Bring4th

Full Version: Ra's calling, Law of One Book 1, Law of Squares
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
This is interesting, a video on how the Egyptians did their mathematics. Perhaps Ra does theirs the same way.
(02-01-2009, 06:58 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]Some of you may remember this from the old bring4th forums.

Ra says that they are called (or were in 1981) by 352,000. Applying the law of squares to that number, we get something like this:

lol @ Tobey

that has to be one of the best posts I have ever seen.

classic man BigSmile
It's the zombie invasion!

Fang

Has anyone got closer than MistaG, somehow account for the anomalies? Eric's explanation is what I originally thought when I first read the material (given that it is called "the law of squares") but it doesn't seem right to only need 30 odd folk to influence billions of souls lol

than again Ra's numbers are repeatedly admittedly messy and unreliable
Something I've had sitting around for awhile:

"The Law of Squares:

The Law of Squares denotes that your desires are squared against themselves (impossible to mathematically quantify in your density).

Tim desires to channel Ra. Other entities on the planet Earth do not desire to receive such contact in any capacity. When Tim's calling is multiplied against itself, it becomes very large. It is larger than the desire of an average person to be left alone."

It is completely arbitrary. "Average" in this case is the mean desire of everybody on the planet in an individual capacity. They do this so work is possible. If a desire is not strong enough compared to other people, they will not do such service under "The Law of Squares."

Use your discernment. Additionally, this is a channeling from an entity that is not known in any capacity here.

Fang

Quote:this is a channeling from an entity that is not known in any capacity here.
That's good to know because it really didn't make much sense.
(05-08-2014, 07:15 PM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:this is a channeling from an entity that is not known in any capacity here.
That's good to know because it really didn't make much sense.

"In your illusion the unbridled predominance of intuition will tend to keep an entity from the greater polarizations due to the vagaries of intuitive perception."

Intuition provides zero experience, rather it offers an opportunity to access the unconscious and to decide or to evaluate, which may then (and only then) form experience. There is no polarization without experience - none. People and society as a whole depend on people's experience, so why neglect determination and discernment? Is due to laziness or confusion? There is no knowledge without experience, nor is there teaching or learning. So when the products of intuitive perception are then spewed out with little or no organization, consideration or evaluation, there's really not much substance offered. Basically it's a type of vague suggestion which may in fact inspire due to agreeable resonance with something that exists in the reader's unconscious (or apprehension) as well.
(05-08-2014, 07:15 PM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:this is a channeling from an entity that is not known in any capacity here.
That's good to know because it really didn't make much sense.

In essence: The desires of others are considered. If a desire had by one person is against another person's desires but an entity still wishes to fulfill it, the former person's desire would be considered by squares in order to account for such difference. Any clearer? I am happy to make this clear because I assure you, this isn't highly mystical nor intuitive. There is a point here.

Fang

Quote:Intuition provides zero experience, rather it offers an opportunity to access the unconscious and to decide or to evaluate, which may then (and only then) form experience. There is no polarization without experience - none. People and society as a whole depend on people's experience, so why neglect determination and discernment? Is due to laziness or confusion? There is no knowledge without experience, nor is there teaching or learning. So when the products of intuitive perception are then spewed out with little or no organization, consideration or evaluation, there's really not much substance offered. Basically it's a type of vague suggestion which may in fact inspire due to agreeable resonance with something that exists in the reader's unconscious (or apprehension) as well.

That really is a fantastic post, thank you.

Whether this phenomenon is due to indolence or confusion, I personally would suggest indolence when faced with that which confuses since repression (and the subsequent psychic regression) of libido (jungian libido) is, as far as I know, often due to this lol. It's the path of least resistance, a regression to child mind really. The lack of directed thinking due to this regression (repression) allows the individual to pick explanations for causality at whim given the available objects of potential correlation, very easy way to think, so easy in fact that primitive people did it all over the world. This cycling back through analogues of societal attitudes/thought will have similarities to the abandoned perspective due to the archetypal nature of symbols going through different representations at different levels of sophistication. Most unfortunately, many people on this path mistake this regression as a (spiritual, divine) progression as it is certainly a displacement from the normal representation of thoughts (the similarities to the previous perspective are acknowledged and the individual finds the current substituted analogue more comfortable and thus believe that it really was a "step up" in development) and thus do everything they can to perpetuate this displacement and cycling backwards.
Of course it shouldn't be forgotten that this really is pathological behaviour given man's current status on the evolutionary scale.

