Bring4th

4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com

If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise
and curriculum for mainstrean university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals
are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a standalone thread if you want to participate and hear what Sir Stephen has to say each week. Questions? Comments? Sir Stephen will cyber bully you into submission. He's King of the Forum as he likes to call himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his hiatus from the Colbert Report, Stephen claims that he was lecturing the Dalai Lama and says he now wants a bigger challenge -- and the debate between the IUP and LOO has peaked his interest.

Stephen has agreed to take questions on a weekly basis after he's cooled off from his opening rant so people here can use this thread to post LOO and IUP related questions.

From now on he wants to be addressed as Sir Stephen and says that we're all mental midgets and spiritual lightweights here at B4 but he's willing to enlighten us with his presence.

In real life Stephen was a philosophy student his first two years of college and then switched to theater arts. Those two years of philosophy helped make him an insightful and versatile comedic genius.

So...for entertainment purposes only...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter is exploding! Facebook's gone viral! It's the battle of the 6D heavyweights -- Ra and Xandria -- and now the biggest of all -- our own Sir Stephen Colbert!

IUP or LOO? Which philosophy will bring academia to its knees and transform it into a renaissance age of 4th density understanding?

It's round 2 and the LOO team has brought in their big gun. It's show time!

He's a LOO supporter and a real hardliner who is a master of logical fallacies -- ad hominem, appeal to authority, non sequiter, avoidance, red herring, strawman -- he's done it all!

And without further ado....Sir Stephen!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's this IUP nonsense? Infinity and Unity have nothing to do with the fundamental law which is the Law of One...the Laaaawww of Onnne...It just rolls off your tongue -- not like that douchy Indiana University of Pennsylvania tripe. What losers!

The Law of One means All is One and that there is One Infinite Creator, and that's all you need to know. So get out of here with that Infinity/Unity crap! What are you some kind of nerd? Try selling books with that lame title.

The Law of One says that there is STO and STS because naturally there's going to be polarity. Everyone knows this. From one comes two. It's as clear as the nose on your face. What are you blind? And what's this dialectical monism nonsense? Is that new age money-ism? If so I want a piece of that action. Who's this David Wilcock chump?

The One Infinite Creator created two paths so that you could choose a path and eventually return to the One. This is obvious and everyone should understand this. It's so simple. Choose a path and stay on this path, unless you decide to switch paths. Can't make up your mind? Switch back -- what've you got to lose but your dignity and so what if they call you bi-polar? I'm bi-polar and two-faced and it made me a famous comedian. Comedians rock!

Good and Evil are the two paths in this grand Greek drama and eventually they merge and we all become One. That's beautiful...almost poetic...makes me want to cry on Dick Cheney's grave. Nah I'll spit on it first. Sorry Dick. Forgiveness is for fools -- I think that's what the IUP says. If it didn't say that, then it does now because what I say goes and Indiana PA is a dump. Hoosiertown U is for losers.

The One Infinite Creator is the One, the One Infinite Creator is the All, and the Law of One says you can be the Creator. What more do you want? This comes from experience. So what's this panentheism BS anyway? Peter Panentheism? Some goober in tights swinging from the trees? What a joke.

The Law of One says that the Creator is love/light and light/love so what's with this will/love/light crap? Will has nothing to do with the Creator. If it did it would be the will/love/light of the Creator but it's not because it doesn't make sense! Three's a crowd and a threesome will get you herpes. The Creator don't want none of that.

I'm done. I've made my point and I will not be taking any questions because the Law of One is so obvious. There is nothing spiritual about asking questions because that means you don't have faith. Children should be encouraged to not ask so many questions. The ones that do are probably ADD and need a pill.

That's the problem with our society. We'd all be better off if we didn't ask so many questions, especially about our politicians. We should have faith and trust in them because they're our leaders and we voted for them.

And don't start up with me about this 9/11 and JFK conspiracy nonsense!  Now I'm really done!

Is this satire? Either way its awesome lol

(05-15-2015, 09:29 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]Is this satire?

