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

[Quantum]

I immediately wished to post this in the effort of avoiding any misunderstanding. I will come back to respond to the balance of your post more fully when time allows.

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.

I use the term God loosely. I mean absolutely no religious context associated with it whatsoever. But in hindsight I suppose I can understand what such a word may evoke as an image for another who shared as much as was shared regarding your sentiments on religion. Let us loose the word God. It will only deflect the intent of the dialog. God for me is Infinity. God for me is the One Infinite Creator. God for you may be the figure of religion which we both know and agree is the Easter Bunny God. If we are agreed, we may move on.

As for the nihilism comment, and any attempt to address your persona personally, I am perplexed? Nihilism is a legitimate philosophical belief of which more than a few famous philosophers were of this persuasion?

Nihilism: annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

I would have thought that you would have taken this as an understanding at the very least, if not a compliment at most, more than an injury. I was addressing what I find to be your curious beliefs on infinity, not you or your persona. My confusion lies in the fact if you understood the term and its definition and were injured nonetheless. My apologies are offered if for utilizing it you did not understand its meaning and it resulted in your misunderstanding. See more on nihilism on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

[b]you seem to be defending the concept of an all powerful god, rather than pondering infinity together.

same as above.

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.

same as above. You've read far too much into the one single word God.

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.

Same as above. God is a simple word made up of three simple letters in the English language which seems to have evoked a response I'm not prepared for, given the word God for me carries an entirely different connotation, which humorously is no doubt the exact same definition you would no doubt have for Infinity, Infinite Intelligence, Intelligent Infinity, etc etc.

My apologies once again. Lets try it again....but lets try it without looking for whats not there, i.e. God. I further assure you that I am addressing your concepts, not you, i.e. nihilism, and attempting to do in as an erudite and detached manner as possible.



~ Q ~

[Monica]

'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.

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.

This is a very well-thought-out and astute analysis. Thank you!

[unity100]

I use the term God loosely. I mean absolutely no religious context associated with it whatsoever. But in hindsight I suppose I can understand what such a word may evoke as an image for another who shared as much as was shared regarding your sentiments on religion. Let us loose the word God. It will only deflect the intent of the dialog. God for me is Infinity. God for me is the One Infinite Creator. God for you may be the figure of religion which we both know and agree is the Easter Bunny God. If we are agreed, we may move on.

doesnt make much difference. whether it be without any religious attachment, or not, the defense of an 'almighty god' is still the same.

we are not agreed, god for you may be infinity, yet, god according to Ra is not infinity.

the infinite intelligence which is named as creator happens/comes after infinity becomes aware. hence, infinity is not 'god'.

As for the nihilism comment, and any attempt to address your persona personally, I am perplexed? Nihilism is a legitimate philosophical belief of which more than a few famous philosophers were of this persuasion?

I would have thought that you would have taken this as an understanding at the very least, if not a compliment at most, more than an injury. I was addressing what I find to be your curious beliefs on infinity, not you or your persona. My confusion lies in the fact if you understood the term and its definition and were injured nonetheless. My apologies are offered if for utilizing it you did not understand its meaning and it resulted in your misunderstanding. See more on nihilism on

the problem is on that part you first attribute something that is not relevant to me, and then start to expand on analysis and then make conclusions from them in regard to the subject we were discussing.

leaving aside having no relevance to the attribution, starting from such a point and going way off to make conclusions regarding the subject's arguments and ideas themselves are unproductive and irrelevant. its akin to me going into semitic religions, attributing them to you, and then starting to make conclusions about your views in regard to this subject.

i have no issues about being analyzed, or getting talked about. however, it should be in a relevant context, and with direct observation, rather than loose attachment to irrelevant concepts.

as for the 'injury' part, my injury is, a possibly productive discussion going astray with the necessities of someone needing to defend a god.

Same as above. God is a simple word made up of three simple letters in the English language which seems to have evoked a response I'm not prepared for, given the word God for me carries an entirely different connotation, which humorously is no doubt the exact same definition you would no doubt have for Infinity, Infinite Intelligence, Intelligent Infinity, etc etc.