People really need to see that we left animism behind for a reason and it's not something to aspire to lawl. It's child's play.

If it's "channeled" A1, it's intuitive. Also, is the idea based off experience or reason (that was based off experience)? It's intuitive. There's nothing wrong with being intuitive but you gotta be able to see what it is so you feed the rational function with intuitive info.
Non-sequitur in regards to the nature of my argument. Pretty much a strawman.

You could have chosen not to acknowledge my point. Instead, you decide to form a discussion about the source of my information and discern if it can be discussed or not based on that. It's cute but I don't believe it's relevant.

Fang

No. Not everything is about you, I was not talking about you except in my last short paragraph where I addressed you directly. I was pondering the question raised by zenmaster and the implications of that answer, as was made explicitly clear.

In the bit where I addressed you I said that your channeling piece was intuitive, it's not an insult. That's just what it is given the mental process of the action.
I did choose to not acknowledge your point as discussing your ideas is almost always fruitless as you rarely acknowledge criticism or provide an explanation on how you arrive at such conclusions.

Fang

My comments on the pathological utilization of intuition were not about your post or you but rather a conclusion drawn from study of scholars and doctors of higher rank than I that produced works (that I have had the privilege of reading) that were a product of decades of years of work with 1000s of mentally ill people. Do not take that personally lawl

Also, you may want to be careful fingerpointing at fallacies of logical discourse lest the same be done to you. it's very easy to reject an idea simply because it is fallacious in reasoning, but this doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
Quote:People really need to see that we left animism behind for a reason and it's not something to aspire to lawl. It's child's play.

Personally I disagree with you on that one, Fang. Animism might be considered as child's play by Western standards, but if anything The Ra material only brought me closer to that type of worldview. Maybe because of the way I was raised but I believe an animal, plant or inanimate object possesses a spirit. Respecting, honoring and looking after the bond with my ancestors and nature, spiritual guidance, commemorate the dead, these are things I value and practice in my day to day life. So if my ways are considered childish then I'm actually quite content about it because wouldn't that mean it's pure and curious by nature?

Fang

hmm. Ok I think I know what you mean.

Now, past societal views are not worthless, and not to be discarded, animism included. They all have worth and positive (and negative) traits that can be carried over into the next stage of development and so on.

Thing is, animism is one of the earliest worldviews that emerged into human consciousness, basically everywhere on the planet. It was a natural view that arose due to the dominance of the intuitive function (lack of directed thought ties loose ends up of causality through higher analogues [the beyond] ie. deities and magic, the properties of which are transferred to natural phenomena ie. plants and animals), of early man just becoming acquainted with self awareness. The fact that this is one of the first ways of looking at the world is of tremendous importance to understanding the mind (and spirit).

The reason I say "child's play" is because it is a level we started at and have since progressed from, thus the analogy of the child, as it really is a form of regression. I'm not saying "viewing animals and plants as having a divine essence (which is a part of animism) is silly", I'm saying looking at the world at that level alone instead of learning from that level and moving on (to questioning just what is divine or appreciating the capacity for thought which allows you to ask questions of that nature for example) is a disregard for opportunity to grow.

As children we learn all sorts of integral skills that are absolutely necessary for later stages of development, however choosing to behave like children when we have the capacity to do higher things seems foolish.

Corinthian 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

Quote:Maybe because of the way I was raised but I believe an animal, plant or inanimate object possesses a spirit. Respecting, honoring and looking after the bond with my ancestors and nature, spiritual guidance, commemorate the dead, these are things I value and practice in my day to day life

This is actually what I would see as the healthy transference of past collective views (animism) filtered through modern understanding and rational evaluation, you see you're not saying "shiny screen spirit make words" you are being humble and appreciating that which you are aware of, in a fashion that makes use of past lessons as well the understanding of the present.
The highly distorted purple vmeme groups are often confused with post conventional stages of development. It's known as the pre/trans fallacy. Our own intuitives actually have higher density beings channeling that these tribes, I.e. forest tribes, are close to harvestibility which is complete crap. It's another indicator of personal bias masquerading as higher density knowledge. That's basically dishonesty offered for digestion as spiritual info. So just because a "channeler" sprinkles "love and light" phrases, doesn't mean they are always honest and won't abuse their adopted persona to convey bullshit.
(05-09-2014, 05:54 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]No. Not everything is about you, I was not talking about you except in my last short paragraph where I addressed you directly. I was pondering the question raised by zenmaster and the implications of that answer, as was made explicitly clear.