NO ONE REALLY KNOWS

It's a shame though.  Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart were the only way I could ever listen to news without wanting to figuratively literally cut my ears off of my head.  Too bad I came to the conclusion they're both always giving you half the truth and 100% misdirecting you from actual serious issues into...Laughing at it comedically...

It's like the time Stephen Colbert didn't believe clouds had weight.  He laughed in that person's face like he was a fucking moron, when in reality, clouds have weight...  A simple Google search, but instead for the sake of entertainment he'd lead with misinformation.  It was very saddening for me, that was when I officially realized just how completely full of absolute s*** every last lying person on the public TV actually is.

But seriously, is THIS satire?!

This is definitely satire and all meant for levity.

More satire from these bogus tweets from Sir Stephen -- he busts my chops in a couple of them so he's an unbiased Cyber Bull.

tweet 1

I'm ready for you B4. Are you ready for me? What happened to the Zunt Meister and Miss Vegetable Lasagna? Hey 4Dsunshine, your goin down, effin agitator. Who's this Greek letter guy? Keeper of the scrolls?


tweet 2

I heard there's a tribe in Africa that want to study the Ra Material but need a translation. Anybody know Swahili?


tweet 3

I heard that this bozo 4Dsunshine claimed to have channeled Carla and Don. The post is called "What might Carla be up to?" What a self-serving tool. Oh -- it explicitly says that it's speculative fiction? Oh -- that's why the word 'might' is used in the title? Umm....never mind.

"clouds have weight". That conclusion lives under the assumption that there is such a thing as gravity... I remain open and undecided...

How about the Infinite One Metaparadigm (IOM)?

There are some points made by Stephen Colbert that are worth responding in order to clarify some issues between Ra's monism and the IUP or AOP monism. AOP means All One Principle and is equivalent to the Infinity Unity Principle. IUP = IU + UI and AOP = AO + OA.

Quote:What's this IUP nonsense? Infinity and Unity have nothing to do with the fundamental law which is the Law of One...the Laaaawww of Onnne...It just rolls off your tongue -- not like that douchy Indiana University of Pennsylvania tripe. What losers!

Stephen attempts a non sequitur saying that Infinity and Unity have nothing to do with a fundamental law of creation. Of course they do and Ra implies it in session 1.

But to say that the fundamental law is Ra's LOO is problematic because Ra states "Thus, we are speaking to you and accepting both our distortions and your own in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the Law of One."

Using the phrase 'more especially' implies something other than being the fundamental law. I think they are equivocating and weaseling here because they want to reemphasize their version of LOO as One is All which is biased on teaching +4D.

They want to de-emphasize the All is One or All is I nature of the Law of All because it is biased towards STS and they're on a mission to clear out all STS distortions that they feel responsible for causing.

Earlier in that session they state "In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity..." which moves beyond One is All and to the Law of Non-Duality or Existence Monism. They were addressing a question that was not recorded b/c it was too far from the microphone and which might have clarified why Ra had to answer in terms of a mixture of infinity, unity and non-duality. Language and words are limiting and precision is a challenge. But in this part of the session there is room for more precision and disambiguity, imo (edit made 5/26)

Colbert's "Indiana University of Pennsylvania tripe" is his attempt to misrepresent the IUP and tear it down -- a strawman fallacy -- but there's a twist here in that Ron Paul uses this as an opportunity to point out the connection between the Crimson Hawks of IUP and the Cardinals of UOL or University of Louisville.

This may also be fallacious in that it is an appeal to new age spiritual synchronicity. Cardinals and hawks are both mythically associated to the Sun according to some sources.

The full excerpt describing the synchronicity:

Consider this, I (Ron Paul) grew up in Pittsburgh, PA and know of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania as the Crimson Hawks.  Let's now associate a Crimson Hawk as the mythical meaning for the IUP and its Fundamental Postulates.

The crimson color represents an emergent and bloodline nature which describes the original and interwoven depth of the IUP -- while the hawk describes the spiritual and creative breadth of the IUP. A Crimson Hawk that embodies the IUP and the Constitution of Creation as we experience it.

