Shane/The Ruiner's interview with Kerry Cassidy, 8 Sept 2015

[turiya]

Posted by araucaria (here)
The trouble with your distinction between first- and secondhand information, turiya, is that it merely emphasizes how your own contributions are mostly of the second type, such as whenever you bring Chris Thomas to the table, which you tend to do a great deal. Even if you and Thomas were the same person, it would still be “Thomas” filtered through the mouthpiece “turiya”. On the other hand, since you are probably not, then we will only start getting the distinctive “turiya” contribution when you start talking from a perspective that is precisely not Chris Thomas’s.

I fear you are taking Shane to task for something that you are doing yourself. The alternative I was suggesting is the only way I can find to get anything out of your posts, which also means I have to find value in Shane’s as well. It is to drop this distinction altogether, which is ultimately based on a separation between self and others that is outmoded when one is thinking in terms of building a greater collective self. Apart from a tiny individual spark, the smaller self is entirely built up of secondhand input anyway, not just the negative but the positive as well. All we are as individuals is transceivers passing on slightly – and interestingly – distorted versions of the same info. It is all umpteenth-hand info – which is part of, if not the whole problem – and the idea of claiming anything remotely approaching originality is highly presumptuous, savior-syndrome ego talk.

I would disagree. The distinction should be brought to the fore more often than it is.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, araucaria, or maybe you prefer not to notice...
I usually make it quite clear from where the information comes from. This is why you say “whenever I bring Chris Thomas to the table…” This is because I make it clear that its not my first-hand knowledge.

Here’s another of my post replies to awakeningmom…

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
The problem with Chris Thomas' theory on time-traveling tricksters is that, if given any credence, then there's just no point in spending any time trying to figure out our true history. Researchers like Graham Hancock and alternative archeologists like Michael Cremo might as well give up, since much of the ancient relics or structures they are uncovering are just as likely to have been planted by time traveling bad guys with an agenda to steer us off course than evidence of a true alternative history that has been hidden from us. Under Thomas' theory, the Nag Hammadi could have easily been planted too, so there goes the whole Gnostic-Archon "fantasy."
This is getting so exhausting.

The response provided was as follows:

That's right 'mom'. Until you & the rest of us are fully awakened beings, then the story will be just that - a story. So, don't 'believe' in what anybody says. This is even what the awakened ones have said... Buddha himself has said it, "if you meet me on the road, then cut my head." Means, don't even 'believe' in what he says, trusting in oneself is all that is needed.

[araucaria]

Posted by turiya (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
The trouble with your distinction between first- and secondhand information, turiya, is that it merely emphasizes how your own contributions are mostly of the second type, such as whenever you bring Chris Thomas to the table, which you tend to do a great deal. Even if you and Thomas were the same person, it would still be “Thomas” filtered through the mouthpiece “turiya”. On the other hand, since you are probably not, then we will only start getting the distinctive “turiya” contribution when you start talking from a perspective that is precisely not Chris Thomas’s.

I fear you are taking Shane to task for something that you are doing yourself. The alternative I was suggesting is the only way I can find to get anything out of your posts, which also means I have to find value in Shane’s as well. It is to drop this distinction altogether, which is ultimately based on a separation between self and others that is outmoded when one is thinking in terms of building a greater collective self. Apart from a tiny individual spark, the smaller self is entirely built up of secondhand input anyway, not just the negative but the positive as well. All we are as individuals is transceivers passing on slightly – and interestingly – distorted versions of the same info. It is all umpteenth-hand info – which is part of, if not the whole problem – and the idea of claiming anything remotely approaching originality is highly presumptuous, savior-syndrome ego talk.

I would disagree. The distinction should be brought to the fore more often than it is.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, araucaria, or maybe you prefer not to notice...
I usually make it quite clear from where the information comes from. This is why you say “whenever I bring Chris Thomas to the table…” This is because I make it clear that its not my first-hand knowledge.