My apologies once again. Lets try it again....but lets try it without looking for whats not there, i.e. God. I further assure you that I am addressing your concepts, not you, i.e. nihilism, and attempting to do in as an erudite and detached manner as possible.

i disagree.

you 'humorously' use the word 'god', however your entire last post, is clearly in the strong defense of such a god, even if you are someone who doesnt believe in a god, and do it for argument's sake.

this wouldnt create any problems, if you havent been selectively ignoring important concepts, or attributing irrelevant concepts.

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.

[Quantum]

I use the term God loosely. I mean absolutely no religious context associated with it whatsoever. But in hindsight I suppose I can understand what such a word may evoke as an image for another who shared as much as was shared regarding your sentiments on religion. Let us loose the word God. It will only deflect the intent of the dialog. God for me is Infinity. God for me is the One Infinite Creator. God for you may be the figure of religion which we both know and agree is the Easter Bunny God. If we are agreed, we may move on.

you 'humorously' use the word 'god', however your entire last post, is clearly in the strong defense of such a god, even if you are someone who doesnt believe in a god, and do it for argument's sake.

And then you go on to say:

doesnt make much difference. whether it be without any religious attachment, or not, the defense of an 'almighty god' is still the same.

Who is defending an almighty God here? I've explained...even apologized out of respect, albeit I needn't defend the use of such a simple word as "God", or the philosophical concept of the word "nihilism" when in fact God is humorously a word for me that very definitely is the exact same as Infinity for you, albeit you disagree. It offends your sensibilities. I understand. But short of your providing a list of words which are out of bounds for discussion, I would once again invite you to not look for what is not there. There was never one single mention in my post of an almighty God. God is Infinity (for me)...(but need I truly reiterate this when it was already explained in my previous post?) May we concentrate therefore on keeping our eye on the ball and have an academic discussion on concepts as opposed to personalities. My apologies for the 4th time?

we are not agreed, god for you may be infinity, yet, god according to Ra is not infinity.

Thank you. I may with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. And herein lies the difference in our interpretation. I am not offended in your interpretations. I am in fact intrigued by them. I get that you believe Infinity and "God/The One Infinite Creator" are somehow differentiated. I don't get that you suggest that Ra states this. May I disagree to your disagreement, for which we are here for, to explore our understandings academically, and give you my reasons without umbrage?

the infinite intelligence which is named as creator happens/comes after infinity becomes aware. hence, infinity is not 'god'.

Thank you once again. I may again with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. Herein then is my take on the point of God and Infinity being one and the same and thus undifferentiated. May we explore together?
1. Is it not our understanding that differentiation is an illusion?
2. Making an argument therefore for God being differentiated, as if God is not Infinity, is tantamount to the very very first and primary act of investing oneself into the illusion fully itself to begin with. It is making an argument from the very beginning, even before creation, that the illusion is indeed differentiated.
3. A child is born into its body unaware. It may even be argued that an adult with a heavier veil fully intact, and more resistant to even simple observations with respect to the sensitivities of life, or those all about him, is an individual less aware as a result than might be his brother next door. His or the child's awareness or lack thereof does not make him or the child someone else or something else other than who he is, an unaware energy. Becoming aware is not a separation or differentiation or an individuation. The child becomes aware. You state you believe in patterns. Here is perhaps the very single first and primary pattern to all of CREATION. AWARENESS. The child is more of itself for becoming aware, every bit as much as is the adult who became more aware than as a child. WE are not making an analogy to Comic Awareness here. This is simply a simple step of recognizing.........."I AM". Seems I've read that somewhere before in a book somewhere. "I AM THAT THAT I AM". A statement such as this sounds a great deal like an energy that became aware. But IT is still IT. It may therefore be seen that God, i.e. The One Infinite Creator, was unaware before It became aware, but was God nonetheless. This is unity. This is an undifferentiated state, albeit now more evolved.
4. God is continuing to evolve as such. Given we agree that God is continuing to evolve, is it then suggested that IT is becoming less of ITself as such due to IT's ever increasing evolvement, which is presumably IT's entire purpose, rather than more of ITself through IT's ever increasing awareness?
5. Lastly, I am fully aware of the quote that Ra made as regards Infinity becoming aware. I suggest that IT (GOD) and Infinity are One AND THE SAME as the "I AM-NESS" undifferentiated, but now aware, every bit as much as is the simple child who becomes aware, yet is still the child, as much as is 1D to 3D becoming more aware, but is IT-self nonetheless.

