Bring4th

4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com

If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These debate scenarios are meant to be fictional in the sense of a Platonic Dialogue -- because they are fictional and are not meant to reflect the actual persons Stephen Colbert and Ron Paul. They are used as fictional characters to explore philosophical arguments in a creative way. Again Platonic Dialogue allows for creative elaboration of philosophical thoughts. It's a technique used today by philosophy students and teachers who then may convert back to narrative dissertations and research articles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recently watched Ron Paul on Watching the Hawks (episode 31). He is still as sharp and on point as ever and an inspiration to college students and millenials. He takes unpopular stances against the status quo because he asks questions that others seem to shy away from. I know his MO pretty well and think he'd make a great IUP supporter and a great complement to Sir Stephen in a debate.

So here's his opening statement in response to Sir Stephen. He may take a few questions from the forum if they're well though out. He's busy with his Liberty Report program and touring colleges so his time here is at a premium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The great debate of our 3.8/4.1D transition has just been ramped up a notch
.
First it was Ra and Xandria. Then it was Sir Stephen Colbert. And now it's none other than the illustrious Doctor Ron Paul!

Not to be out done, the IUP team has brought in their big gun. The good Doctor Paul!

Contrary to Sir Stephen, Doctor Paul is a master of logical clarity and consistency -- clarity of meaning, clarity of logical connection, depth and clarity of interpretation, bold and creative conclusions reached and explored -- he's the defender of our US Constitution and a beacon of reason.

As we all know, Doctor Paul bows down to no one and most certainly not to the -- and his words, not ours --  "the fallacious, blathering pseudo philosopher, Stephen Colbert".

Sir Stephen has retorted saying "Them's fighting words, Doctor two-time presidential race loser! Let's get it on Big Boy!

Well, Doctor Paul is more than ready to get it on and has prepared his opening statement.

So without further ado...Doctor Ron Paul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of Xandria and the IUP team. And thank you to Mr Stephen Colbert who has opened the debate with his usual passion and ferocity of satirical humor. His mastery of logical fallacy shows his actual depth of understanding of logic and its philosophical underpinnings.

I would like to start by going right to the heart of the issue -- to the need for a careful and critical examination of the meaning of the Fundamental Postulates of Ra/Xandria -- and to the logical and logoic derivation of these postulates into the harmonious tapestry of sub-principles and forms of existence that guide our Creation.

I have called these postulates and its sub-principles the Constitution of Creation whose foundational roots spring from the Infinity/Unity Principle or IUP.

Before I go further it is important to note that the IUP is a direct result of the founding of the LOO of Ra in 1981 by those spiritual revolutionaries from L/L Research. The postulates existed in the Ra Material but only in roughhewn form and with partial derivations and descriptions of many of the key sub-principles and forms of existence.

So the Ra Material and the LOO of Ra was clearly the first great leap towards the making of the Constitution of Creation.

Now I shall share with you my experience and rationale for supporting the IUP.

As everyone knows I'm a Libertarian and believe in personal liberty and freedom of choice. But it was not until I carefully studied the IUP that I had a clear philosophical understanding of Libertarianism or the theory of the freedom of the will. Through the IUP and the careful contemplation of infinity and unity and their relationship I gained deep insight about free will and determinism.

What struck me came from the following passage in a Xandria session. I have provided my responses to each part.  

Albert Einstein asked "What I want to know is whether God had any choice in the creation of the Universe."  In other words, does the Creator have free will to choose to come into being or not come into being?

If I am a LIbertarian in the strictest philosophical and spiritual sense then I would say that God certainly had a choice whether to come into being or not come into being. As a Libertarian I would assert that this is an absolute and pure free choice that is not influenced or determined. But at this point I am using an anthropomorphic projection of God in my rationale. I have not recognized that I am a relative/absolute being whereas the Creator is an absolute/relative being.

This was an appealing question because it encompassed your philosopher's questions of 'Why something rather than nothing?' and First Cause -- both which address the issue of choice.

Here again nothing/something and the acausal/causal are absolute/relative dynamics rather than relative/absolute. I realized that the notion of choice does not even exist in the absolute/relative dynamic.