Here’s another of my post replies to awakeningmom…

Posted by awakeningmom (here)
The problem with Chris Thomas' theory on time-traveling tricksters is that, if given any credence, then there's just no point in spending any time trying to figure out our true history. Researchers like Graham Hancock and alternative archeologists like Michael Cremo might as well give up, since much of the ancient relics or structures they are uncovering are just as likely to have been planted by time traveling bad guys with an agenda to steer us off course than evidence of a true alternative history that has been hidden from us. Under Thomas' theory, the Nag Hammadi could have easily been planted too, so there goes the whole Gnostic-Archon "fantasy."
This is getting so exhausting.

The response provided was as follows:

That's right 'mom'. Until you & the rest of us are fully awakened beings, then the story will be just that - a story. So, don't 'believe' in what anybody says. This is even what the awakened ones have said... Buddha himself has said it, "if you meet me on the road, then cut my head." Means, don't even 'believe' in what he says, trusting in oneself is all that is needed.

Thank you turiya. Even as you make this distinction between first- and secondhand information, you get no mileage out of it. You merely admit that Shane, who is completely open here, is doing no more than what you yourself do much of the time. The more you stress the importance of firsthand, the more you recourse to secondhand – here by quoting Buddha, who was the very embodiment of this paradox, teaching people that they don’t need teachers. Cut off my head: it can be pretty suicidal, cf. Jesus. And understandably so: if the message is Don’t listen to me, then you would get a more convincing demonstration of that from an autist. Awakeningmom has a point: a talkative Buddha will tie you in knots because he is also saying Don’t listen to me when I say Don’t listen to me, etc. etc. And the same goes for Chris Thomas. Off with his head I say

But that isn’t the message; the message is Don’t put me on a pedestal, and then we can talk on an equal footing. Which we have to do because individual enlightenment is not what it is about: we are all in this together. But… don’t listen to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by turiya (here)
Because if we truly ‘know’ something

You are using the word 'know' differently than I am, as you well know, hence why you quoted it.

There are standards for knowing (my use of the word) things, events and affairs outside of ourselves, that are important to how we manage our own lives and affairs. Such knowing of what you demean as second-hand information is important, even if, in your use of the word 'know', we can't really know it.

For that matter, both forms of knowing, what you label first-hand and second-hand, are subject to confusions and errors. Neither is perfect, both are essential, in their own ways.

Holding someone who is reporting on external affairs outside of our own experience to the standards of the inner knowledge that you label first-hand is misguided. Should I refuse medical care from an ambulance medic because she has poor taste in hairstyles, or computer repairs from a technician because he wears socks that don't match in color? There are many areas of understanding and expertise, and to reject someone's possible expertise in some area for the primary reason that they lack expertise in some other, irrelevant, area, is nonsense.

Judge not the reporter of alleged events between powerful beings on this planet on the grounds that he is not exclusively reporting on what you personally might have first hand awareness of ... that's nonsense.

[greybeard]

I believe this to be so, or in my considered opinion---or this could be true would seem to be a safer way of expressing.
There are many things that a culture believes, as in the much over used expressions---its common knowledge or everybody knows.
Another culture may see it quite differently.
Basically language is not like simple mathematics---there are things that may be implied in a sentence that the grammatically correct interpretation may not fully cover.
Anyway live and let live.

Chris

[LittleTree]

Love This! Thank YOU!

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Basically language is not like simple mathematics

Mathematics gains its certitude by relentlessly removing all identifiable uncertainty ... a useful tool, but like all tools, useful only in particular ways.

[greybeard]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
Basically language is not like simple mathematics

Mathematics gains its certitude by relentlessly removing all identifiable uncertainty ... a useful tool, but like all tools, useful only in particular ways.

Paul
This is probably off topic but as in spiritual parlance
The Self is revealed by relentlessly removing all obstructions, by the use of Self enquiry.
Starts with "Who had this thought?
The answer being "I did"
Next question "What am I?
The "I" can not be found no matter how relentless the search.
Through elimination---I am not this!!!! not This--so what am I?
You would have to take into account triangulation---innumerable reference points from sages over thousands of years.
They say you are "One without a second." No separation.
Science seem to be coming up with this now,

Regards Chris

Ps Shane might possibly agree--Im not assuming this to be absolutely true, smiling.

[turiya]

Posted by Paul (here)
You are using the word 'know' differently than I am, as you well know, hence why you quoted it.

I know this is getting a bit off topic. But anyways.

