+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Logoi and Co-creators (/showthread.php?tid=448)
Logoi and Co-creators - 3D Sunset - 08-20-2009
The following exchange, captured from another thread, is offered as source material for this thread which is devoted to sorting out the sometimes confusing relationship between the various co-creators of our Octave as described (often ambiguously and sometimes even inconsistently) in the Law of One.
Particular focus is requested in the relationships between humans / Earth, Earth / Sun, and humans / Sun. Participants are asked to reference applicable quotes from the Law of One when posting.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
Post #17 of the thread Ra=Sun Post from the Olio Forum Wrote:(08-20-2009, 11:00 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: It's kind of a cryptic quote, isn't it? "Not that entity which experiences the learning/teachings of [yourselves]." So is there a sun-type entity that does experience our learning/teachings? Why wouldn't our sun experience our learning/teachings -- surely it's intimately aware of our every thought and action.
Hello again βαθμιαίος,
It is truly an honor to have you more active around the forum again. I trust that all is well is with you and yours.
What I hear Ra saying is that, in its capacity as sub-Logos, the Sun is responsible for creating the environment in which we, sub-sub-logoi do the experiencing. By extension, I would suppose that our sun does experience vicariously through us, its creations.
I think that there is an even more interesting relationship between ourselves and the Earth. I found it very interesting to note that when Don asked for an example of a sub-sub-Logos, that Ra stated that Don would be such an example. I would expected him to give our planet Earth as the example, and that we would be sub-sub-sub-Logoi. But he didn't. :-/ Interestingly, Ra does not describes anything lower than sub-sub-Logoi. I'm not sure, but I suspect that this is intentional, rather than simply convenient, but I may well be wrong.
I have spent some time investigating this relationship between humans and Earth and although I have a perspective, like so much that is not directly asked by Don and responded to by Ra, the exact nature of the relationship remains only partially manifest to me.
For what it is worth, based upon my humble study of the material, it would seem that our relationship to Earth is as co-sub-sub-logoi, both of whom are at once both dependent upon the other for their conscious existence, and having aspects that transcend the relationship.
I would beg differ with you slightly though, on one of your previous posts, in that I see Earth as distinct from the Logos (i.e., Sun) as evidenced by the following quotes.
Law of One, Book II, Session 29 Wrote:Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field.
Law of One, Book II, Session 30 Wrote:Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me a brief history of the metaphysical principles of the development of each of our planets that surround our sun, their function with respect to the evolution of beings?
Ra: I am Ra. We shall give you a metaphysical description only of those planets upon which individual mind/body/spirit complexes have been, are, or shall be experienced. You may understand the other spheres to be a part of the Logos.
So it seems that once a planet leaves 1D, it becomes separate from its Logos (Sun) and becomes a sub-sub-Logos. (Note: There is a little more to this logic than I have included here.)
If you are interested in discussing this topic in further depth, I would suggest that we start another thread, preferably in the Strictly Law of One section.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-21-2009
Hello fellow students of the Law of One. Please forgive the length of this post. It is, by design, filled with relevant quotes and source material for further discussion. Please also read my comment following each quote as running commentary that represents my best thoughts on each. In this exercise I am teach/learning in order to aid my learn/teaching so please challenge any and all of my proposals, assertions, or speculations.
What is a Logos?
Perhaps one of the most confusing aspects of this discussion, is Ra's apparent tendency to "move around" the definition of "Logos", "sub-Logos", "co-Creator", etc., during his discussions. Although this may be confusing, I think it was not intentional. Recall that from Ra's perspective, he sees not just the interconnectedness but also the One-ness of us all. He truly sees each of us and the universe on the whole as a single entity with multiple hierarchical "faces". Consider:
Ra, Book II, Session 28 Wrote:Questioner: Let’s take as an example the planet that we are on now and tell me how much of the creation was created by the same Logos that created this planet?
Ra: I am Ra. This planetary Logos is a strong Logos creating approximately 250 billion of your star systems for Its creation. The, shall we say, laws or physical ways of this creation will remain, therefore, constant.
