Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[JustLikeYou]

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.

Okay, let me put it a little more plainly. I get to choose to believe whatever I like. I can appropriate as much of Ra's philosophy as I want without committing to Larson. When I read Larson thoroughly, I'll decide how I feel about him. Until then, I am not going to make a judgment one way or another about whether he is a crank. Mainstream culture does not dictate my worldview. I do.

Would you mind providing some quotes from the material to back up this interpretation?

I wouldn't mind, but I'm afraid I don't have much to offer. I've scoured the material over many times in order to milk things out of it that Ra never said. In other words, I've been charitably interpreting. The interpretation you're asking about has emerged from two aspects of the Ra Material: 1. Ra uses the term "polarize" consistently with this interpretation; 2. Don was a physicist and Ra often used technical terms that Don would be sure to understand. I have therefore judged that polarity is likely to be one of them.

The problem with “laws of non physical reality” is that are not observable

They are observable, just not by physical means. The problem is that scientists assume that the univese is physical; therefore, they only look for physical stuff and the only evidence that counts is physical. This is a real problem.

allows for a lot of “hey I can make up my own stuff

Yep, I get to do that. But, as I've already said, it's not just made up. I experiment with my non-physical experience to determine the proportions and relationship between, emotions, thoughts and other experiences not reducible to matter. I have no interest in providing data that is scientifically compelling to others; I'm only interested in discovering accurate relationships. This begins with naming and ends with continuous reiteration of experiments. The ultimate standard is whether principle X put to practical use via method Y results in an observable change. That I am the only one who can observe this change is simply the nature of the metaphysical beast.

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...

Will you please stop using the pejoratives? They add nothing to the discussion and they ruin rapport between interlocutors.

Your statement is only true under the assumption that only that which is physically measurable is observable. You have defined this subject matter as being inherently nonsensical because you have chosen not to imagine what would count as evidence if not something physically observable. Your own emotional states are evidence. If you pay careful enough attention to them, you will discover that they have a distinct topography, that each emotion is different from another, that they fall into categories, that they cluster into groups, etc. Just like physical particles.

The only reason non-physical data is considered "unobservable" is that we have allowed ourselves to be insensitive to non-physical data. It would be as if we only ever pay attentioned to our senses of vision when our lives were threatened. The data would seem much more chaotic and amorphous if this were the case.

In order for a genuine scientific conversation about emotions, we would need a much more refined vocabulary and a habit of paying attention to emotions even when they are not that strong. Culturally, we are a long way off from this, but doesn't mean I can't do it myself.

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.

I see your gripe because I remember having it myself. However, the extreme organization of life on planet earth is a statistical impossibility, and by that I mean that it is absurdly unlikely. This unlikelihood has been swept under the rug by Darwinians by virtue of bad math. It is imagined that in an infinite universe with infinite time, all possibilities, no matter how unlikely, will manifest. Not many people make this argument, but it is the only one that can possibly defend the straightfaced Darwinian claim that evolution is random. Unfortunately for the Darwinians, we have three dimensions of space and only one of time, which means that the infinity of possibilities is larger by a power of three than the infinity of time for manifesting these possibilities.

So, given the silliness of random evolution, we must conclude that evolution is designed by some conscious being. This causal change must necessarily regress back to the universe itself.

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.

You are begging the question. Where do people get their values? What informs this assignment of meaning? Instinct? That's what animals have. People have archetypes. This is ultimately the source of meaning.

The cosmology of the “One” becoming conscious of itself, subject to the object and object to the subject at once is another archaic mythology

Yes, it is archaic, but I think they got this one right. In terms of first philosophy, this cosmogenesis principle is the only way to make a monism work. I have found that monism is a philosophy worth preserving (due to other ideological benefits), so I'm happy to adopt this cosmogenesis in order to make it work.

it has a certain elegance and I get the appeal but I do think it regressive.

It's not regressive; it's a mystery. Impossible to get beneath. I'm cool with that. We need mystery sometimes.

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?

Sure. I like that story. I've always been a fan of sci-fi. But I really don't care that much. It's a good enough story for me to adopt as a mythology, but I'm not attached to its reality. If a better story comes along, I'll adopt that one instead.

You seem to have an all-or-nothing attitude about this stuff. Scientists don't take that attitude, so why should I? If the theory works, I buy into it; I trust it. But I am not going to commit myself to it dogmatically. That doesn't serve anyone.

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.

Also a good story. Fits with my experience, but I'm not going to commit to this one either. Maybe Ra's story is a cartoon picture of the way things really are. All mythologies are. And so are all scientific models.

“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 see. I thought you were saying that the wanderer thesis accounts for everything ever. Sure, the Law of One is supposed to account for everything ever. As a systematic philosopher I am always trying to account for everything ever, so it works for me.

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?

Sure, I think that's possible. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I've seen enough to know that the standard skeptical materialist story is just not enough to describe the world we inhabit. What you call magical thinking is certainly prevalent among many New Age types, but underneath the wishy-washy magical free-association is a set of principles which are simply not known. Spoon-bending and other such novelties are to us what lightning may have been to a previous age: the inconceivable impact of heaven upon earth. But it's really not so inconceivable; it's just not known well enough to replicate reliably.