6. The first distortion was not AWARENESS. This was not what Ra stated. The first distortion was FREE WILL, then LOVE, then LIGHT.

7. The first act of INFINITY was AWARENESS, which preceded the first distortion.

8. Thus, even after INFINITY became AWARENESS, INFINITY was still undistorted...as in ONE, as in UNIFIED, as in an ALL ENCOMPASSING ONE INFINITY.

9. God simply became aware, who was Infinity unaware, at which point it became "I AM" for the first time as the status of ITS awareness.

As for the nihilism comment, and any attempt to address your persona personally, I am perplexed? Nihilism is a legitimate philosophical belief of which more than a few famous philosophers were of this persuasion?

I would have thought that you would have taken this as an understanding at the very least, if not a compliment at most, more than an injury. I was addressing what I find to be your curious beliefs on infinity, not you or your persona. My confusion lies in the fact if you understood the term and its definition and were injured nonetheless. My apologies are offered if for utilizing it you did not understand its meaning and it resulted in your misunderstanding. See more on nihilism on

the problem is on that part you first attribute something that is not relevant to me, and then start to expand on analysis and then make conclusions from them in regard to the subject we were discussing.

Your concepts are indeed relevant. You and I are not. Nothing was attributed to you. Only philosophically to your interpretations. There is a vast difference between these two. I am not married to my interpretations. You may categorize my views as Nihilist, or a believer of Aristotelian Realism, or Kantian Conceptualism, or Husserlian Descriptivism, or so many others to which I would find no umbrage intended whatsoever. Once again, my apologies to you for your misunderstanding on the definition of Nihilism and that your views seem to argue for Nihilism.

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.

Thank you. And here again is where my interpretation comes in as regards what may be understood philosophically simply as Nihilism. The concept that there never was a Creator and that there never was a Creation as the antithesis that there surely was, may be viewed as falling into this philosophical category named as Nihilism.

I return to my previous post wherein I commented that in such a world view, in which you hold INFINITY as being a state wherein everything is not only Infinitely possible, but also a state wherein everything is Infinitely not possible (and forget possibilities in as much as you argue for nothingness as well) as well as a state wherein Existence itself never was, Awareness never was, Creation never was, the One Infinite Creator never was and in which INFINITY itself by your definition also must be a never was, where Everyone is alternately incorrect, and Everyone is alternately correct, as much as is Everything alternately incorrect, as is Everything alternately in a state of never was, that in such a state and world view there is no reason for existence or exchange. If this is not the definition of Nihilism, then I am as interested in what your definition of Nihilism is, as much as I am interested in what the purpose is of exploring and exchanging where nothing you say is correct as much as its understood that everything I say is, or vice versa? It is for this reason quite simply and logically that I suggest that your position for exploration is although perhaps interesting, it is as much as untenable.

I readily admit that either for the limitations of my understanding or the syntax of you verbiage, that I often do not understand your responses. Can you keep it simple, clear, concise and so direct that it answers the dilemma directly of the contradictions philosophically quite naturally created? If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this? Whats the point if your as wrong as I am correct, or that you never were as much as you are, or that nothing ever existed if it did. It is a state of negation and neutrality that obliterates the expansion of consciousness (that also never was), as much as Infinity itself (that also never was). As alluded to in my previous post, in order to sustain your position, you must also in an INFINITE state (that you argue for) also concede your position. If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this fascinating position which you ascribe to?

~ Q ~

[unity100]

Who is defending an almighty God here? I've explained...even apologized out of respect, albeit I needn't defend the use of such a simple word as "God", or the philosophical concept of the word "nihilism" when in fact God is humorously a word for me that[b] very definitely is the exact same as Infinity for you,[/b] albeit you disagree. It offends your sensibilities. I understand. But short of your providing a list of words which are out of bounds for discussion, I would once again invite you to not look for what is not there. There was never one single mention in my post of an almighty God. God is Infinity (for me)...(but need I truly reiterate this when it was already explained in my previous post?) May we concentrate therefore on keeping our eye on the ball and have an academic discussion on concepts as opposed to personalities. My apologies for the 4th time?

Thank you. I may with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. And herein lies the difference in our interpretation. I am not offended in your interpretations. I am in fact intrigued by them. I get that you believe Infinity and "God/The One Infinite Creator" are somehow differentiated. I don't get that you suggest that Ra states this. May I disagree to your disagreement, for which we are here for, to explore our understandings academically, and give you my reasons without umbrage?

