02-23-2011, 01:23 PM
Thanks for your comments guys, and, sorry for the delayed reply.
I'll play devil's advocate for a while here to tease this line of thought out.. Basically you are responding in the subjective, correct? It's probably unfair to evaluate the Ra material in this way, but the principals described therein could as easily be said to "not work" rather than "work" by the lay person, no? Or would we say that yes, if you apply the principals discussed by Ra then you will absolutely find such and such results? I guess the question here becomes, is it possible to identify and test something that purports to be universe truth in a manner that is scientific? Or to say this in LOO terminology, using the experience of the mind archetype only? Perhaps, perhaps not.
This is where the bulk of my confusion sets in. I've spent some time so far this year learning about a peculiar sub-set of Christianity known as apologetics. This is a group who, feeling threatened by the growing popular mindset that many of the Bibles' teachings are at best allegory and at worst complete fabrication, has set out to "prove" the teachings and claims. Most interesting are those who lay out the case for the literal resurrection of Christ. This is not an easy thing to do, and in my opinion is not successful. The best argument they end up with generally is that you can't prove that it didn't happen- and that's an extremely weak arguement in the face of an extraordinary claim. Now- to tie this back in- this is sort of what I see in the "Scientific verification" thread. Here we have a pre-existing belief system (the LOO and Ra communication) being propped up by a core base (We the Bring4th members) with all sorts of weak "scientific" research. Please don't get me wrong here- I believe the Ra transmissions are genuine and unique- and probably the best thing we have on Earth in the way of explaining who we are, what we're doing and where we're going as humans and eternal spirits. But I say that primarily because the information rings true to me on a deep intuitive level (matrix of the mind? I'm not sure). But- a universal truth should be exactly that, universal. It should be true on the inner world of the mind and heart, as well as in the physical sciences. So when it comes to information that is hard to believe, lets use the example of bases on the moon, or humans testing craft at a quarter the speed of light, what can we say? We're pretty much placed in the uncomfortable situation of being in the apologetics' situation. In a nutshell, where "outer reality" is concerned, can we verify anything in the Ra material? Was it pretty much designed so to say so that we could not?
I agree with you unity, LOO is definitely a goldmine for the one who seeks to better navigate the waters of life. And that is definitely enough to keep me reading it over and over, all "outer reality" and transient information aside.
L&L,
Eric
zenmaster Wrote:For example, in almost every case where a principle is described. The simple, dialectical-monist approach of love/light, teach/learn, space/time. The archetypal principles of mind, body and spirit.
I'll play devil's advocate for a while here to tease this line of thought out.. Basically you are responding in the subjective, correct? It's probably unfair to evaluate the Ra material in this way, but the principals described therein could as easily be said to "not work" rather than "work" by the lay person, no? Or would we say that yes, if you apply the principals discussed by Ra then you will absolutely find such and such results? I guess the question here becomes, is it possible to identify and test something that purports to be universe truth in a manner that is scientific? Or to say this in LOO terminology, using the experience of the mind archetype only? Perhaps, perhaps not.
zenmaster Wrote:'hell-to-tha-no'. Of course there is no scientific verifiability of the material. First, a lot of the links are to non-scientific sources or science of dubious validity. A lot of silliness. We already know that most of the subject matter does not present claims in a scientifically testable manner. Even for the little 'transitory' information we have in that regard, the claims of scientific verifiability would require research on the particular subject matter: the Ra Material quote together with a 'claim' based on someone's interpretation. No one really does that because they either lazy, untrained, or not interested. The best one could say is that the material is 'congruent with' or 'non contradictory' to some scientific understanding. It is easy to imagine these people are probably of the mindset that 'what the bleep' is numinously inspiring or actual scientific validation of spirituality.
This is where the bulk of my confusion sets in. I've spent some time so far this year learning about a peculiar sub-set of Christianity known as apologetics. This is a group who, feeling threatened by the growing popular mindset that many of the Bibles' teachings are at best allegory and at worst complete fabrication, has set out to "prove" the teachings and claims. Most interesting are those who lay out the case for the literal resurrection of Christ. This is not an easy thing to do, and in my opinion is not successful. The best argument they end up with generally is that you can't prove that it didn't happen- and that's an extremely weak arguement in the face of an extraordinary claim. Now- to tie this back in- this is sort of what I see in the "Scientific verification" thread. Here we have a pre-existing belief system (the LOO and Ra communication) being propped up by a core base (We the Bring4th members) with all sorts of weak "scientific" research. Please don't get me wrong here- I believe the Ra transmissions are genuine and unique- and probably the best thing we have on Earth in the way of explaining who we are, what we're doing and where we're going as humans and eternal spirits. But I say that primarily because the information rings true to me on a deep intuitive level (matrix of the mind? I'm not sure). But- a universal truth should be exactly that, universal. It should be true on the inner world of the mind and heart, as well as in the physical sciences. So when it comes to information that is hard to believe, lets use the example of bases on the moon, or humans testing craft at a quarter the speed of light, what can we say? We're pretty much placed in the uncomfortable situation of being in the apologetics' situation. In a nutshell, where "outer reality" is concerned, can we verify anything in the Ra material? Was it pretty much designed so to say so that we could not?
unity100 Wrote:ra material, from my experience, is usable for all kinds of purposes ranging from philosophy to energetical interactions with one's mama over a quarrel about whether or not to eat a jelly that is put in front of you at dinner.
I agree with you unity, LOO is definitely a goldmine for the one who seeks to better navigate the waters of life. And that is definitely enough to keep me reading it over and over, all "outer reality" and transient information aside.
L&L,
Eric