We feel that the First Cause was an Absolute Determinism whereby primal Non-Beingness must emerge into Beingness -- primal Non-Existence must emerge into Existence -- primal Nothingness must emerge into Somethingness. Our IUP asserts that primal Infinity must emerge into Unity.

This primal absolute state asserts an absolute determinism to therefore come into a relative state. It is necessary and must occur without an option to do otherwise. No other option implies no other choice and so therefore no notion of free will to make choices. My preconceived notions of Libertarianism were directly challenged by this new realization but has since resonated with me at a very deep level.

This Absolute Invariant Determinism was the Original Thought that predicated a fixed, constant deterministic choice -- one that is invariant and necessary and infused with awareness and purpose.

This Original Thought of Absolute Invariant Determinism that is infused with awareness and purpose resonated to my spiritual core in a most liberating way. I felt a sense of my absolute nature as I contemplated the IUP statement that "All is I and I am All".

I then had the realization that there is a will but it is an absolute purposeful and determined will. Necessity, determinism and purposeful will are all equivalent and forces my Libertarianism to be accepting of such a will. I must develop a more balanced and compatible notion of free will and determinism.

This Determinism, by definition predicated 'laws', 'maxims', 'principles', etc whereby from this Absolute Invariance emerges Absolute Variance or the Free Will Principle. As the initial counter-reaction to Invariance or Constancy it is natural that this principle is by definition the 1st Variation and is infused with awareness and will.

I now realize that free will emerges from determinism as a counter reaction and therefore understand reason for the the necessity of laws and principles.  This free will/determinism dynamic is essential to design a Constitution of Creation that is both guiding and open to free will and expression.

The natural counter-reaction to this 1st Variation or Free Will Principle is to revert back to Absolute Invariance or Absolute Constancy -- a return to the Source that is infused with awareness, inspiration and deep affection and is called the Love Principle and is the 2nd Variation.

I was somewhat stunned to consider that free will has the immediate desire to return to a determined state but further contemplation made me realize that this initial relative/absolute dynamic was cyclic and evolutional in a purposeful way.

The alternating reciprocation between Free Will and Love -- called the Free Will/Determinism Dynamic -- generates primal Vibration and results in the 3rd Variation called the Light Principle which is infused with awareness and desire to manifest -- to Being and Becoming -- by which the Creator experiences Itself.

The desire to manifest is what I consider a God-given right and why I believe in the importance of personal liberty and freedom of will. I now realize that this freedom of will can be expressed and actualized by embodying the IUP that "All is I and I am All".

To sum things up -- from the IUP and its dialectical monism I have discovered a harmonious and compatible form of Libertarianism through a new understanding of Absolute Determinism and Purpose of a panentheistic Creator. I believe the Libertarian movement will be the next spiritual movement on our planet with the continued research and development of a IUP-based Constitution of Creation to propel us forward.

This sounds like a good time to end my opening statement  -- but please allow me to make one more point which is the unusual and uncanny critique by Mr Colbert of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania and equating it to the Infinity/Unity Principle, which of course is absurd in the general logical sense.

But in the metaphysical and mythic sense there is a connection and let me explain why.

Consider this, I 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 synchronicity.

So Mr Stephen...Sir Stephen...I give you credit for this remarkable discovery.

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your position?

Finally, let me just say, let's put our swords of intellectual discord down and work together to prepare a philosophical treatise and curriculum that will transform mainstream academia and bring forth a renaissance age of 4th density understanding for the people of our planet.

I know this is important to you, but this sort of stuff may be better suited for your blog or something.  I mean, this is basically philosophical fan-fiction, and it's not even a match for Ron Paul's actual beliefs.  Paul's a devout Christian with dominionist leanings - he's writing textbooks for homeschoolers now.  The man who penned a screed about the liberals' "War on Christmas" is not likely to be embracing pantheism any time soon.

It's starting to feel like you're just appropriating the names of famous people to pretend they agree with your ideas.    For that matter, you even refer repeatedly to the "Xandria Materials," but without noting they're your own fictional creation. That borders on being misleading.

And besides, honestly...  whenever one thinks they've found an either\or dichotomy, the truth is virtually always that they're both part of a larger linked system.    Words are just shadows of ideas.  They can never encompass the whole.  So traditional This vs That debating can rarely, if ever, get at underlying truths because the nature of such debates is inherently exclusionary.  "A" or "B" thinking discourages people from seeing the inherent unity of One-ness.  