Thank you once again. I may again with this statement then utilize the word "God" as being synonymous with "The One Infinite Creator" then. Its so much easier on my fingers. Herein then is my take on the point of God and Infinity being one and the same and thus undifferentiated. May we explore together?

almighty god, an infinite god, an infinitely powerful god, they are all the same for me. however this is not about sensibilities.

the bold part in the above post is where you are mistaken. what i understand as infinity, and what you name as 'god', are not the same, if we are talking on a basis of Ra.

according to Ra, what is called 'god' or 'creator' is as below :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=13&ss=1#5

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the first known thing in the creation?

Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

Category: Cosmology

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?

Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

Category: Cosmology

13.7 Questioner: After this, what came next?

Ra: I am Ra. Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

Category: Cosmology

13.8 Questioner: Can you state the next step?

Ra: I am Ra. The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.

the creator, aka god, is focusing of infinity as a conscious, and aware principle called the intelligent infinity.

creator, aka god, is NOT infinity. infinity, is infinity.

we understand that infinity is differentiated from intelligent infinity, from the information Ra gives us, as above.

1. Is it not our understanding that differentiation is an illusion?

the 'illusion' term here, is apparently used as derogatory, meaning 'unreal', or 'fake', or 'actually not real', regarding any kind of existing reality.

that is incorrect. there is no 'illusion'. everything that happens, regardless of how they are, or, everything that can be imagined, are moments, existing entities, any kind of 'existing', 'be'ing concept inside infinity. they are all real.

it wont change anything dubbing any existing state, or experience, or reality an 'illusion'. if a focus point goes back in time, and views a particular state in a particular locale of infinity, that moment, entity, existence, is still there, at that point in infinity.

just like how Ra went back in time, to check what was causing the tape recorder malfunction.

differentiation, even before that, is apparently real, according to Ra, since they say that infinity became aware. it means, infinity could not be dubbed as 'aware' before (or, above), and the differentiation that aware infinity is, different from infinity.

2. Making an argument therefore for God being differentiated, as if God is not Infinity, is tantamount to the very very first and primary act of investing oneself into the illusion fully itself to begin with. It is making an argument from the very beginning, even before creation, that the illusion is indeed differentiated.

this differentiation is made by Ra in the first place, not me.

and on top of that, there is the 'illusion' misconception. everything is real, at that point in infinity, both in regards to space, time and state of things.

3. A child is born into its body unaware. It may even be argued that an adult with a heavier veil fully intact, and more resistant to even simple observations with respect to the sensitivities of life, or those all about him, is an individual less aware as a result than might be his brother next door. His or the child's awareness or lack thereof does not make him or the child someone else or something else other than who he is, an unaware energy. Becoming aware is not a separation or differentiation or an individuation. The child becomes aware. You state you believe in patterns. Here is perhaps the very single first and primary pattern to all of CREATION. AWARENESS. The child is more of itself for becoming aware, every bit as much as is the adult who became more aware than as a child. WE are not making an analogy to Comic Awareness here. This is simply a simple step of recognizing.........."I AM". Seems I've read that somewhere before in a book somewhere. "I AM THAT THAT I AM". A statement such as this sounds a great deal like an energy that became aware. But IT is still IT. It may therefore be seen that God, i.e. The One Infinite Creator, was unaware before It became aware, but was God nonetheless. This is unity. This is an undifferentiated state, albeit now more evolved.
4. God is continuing to evolve as such. Given we agree that God is continuing to evolve, is it then suggested that IT is becoming less of ITself as such due to IT's ever increasing evolvement, which is presumably IT's entire purpose, rather than more of ITself through IT's ever increasing awareness?
5. Lastly, I am fully aware of the quote that Ra made as regards Infinity becoming aware. I suggest that IT (GOD) and Infinity are One AND THE SAME as the "I AM-NESS" undifferentiated, but now aware, every bit as much as is the simple child who becomes aware, yet is still the child, as much as is 1D to 3D becoming more aware, but is IT-self nonetheless.

comparing a child to infinity, is quite wrong. let me correct it :

every state has to be present in infinity, for it to be infinity.

infinity cannot 'become' aware and start 'recognizing', and being 'i am' or 'he is he' or anything.