Questioner: Then what you are saying is that the lenticular star system which we call a galaxy that we find ourselves in with approximately 250 billion other suns like our own was created by a single Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Questioner: Since there are many individualized portions of consciousness in this lenticular galaxy, did this Logos then subdivide into more individualization of consciousness to create these consciousnesses?
Ra: I am Ra. You are perceptive. This is also correct although an apparent paradox.
Questioner: Could you tell me what you mean by an apparent paradox?
Ra: I am Ra. It would seem that if one Logos creates the intelligent energy ways for a large system there would not be the necessity or possibility of the further sub-Logos differentiation. However, within limits, this is precisely the case, and it is perceptive that this has been seen.
So we have a Logos that is the creator of our milky Way Galaxy. That Logos has then subdivided hierarchically to create a number of sub-Logoi such as our Sun. Each such sub-Logos is empowered to freely act within the limits of creation and experience that are established by the Logos:
Ra, Book I, Session 19 Wrote:This Logos has complete free will in determining the paths of intelligent energy which promote the lessons of each of the densities given the conditions of the planetary spheres and the sun bodies.
Ra, Book I, Session 13 Wrote:Questioner: I am wondering if the planetary system that we are in now was all created at once or if our sun was created first and the planets later?
Ra: I am Ra. The process is from the larger, in your illusion, to the smaller. Thus the co-Creator, individualizing the galaxy, created energy patterns which then focused in multitudinous focuses of further conscious awareness of intelligent infinity. Thus, the solar system of which you experience inhabitation is of its own patterns, rhythms, and so-called natural laws which are unique to itself. However, the progression is from the galaxy spiraling energy to the solar spiraling energy, to the planetary spiraling energy, to the experiential circumstances of spiraling energy which begin the first density of awareness of consciousness of planetary entities.
Here we see that our solar system has a set of rules that were established by our Sun, acting as Logos, that are unique to our solar system, but are within the framework established by our Galaxy. Ra clearly states that the planets are conscious. As the quotes in my earlier post indicate, this consciousness dwells with the Logos and is timeless until it is individuated.
Ra, Book II, Session 28 Wrote:Questioner: When does the individualization or the individualized portion of consciousness come into play? At what point does individualized consciousness take over working on the basic light?
Ra: I am Ra. You remain carefully in the area of creation itself. In this process we must further confuse you by stating that the process by which free will acts upon potential intelligent infinity to become focused intelligent energy takes place without the space/time of which you are so aware as it is your continuum experience.
The experience or existence of space/time comes into being after the individuation process of Logos or Love has been completed and the physical universe, as you would call it, has coalesced or begun to draw inward while moving outward to the extent that that which you call your sun bodies have in their turn created timeless chaos coalescing into what you call planets, these vortices of intelligent energy spending a large amount of what you would call first density in a timeless state, the space/time realization being one of the learn/teachings of this density of being-ness.
So planets remain in a timeless state at one with their Logos sun until they achieve the ability to realize space/time, which is the prerequisite for entering 2D. Similarly, and earlier, the solar system itself is timeless until it (the Logos) has become individuated from its hierarchically higher co-Creator Logos. The same is true further and further up the hierarchy.
This seems to create a paradox: How can non-conscious entities, like planets have a space/time presence if they have not yet realized space/time? Let's set this question aside for now, and explore a little further.
Ra, Book II, Session 28 Wrote:Questioner: I am assuming that the process of creation, after the original creation of the major galaxy, is continued by the further individualization of the consciousness of the Logos so that there are many, many portions of the individualized consciousness creating further items for experience all over the galaxy. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct, for within the, shall we say, guidelines or ways of the Logos, the sub-Logos may find various means of differentiating experiences without removing or adding to these ways.
Again, Ra is stating that a sub-Logos has free reign within the bounds established by its hierarchically superior Logos.
Earth as Logos
Ra, Book II, Session 29 Wrote:Questioner: What I’m saying is that there are roughly 250 billion stars somewhat like ours in this major galaxy. Are they all part of the same sub- Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. They are all part of the same Logos. Your solar system, as you would call it, is a manifestation somewhat and slightly different due to the presence of a sub-Logos.
Questioner: Let me be sure I’m right then. Our sun is a sub-Logos of the Logos of the major galaxy?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Questioner: Are there any sub-sub-Logoi that are found in our planetary
system that are “sub” to our sun?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.
