There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

[Monica]

To dispense with the point quickly, do you agree that Infinity was never unaware, contrary to what Ra teaches?

I don't disagree with Ra. I disagree with your interpretation of Ra's words, as well as your interpretation of unity100's words. I disagree with the very premise of your question, so there is no way to answer it beyond that which I've already done.

Do you agree that Infinity, to be infinity as unity100 states infinity is, that it must have also always been aware?

I have already politely declined further discussion, as I see no point in repeating myself. My viewpoints cannot be reduced to fit such easy compartmentalizations, sorry. I don't think anyone's can, when discussing a topic such as this!

Anyway, why is it so important to scrutinize and analyze one particular member's opinions?

H-m-m-m-m...I assume this is one of the reasons we are here for. To learn/teach to teach/learn...to share?

Yes, but not to summarize another member's viewpoints. This isn't fair to the other person, since we cannot possibly represent their viewpoints accurately.

Maybe they all do. I can't think of any that don't. Even unicorns are real in some reality.

I guess I don't understand this

My opinion is that thoughts are real. Thus, in the realm of thought, unicorns are real. And maybe in some other dimensions as well. It cannot be proven that they aren't real.

A negative cannot be proven

Sure it can. Many many times over. My keys don't fall up to the ceiling in my living room. They always fall down to the ground.

That's not a negative; that's a positive. You can prove that your keys behave a certain way, at the negation of another way. That is based on the evidence of absence, and absence of evidence. That's not the same thing as proving a negative.

An example of proving a negative would be: "Unicorns don't exist at all anywhere on Earth." This cannot be proven, because there are still place on Earth as yet unexplored. I can prove that a physical unicorn doesn't exist in my house, but I cannot prove that a physical unicorn doesn't exist anywhere on Earth, until I have scoured every square inch. Nor can I prove that a unicorn doesn't exist in some other reality, right here under my nose, but I just can't detect it. Another example is: "Ghosts don't exist." This cannot be proven. The existence of ghosts might someday be provable, but the non-existence of ghosts will never be provable.

But I don't believe that everything that's in between my ears or yours is real. Peter Pan didn't exist, even though I loved him as a child. I don't even know how to have a rational conversation about the fact that he might have?

OK, that's cool. I very much believe Peter Pan exists, in some dimension of imagination.

But we are the Creator in facets. In any case it seems abundantly clear that some things do not exist.

Perhaps to you. But can you see that not everyone shares your opinion?

I believe I can find at least one quote if not many wherein Ra corrected Don that something was not true that he assumed was.

That's an entirely different issue. They were speaking of specifics. To claim that anything is possible, and thoughts are real, doesn't negate the fact that, when speaking of specifics, some points are true and some aren't.

But using your logic in any case, then I must be correct

You are certainly free to believe you are correct in whatever you wish! Who am I to say you are or are not correct? Can any of us say conclusively that we are correct or that someone else isn't correct? No, we can't. We can only share our viewpoints. One viewpoint is as valid as another.

in my thought that some things do not exist just by virtue of the fact that this thought is real because its in between my ears. Then if your logic were true, then reality is a hodgepodge in that every one's thoughts about it must be true, this in spite of what the Logos created for us to experience through it.

What is reality?

Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity.

That is your opinion! Thank you for sharing it! I happen to disagree.

But do you agree that there are laws and rules created by the Logos?

Sure.

If so it rather naturally answers the point.

Not necessarily.

I don't understand. Perhaps using the term entity is just a misnomer?

No. In that particular context, I was using the conventional definition, rather than Ra's esoteric definition.

en·ti·ty
   /ˈɛntɪti/ Show Spelled[en-ti-tee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ties.
1.
something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2.
being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3.
essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.

This is a simple contrary statement to Ra.

I don't see it that way. This is a very deep topic and cannot be reduced to such simplicity. We are attempting to resolve paradox, and name that which cannot be named. Ra also stated that any definition is incorrect.

Just because someone says "I disagree with Ra sometimes" that is not an admission of disagreement on points we happen to personally disagree with.

I don't understand the structure or meaning of this sentence.

The statement was made that disagreement sometimes happens. That doesn't give us license to assume we understand precisely which points the other-self disagrees with. It's easy to assume that just because we happen to disagree with them on some of their interpretations of Ra's words, that they also acknowledge disagreement with others of Ra's words. They may in fact disagree on some points, but not the points we thought they were disagreeing on. In their view, they might consider themselves agreeing on the points we thought they disagreed with.

not as a personal disagreement or interpretation

Anytime we speak for another person (ie. summarize their thoughts), we are coloring it with our own interpretation.