Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[Account1]

I don't dismiss it entirely. I dismiss it as needing to be a robust condender for a practical scientific theory. If it is not, then that is "as far as the theory can go." Frankly, I also don't know enough about it to say much more. I'm interested, but only because Ra affirms it.

I think you’ve read it a little too charitably my friend...

20.7 ↥ Questioner: Just as a sideline, a side question here: Is the physics of Dewey Larson correct?
Ra: I am Ra. The physics of sound vibrational complex Dewey is a correct system as far as it is able to go. There are those things which are not included in this system. However, those coming after this particular entity, using the basic concepts of vibration and the study of vibrational distortions, will begin to understand that which you know of as gravity and those things you consider as “n” dimensions. These things are necessary to be included in a more universal, shall we say, physical theory.

Ra didn’t mean “if it isn’t correct than than that’s far as it goes” this is Ra saying that it is correct as far as what it currently implies and that their model goes further, which is suspect, Larson is regarded as a crank and you can’t believe in the LOO without believing in Larson as Ra’s model is an extension of his.

Ra is using concept of magnetism here. The idea is that the complex self has many elements in it which are oriented STS (south), STO (north) or in some other direction entirely, just like the magnetic orientation of particles in a body. These metaphysical particles (if you will) are nodes in the psyche, areas of specific (in a simple particle) or broad (in a complex particle) concern. So think of your individual relationships with others, the various traits you do or don't like about yourself and others, etc., etc.

Metaphysical particles in the self can be either intentionally or accidentally polarized. Accidental polarization is a state of consciousness reached without knowing how you got there. So some event happens, a crisis, say, and everything clarifies for you and you know exactly what to do without all the emotional baggage you'd usually have. This is like placing a body in the field of a strong magnet. The body will temporarily polarize, but once the strong magnet is removed, the body will rapidly lose its polarization.

Intentional polarization is the mechanism of consciously finding each metaphysical element (i.e. knowing yourself) and orienting it either North or South. The method of changing the polarity of a metaphysical particle of self differs depending on direction. The north direction requires acceptance of the particle in reference to both self and other; whereas the south direction requires authority over the particle in self and other.

You might keep in mind that Ra treats the non-physical reality as if it has a set of natural laws just like those studied by physicists in the physical reality. These laws are simply there. They do not explain themselves (though Ra does); they simply give reality the structure it has. We observe them and record their consistency. These natural laws of the metaphysical reality are the same laws that religions have been attempting to enunciate for as far back as history remembers. Just as Aristotle got lots of things wrong in his physical description, so we should expect that even the most prominent spiritual figures in history may not have gotten it all right.

At first glance this looked impressive, on second glance like hippy babble, on third glance like a product of free association allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does discriminate fact from fiction and on fourth glance impressive again lol. Would you mind providing some quotes from the material to back up this interpretation?

The problem with “laws of non physical reality” is that are not observable so we’re just taking Ra’s word for it really, which is highly suspect and allows for a lot of “hey I can make up my own stuff”.

Do you have any qualms with the law of gravity being false?

Well the theory of gravity is an explanation of an observable phenomenon that has allowed us to build bridges and put men on the moon and as a component of Newtonian mechanics has elevated man’s understanding of the observable universe astronomically. The LOO is a theory of unobservable, unfalsifiable and unprovable events that allows people to dissociate themselves from reality. Not a great analogy...

The Law of One (or the "all is one" sentiment as you call it) is not the principle that any plurality can be grouped into a whole. It is that the whole is One without differentiation, that these differentiations are illusory (illusory does not mean "non-existent"; it means "incorrectly perceived"). And, according to Ra's cosmogenesis, the creation begins with a mystery: the One became many through the mysterious onset of awareness. That is, the One discovered itself as Subject to itself as Object. This distinction is the basic premise on which the material world could be produced by something that is indivisibly one.

As you know, a subject contains its object in itself in a multitude of ways: we project our baises upon others, we construct phenomenological accounts of our experience; we seek meaning in a world that never told us it had meaning. Similarly, the object also contains the subject: there is no way to distinguish the perceiving self from the reality it observes. The two are inextricably linked.

If all existence is built around this one discovery, then it should not be surprising that the Law of One has the property of holography. The identity between human and universe, however, is not one which is meant to be perceived within this specific illusion: the whole point was to experience the many, not to remember the One without any effort.

I know that is not regarding a grouped plurality, if you go back to what I said the greatest “whole” would include all parts as integral components essential for that whole’s to be regarded as whatever it is. And from that cosmic standpoint where everything is one yes, human experience would be an an illusion as the human does not experience things ”as they truly are” (to use some hippy speak) but rather filtrated subjective experience instead of experiencing the whole universe as the whole universe. But the problem with that is the assumption that the universe is conscious (or harbours some modality consciousness), which is a fairly huge assumption and I hope you can see my gripes with that.

The construction of meaning is usually assigned due to perceived necessity (the judgement of value), people don’t actually “seek” meaning as they are the one’s that in reality assign it. To assume inherent meaning is to what I personally believe to be regressive.
The cosmology of the “One” becoming conscious of itself, subject to the object and object to the subject at once is another archaic mythology, I don’t find it particularly compelling as an explanation of the origins of the universe, I am sorry but I could not honestly harbour such an opinion as it is to simple and magical (loose ends of causality all bundled up together under transcendent cosmic principles), it has a certain elegance and I get the appeal but I do think it regressive. The simplest way to process a given situation is to assume someone desired it to be so...

What is recognized by all of these perspectives is the existence of some kind of transition from this experience to another. All of these systems are attempting to articulate a natural metaphysical law (an archetype).

Yes but the Ra material’s interpretation of this archetype is that it is a real, transcendent phenomenon. Don’t just dismiss it, do you think that you will be assessed according to your violet vibration to see if you qualify for a more advanced experience of the universe?

The hero is an archetype. It names a natural law embedded into the structure of the human mind. That it is expressed by many cultures is what one would expect.

Yes, but do you believe in wanderers, an integral component of the Ra Material? You’ve agreed that these things are representations of archetypes but the Ra Material says that they are real things and you agree with the Ra Material so I’m curious if you believe in these supposed events.

"[I]t accounts for everything ever" is not something I can intelligently respond to.

“Law of One” “everything [indefinite] is one [definite]” it accounts for everything, everything is included under that “one”, I didn’t think this would be confusing. Ra’s model not only accounts for how the universe was created (love and light differentiating themselves) but everything observable could be held under the lens of the Ra Material.

I am a little curious as to your use of the concept of karma, despite your reservations about New Agey Stuff.

Primitive theory of causation that arose at a time when mental and physical phenomena had no significant distinction (magical thinking).

I know Carla and Jim. They tell stories of Geller's spoonbending and they even keep some of the spoons as a souvenir. I know them to be trustworthy, so I believe the story and anything else is simply irrelevant to my belief. Geller could have been stark raving mad for all I care. What I know is that Carla and Jim witnessed him spoonbending.

So you believe it’s possible, even if Carla and don were duped the Ra Material holds the phenomena possible so do you believe it?