I'm not trying to stifle discussion, but there are more productive ways to go about talking about the LOO and\or your own interpretations of Ra's words.  Why don't you just say what YOU believe rather than inventing sources and then assigning them false credibility?

I haven't really read the discussion but I agree, how can we really know Ron Paul's thoughts on the matter of LOO?

4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com

If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.

Hi Peaceful Warrior -- you make good points to clarify.

Believe me, I knew posting this stuff on this forum would be very unpopular. But am doing so to point out the need for a philosophical treatment of the LOO and to garner interest in finding others to work on a 4D philosophy project. I don't expect too many members to be interested but there's a lot of traffic from non-members who may read it and can contact me at my above gmail.

So these threads are for attracting stimulating discourse and to get a philosophy project group started. As soon as I get some real interest I will shift to working off forum with them, or if the admins here don't mind we can set up a very secluded sub-forum and stay out of everyone's way.

You may wonder why am I so motivated?

I'm in the education field and am interested in educating the mainstream academic population about the LOO. I think the material is worthy of mainstream university study and it would be a win-win situation for new students and L/L Research.
 
No harm in that is there? It's intent is not to bash Ra's LOO -- the same way that Nehru and Peret's intent were not to bash Larson's RS.

Quote:I know this is important to you, but this sort of stuff may be better suited for your blog or something.  I mean, this is basically philosophical fan-fiction, and it's not even a match for Ron Paul's actual beliefs.  Paul's a devout Christian with dominionist leanings - he's writing textbooks for homeschoolers now.  The man who penned a screed about the liberals' "War on Christmas" is not likely to be embracing pantheism any time soon.

I made an edit in the OP to stress this approach as a kind of a Platonic Dialogue which allows for exploring ideas more freely. It works so well for me that I use it here and it makes the material more entertaining and interesting. Call it artistic license if you'd like. Similar to the Way of the Peaceful Warrior books by Dan Millman. I read those books way back when and that's a noble title to have as a Peaceful Warrior -- at times I felt like that was me working with challenging people -- mostly teaching teens in rehab situations at the time I read Millman's books.

The Ron Paul character is used to focus on metaphysical Libertarianism which is different from general mundane level libertarianism.

Again, it's important in the sense that I would like to make LOO and L/L Research relevant to mainstream academia and I think that the IUP is a reevaluated and revised LOO which is attempted in the thread Ra's Fundamental Postulates.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

Quote:It's starting to feel like you're just appropriating the names of famous people to pretend they agree with your ideas.    For that matter, you even refer repeatedly to the "Xandria Materials," but without noting they're your own fictional creation.  That borders on being misleading.

No, there's no connection to the famous people -- Colbert is a fun character to use satire and to loosen people up here who may want to support the philosophical underpinnings of the LOO. It's intent is to be a blend of humor, satire and provocative thought.

Artistic and creative license is my reason for the Xandria Material which represents our potential future human 6D SMC. It also is to stimulate and explore ideas. I always make note in the Xandria Material thread that it is fictional and for appreciation of the Ra Material. 

I actually see your point to some degree in that I mistakenly assumed that readers were aware of the Xandria Material thread -- I do point it out in my IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate thread but the Colbert and Ron Paul threads were satirical/Platonic dialogue so I didn't see the purpose. I'm not that forum-savvy to realize how distortive 3rd density internet forums can be -- and that's on me.

Quote:And besides, honestly...  whenever one thinks they've found an either\or dichotomy, the truth is virtually always that they're both part of a larger linked system.    Words are just shadows of ideas.  They can never encompass the whole.  So traditional This vs That debating can rarely, if ever, get at underlying truths because the nature of such debates is inherently exclusionary.  "A" or "B" thinking discourages people from seeing the inherent unity of One-ness.  

An excerpt from the IUP or LOO thread to address this:

Philosophical debates are of a much higher standard than religious or political debates -- debates that degenerate into unfocused emotional and irrational attacks and use of logical fallacies. Check the debate section of the Philosophy Forums website to see how a friendly effective debate is conducted.

The reason for the debate is to spur interest in both the IUP and LOO towards creating a coherent philosophical system around either one or both these principles by way of philosophical analysis and critique and then developing a curriculum based on this system.