In the bit where I addressed you I said that your channeling piece was intuitive, it's not an insult. That's just what it is given the mental process of the action.
I did choose to not acknowledge your point as discussing your ideas is almost always fruitless as you rarely acknowledge criticism or provide an explanation on how you arrive at such conclusions.

And never will I support a discourse of endless justification against foundationalist arguments backed by postmodern psychology.

Mark my words: Academia will be shuttered with plywood and a lack of funding by the end of the 21st century, preferably by the year 2030. University loans are a bubble.
(05-09-2014, 09:04 AM)Fang Wrote: [ -> ]hmm. Ok I think I know what you mean.

Now, past societal views are not worthless, and not to be discarded, animism included. They all have worth and positive (and negative) traits that can be carried over into the next stage of development and so on.

Thing is, animism is one of the earliest worldviews that emerged into human consciousness, basically everywhere on the planet. It was a natural view that arose due to the dominance of the intuitive function (lack of directed thought ties loose ends up of causality through higher analogues [the beyond] ie. deities and magic, the properties of which are transferred to natural phenomena ie. plants and animals), of early man just becoming acquainted with self awareness. The fact that this is one of the first ways of looking at the world is of tremendous importance to understanding the mind (and spirit).

The reason I say "child's play" is because it is a level we started at and have since progressed from, thus the analogy of the child, as it really is a form of regression. I'm not saying "viewing animals and plants as having a divine essence (which is a part of animism) is silly", I'm saying looking at the world at that level alone instead of learning from that level and moving on (to questioning just what is divine or appreciating the capacity for thought which allows you to ask questions of that nature for example) is a disregard for opportunity to grow.

As children we learn all sorts of integral skills that are absolutely necessary for later stages of development, however choosing to behave like children when we have the capacity to do higher things seems foolish.

Corinthian 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

Quote:Maybe because of the way I was raised but I believe an animal, plant or inanimate object possesses a spirit. Respecting, honoring and looking after the bond with my ancestors and nature, spiritual guidance, commemorate the dead, these are things I value and practice in my day to day life

This is actually what I would see as the healthy transference of past collective views (animism) filtered through modern understanding and rational evaluation, you see you're not saying "shiny screen spirit make words" you are being humble and appreciating that which you are aware of, in a fashion that makes use of past lessons as well the understanding of the present.

Thank you for your clear response, I see what you meant now and to be honest I had to look up the definition of the word animism first to find out that some of my own worldviews matched the description.BigSmile And I agree with you on that in order to develop one can't keep behaving like a child, though I do think having child-like traits from time to time such as curiousity and a sort of "clean sheet" approach on things can also have benefits to one's development.
I guess I've also understood the interconnectedness of life - all beings, ancestors, etc., and like Sunny I've had a sense of connection and appreciation, respect, etc., If we were to worship and to elevate these things as something totally mystical and explains everything then sure, it's possible that it's purple vmeme stuff.

For example, my genealogy is important to me and *very* important in my father's culture. In his culture (he's Hawaiian) genealogy is your connection to your ancestors and future descendants - that there is some wisdom that may be passed on, and that we can find connection with certain insights when we learn our genealogy. When you get a tattoo, you have to know your genealogy and have visions about who your guardian spirits are. The importance really is not about who your guardian spirits are lol it's about the process of discovery. It may seem magical but it can be a powerful process akin to using those substances to get a high lol. Process of discovery vs. having highs and getting unusual experiences.

Knowing my genealogy helps me to discover things about myself in light of the experiences of my ancestors. There are very interesting and insightful parallels in our lives, particularly with my own distortions. Ra material kind of helped to think about how we might be choosing our families so that we can work with certain distortions. I'm also interested in intergenerational aspects of human psychology (and there is a lot of material on this), and how we can pass on certain issues - both psychological and physical. Have to be mindful of how it's possible to pass on things into our future.

I'm 'triangulating' my purple vmeme beliefs with other sources of knowing instead of just believing my ancestors are super sacred and need worshipping. I'm also focusing on the process of discovery rather than blindly believing and worshipping and glorifying something. I think there's a difference. I have no clue how this has to do with 'law of squares' lol sorry.
Pages: 1 2 3