I have been following the conversations and thread with great interest. I must admit Unity that your intellect, logic, and focus are admirable. But I also wonder if like the well honed blade it is if it is also capable of cutting both ways rather than one, i.e. as in the double edged sword versus the single edged. To that end what I am driving at is that your ability to reason inductively from the particular to the general as regards the LOO Material, although otherwise solid, sharp and sound, is as difficult to serve deductively from the general to the particular with respect to esoterica. If I may invite you to try this on, as if nothing more than an article of clothing to see if it fits. Let me see if I may gently nudge a suggestion. Admittedly I am entering rather late into the dialogue, but I am wondering if I may be allowed to suggest the following to see your response as well as your ability to bend your mind as much as your keen talent of focusing it, which is more than self-evident. The more logical course for esoterica might be implied to be that of adducive reasoning vs abductive reasoning wherein creativity and intuition are required as opposed to either generalities understood or implied versus particulars forever unknown, thus rendering deduction and induction, although useful, not fully capable for the material at hand.
You state:
I would invite another interpretation into the game with respect to the above as an exercise in said bending of mind and the ability to invert ones thinking for positive outcomes. Let us as an exercise, as much as a dialogue, as though two exercises in one, view this Ra quote in another light. STS may require "not that they be 10 times stronger," but that as a necessary requirement to "negate or balance entropy" that they must exert 10 times more energy to maintain equilibrium. Imagine instead that STS must needs exert 10 times more energy in the effort of maintaining the balance that STO otherwise requires as 10 times less. STO requires 10 times less the effort as a result of not attempting to control. Agreement is less demanding than is control. Control in fact is an effort requiring 95% to be effective, whereas agreement requires only 51% to be effective. In this light it is the key words "Control vs Agreement" and not "Strength vs Weakness" that are paramount.
Example: Two or more drivers in an automobile need only agree at 51% to arrive at their agreed to destination; whereas two or more drivers in an automobile need be controlled 95% in order to arrive at the "controllers" destination. Although in the case of STO, 51% requires less effort, it is every bit as difficult for two or more to agree at 51%, this to the same extent that it is for STS to control at 95%. In this context 51% actually by induction equals 95%.This thus instead inverts the balance you otherwise rightfully seek through logically deducing as a means of reasoning that STS requires 10 times "more strength" versus "exertion" as a well thought out and perceptive find on your part. Their power (STS) is indeed the same as STO as you state, but not because they are 10 times stronger as a result of your assumption that they need be due to being 10 times less in numbers, but rather due to the spiritual entropy they encounter in the power they must expend to control in order to maintain overall homeostasis. Homeostasis is achieved wherein 51% = 95%. In other words, they have greater inertia to overcome as a result of their chosen path.
Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D(?) to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so, so to speak, that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.
Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider. The STS gentleman attempting to move the Pink Elephant in the room all by his lonesome must do so by sheer exertion of force and will versus his counter parts in STO who may do so more elegantly with only 51% agreement. This is not to suggest that moving Pink Elephants requires 51% strength. It is only to suggest that 51% agreement is required in STO every bit as much to even effectuate a successful STO cookie sale in the church parking lot. It is thus important in this exercise to maintain focus in the example in that this in no way suggests that STO can not also move said elephants by himself. He can through his magical ability every bit as much and which may very well take the same 95%. But why should STO even consider moving said elephants by himself when it would be more efficient to do so with the assistance of his mates and comrades instead? But lets not get lost in Pink Elephants given we are not moving boulders as much as the more non-tangential primary concept of "Cooperation" versus "Control". The example of said elephant moving is only to non-tangentially point out that elephant moving by STO's in cooperation is as highly unlikely in unison given it is as difficult to get two together in agreement much less the many. Thus the words in Matthew 18:19 "If two of you agree on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you..."...notwithstanding that it may have been interpreted also as a nebbish "Oy-Vey" for the difficulty implied as much as its truth. The dude knew what he was talking about.
Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:
βαθμιαίος offers as a wonderful counterpoint in Ra's own words:
To this wonderful Ra quote that βαθμιαίος found as relates to your point that we are not infinite, I wonder again if you may bend your mind as much as you are able to hone it and focus it to see this also in a different light? Case in point: Ra states explicitly, not implicitly, that the Universe has yet to be proven or disproven to be infinite. However he goes on to state as explicitly that there is no end to ourselves. Here then is the exercise: rather than imagining or visualizing the Universe or Infinity to be something that "we are contained in", I invite you instead to adduce/abduce the fact of what Ra implicitly infers when stating explicitly that "WE ARE INDEED INFINITE". With that said, invert your thinking process and attempt to instead, like the same article of clothing, try this on for fun. It is "WE" that are Infinite. In other words, "INFINITE INFINITY" is contained within ourselves, not we in IT. The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe. Try this on for fun for a moment before rejecting it too quickly and see how it fits. What if we as the Creator's prize are in fact the Creator. In other words, there never was a nothing before IT, given that clearly "Nothingness" never existed. There was always something. That "Something" was/is IT. IT was/is Infinite. IT, having nothing other than ITself as All, divided ITself into many selves. We are those many selves. WE by deductive reasoning therefore are IT. It is Infinite, ergo We are infinite = US as IT. Thus we are INFINITE.
What I note is that you must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same. We are in IT (infinity) as in we are in ourselves, as much as IT is in us. Thus are the two concepts, although never separated in fact, unified in mind (which almost necessarily divides everything in order to understand it, but often then is unable to reunify it once having done so...much like myself working on the car as a teenager and invariably always ending up with a bucket of nuts and bolts left over after the fact).
This is an invitation only. Were I betting man, I would wager that the deductive process, which by necessity and definition must dissect and compartmentalize as a means to and for comparative analysis, will by habit nonetheless dissect and compartmentalize to compare all offered, thus forcing you to the same conclusions. However, the exercise would be lost as a result. Were I a faithful man I would wager that your intuition and creativity alone, assisted by virtue of your intellect, might accept the offer....and first try it on.
Faithfully yours,
Q
You state:
unity Wrote:remember that Ra says negatives are always 1/10 the number of the positive entities in the galaxy (so i remember it as galaxy), but, they are generally 10 times stronger in polarization due to polarization requirements, therefore, it ends up being balanced.You then cite the below Ra quote as evidence to your above logic that STS must as a result be 10 times stronger (see below):
Ra Wrote:Questioner: What is the density of the Orion group?
Ra: I am Ra. Like the Confederation, the densities of the mass consciousnesses which comprise that group are varied. There are a very few third density, a larger number of fourth density, a similarly large number of fifth density, and very few sixth-density entities comprising this organization. Their numbers are perhaps one-tenth ours at any point in the space/time continuum as the problem of spiritual entropy causes them to experience constant disintegration of their social memory complexes. Their power is the same as ours. The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness, but is available for service to others and service to self. However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.
I would invite another interpretation into the game with respect to the above as an exercise in said bending of mind and the ability to invert ones thinking for positive outcomes. Let us as an exercise, as much as a dialogue, as though two exercises in one, view this Ra quote in another light. STS may require "not that they be 10 times stronger," but that as a necessary requirement to "negate or balance entropy" that they must exert 10 times more energy to maintain equilibrium. Imagine instead that STS must needs exert 10 times more energy in the effort of maintaining the balance that STO otherwise requires as 10 times less. STO requires 10 times less the effort as a result of not attempting to control. Agreement is less demanding than is control. Control in fact is an effort requiring 95% to be effective, whereas agreement requires only 51% to be effective. In this light it is the key words "Control vs Agreement" and not "Strength vs Weakness" that are paramount.