Quote:I'm not trying to stifle discussion, but there are more productive ways to go about talking about the LOO and\or your own interpretations of Ra's words.  Why don't you just say what YOU believe rather than inventing sources and then assigning them false credibility?

I'm exploring ideas that may be credible but I'm still developing so am not attributing a solid belief to them yet. Again, it's along the same lines as the
Way of the Peaceful Warrior book series -- using a fictional approach which allows for creative exploration.

So I disagree and think it's a very productive way to explore Ra's LOO. I've read the RM several times over since 1986 so this fresh approach is much needed in my case.

Your points are noted and probably represent the views of several members here so was worth addressing. You got some valid points across and so no hard feelings from me.

Fair enough. However, just for the record, I picked my name for my own reasons. I've never even read the Millman book.

Although I'm still not a fan of Platonic style debating. I personally prefer a more dialectical approach that assumes from the start that "the truth" is going to be a combination of different points of view, rather than something settled with X or Y argumentation.

I'd be very interested in the LOO material becoming academically studied.

But I must agree.  This manner of encouragement is more...Discouraging for me.  I view philosophical discussions as less structured and more fluid-like.  To see some big name and to feel like I'm putting my opinion alongside that one, is intimidating to me, simply because in the instance of Colbert, I don't want his remarks about my opinion honestly because he's a huge Ass.  And if I argue with Ron Paul, I don't want to argue with Ron Paul (Seriously, like, the two people I would never argue with in any kind of discussion.)

Now if you did MORGAN FREEMAN--Ohhh...Yeahh...I can hear his voice already...  Plus he's the guy who played God, and also got to experience reality going all sorts of crazy in the film Lucy when he helped her out.  I could get behind talking to that guy, even fictionally, in an argument or discussion on the Law of One.  Not that I think he'd make much sense of it all.  Though, I never know.

But most and finally important is that I have no idea what a "philosophical treatment of the LOO" is.

Please describe to me what a Philosophical Treatment is and what it entails needs to be done.  I may consider myself a philosopher, but I'm not literally an academic philosopher lol

I desire to help right now.  Not sure if I'll be of any real help but if you can get a plan for the Law of One out there to be studied, I want to help.

Now then.  Let's get this PT figured out.  What the heck is it?  lol

Peaceful Warrior - for a dialectical approach you can critique my post about
Ra's Fundamental Postulates -- I'll address questions and comments.

VanAlioSaldo - A PT of Ra's LOO is what I started in the Ra's Postulates post.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

I critique without kid gloves but that's how you got to do it. I explain in that post.

Also here's an email I sent to some philosophy grads several months ago that may help describe it. It's in need of update but gets the point across.

A grad student asked this.

Quote:I'm curious, though, what exactly is your project? Is it to evaluate and critique the books you mention, or to give supporting arguments, or just make the material accessible to the general public?

Main goals are to:
1.   Make the material amenable to philosophical research. Translate and convert into the context of philosophy using the language and categories of philosophy ie epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, various logics, etc.
 
2.   Evaluate and critique the material as it's being contextualized and see how it addresses issues in philosophy ie mind/body problem, determinism vs free will, monism vs pluralism, problem of evil, theodicy and types of theisms, acausality vs causality, etc.

3.  Arguments are welcome. As with most philosophical systems there are logical gaps, semantic flaws and factual questions in the material so it is open to argument. The early researchers, who have initial interest in the material, will most likely give supporting arguments that set the stage for refutation which is allowed if of high quality.

4.  Introduce the scientific and mathematical aspects of the material to attract interest from academics of those backgrounds. The Reciprocal System of theory is accepted by the material with the physics of space/time and time/space phenomena. Although not mentioned in the material, topos theory from mathematics has applications in describing the physical and logical nature of systems ie solar systems. I've taken the material further in claiming that such systems exist as a logos/mythos/topos complex. (They only use logos)

5.  After enough R&D has been done an introductory version of the material can be made accessible to the general public by ebook or wiki or other media.

A nucleus of researchers can collaborate by email, skype, google+, or forum and decide what interests they want to pursue. I would like to just facilitate and help steer the process and let others get credit for the project. They are the future professors who can take it further.