I was wondering if Gary or Austin could get more info on Carla's original ideas on free will that she wrote in her philosophy class as mentioned by Jim in Carla's
eulogy (which was beautiful by the way), or perhaps some sort of summary by Jim if she had ever spoke with him at length about it and post a response here. If it's not possible I understand. Since free will is a central aspect of the Law of One, it would be interesting to hear her thoughts on the topic before the channelings started.
"Again, because of her high test scores, she was admitted to the University as a junior, under a program that was used only for a couple of years. Her great love in college was philosophy. She was a natural-born philosopher, so one of the first courses she took was a graduate level course in Ethics. After about two weeks of class lectures on various philosophers, the professor gave the first assignment. He said that they had talked about a number of philosophies in the first two weeks, but now he wanted them to write original philosophy on the topic of their choice. He didn't want to hear any other philosopher quoted back to him. He wanted their original work.
So Carla went home, got out her 8 ½ X 11 inch, yellow legal pad, and her pencil, and wrote on the topic of free will. She filled the front of the sheet, turned it over and wrote half way down the back side. When she went back to the next class to hand the paper in, she was somewhat shaken when she saw that her classmates, graduate students all, were handing in 20, 30, and 40 page Type-Written papers. She thought maybe she had made an error. When the students came back to class the next week the professor walked around the room and handed each student his or her paper, and gave out the grade at the same time. D, F, C, D, etc. until all the papers were handed back, except Carla didn't get her paper back. Then he said "I gave one A on this assignment, and I'm going to read you the paper". Then he proceeded to read her page and a half paper on the topic of free will. Then he said, "Now that is original philosophy. That is what I was looking for.""
I'll ask Jim and post the results here.
In Living the Law of One book she wrote she says free will is an illusion.
I've yet to read that..I'll try and look that up..thanks!
Update: unfortunately, the actual paper is no longer in existence and Jim does not remember her talking specifically about what it said. Sorry!
(05-29-2015, 02:19 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]In Living the Law of One book she wrote she says free will is an illusion.
Actually she said it was authorities and religions that deny the existence of free will.
IN the book she says:
The Confederation model places the human being in complete charge of his life, with the ability to make free choices.
The Confederation states that free will is involved in the very first movement of the infinite Creator away from its mystery-clad unity.
From Living the Law of One:
The impact of beginning to grasp the actual nature of the nested illusions of experience is daunting and can constitute a time of
adjustment in which the nature of the self is allowed to transform itself according to the ways of this free will that enters into the creation upon each level of development. The free will of yourself can barely be distinguished from the free will of that Logos that is your higher self, that overarching Logos that is the group mind of that soul stream, that overarching Logos that is the planetary mind, and so forth. The connections that each entity has with other aspects of an infinite being that is the self are unending, so that free will is, shall we say, that icon of deity which expresses the feminine, the ever-moving, the fructifying.
Channelling Qu'o, 26/1/03
I wonder about this myself. I mostly feel like I am 'being lived', and have considered that the nested nature of reality might mean that each affects the next down, from the top, leaving not much, if any, decision space.
(05-29-2015, 03:49 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Update: unfortunately, the actual paper is no longer in existence and Jim does not remember her talking specifically about what it said. Sorry!
Shucks. Thanks for the effort!
(05-29-2015, 03:59 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]The Confederation model places the human being in complete charge of his life, with the ability to make free choices.
The Confederation states that free will is involved in the very first movement of the infinite Creator away from its mystery-clad unity.
Yeah I was able to bring up the .pdf and read the chapter on free will.
(05-29-2015, 04:10 PM)dawnchorus Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder about this myself. I mostly feel like I am 'being lived', and have considered that the nested nature of reality might mean that each affects the next down, from the top, leaving not much, if any, decision space.
It's all very, confusing..the Law of Free Will..also known as the Law of Confusion
It does seem that there is a top-down effect, but I think as we grow in awareness there is a type of freedom that we learn to cultivate for others and ourselves so as to avoid the potential you speak of in a negative way, and use that awareness to create something positive.
At the risk of being overly reductionist, I would say that whether or not an entity/construct has Free Will mostly boils down to whether it can say "no."
I tend to think people often worry too much about the origination of their thoughts. Like in that Quo quote, it's easy to get into a mindset of "well, my higher group mind told me to do that, so it wasn't MY Free Will." Except it still was Free Will, because in most/all cases it's still up to the entity in the body to decide to go along with that idea. The incarnate entity is (usually) the proverbial captain of the vessel and gets last word on what that vessel does. They can say "no," at least once one becomes self-aware and/or dense enough to start doing more than acting on pure impulse.
What matters here is not whether a particular impulse originates in a 6D S-M-C or from Gaia or whatever other source. What matters is what the incarnate entity does with those impulses, upon receiving them.
Likewise, acceptance/submission/cooperation/etc within a larger mental structure is ALSO an act of Free Will. It's the conscious act of deciding not to say no. From everything I've seen from Ra and Quo about the structure/hierarchy of S-M-Cs, being part of one requires actively and willfully NOT interfering with the larger operations. A member of one decides to allow their actions to be mostly dictated by the larger whole, and since their vibrations are closely in tune with the larger entity, there is little to distinguish the ideas of one sub-entity from those of the whole.
An idea occurs to them, and they decide to go along with it because they see no reason not to, and without worrying about the origination point.
It's sorta like that one guy on a road trip who never cares where the car stops for lunch, and he (or she) just goes along with whatever the group car-mind decides. That's still an act of conscious will - the decision to be deliberately passive. Like Rush said, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. At the same time, nothing stops that person from suddenly demanding Taco Bell and nothing but, if they ever decided to be more active.
An entity's will can be voluntarily turned towards supporting someone else's will, basically, without being a violation of Free Will. It's mostly just a decision in how one applies their will, or in what direction it is focused.
But as long as they can say "no," if they choose, there is still Free Will there.
(05-29-2015, 03:49 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Update: unfortunately, the actual paper is no longer in existence and Jim does not remember her talking specifically about what it said. Sorry!
Aww!
I was incredibly excited! I would love to read that paper. I'd go as far to ask someone to channel Carla just to recite it to us but it's not my say.
I just think it might have been a powerful inspiration.
(05-30-2015, 02:12 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2015, 03:49 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Update: unfortunately, the actual paper is no longer in existence and Jim does not remember her talking specifically about what it said. Sorry!
Aww!
I was incredibly excited! I would love to read that paper. I'd go as far to ask someone to channel Carla just to recite it to us but it's not my say.
I just think it might have been a powerful inspiration.
I think that the idea of channeling entities who are recently discarnate can be somewhat dubious. Not that I think it's impossible, but there can be a myriad of emotional barriers in the way preventing any kind of clear contact, especially with someone who held such attention like Carla. Lots of people have hopes and desires related to Carla that would color a perceived contact.
A good method for breaking through this is to ask someone to answer a personal question about Carla that no one knows except those close to her. If the channel cannot be specific about information like that, I would doubt they could be specific about what kind of information was written in her paper, though they'd be more inclined to "try" to channel her memories of the paper.
It would be incredibly interesting to know what was in this paper though.