Questioner: Would you give me an example of what I will call a sub-sub-Logos?
Ra: I am Ra. One example is your mind/body/spirit complex.
Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field.
Questioner: Do the sub-Logoi such as our sun have a metaphysical polarity positive or negative as we have been using the term?
Ra: I am Ra. As you use the term, this is not so. Entities through the level of planetary have the strength of intelligent infinity through the use of free will, going through the actions of beingness. The polarity is not thusly as you understand polarity. It is only when the planetary sphere begins harmonically interacting with mind/body complexes, and more especially mind/body/spirit complexes, that planetary spheres take on distortions due to the thought complexes of entities interacting with the planetary entity. The creation of the one infinite Creator does not have the polarity you speak of.
Now we begin to see the rather unique relationship between 3D Creatures and their host planets. First though, consider that Ra carefully chose the term "Logos" in describing a planet that is harmonically working with mind/body (i.e., 2D at least) complexes within its electromagnetic field. This says a lot, and it is interesting to note that aside from this, Ra generally overlooks the role that Earth plays in the creation process.
For Ra to say that a planet is a "Logos" means to me that Earth is acting within its free will to structure the environment within which consciousness is experienced here. Thus, those actions of evolution and creation of life forms would seem to be decisions made by the Earth as Logos, within the framework established by the Sun as Logos.
This also provides me a possible answer to a question that has troubled me ever since I first read the Law of One: Why was the quarantine really necessary? Ra states that the quarantine was employed because the genetic changes made to allow the migration of Martian 3D entities onto Earth, were viewed as to have infringed on their free will. It makes much more sense to me that it was actually Earth's free will to evolve its creatures that was infringed, because those of Yahweh were acting contrary to the will of Earth in making the changes and possibly in bringing alien entities here to begin with.
But the relationship between us and Earth is more complicated still, for even though we are sub-Logos to our planet we also directly influence her with our distortions.
Ra, Book II, Session 30 Wrote:Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me a brief history of the metaphysical principles of the development of each of our planets that surround our sun, their function with respect to the evolution of beings?
Ra: I am Ra. We shall give you a metaphysical description only of those planets upon which individual mind/body/spirit complexes have been, are, or shall be experienced. You may understand the other spheres to be a part of the Logos.
This quote helps us resolve the earlier paradox. The planets, such as Mercury, which Ra does not mention have a space/time existence because they reside as part of the Sun's (Logos) consciousness. At such time as they develop individuated consciousness, they will begin to evolve within their own space/time that is separate from, but consistent with, that of their Logos.
The Law of One, Book III, Session 65 Wrote:Questioner: Then we deal with an entity that has not yet formed a social memory but is yet an entity just as one of us can be called a single entity.
Can we continue this observation of the conglomerate entity through the galactic entity, or shall I say, planetary system type of entity? Let me try to phrase it this way. Could I look at a single sun in its planetary system as an entity and then look at a major galaxy with its billions of stars as an entity?
Can I continue this extrapolation in this way?
Ra: I am Ra. You can but not within the framework of third-density space/time.
Let us attempt to speak upon this interesting subject. In your space/time you and your peoples are the parents of that which is in the womb. The Earth, as you call it, is ready to be born and the delivery is not going smoothly. When this entity has become born it will be instinct with the social memory complex of its parents which have become fourth-density positive. In this density there is a broader view.
You may begin to see your relationship to the Logos or sun with which you are most intimately associated. This is not the relationship of parent to child but of Creator, that is Logos, to Creator that is the mind/body/spirit complex, as Logos. When this realization occurs you may then widen the field of “eyeshot,” if you will, infinitely recognizing parts of the Logos throughout the one infinite creation and feeling, with the roots of Mind informing the intuition, the parents aiding their planets in evolution in reaches vast and unknown in the creation, for this process occurs many, many times in the evolution of the creation as an whole.
Here, Ra adds another facet to our relationship with mother Earth and also to our Sun, and so forth back up the hierarchy. We are directly co-creators of our environment of our planet/solar system/ galaxy in which we exist. So those that will remain with Earth once it emerges into 4D, will physically be co-creators of the planetary memory that results on 4D Earth.