This sounds rather fanciful and irrelevant but now consider the connection of the University of Louisville to Don Elkins as a professor and Carla Rueckert as a student. In addition, the city of Louisville is where the Ra Material was created.

The University of Louisville is known as the Cardinals. The Cardinal has mythic meaning associated to the Ra Material and the LOO. The bright cardinal red represents significant breakthrough which describes the original and transformative depth of the LOO -- while the cardinal bird describes the spiritual potential breadth of the LOO.

Our Cardinal and Crimson Hawk are related in the same way as the LOO and the IUP -- as initiator and successor. Both are intrinsically connected and vital. Some call this a synchronicity.

Quote:The Law of One means All is One and that there is One Infinite Creator, and that's all you need to know. So get out of here with that Infinity/Unity crap! What are you some kind of nerd? Try selling books with that lame title.

The All is One mantra applies to the Law of All and not Ra's Law of One.

This is shown in Ra's Fundamental Postulates. -- go to RM session 4 postulate:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

Applying the synchronicity just mentioned:

The UOL of the University of Louisville corresponds to Ra's LOO by the following:
One is All -- Law of One -- Universal Oneness Law (UOL) -- Oneness means that One has the quality of being All or can be called the Allness of One.

Quote:The One Infinite Creator is the One, the One Infinite Creator is the All, and the Law of One says you can be the Creator. What more do you want? This comes from experience. So what's this panentheism BS anyway?

There's a difference here -- striving to be the Creator vs striving to be co-Creators. I'm not sure we can be The Creator. Where does pantheism or panentheism make it explicit that we can each be The Creator?

A quick write up I made:

Does the IUP or LOO assert that you can strive to become the Creator? If so what does that even mean? How do you become the Creator? Don't you first need to define the Creator that you're striving to be? Does the LOO and Free Will principle imply that you can be any creator you want to be as long as it's one and infinite? Allah? Brahma? God?

Searches in Ra Material for -- be the creator or be creator

session 86
each other-self was seen to be the Creator

session 8
Questioner: Where do the people who operate these craft come from? Are
they affiliated with any nation on Earth. What is their source?
Ra: These people come from the same place as you or I. They come from
the Creator.

Coming from the Creator is different than being the Creator.

Quote:The Law of One says that the Creator is love/light and light/love so what's with this will/love/light crap? Will has nothing to do with the Creator. If it did it would be the will/love/light of the Creator but it's not because it doesn't make sense!

Would anyone have thought twice if Ra had used the will/love/light expression in the Ra Material? If they or Quo had said we "greet you in the will, love and light of the Infinite Creator" would anyone think it odd? Colbert claims that it doesn't make sense based on an appeal to authority.

Ra asserts Free Will, Love and Light -- will is the 1st distortion but has nothing to do with the Creator? There's some cognitive dissonance working here and I think that Ra wants to de-emphasize will and push the love/light and light/love agenda because they are in mission mode to be extremely +4D polarity.

Let's at least explore the potential of will/love, love/will, will/light and light/will. I have some ideas in the works for a later presentation. Philosophy grad students will certainly ask about this and not just accept the Ra/Quo limited version which is biased towards +4D, as it should be. Just not a complete version imo.

"Take what resonates and discard the rest"!

On that note I would like to share some coincidences prior to discovering the Ra Material.

Several months before I found the LOO I made a personal face book page titled "Pure Limitless Light". During my first experience of reading the LOO I anticipated this particular quote "or to use a technical term, limitless light".

Again, several months previous, I posted on the "Anonymous Art of Revolution" page a comment in relation to the Egyptian uprising at that time, "Egypt = The home of truth  "

Admittedly I was a little tipsy on red wine when I made that particular comment. However what really hit home for me was the reply from an Egyptian thanking me for my apparent insight???

And so I humbly submit, from my distorted perspective, the IUP is a piece of bogus nonsense. I cannot claim any truth to that assertion. No, I can only share that it does not "resonate" with me at all.