Again, you are imposing your interpretation of what has been written - something to pay attention to, Paul, I would suggest. Make it a meditation.

I don't have a problem with the two directions that are implied with the usage of the word 'knowledge'. But hey, I got a good idea. Since you are having a bit of a difficulty with this word & moving between the two directions that it moves - inside & outside. To better make a distinction between the two, let’s use the words ‘knowing’ in reference to inner knowing, and ‘knowledge’ in reference to the outside accumulation of worldly knowledge that helps you keep you world better organized, getting up in the morning, driving your car to work (oh yeah, that's right, you probably work at home on a computer).

Better to use the verb form ‘knowing’ as it retains a flexibility, whereas nouns 'knowledge' tend to get frozen like concrete, it can reflect the quality of mind, as in one's rigid way of thinking, of having not an open mind but a closed mind, getting older & having a stiffer body. Mind in itself has a tendency to attach itself to that which it is familiar with. Hence the reason why individuals generally have difficulties in accepting change. Why paradigms are difficult to break out of. Its because of the identification in outwardly accumulated 'knowledge', things, places, presidential candidates, football teams and other worldly matters.

The verb form has an arrow that points inwardly. The noun form points outwardly to worldly things. This will make it more possible to flow better to consider ‘knowing’ as always changing – as with growth in consciousness. Then one is able to move more easily between the two word uses – regarding inner knowing, and regarding accumulation of outside worldly knowledge.

cheers.

[Valley]

I'm checking back into this thread briefly... and still see nothing new from 'Shane' or anyone else that even slightly changes my mind about the authenticity of this 'story'. I still see no reason to 'buy into' it, at all... But I do see more confirmation of why I'm not interested in following this and other 'Ruiner' threads... mostly arguing (division) being propogated. My feeling is that this is the goal of this 'Ruiner' material... To misguide, confuse, distract, and divide the 'questioning community'.

To each their own... But for me this 'material' is pure 'hogwash'.

Blessings...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by turiya (here)
To better make a distinction between the two, let’s use the words ‘knowing’ in reference to inner knowing, and ‘knowledge’ in reference to the outside accumulation of worldly knowledge that helps you keep you world better organized, getting up in the morning, driving your car to work (oh yeah, that's right, you probably work at home on a computer).

Which word(s) we use is a detail. It seemed to me that you were criticizing Shane for providing what you termed "second-hand information", as if that were less worthy than "first-hand" information. For example, you wrote "Because if we truly ‘know’ something, then there is no need to go in search of it."

Of course, much of what Shane provides is "second-hand" ... he could not be everywhere, for all times, of importance in the history and current affairs that he relates.

[turiya]

Paul you are flat out wrong!
There was no criticism made.
Your are fantasizing, please get a grip.
Enough of this provocation.

[Delight]

Posted by Paul (here)
Holding someone who is reporting on external affairs outside of our own experience to the standards of the inner knowledge that you label first-hand is misguided. Should I refuse medical care from an ambulance medic because she has poor taste in hairstyles, or computer repairs from a technician because he wears socks that don't match in color? There are many areas of understanding and expertise, and to reject someone's possible expertise in some area for the primary reason that they lack expertise in some other, irrelevant, area, is nonsense.

I know this is taken out of context of your discussion with turiya and with his opinions based on Chris Thomas information.....

In the mode of knowldege of EXPLAINING, the information needs some sort of verification of its provenance or needs to come from an impeccable source when we place faith on it. The mode of explanation could also be a verifiable one with experiemnts that can be made or pictures or video. When it is only about something read or heard and we HAVE TO ACCEPT THE SOURCE. THE SOURCE NEEDS TO BE VERY TRUST WORTHY TO US. Shane is trusted by many. I have no experience to know.

IMO, the issue I have with every whistle blower and every spiritual advisor, is that explanations are given. So I am asked to accept the story as true because of quite ephemeral and possibly wrong information. When there is no source of concrete verification except other similar sources, we get the wide open opportunity for Belief System (BS) to be the reason we accept the story. IMO, Shane is acknowledging that he is explaining to his intended audience form sources he believes (and he does not always give the provenance) so for me it is actually a THIRD hand source.