for infinity to be truly infinite, the state of that 'awareness' has to have been present in ALL forms, variations and varieties, so that infinity, can be named infinity.

that includes the full state of awareness of ANYthing.

actually that includes the concept you name as undifferentiated state, and differentiated state. this cannot be changed by attributing 'I AM THAT I AM' or any kind of other concepts. 'i am', ie, being, is another concept, state within infinity. it has to exist, with the concept of 'not being' - ie 'i am not'. and there also has to exist any infinite variations of these, like the complementary concept 'we' instead of 'i'.

moreover, that includes the concepts 'different' and 'indifferent'.

moreover, that includes the concepts 'exist' and 'not existing'.

even more, it would encompass the concepts 'infinite' and 'finite'.

therefore , infinity cannot 'realize' or 'become aware' or do ANYthing, because everything that can be done, has to have been done, in all infinite varieties and forms, for infinity to be infinite.

anything other than that, infinity cannot be infinite.

therefore, the infinite intelligence, aka god, aka creator, whatever you dub it, cannot be infinity itself. because, it is aware, it is doing things, it is creating, experiencing.

6. The first distortion was not AWARENESS. This was not what Ra stated. The first distortion was FREE WILL, then LOVE, then LIGHT.

7. The first act of INFINITY was AWARENESS, which preceded the first distortion.

8. Thus, even after INFINITY became AWARENESS, INFINITY was still undistorted...as in ONE, as in UNIFIED, as in an ALL ENCOMPASSING ONE INFINITY.

9. God simply became aware, who was Infinity unaware, at which point it became "I AM" for the first time as the status of ITS awareness.

if you dont want to use the word distortion, use differentiation instead.

it doesnt make any difference. infinity, became aware, and its result is in a few steps intelligent infinity.

intelligent infinity, is intelligent. it is not infinity. infinity, is STILL infinity, but, intelligent infinity is a first 'differentiation' (since you dont want to use the word distortion) among infinity.

along with, whatever complementary counterpart it has, to complete it to full infinity.

if 'god' 'became' anything, that means it wasnt that before. if 'god' became 'aware' of anything, it means it wasnt aware of it before.

that means, the state of being aware of that thing, was not found in it, before.

this, does not validate the concept of infinity. because, in that case, before that 'god' became aware, the state of being aware of whatever it was aware has to be found in infinity for infinity to be infinite.

therefore, infinity always had the state of 'being aware of x', and being unaware of that x. it still has them both.

therefore, 'god' is not infinity.

Thank you. And here again is where my interpretation comes in as regards what may be understood philosophically simply as Nihilism. The concept that there never was a Creator and that there never was a Creation as the antithesis that there surely was, may be viewed as falling into this philosophical category named as Nihilism.

I readily admit that either for the limitations of my understanding or the syntax of you verbiage, that I often do not understand your responses. Can you keep it simple, clear, concise and so direct that it answers the dilemma directly of the contradictions philosophically quite naturally created? If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this? Whats the point if your as wrong as I am correct, or that you never were as much as you are, or that nothing ever existed if it did. It is a state of negation and neutrality that obliterates the expansion of consciousness (that also never was), as much as Infinity itself (that also never was).

incorrect. this is not about 'nothingness'.

for infinity to be infinite, there also has to be a creator along with its 'not being'. anything that can be imagined, are sure to be found within infinity. along with anything that cannot be imagined yet, infinite times.

however, that makes such a 'creator' NOT infinity itself. infinity is still infinity, in which anything happens, nothing happens, and any concept complementing any other concept is found.

As alluded to in my previous post, in order to sustain your position, you must also in an INFINITE state (that you argue for) also concede your position. If you respond to nothing else in this post, may we explore this fascinating position which you ascribe to?

i dont need to concede anything, for what im saying encompasses and surpasses your argument :

for infinity to be infinity, any concept must be found in it, along with any state. along with their nonexistence. therefore 'an infinite creator creating' has to be also found in it, along with its not being. the point these two complementing concepts combine, is point infinity, the stillness.

[unity100]

More pointers to there being not much freedom ....

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#8

9.8 Questioner: The guardians were obviously acting within an understanding of the Law of One in doing this. Can you explain the application of the Law of One in this process?