The truth (in a distorted guise) is right in front of us and always has been! It lies beyond the intellect folks!

Sorry 4Dsunrise but it just does not sit well with me. I must honour how I feel about this and I see no harm in expressing it 

Nicholas quotes

Quote:"Take what resonates and discard the rest"!

That's a quality sentiment made by Quo b/c there is such a variety of attitudes and pov's ie a philosophical pov that is a blend of Western (analytic and continental) and Eastern that is part of this incoming 4D group -- which is my main reason to make the Ra/Quo material into a philosophical treatise.

All pov's are welcome to develop this treatise as long as they can address the paragraph from the IUP or LOO thread:

Provide reasons for why the IUP/AOP or LOO is the fundamental principle of creation from which all other principles and forms of existence are derived.  Such a fundamental principle should be capable of being presented as a comprehensive philosophical treatise explaining in a logically consistent format how such principles and forms can be derived. Comprehensive, consistent and derivable qualities must be described.

To clarify -- AOP or All One Principle means All is One and One is All -- while the IUP or Infinity Unity Principle means Infinity is Unity and Unity is Infinity. They're equivalent but, imo, each has their own unique usage to derive other principles.

Quote:On that note I would like to share some coincidences prior to discovering the Ra Material.

I had less coincidence and more of the grind approach in that I contemplated through Einstein, Bohm, Bertrand Russell et al until I discovered Dewey Larson's RS and then John Lilly's ET-related journeys in the iso-flotation tank just prior to discovering the Ra Material in an ad in the back of a Yoga magazine which offered the book for free but asked for a donation to L/L Research if possible -- a very sincere gesture that you never see from other groups.

Quote:And so I humbly submit, from my distorted perspective, the IUP is a piece of bogus nonsense. I cannot claim any truth to that assertion. No, I can only share that it does not "resonate" with me at all.

It's still a work in progress and I make edits and revisions all the time. Your variety of perspective is welcome. Variety is good and as an example, the existential continental philosopher pov is what the astropsychologist Glenn Perry used as support for his approach to astrology -- specifically the phenomological approach. He is chastised by the traditional astrologers but there's room for both approaches.

In my view, a comprehensive treatise should be all-encompassing if the foundational axioms are accurate and precise enough to use for derivations and theories of forms of existence and essence.

Quote:Sorry 4Dsunrise but it just does not sit well with me. I must honour how I feel about this and I see no harm in expressing it

Hey, we agree to disagree -- that's what having philosophical differences is all about as opposed to religious or political.

A point to clarify is that I used to be in the new age spiritual John Lilly mode but happen to feel this 4D Sunrise mode is useful during this 3.8/4.1D overlap and is an opportunity to make the Ra/Quo material relevant to academia -- to a certain portion of the future 4D Terrans -- not all, but the academic types.

i see no Stephen Colbert in this thread. produce Stephen Colbert - immediately,

Quote:i see no Stephen Colbert in this thread. produce Stephen Colbert - immediately

Bluebell, you get that most of this is tongue in cheek stuff right? I hope most here do. I do take more seriously some of the pertinent points ie exploring will/love/light concepts.

A research-based OP on will/love/light is in early production but this satirical post is a good change of pace. Colbert is responding to my critique of his claim about will/love/light and he is on fire -- so take it away Stevo!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, it's you again -- effin 4D agitator.

Quote:The Law of One says that the Creator is love/light and light/love so what's with this will/love/light crap? Will has nothing to do with the Creator. If it did it would be the will/love/light of the Creator but it's not because it doesn't make sense!

I stand by that statement with every fiber of my being. I WILL not change my belief.

I WILL believe that there is no will, love, light of the Creator b/c I have WILLFULLY and WILLINGLY chosen to do so by my own free WILL!

And not by some wimpy appeal to authority. I WILL not yield my WILL to the WILL of any authority -- not even Ra.

If you think there is will/love then prove it Einstein. How does will enable or direct love, ay?

