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

[unity100]

You have spoken much to the concept of Infinity. I would invite all readers interested to take but a moment to review some or all of your sentiments as written in the several links with respect to your statements on Infinity in that they bring up interesting points of contemplation. For that I thank you. But you fail to see where these sentiments place you. You run the risk of a very tenuous position which by definition places you into a corner of non-argumentative status as such. In other words, everything you argue against and everything that another suggests and argues for is in your realm by own own definition not only as plausible, but moreover as correct, this at your own hand and by your own position. Your own position as such is an untenable one incapable of being defended as much as is anothers position, or to the converse, both positions are true in an Infinite Infinity where everything exists and is possible, making participation a moot point, given that in Infinity, as you define it, everything is correct and nothing is incorrect. Therefore everyone you have debated with is as correct and no more incorrect as are you, as much as everything you have argued for is as incorrect, given the other party is more correct. Your position therefore truly is either untenable or one that argues for nihilism.

im not 'defending' anything. people are talking, and im replying, and sharing what i have concluded.

my conclusions and understandings are results and deductions of what i have learned, as my signature says. these include Ra material. i give references to the various pieces of information when it is necessary, if it is something that is an elaborate conclusion from a seemingly insignificant piece of information, but important when seen with the light of other information given in the same material.

someone who wants to discuss in intricate details, has to at least have an understanding and remembrance of intricate material in the book, and should have not passed any information as 'insignificant and unimportant', but reflected on it, as someone who is after intricate information and deep detail should have.

as an obvious example, when i say that 'infinite intelligence is not infinity', and then someone comes up and says 'this is your own deduction, it is neither right or wrong just like any other, infinite intelligence is infinity', my adamant perceptive is not my 'conviction' and my 'nihilism', but, having spent the effort to understand what has been taught, as opposed to the other entity which proposes otherwise.

in this case, the other person apparently have not paid attention or does not remember the fact that Ra says that 'there is infinity' and then moves on to say that 'infinity became aware', and then says this concept has found focuses and became infinite intelligence, hence, intelligent infinity becoming a principle that is differentiated from infinity, by being aware, and then finding focus points.

this, is an obvious example. naturally, as with any kind of discussion, one expects that someone who wants to discuss in such intricate levels, should have reflected on the material s/he wants to discuss.

but, many, apparently did not, and does not.

i dont feel obliged to give repetitive references to people who will keep doing the same one after another. especially, for things such obvious and important.

granted, there are a lot of information that can be concluded by bringing together innumerable seemingly 'unimportant' information, and these may merit giving reasoning, and links to, and im doing that when necessary.

however still, for people who havent treated the material they had seriously and in detail, it would still be harder to construct a big picture by all these interconnected and seemingly 'unimportant' pieces of numerous information, because it is something that one needs to do BEFORE discussing them in detail.

For example, if you believe in Infinity, and an Infinite Creator as such, which you admit that you do, which is capable, and in fact does and has created Infinitely anything and everything capable of being created, then you must be as willing to allow that such an Infinite Creator has not only the possibility, but the absolute wherewithal, of creating all possibilities within which in that creation there are impossibilities. If you argue against this, then you have limited Infinity as much as you have the Infinite Creator's infinite ability. Where are your restrictions to your argument. If you do not allow that the Creator has not restricted creation, or has the ability to, then you have restricted Infinity.

i didnt 'admit' anything, and i dont 'believe' anything. believing is irrelevant. i know what i know, or what i have been taught.

simply, i know that infinity exists, because, ra says infinity exists. my conclusions from other ponderings also support that, hence, infinity exists. as for infinite intelligence, which you dub creator, i learn of its existence from Ra, and by bringing together the pieces of major and minor information, i can understand its nature and construct a framework of interconnected information.

when these interconnected information supports each other, and one can navigate from one point to another without breaking the framework, it means that this framework is valid.

what you name as 'creator', aka infinite intelligence, is already restricted. it is restricted in the sense that it is aware, conscious, and differentiated from infinity by being as such, as what we know from Ra, by 'infinity became aware'.

and because it is not infinite, it is possible for it to explore infinity. and that will take an infinite amount of time, because nothing less than infinity, can be infinite. this also validates the concept that Ra tells us as existence being able to discover multiple-beingness for eternity by creating infinitely.

there is no 'impossible'. everything that exists, exists. that is the existing part of infinity. therefore, there is no 'creator' that has to be able to create the 'impossible'. intelligent infinity exists, and it discovers what does exist.

A better example would be this: There are laws and rules in 3D in order that 3D may operate within the confines and restrictions of 3D which were created by design to be restrictive . By your definition, as well as an ardent supporter of yours in your previous threads, the laws of 3D may be suspended in an infinite creation where everything and anything is possible. Extrapolating this logic out, all densities laws may be suspended in an Infinite Infinity in other creations. There are no laws as such in such creations. You and your supporter have just argued for nihilism, as much as against the purpose for creation.

for infinity to be infinite, the parts of the infinity that exist, has to contain such realities in which the 'laws of 3d' are 'suspended'. not only not working or different, but, actually, have been working like the reality you are in as of now, but, 'suspended' by its local creating node. not only that, but infinite realities in which all densities' laws have been 'suspended' as such, and infinite other ways, has to exist, for infinity to be infinite.

whatever 'nihilism' is here, and how it ties to the subject, beats me.