Ra: I am Ra. The Law of One was named by these guardians as the bringing of the wisdom of the guardians in contact with the entities from the Red Planet, thus melding the social memory complex of the guardian race and the Red Planet race. It, however, took an increasing amount of distortion into the application of the Law of One from the viewpoint of other guardians and it is from this beginning action that the quarantine of this planet was instituted, for it was felt that the free will of those of the Red Planet had been abridged.

apparently, not only the guardians overseeing planets can disagree with each other, but can make whopping mistakes like yahweh, totally changing the planetary experience of a pristine, newly initiated 3d planet, for native entities, and all entities coming to that planet from others ...

so what conditions entities are experiencing and living on a planet, depends on the planet's guardian's perspective/outlook.

[unity100]

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#18

78.18 Questioner: So the original evolution then was planned by the Logos but the first distortion was not extended to the product. At some point this first distortion was extended and the first service-to-self polarity emerged. Is this correct and if so, could you tell me the history of this process of emergence?

Ra: I am Ra. As proem let me state that the Logoi always conceived of themselves as offering free will to the sub-Logoi in their care. The sub-Logoi had freedom to experience and experiment with consciousness, the experiences of the body, and the illumination of the spirit. That having been said, we shall speak to the point of your query.

The first Logos to instill what you now see as free will, in the full sense, in its sub-Logoi came to this creation due to contemplation in depth of the concepts or possibilities of conceptualizations of what we have called the significators. The Logos posited the possibility of the mind, the body, and the spirit as being complex. In order for the significator to be what it is not, it then must be granted the free will of the Creator. This set in motion a quite lengthy, in your terms, series of Logos’s improving or distilling this seed thought. The key was the significator becoming a complex.

this means, each higher sub logos perceives itself as offering free will to those logoi directly in its care.

this goes in turn. from the first logos to come form infinite intelligence, to any kind of construct/creation that ends up from the hands of a mind/body/spirit complex as an entity.

there are important implications of this.

first, the 'freedom' we are having at this level, is not the direct original thought of the first logos. it is a derivative of it, derived infinitely towards the smaller plane with chains of sublogoi.

secondly, as per the title of this thread, it comes up so that there really isnt that much freedom indeed :

the higher level logoi give their sublogoi freedom as much as they can allow. and they give their sublogoi more freedom.

the higher you go, less freedom there is. the lower you go, more freedom.

this, coincides directly with the spiritual mass of the entity, or the closeness of the entity to infinite intelligence.

the reason is :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...=1&ss=1#12

13.12 Questioner: Can you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?

Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One.

as you can see in the above quote, the very thing that enables freedom of will, is finity. the concept of finiteness.

because through the concept of finiteness, movement will be possible, because a finite concept will be able to change where it stands in comparison to other finite concepts, and therefore make EVERYthing existing in this creation, existence, including free will, possible.

if there is no finity, there cannot be any choice or freedom of will, because there wont be movement. the movement bit is my own refinement into possible reasons, and it is quite logical.

however, what is evidently said in the above quote is, that, freedom of will (therefore high d love, the first 'love' - not 4d love -) is only possible as long as finiteness exist. it only became possible, with the invention of finity, so, if there is no finity, there cant be any freedom of will, or choice. (and probably, high d love)

that quote, its logical conclusion again reinforce that, at the state of infinity, there is no freedom, since there can be no change to choose from, or no move to make (this includes emotions, states of mind, this and that).

a direct corollary of this is, freedom increases as one goes down, freedom decreases as one goes up.

this explains why we do not have galaxy-level, planet eating life forms in our universe. or, universe-dominating, galaxy-shattering toads living in rain ponds.

[Experience You]

Freedom is confusion, freedom is forgetting you know everything and is everything, that is freedom, to think you are separate and finite while you aren't.

Which is the primal paradox as Ra said.

Unity coming back to what you said about infinity just being infinity, that is what i call the void or emptiness it is unknowable, itself the true ONE, it just IS, it is everywhere and nowhere, no distortion, no light.

From the void you have awareness of light as light, awareness as awareness itself, then the I AM (
I am light itself i am everything) (focusing infinite energy) which is what we call the Creator.

From that light of I AM all other reflections are made, infinite realities of relationships between the hall of mirrors, made of light itself.

So that ties back to what reality is, an hologram originated from Light as itself and as I AM, All of this is called illusion because it is so, The true objective "physical reality of infinite mass" is the ONE ( The void, a black hole) which will never be able to experience itself as itself since it is undistorted, the Void simply is. The One simply is.