In the mode of EXPERIENCE, the one speaking just describes what that person had happen. So I could tell you my stories and you could tell me yours and we could still not have an explanation OR maybe we could find one? You will have to believe my experience unless you were there.

I have absolute trust that others experience what they say unless they have a reason to lie. Unfortunately the alt community is full of people with reasons to lie. It is to get fame, to puff up, to mislead...all sorts of stuff we HAVE SEEN.

Example of experience and explanation: I was at ECETI and looked through some night vsion glasses and saw floating wisps on the ground and some lights in the sky. I took some digital camera shots that showed me Orbs (still have the pics). That was my experience. Actually a true blend of knowledge from experience And explanation is in this example from Summer 2012 at Eceti.

i saw A LIGHT GO ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SKY. It was big and bright and had a field around it that made it look glowing. It was beautiful. I was excited. I had no idea what it was as I said,... but I saw it.
The next day our Gio told me he found (through the internet?) that the International space station was traveling across that night sky at that time. I could draw the figure as it imprinted itself. The explanation was disappointing in a way if I wanted it to be the mothership...but I had never seen the ISS so was a first.

This combination is what I look to find in adding to my overall knowledge...explanation from verifiable or trusted sources (and sources I trust could be that they never seemed to have a reason to lie). I will distrust source when I find they had a reason to lie (like JZ Knight, like Castenada and others) and experience that is my own to know.

If something seems "off" in a delivery, I will have my BS radar triggered. I was very disappointed with the info that Shane gave about giants. It was his experience but the lack of detail and the almost trite EXPLANATION (meaning more lack of detail and no way to verify his explanation) reduced the communication so that it was not of any value. It did not feel as if he was "there" and the suggestion that the giants were conveniently now off world was no explanation for me that I can verify. He apparently has heard things and read things that he believes are true and passes them on. It is hard to sift out what he SAw and what he heard.

That consistent lack of verification and also the way that people build their stories out of others stories is likely to lead me to consider it all BS.

[Constance]

From all the latest discussions going back and forth on this thread, I can now fully understand why we need a new universal language that supports us in developing the ability to investigate any topic and arrive at the truth.

Our ability to work together in the future and succeed in our intentions to be free sovereign beings all relies on how well we communicate.

We need a more conscious way of communicating that throws out all the confusion, semantics and conflict.

with love to you all

[araucaria]

Posted by turiya (here)
Paul you are flat out wrong!
There was no criticism made.
Your are fantasizing, please get a grip.
Enough of this provocation.

Turiya, Paul is not alone in “fantasizing”. Because if it was not some form of criticism, what purpose did your insistent question serve? Thank you for the interesting philosophical discussion it triggered indirectly; that may not have been your positively negative purpose, but it has been the positive effect.

You did say to Shane:

You repeated this information as if it was your very own knowledge & not something that you "believed" to be true, without clarifying that it was indeed a bit of "borrowed information" that you derived from other outside sources) - Anyways, this is how it came off

So that was not an accusation of deception, but a request for clarification that received a gracious response that seems to have satisfied you. Hence in a sense you rest your case; but then you would need to reformulate your case in a manner that is not dismissive of Shane. Let me attempt that in a manner that is not dismissive of you.

We come back to Bill’s philosophical question, What is first-hand information? Paul’s contribution to that discussion is as valid as anyone else’s. Let me develop my own thoughts.

All too often we tend to trot out the old metaphor of the elephant in the living-room, namely the huge datum point that we can all experience first-hand but are somehow contriving to miss. You might like to turn this inside out: more in the sense of Conan Doyle’s hound of Baskerville, where the clue is an absence: the dog did not bark. We are not missing the hugely obvious, we are missing the totally unobvious, the gaping hole in the living-room if you will. We are living in the scientifically detectable 4% of the universe, unable to conceive or adequately process the other 96%.