Sorry again for the length of the post. All comments are welcomed,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - greywolf - 08-22-2009
I would be more willing to accept the view that a planetary "logos" does not exist separately until a planet ascends, and this is what is meant by "harmonious interaction". Then the statement about people being the sub-sub-Logos and that mental interation by mind/body/spirit creates the planetary Logos make more sense. Until then the planet is "part of the logos", which would mean the analogy of a chakra in the solar logos (Ra also mentions a correspondence bewteen the densitities, Tarot principles and the planets). In ancient Egypt where Ra apparently was active the Sun was the main deity (also even the name Ra refers to this sun god), Earth was not venerated.
The concept of a separate planetary logos is also what is apparently used in certain theosophical circles to push for a global dictatorship (in order to enforce the harmonious interaction with the logos as interpreted by a privileged hierarchical elite), which is why I would be more careful with the concept.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-24-2009
(08-22-2009, 09:29 AM)greywolf Wrote: I would be more willing to accept the view that a planetary "logos" does not exist separately until a planet ascends, and this is what is meant by "harmonious interaction". Then the statement about people being the sub-sub-Logos and that mental interation by mind/body/spirit creates the planetary Logos make more sense. Until then the planet is "part of the logos", which would mean the analogy of a chakra in the solar logos (Ra also mentions a correspondence bewteen the densitities, Tarot principles and the planets). In ancient Egypt where Ra apparently was active the Sun was the main deity (also even the name Ra refers to this sun god), Earth was not venerated.
The concept of a separate planetary logos is also what is apparently used in certain theosophical circles to push for a global dictatorship (in order to enforce the harmonious interaction with the logos as interpreted by a privileged hierarchical elite), which is why I would be more careful with the concept.
Hi greywolf,
Welcome to the forum. As it appears that this is your first post, I can't tell much about your perspective on the Law of One, in particular. Please explain what you mean by "planetary ascension".
Do you mean the movement of the planet and its appropriate inhabitants (i.e., those that harvested in 4D Positive) into 4D? If so, then I would agree that the interaction between Earth and entities would be more "harmonious" afterward. This is an interesting idea, but I don't think that this is what Ra means. Lets look back at this quote (see the emphasized portion in particular):
Ra, Book II, Session 29 Wrote:Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field.
Questioner: Do the sub-Logoi such as our sun have a metaphysical polarity positive or negative as we have been using the term?
Ra: I am Ra. As you use the term, this is not so. Entities through the level of planetary have the strength of intelligent infinity through the use of free will, going through the actions of beingness. The polarity is not thusly as you understand polarity. It is only when the planetary sphere begins harmonically interacting with mind/body complexes, and more especially mind/body/spirit complexes, that planetary spheres take on distortions due to the thought complexes of entities interacting with the planetary entity. The creation of the one infinite Creator does not have the polarity you speak of.
Based upon this, it would seem that the harmonic interactions can be with mind/bodies (i.e., 2D life forms) as well as mind/body/spirits (i.e., 3D life forms). So by "harmonic", I think Ra means that there is a mutual give and take between the lifeforms - like evolution say - not that the give and take is necessarily always in perfect harmony (as might be more expected in 4D and beyond). So, it wold not make sense to me that a planet would be a Logos while in 2d then revert to its parent Logos while in "disharmonious" 3D until it can again emerge as a Logos in 4D. Much more likely that the Earth has emerged as a Logos distinct from, but hierarchically subordinate to, its Sun Logos when it emerged from its timeless state in late 1D.
It is also interesting to note that, although mind/body or mind/body/spirit complexes have a primary experiential nexus in a single density (2D - 7D and beyond), a planet may express in multiple densities simultaneously (Earth is currently 1D, 2D, and 3D, and will soon be 1D, 2D, and 4D, it may also become 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D at some point in the future). This points to a distinction between a planet and a mind/body complex or mind/body/spirit complex. The planet (or in later densities the host sun, or presumably even back to the host galaxy, etc.) appear to act as a stage and supporting environment for the free will experiences of the co-creator m/b/s complexes that reside thereon. I believe that this distinction is why Ra actually avoids referring to Earth as a sub-sub-Logos. Ra seems to reserve this moniker for the m/b/s complexes that are free will experiencing and evolving linearly through the densities. But this is really speculation on my part.
greywolf Wrote:The concept of a separate planetary logos is also what is apparently used in certain theosophical circles to push for a global dictatorship (in order to enforce the harmonious interaction with the logos as interpreted by a privileged hierarchical elite), which is why I would be more careful with the concept.