Example: Two or more drivers in an automobile need only agree at 51% to arrive at their agreed to destination; whereas two or more drivers in an automobile need be controlled 95% in order to arrive at the "controllers" destination. Although in the case of STO, 51% requires less effort, it is every bit as difficult for two or more to agree at 51%, this to the same extent that it is for STS to control at 95%. In this context 51% actually by induction equals 95%.This thus instead inverts the balance you otherwise rightfully seek through logically deducing as a means of reasoning that STS requires 10 times "more strength" versus "exertion" as a well thought out and perceptive find on your part. Their power (STS) is indeed the same as STO as you state, but not because they are 10 times stronger as a result of your assumption that they need be due to being 10 times less in numbers, but rather due to the spiritual entropy they encounter in the power they must expend to control in order to maintain overall homeostasis. Homeostasis is achieved wherein 51% = 95%. In other words, they have greater inertia to overcome as a result of their chosen path.
Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D(?) to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so, so to speak, that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.
Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider. The STS gentleman attempting to move the Pink Elephant in the room all by his lonesome must do so by sheer exertion of force and will versus his counter parts in STO who may do so more elegantly with only 51% agreement. This is not to suggest that moving Pink Elephants requires 51% strength. It is only to suggest that 51% agreement is required in STO every bit as much to even effectuate a successful STO cookie sale in the church parking lot. It is thus important in this exercise to maintain focus in the example in that this in no way suggests that STO can not also move said elephants by himself. He can through his magical ability every bit as much and which may very well take the same 95%. But why should STO even consider moving said elephants by himself when it would be more efficient to do so with the assistance of his mates and comrades instead? But lets not get lost in Pink Elephants given we are not moving boulders as much as the more non-tangential primary concept of "Cooperation" versus "Control". The example of said elephant moving is only to non-tangentially point out that elephant moving by STO's in cooperation is as highly unlikely in unison given it is as difficult to get two together in agreement much less the many. Thus the words in Matthew 18:19 "If two of you agree on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you..."...notwithstanding that it may have been interpreted also as a nebbish "Oy-Vey" for the difficulty implied as much as its truth. The dude knew what he was talking about.
Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:
unity10 Wrote:: therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite.
βαθμιαίος offers as a wonderful counterpoint in Ra's own words:
βαθμιαίος Wrote:Ra:"Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation."
To this wonderful Ra quote that βαθμιαίος found as relates to your point that we are not infinite, I wonder again if you may bend your mind as much as you are able to hone it and focus it to see this also in a different light? Case in point: Ra states explicitly, not implicitly, that the Universe has yet to be proven or disproven to be infinite. However he goes on to state as explicitly that there is no end to ourselves. Here then is the exercise: rather than imagining or visualizing the Universe or Infinity to be something that "we are contained in", I invite you instead to adduce/abduce the fact of what Ra implicitly infers when stating explicitly that "WE ARE INDEED INFINITE". With that said, invert your thinking process and attempt to instead, like the same article of clothing, try this on for fun. It is "WE" that are Infinite. In other words, "INFINITE INFINITY" is contained within ourselves, not we in IT. The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe. Try this on for fun for a moment before rejecting it too quickly and see how it fits. What if we as the Creator's prize are in fact the Creator. In other words, there never was a nothing before IT, given that clearly "Nothingness" never existed. There was always something. That "Something" was/is IT. IT was/is Infinite. IT, having nothing other than ITself as All, divided ITself into many selves. We are those many selves. WE by deductive reasoning therefore are IT. It is Infinite, ergo We are infinite = US as IT. Thus we are INFINITE.
What I note is that you must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same. We are in IT (infinity) as in we are in ourselves, as much as IT is in us. Thus are the two concepts, although never separated in fact, unified in mind (which almost necessarily divides everything in order to understand it, but often then is unable to reunify it once having done so...much like myself working on the car as a teenager and invariably always ending up with a bucket of nuts and bolts left over after the fact).
This is an invitation only. Were I betting man, I would wager that the deductive process, which by necessity and definition must dissect and compartmentalize as a means to and for comparative analysis, will by habit nonetheless dissect and compartmentalize to compare all offered, thus forcing you to the same conclusions. However, the exercise would be lost as a result. Were I a faithful man I would wager that your intuition and creativity alone, assisted by virtue of your intellect, might accept the offer....and first try it on.
Faithfully yours,
Q