For example, we are experiencing a torus as a solid sphere, i.e. trying to fill in the hole in the donut with something. You have, living on the surface, hollow earthers filling this gap with all kinds of inner earth populations: we are still waiting for a firsthand experience of our own; most are still waiting for someone to come forward with firsthand experience that will dissolve directly into secondhand in the telling. So we make do with our at best thirdhand familiarity with at best secondhand experience. This is your “ex’s cousin’s friend of a friend who knows someone” that keeps our supply of urban legends going. Against this, you have flat earthers, who won’t go away because they sense this gap in our existence as a gap and have a rather primitive way of brushing it aside. This empty space is the space of creative potential: we get to choose what we make of it, and some of us prefer to fill it with wonderful entities.

The problem of flat earthers and others is being trapped in the world of the known. I am not saying there is nothing beyond our current experience. On the contrary, there are things beyond our current experience, but it all depends how we introduce them into it. This can be done either destructively or creatively. If we negatively allow their influence to infiltrate as reified nothingness, then all kinds of phantom entities, ghosts and demons, will occupy the darkness. If on the other hand we positively create space for novelty, this is what will happen.

How we do this is what I would define as firsthand experience. Experience is the wrong word: it is passive and we are talking about the corresponding active input, as writing is to reading. Here is a different analogy to explain what I mean: a palimpsest is a manuscript where the original text has been erased to make way for a new piece of writing. It is as if we had to write our own chapter on a quasi-infinite palimpsest. Every time we look at it, we discover stories dating further and further back. Our task is to write our own fresh chapter over this. In French we call writer’s block “l’angoisse de la page blanche” (the anguish of the blank page). The pseudo-problem of creation ab nihilo is overcome by realizing there is no such thing as a blank page. Every time you write something you are writing on top of everything that has ever been written, which is your inspiration, just as when painting the Last Supper Leonardo da Vinci took inspiration from the asperities on the wall. Your Akashic Records are all there. Your firsthand experience of filling this page is what you came to do, so you do your best, and your best will do. See here.

If you cry off with writer’s cramp, your blank page is mere reified nothingness that can be discarded or passed on to someone else. This is the disempowerment we get from religion: what can I say that Buddha/Jesus/Mohammed/guru X hasn’t already said much better that I possibly could? Answer: I don’t know, let’s find out. Off with their heads, I’m erasing them and starting my own stuff.

It’s quite simple and supreme free will: opt out and you’re out, goodbye! Opt in, and you’ve got yourself a job to do. So, if you try to pass off your blank page as being the ultimate, definitive end chapter to this story of life, then your unoriginality (“nothing new” has been done before: there is nothing new under the sun) might attract a few copycat suicides in your wake, but you and they are going nowhere. Your firsthand contribution is zero.

There you have my firsthand testimony for this morning I for one didn’t see that coming, but it didn’t come from nowhere, and neither is it going nowhere. See here.

[AuCo]

Thank you Kerry for the interview. Thanks, Shane for the interesting info, especially the 3-hr long one with Jake (?) on the radio show (?).

It would be nice if we could find some correlation between what Shane is saying and the worlds current/recent past events. Who is tied to, say the BRICS, more particularly the land now called China. I would be a more firm believer if someone can make sense out of what goes on there for say the short past 4000 years. Because I have a feeling that if we can explain what goes behind the scene in that region of the world, we can understand a more complete picture.

Hopefully Bill's up-coming interview with the Shane will help connect some of the black and white dots together.

[Gardener]

Bearing this in mind, perhaps some tollerance might be ok for those things we don't know, with an understanding that things outside of the 4% might be influencing division.

araucaria:---->We are living in the scientifically detectable 4% of the universe, unable to conceive or adequately process the other 96%.

[araucaria]

Posted by Gardener (here)
Bearing this in mind, perhaps some tollerance might be ok for those things we don't know, with an understanding that things outside of the 4% might be influencing division.

Delight:---->We are living in the scientifically detectable 4% of the universe, unable to conceive or adequately process the other 96%.

Actually it's me you're quoting - no big deal.

Yes, tolerance is hugely important: if I am to do my thing, it is because you are doing yours, which is by definition not the same.

And so is its corollary, a thick skin. If you don't like what I'm doing, that's fine by me. I'm 100% with Shane on this one. These days you can't say anything without offending or shocking someone. In a sea of 96% unknowns, you need to be a little stronger than that, more self-confident, wary but not fearful. The confidence that leads to/creates the discovery that the universe is fundamentally benevolent.