But in your world view, you must by your own definition allow that within Infinity, where all possibilities are Infinite and definitely exist, that infinity and creation itself also never happened. If so, then what we are doing is not happening, which is a total contradiction of the fact that it is. I am. I need no other proof for it than I think. Someone/something is here. If we have therefore but even one single circumstance wherein Infinity is restricted, given creation did happen, and that not all things infinitely happen, i.e. the un-creation of what already is, or the non-event of creation which already is created, then Infinity has restrictions, and moreover restrictions by design.

i snipped the parts relating to 'nihilism'.

and yes, all possibilities are infinite, and definitely exist, and creation has also never happened, when you combine the 'aware' and 'existing' subset of infinity, with its counterpart, the (probably) 'unaware' and 'nonexisting' subset of infinity, or, whatever its exact complementary counterpart is.

You certainly may not propose that in Infinity, where everything is infinitely not only "possible", but "IS," as you adamantly state it is, that the "IS" that always was, never was, as much as the "IS" that happened also didn't happen. It is an untenable position to argue. But you must do so in order to sustain your position. Your position is unsustainable. Your position is untenable.

your arguments are untenable. not only that, but you also apparently have read whatever i said carelessly.

in infinity, everything that IS and can BE are found. however, that is not entirety of infinity.

what you term as 'possible' and 'impossible', are also just concepts, terms, identifying various adjectives and states of things that can 'be' in infinity.

infinity, is not limited to 'be'ing. infinity is not limited to any of these. all of these are subsets of infinity. for every 'possibility' of 'being' that one can find or think, there exists also a counterpart of that situation, that is totally the exact opposite, and complements it to point infinity, perfect state of nullification and balance. if there is a 'creator' there is a 'non creator'. if there is an 'infinite intelligence', there is also an infinite 'unintelligence'. crude may be the naming, the concept is evident.

If on the other hand you are willing but to make for but one single exception to your argument that yes, nothingness never existed, then you must also be willing to allow that the Infinity as the One Infinite Creator also is Infinitely capable, and not only capable, does/may, restrict "ITS" creation in degrees infinitely by its laws in all other creations as well. If you likewise allow for this, then you must also likewise allow for the one single possibility that in all of "ITS" creations there is/may be one single constant which IT may not allow. If you allow for this, then you must also allow that there are more than one dis-allowances. For example, it would seem that one dis-allowance would be the non-existence/inability for free-will. This would be the antithesis of "ITS" creation and individuation(s), for without free will, "IT" is just many of ITselves divided, but as one organism nonetheless. We know by the LOO that free will was one of the very first distortions, this before even creation.

i dont need to 'allow' anything. for every 'possibility' you list there, complementing counterpart of that possibility to nullification exists within infinity.

[quote] Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The Law of Confusion or Free Will is utterly paramount in the workings of the infinite creation. That which is intended has as much intensity of attraction to the polar opposite as the intensity of the intention or desire.

There is no possibility within Infinity for non-free will. It is utterly paramount! Utterly paramount are not light words. Free will just is! There is no where in the universes of creations that it isn't, even in an Infinitely Infinite Infinity of unrestrictive possibilities as you make a case for.

in your haste to discredit anything that goes, apparently against the conceptualization of an all powerful god, apparently you are misreading or skipping a lot of important distinctions :

infinite creation is NOT infinity. infinite creation, is the subset of infinite intelligence, which is the subset of the part of infinity that 'became aware', which is the subset of infinity. the creation going to be existing and unfolding for eternity, and being infinite inwards, and its expansion and outwards, does not make the creation, infinity itself.

Free Will---> Love---> Light. These are individuations/creations/distortions throughout the Infinite Creation of Infinity where without which there is no other possibility, even within an Infinity you seemingly seem to suggest for otherwise. These are restrictions. Laws. Peter-Pan in all likelihood does not exist other than as a wonderful imaginative character and caricature between J.M. Barries ears. God is Infinite. I would argue that HIS/ITS Infinity as Creation is not, this by virtue of the fact that IT deemed to restrict same by virtue of ITS Infinite Wisdom, which we know absolutely nothing of. Thus it may be argued that GOD ITSELF has restricted ITSELF by virtue of ITS FREEWILL to allow ITS creations FREEWILL. To undo this creation/distortion of the allowance of and for freewill would undo ITS creation. Thus there are restrictions as an expression of Infinite Infinity expressing ITself, less you would argue against Infinite Infinity's ability to do so which would be tantamount to suggesting that it is not Infinite.

In closing this post, I will no doubt simply continually refer you back to it based on your responses. If you would further allow me, I would very much like to take up several more points you have additionally proposed in other posts as well. I will reiterate as stated in my last post and thread "2nd LOO Question: Creation" that your logic and interpretations are as interesting as they are intriguing, but perhaps as suggested in this post, untenable.

this last block, gives various important feelings in regard to your approach, motives and the language of the post and associations you have made in between me and 'nihilism' and my ponderings of infinity.

you seem to be defending the concept of an all powerful god, rather than pondering infinity together. tone has become somewhat condescending and also you have gone the extra mileage of attributing various adjectives to my persona or approach, like 'nihilism' and whatnot.

im not offended, neither do i give much importance to such, however it is quite unproductive and im not interested in defenses of an all powerful 'god' belief, or its debunking, or anything relevant to these. therefore i wont be participating in any kind of reply exchange with people who desire as such. up to this point, and especially in this topic, you have shown your desire to be as such. if you want to ponder infinity and exchange thoughts with me without feeling the need to defend an all powerful god concept and even coerce it over me, be my guest. but if i feel that it is happening as otherwise, and it is, as of now, i will just opt out of discussing with you. no offense, of course.