm" available in English? If not, could you share a few details about those three people?
I was searching on the internet and I think there is no English version, but it is possible to get it in .PDF in Spanish and translate the text to read it.
I would like to give a summary of the indicated chapters, but I think that could contaminate all the details, which are many, I can only tell you that in each chapter of this book there are details that follow the same line as almost all the cassiopaea.substack.com published until now.
I'm talking about reading like 40 pages of the 165 pages or so that this book has.
If you want you can contact me privately via email.
Thanks, Sindy. We'll try to get the pdf and translate it.
Can we ask questions to the C's?!
You can propose questions. If they're not answered elsewhere and we think they're worth asking, we'll try to get to them during a session.
Hello, sorry for the late answer: Thank you very much, there is one I have in stock for a while now, I will try to formulate it then post it here, with the hope it's something usable.
Hello, I would come up with one question that I would like to request being asked, if possible, please:
Lobaczewski studies psychopathology and manages to write a book in which he does not stumble upon any obstacle. He successfully makes his way through whatever, writes things down, understands things, and reaches some grounds where he's even able to lay down a valid generic & macro model - "pathocracy".
Clinicians such as Robert Hare, or very recently Karen Mitchell seem to be stuck, precisely with their approach. They walk slowly, to find themselves endlessly discerning "clinical traits", a process restricting future outcomes to "a grid". It's not that it's wrong or useless but this is what I see. I believe you get my point. Hare provides us with "The PCLR test", and his valuable contribution is a grid with "Cluster A, Cluster B, etc". No kidding... When Lobaczewski's limpid road is very accessible, clinicians submit people towards an additional difficulty. "Cluster B" refers to something, we'd need to study this to get it.
Question is:
"what [in the world] is the spec that clinicians studying psychopathology stumble upon, preventing them to efficiently move further, and that Lobaczewski bypassed, please?"
*
An additional question would be: "the study of psychopathology is an important matter; would you please hint us at a specific we may want to direct our attention to, please?".
Something susceptible to drive the boat further.
Thank you very much! Overall, a care for the study of psychopathology: suggestions, new inputs(?)
I’m not sure I understand your question yet. Lobaczewski certainly had obstacles - and his work was the result of 30 years of hands-on experience. Western researchers never had the benefit of that experience. If they are stuck, it is at the initial stage of identifying “what exactly is this thing we call psychopathy.” Lobaczewski spent many years on that question, as well as identifying the features of an already fully developed pathological political system that took over his country. Again, western researchers don’t have the advantage of that experience. As for your second question, it is still a bit vague, so let’s try to work on that. What do you imagine an answer might be? Doesn’t have to be the right answer, but trying this as an exercise might help refine the question.
I guess that I may clarify my line of thought for clarity:
°C's help, help humans, humanity
°Let's think of a "good question" meeting the above frame of mind
°Some said one day "in the end, it all amounts to psychopathology, the degree of it, its presence, etc"
°Lobaczewski kind of requested ponerology to become a mainstream science
°What's the present state of affairs?
°Not much. Harrison Koeli is basically carrying on the whole train by himself
°Still - Here we got Karen Mitchell, susceptible to mainstream her research - she's very "mainstream" and represents society studying those matters - the continuity dreamt by Lobaczewski
°She seems stuck at "XY"
°"let's help such a precious voice"
:) A bit idealist I would agree but well, to pursue what some hinted at the most important field of study that should make us busy
I forgot to say thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you for having considered my request and for having taken the time to answer it, to develop and to clarify, especially through your perspective of the "Westerners".
I really see those clinicians kind of stuck and slowly progressing - and you are expressing that Westerners don't yet have the same "knowledge capital".
I would be tempted to go
"Hum. Is this some "Aren't we supposed to grab other's experiences and teachings so as to progress" situation?
Akin to "they haven't read the book of the guy who just digged a trench in those matters"
But in any case, my question *may* remain, then, in the sense of
"what's their next step?"
"what's the next step that will make their work go on positively?"
In the hope, of course, to be able to provide those guys some C's tips :)
To provide an additional supernatural help, in a field requiring more attention than what today's feature.
I suppose my second question meets the above consideration. I would be glad to try to formulate a better questioning, but before, I feel it would be best for me to wait for your thoughts about the above. If you don't find it relevant, that's cool, but as you allow me to "defend my bone" - overall I was thinking of a question about psychopathology in order to "make the boat sail". This is it. What I had in mind was that today's efforts in that domain were:
- Harrison KOEHLI and an outstanding blog
- Dr Karen Mitchell filling up grids with clinical observations
And that's all. I understand all discussions and articles are surely "ponerological" - all the various efforts you guys do - but I was thinking of some precise ponerological tips :)
You might be interested in reading this book. (Review below)
Also keep in mind that John Keel of mothman fame later on started to think it was a psychological phenomenon.
It was also interesting to notice that poltergeists are impossible to capture on video, but usually involved a girl going through puberty which at the time of Catholicism caused a lot of disassociation in those stressed girls.
Perhaps that's why the c's said that psychedelics etc can open up one to these.... Much like a religious experience, one's beliefs can hijack perception... A waking dream or a nightmare!
Even though it wasn't "real" it does have real effects and can cause changes in people. For example multiple personalities in one person can have a blind one and a seeing one!
Even in the latest session they connect consciousness with why some see this and others see that:
"Ryan) Why do 3D window-fallers fall through one window but not another? For example, why haven't there been reports of chupacabras in Europe? What relates the consciousness of a window-faller to a specific locator?
A: The consciousnesses of those located at the locator. "
Perhaps you can ask the C's about Harpur's book. His theory seems very plausible as the deeper I tried to study the paranormal, the less I could find anything clear. It's 2024, cameras are everywhere and we get a Pentagon video of a jet following a dot. Guess what, the pilot was a contractor aka CIA 😂, not military. That agency primarily deals with psychological operations. I'm still open to it but nowadays it's so easy to deep fake it!
https://library.lol/main/F0FFF93E5BDCCCD182B46BCC074E05BB
"Daimonic Reality by Patrick Harpur examines UFOs and a wide variety of “paranormal” phenomena from a rather unique angle. Although Harpur never fully defines the daimonic—“the daimonic that can be defined is not the true daimonic,” as Lao-Tse would say—it seems to exist both inside us and outside us. Like the Greek daemon and unlike the Christian demon, it takes both good/healing and bad/terrifying forms, depending on our commitment to rationalistic ego states.
In a sense, the daimonic is like the collective unconscious of Carl Jung, inside us as a part of our total self that the ego wishes to deny, outside us in all the other humans who ever existed and in the dreams, myths, and arts of all the world. But Harpur follows Irish poet (and Golden Dawn alumnus) W. B. Yeats as often as he follows Jung, and traces some of his ideas back to Giordano Bruno and the alchemical/hermetic mystics of the Renaissance. The daimonic is just a bit more personalized and individualized than Jung’s species unconscious.
Harpur’s major thesis is that unless we recognize the daimonic (make friends with it, Jung would say) it takes increasingly malignant and terrifying forms. For instance, the Greys of UFO abduction lore, he says, are deliberately mirroring our ego-centered and “scientistic” age—showing no emotions of the humans they experiment upon, just as the ideal science student feels no emotion and has no concern with the emotions of the animal being tortured in his laboratory."
Despite dealing with many subjects common to conspiracy theories, this book does not quite fit into that category. We are the conspirators, so to speak. We have repressed the most creative part of ourselves and now it is escaping in terrifying forms."