This is an interesting point, and one that I had not considered, but I think that it is improper to limit ones view and pursuit of truth based upon the fact that aspects of truth have been subverted into STS arguments and actions in the past. Truth is simply truth. It has no dog, so to speak, in the fight. And truth, just as the Law of One, favors no side. It is rather how we apply the truth that has polarity. I feel that we should not and cannot shirk from a truth, simply for the purposes of withholding it from our opposite polarity.
Thanks again for your comments, please continue the dialog.
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - Ali Quadir - 08-24-2009
Sunset, you put the finger on the sore spot for me.
I have extreme difficulty conceptualizing the logos. I do think I have an intuitive understanding. But anytime I try to conceptualize the beast I end up describing something that is is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike my intuitive understanding of the logos.
I would like to add some notions of the logos...
Logos never exists separately but always in relation to.
Logos is not an entity though entities can be seen as logos.
Logos is different if you look at it from another angle.
Intelligent infinity is a way of viewing the logos.
Logos is like consciousness but from the outside in, not the inside out.
What do you think of these points? Can you add some more?
I have the feeling that if we know exactly what the logos is there will not be any questions left.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-24-2009
Welcome Ali,
It seems that our paths have not crossed in a while, but it is wonderful to speak with you again.
(08-24-2009, 11:47 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I have extreme difficulty conceptualizing the logos. I do think I have an intuitive understanding. But anytime I try to conceptualize the beast I end up describing something that is is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike my intuitive understanding of the logos.
If by "conceptualizing", you mean expressing using your 3D mind (or "visualizing"), I quite agree. So as with most things esoteric, I tend to use metaphors to attempt to visualize aspects of it, the more such metaphors are used, the more complete is the resulting 3D picture (understanding that even a perfect 3-dimensional picture of a n-dimensional object is far less "accurate" than a perfect 2-dimensional picture of a 3-dimensional object). Still, I find that metaphors are useful, and if we employ them liberally and even allow them to be contradictory, then we may begin to make some headway. You seem to have a nice start at a list below.
Ali Quadir Wrote:I would like to add some notions of the logos...
Logos never exists separately but always in relation to.
Logos is not an entity though entities can be seen as logos.
Logos is different if you look at it from another angle.
Intelligent infinity is a way of viewing the logos.
Logos is like consciousness but from the outside in, not the inside out.
Let me try now, pulling some from various works and/or my own demented mind to humbly add to your list.
Logos is a holographic instance of the one creator, each infinitesimal sub-particle of which entirely contains the whole.
Logos is a hierarchy of existence in which each sub-logos is allowed full expression of itself within the framework established by its immediately superior logos.
Logos is a method of allowing existence of sub-logoi to enable the One Infinite Creator to experience himself through the perception of separateness.
Logos is a space/time and time/space present representation of the sum total of all experiences experienced by the subject sub-logos and its further co-created sub-logoi.
Logos is a set of rules, condensed from previous Logoi, that define the means by which the One Creator will experience himself at time/space and space/time present.
Logos is One.
Logos is Infinity.
Ali Quadir Wrote:I have the feeling that if we know exactly what the logos is there will not be any questions left.
I agree, especially as trying to know exactly what Logos is, is comparable to, yet infinitely more complicated than, trying to know exactly what a tesseract is while living in 3-space.
Is this in any way beneficial, or have I totally missed the mark?
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - Ali Quadir - 08-24-2009
(08-24-2009, 01:57 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: It seems that our paths have not crossed in a while, but it is wonderful to speak with you again.The pleasure is mine my friend. It's wonderful that you attempted to describe the logos in this topic while at the same time I was struggling with conceptualizing it properly.