We are that ONE Void, The eye of reality, the true experiencer, which does not see itself because it is everything that there is to see, only trough distorting that whole towards light we have experience.
Sort of like projecting yourself towards otherness.
This is what i understand so far, i found the void in my meditations and after a while searched the internet to find that many many before me had found it.
This is the true everything and nothing the true unknowable and the origin of all subjectivity.

It ties all back to what Ra says about reality and it's hologram nature and infinity as infinity unaware.(Simply IS)

E

[Infinite Unity]

We are told that, we have free will. That we can choose. That, there exists free will. Various philosophies and propositions exist to that extent.

Lets examine a rock. it is in the 1st consciousness of this octave. its free will, freedom of movement, manifestation, states that it can choose to be, are, what a rock can be.

Lets examine a single cellular organism. it is in the early 2nd consciousness. it can move about, manifest, choose states of being limited to a single cell organism. it cannot go more than this. the available set of choices to it, are defined.

Lets examine a late 2d organism. it moves about, it has various feelings, it can act socially, and make more choices. its choices are much broader.

Now a 3d entity. It is aware that there are other entities exist. the choices available to it increases.

A 4d entity is one that lives in an environment that thoughts reflect to become things. This effect is lower in early stages of 4d, and it increases to high level in late stages of 4d.

And when the entity moves to 5d, freedom increases even more. it can change its body to manifest as it wants, food can be created, light can be shaped.

by now i think we established a pattern :

The level of freedom and free will and choices increase as one goes higher in the octave and nears infinity.

Vice versa, finiteness, makes an entity lack free will and choice, proportional to the level of its finiteness. from rock, to 7d entity, there is a constant increase in freedom.

moreover, there are even more changes from octave to octave. back in the previous octave, there was the mover and the moved polarities.

can anyone now choose to be of mover polarity ? or the moved ? no. these polarities are now built in to manifestation, the archetypes of mind, body and spirit, and they cannot be totally separated from each other.

that means that, basically, the entities in this octave are much more free in various ways, but also, they are not free in some other ways ; regardless of how high you go in the octave, you cannot just choose to manifest the polarities and realities of the earlier octave in this octave, because, the fabric and rules of existence in this octave do not allow this.

thats, another limitation of free will and choices.

there is even a more curious conclusion ; even though freedom increases as one nears infinity, and, probably becomes totally infinite (with the rate it is going) at the point of infinity, infinity itself is not free ! because, infinity is infinity, and cannot choose to be anything other than infinity, if it remains as infinity. for infinity to have any choice, it must be finite. this, is impossible for infinity -> only its finite parts can choose, because, different states are only available to finites.

these philosophically limit the freedom and free will, and makes it not unbounded, and cannot be unbounded.

moreover, the way this octave is built, ie in graded steps, and in interactive cause->effect relationships as a functioning system makes it so that the available choices to an entity is limited and dependent on the set of possibilities its environment offers to it.

if we look at this light, then, various wisdom points come into light. i will use Ra's and yahweh's examples to illustrate these. tesla also can be used, or einstein actually.

now, in the history of this solar system, various 3d societies were offered various technological or spiritual boons. this, led maldek to be destroyed, mars become inhabitable, and earth to destabilize, (and maybe narrowly averted destruction) and innumerable other issues and troubles.

the corollary of the philosophical points above reflect in these cases as such :

what was given was beyond the set of freedom defined for 3d entities. hence, it created problems.

imagine putting a monkey in the control room of a nuclear reactor. or, a nuclear silo. it sounds absurd isnt it. it is. because, it shouldnt happen.

or, imagine giving shotguns, or the control of a crane to 4 year old kids. similarly, these shouldnt also happen.

there is also the idea that, when looked from the perspective of 7d totality, there isnt that much freedom because anyone's actions and choices changes things, and affects also others, making our choices and freedoms limited with all the entities manifesting in our octave. or maybe even beyond. but that is a separate, and lengthy topic it seems.

Deleted

[Patrick]

...
imagine putting a monkey in the control room of a nuclear reactor. or, a nuclear silo. it sounds absurd isnt it. it is. because, it shouldnt happen.
...

Right, that place would have to be put in quarantine.  Oh wait...