Well Gomer, will does NOT direct love. I can direct love any damn way I choose w/o some flimsy will. Right now I choose not to direct my love to you 4Dsunshine. I actually choose to direct some ILL WILL your way so how do you like that?

I might even wish on you to have a migraine in the name of love/light and light/love. I've got your voodoo doll right here so don't tempt me.

If there is love/will how does love manifest when it has been impressed with will? What does that even mean? I get that with light/love that light is a manifestation that is impressed with love. That makes total sense -- I'm full of light and an impressed with tons of love. I'm a love machine -- just ask the ladies.

So listen up son, there is no will to love -- but there is love to will. When I want to love universally and unconditionally I do so by an act of love, not by an act of will. I might even want to hate unconditionally just b/c I can love to hate -- in fact I can unconditionally love to hate.  So -- it's simple -- I LOVE to hate and not b/c I WILL to hate.

Now don't go saying that "I will to love to hate" -- that's just an oxymoron which, btw you are, nimrod.

I won't even go into debunking will/light and light/will. Pissed off black magicians and natural planetary disasters are all love/light and light/love of the one big infinite Honcho as I like to call him -- and he is a HE btw -- from he comes she, it's elementary...I mean I learned that in elementary school, that is.

Hmmm, now you're starting to make me wonder and I don't want to wonder b/c it makes me think outside my box. I'm plenty comfortable where I am so quit going all Socratic Method on me. Don't you know Socrates was put to death for making people wonder?

Look that up in your effin Funk & Wagnalls grasshopper. I'm done. Oh btw...love you.

oh i get it. ur drunk. lightweight.

(05-27-2015, 08:38 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]oh i get it. ur drunk. lightweight.

Hey, them's fightin words...miz lillybell. (hiccup)

how about we meet at sunrise in front of the saloon.

(05-27-2015, 08:34 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm, now you're starting to make me wonder and I don't want to wonder b/c it makes me think outside my box. I'm plenty comfortable where I am so quit going all Socratic Method on me. Don't you know Socrates was put to death for making people wonder?

Look that up in your effin Funk & Wagnalls grasshopper. I'm done. Oh btw...love you.

Lol 

As an aside, have you read "2150AD" by Thea Alexander? 

Quote:As an aside, have you read "2150AD" by Thea Alexander?

I read the first three chapters and was blown away -- but then scanned through most of the rest -- for me, it read more like a StarTrek NG script in the second half.

Prolific stuff for that time and give her credit.  

For a change of pace humor -- or attempt at humor -- here's some tweets from Stephen C.  I'll be responding later since he's heckling me again.

Tweets from Sir Stephen:

Someone says the posts here ain't as good as they used to be. Does that mean B4 has gone to B3? What are we if we go B1? A bucket of rocks?  #B4rocks


If we're all bozos on the bus then who's driving the bus? That David Wilcock chump? NEXT STOP PLEASE!


Someone here at B4 called me an ASS. You're right. I'm an All Sentient Starmaker. Thanks for the compliment.


I'm thinking of writing a Law of One for dummies but how dumb can you be? A bucket of rocks?


Hey 4D agitator. Haven't heard from you lately. Has the light bulb turned on? The guy with the C'Ooo'l name spelled it out for you so get a grip. I think I'm gonna start calling you willy nilly since you're such a clueless flake. #bring it on

hahah is this real?
why doesn't mister colbert have a b4 account and post here, maybe to this thread?

Dear Stephen, you think your cool? I would too, but just cant get out the picture of you in a diaper and drool. So you talk some new age smack and expect a comeback!? See 4DSunrise know some people in da mumbo jumbo hood! Apparently we pick sides in this rant, would not be to much drama without that. Whats life without sides!? No tension, no friction, no; I´m right your wrong smiles. So whats the deal with how you really feel!? Striving for intellectual superiority like that is something that will make you real? Don´t worry little brother, I feel your pain. Like a child, loosing his favorite game... PEACE! *drops mike* #bring it on