[Gardener]

Actually it's me you're quoting - no big deal.

oops sry araucaria, lol a rose by any other name etc... I have corrected it

[Delight]

Posted by breal (here)
From all the latest discussions going back and forth on this thread, I can now fully understand why we need a new universal language that supports us in developing the ability to investigate any topic and arrive at the truth.

Our ability to work together in the future and succeed in our intentions to be free sovereign beings all relies on how well we communicate.

We need a more conscious way of communicating that throws out all the confusion, semantics and conflict.

with love to you all

I know I am pre-occupied with the use of lying to take advantage of others. I guess it may be a personal trigger. I am not always telling the exact truth either. I can't say yet..."I am not coming to work today because I want to walk in the woods". This is just a small thing but it is the same on all levels IMO about the truth we know we are NOT saying.

I too want a world of full communication and I personally like words (hehe). Words can lie when on a page and even when a person says them.

When we are children and we sense what our parent is feeling and that parent denies we sensed the truth, (even punishing us) we start being bumfuzzled. We can't connect what we feel to what we are being told is real. That is my experience anyway. We can say words that becaome completely severed from the authentic. It calls itself "socialization".

I have often thought that we will have the clarity of "conscious way of communicating that throws out all the confusion, semantics and conflict" with a kind of telepathy. Telepathy might come to reading thoughts but reading the multidimensional state of being of another is the whole package. IMO, we'd each be needing our transparency to be OK.

Empathy is "feeling what others are feeling".
What the development of the reading of (energy?, coherence?) could bring is the sure knowing of trustworthy-ness.
IMO, we have to start with being willing to be open to others reading us. IMO that needs to have US holding impeccable sincerity.

I read somewhere that humans lie A LOT because it is expected to grease the wheels of communication.
When we get used to such incoherent signalling, we lose the ability to consciously appraise the coherent signal IMO.
SO, IMO, the best place to start is by saying what we mean and staying true to what we know.

Maybe we will have a globe full of empathic telepaths and no spoken language AFTER we develop the radical honesty which is unafraid of exposure.

[WEAREONE]

I have read all of this thread and all of The Blog of The Ruiner - Inside the Illuminati Mind. I have read every blog post and most the comments questions and responses on the blog. I have heard the interview with Kerry... I still I need to listen to the Thomas Williams interview.... will do shortly

Please try to find the time to read as much as you can, listen to the interviews...Use some thought and energy before commenting..ESPECIALLY if you are going to let your judgement on the matter be known...Otherwise your opinion is sort of cheapened.


For me Kerry Cassidy for whatever reason did not do enough prep before the interview,,it was obvious to hear she did not have a total grasp of the subject that even someone who casually read most of the blog would have know....That's disappointing.

Do we have a set date for the Bill Ryan interview?? I have not seen that posted anywhere??

I think if we move forward and suspend judgement it is clear to me the video done by Miles Johnstone with Harald Kautz Vela is very worth your time...Please go have a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=j88BcgzzcTc There is other videos with Harald Kautz...I found them very worthy of my time.

Shane has been consistent and respectful throughout.... THANK YOU for sharing with us. I will continue to try and learn without needing to define. I liken it to who was Jesus, was he god or man son of god savior..to me doesn't matter as their was things to be learned despite having to define who or what Jesus was...Not that your god or savior Shane but still hopefully other will understand my point.




For topics to discuss or interview questions I would suggest Myth of Sophia Archons..AI, and the anatomy of the spirit/soul and DNA .
Seems very interesting to me AI and Spirit/Soul can interact they seem so polar opposite to me...Also I am very interested in the shift..or correction that may be coming.. I understand this to mean humanities manipulation/oppression may be ending and we might be able to choose more freely who we are going to be.. I understand that to mean we may have our DNA cleaned up to an original state and their may be some lightening of our reality from a dimesnsional vibrational level and the physical Earth level...But that's just a guess (perhaps hope) and i look forward to more discussion on those matters if they resonate with anyone...
I look forward to this information and thank you everyone who has contributed.


Off to the the Thomas Williams Interview...

If we have a off topic discussion on words and meanings or language please Mods try to keep us on topic Thanks a lot Mods for all your work