Quote:If by "conceptualizing", you mean expressing using your 3D mind (or "visualizing"), I quite agree.I wasn't thinking about visualizing perse, I'm not sure my visual subsystems are capable of even representing this principle in it's totality
I meant quite literally expressing it in words that would properly convey my more intuitive touchy feely understanding of the Logos. And get people in touch with the same understanding. I apparently have no problem expressing agreeance or disagreeance with parts of the description. But there's only so many times people are going to accept "Nope that's not it either." before they're going to ask "What is it then?"Quote:So as with most things esoteric, I tend to use metaphors to attempt to visualize aspects of it, the more such metaphors are used, the more complete is the resulting 3D picture (understanding that even a perfect 3-dimensional picture of a n-dimensional object is far less "accurate" than a perfect 2-dimensional picture of a 3-dimensional object). Still, I find that metaphors are useful, and if we employ them liberally and even allow them to be contradictory, then we may begin to make some headway. You seem to have a nice start at a list below.
I hope so. The problem is my metaphors are always just touching a fragment and don't do justice to what I think is important to realize. Perhaps together a more complete description can be "refined"...
The problem with 3d images of n dimensional objects is that they're essentially just analogues. And if you grasp the underlying concepts they can be quite useful but if you do not they can be misleading. Distance between concepts becomes unclear in lower dimensional representations of higher dimensional models.
Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist. But it just seemed wiser for me to keep the poverbial trap shut at least until I have something remotely sensible to say about it
Quote:Ali Quadir Wrote:I would like to add some notions of the logos...
Logos never exists separately but always in relation to.
Logos is not an entity though entities can be seen as logos.
Logos is different if you look at it from another angle.
Intelligent infinity is a way of viewing the logos.
Logos is like consciousness but from the outside in, not the inside out.
Let me try now, pulling some from various works and/or my own demented mind to humbly add to your list.
Quote:Logos is a holographic instance of the one creator, each infinitesimal sub-particle of which entirely contains the whole.Yes.
Quote:Logos is a hierarchy of existence in which each sub-logos is allowed full expression of itself within the framework established by its immediately superior logos.Yes.
Quote:Logos is a method of allowing existence of sub-logoi to enable the One Infinite Creator to experience himself through the perception of separateness.Yes. But... Why? I have difficulty accepting that reality is created at the whim of an infinite being. I have a hunch there is a deeper requirement other than a fancy.
Quote:Logos is a space/time and time/space present representation of the sum total of all experiences experienced by the subject sub-logos and its further co-created sub-logoi.Yes. At most levels. But I understand at some point time and space are created by some hierarchy of the logos. Time and space are creation and not creator.
Quote:Logos is a set of rules, condensed from previous Logoi, that define the means by which the One Creator will experience himself at time/space and space/time present.Yes. And this is one example like your second description where words fail to convey true meaning. The implications of your statement are enormous. It has tremendous meaning in the area of why we at times seem to feel without control of our situation. A "lower" hierarchy of the logos cannot go against what was decided in previous "higher up" hierarchies. Yet at the same time the complete logos is here, now. To change what seems beyond our control we must ascend above what is outside our control, and influence the matter from the level that dictates it.
But I'm not sure anyone unfamiliar with the subject could recognize that from the words. There's enough there to turn any man into a mystic if the meaning would not remain hidden..
This is apparent in a situation like if you have a problem with authority. You can at that level attempt to remove the influence of authority. But you won't fully succeed and it will have strong consequences. Because you cannot cancel it out at that level. Yet when you start to understand the deeper implications of authority and master the authority structure not as a STS mechanism that is constrictive but as an STO mechanism that allows the world and society to function.
From this perspective authority becomes much easier to deal with both when exerting it and recognizing it. Essentially you rose above it and eliminated it's negative influence from your life. With the same understanding you could eliminate it's positive influences but why would you?
And that's just one spoonful from the bag of treasures.
Quote:Logos is One.Yes.
Quote:Logos is Infinity.Yes.
Quote:Ali Quadir Wrote:I have the feeling that if we know exactly what the logos is there will not be any questions left.
I agree, especially as trying to know exactly what Logos is, is comparable to, yet infinitely more complicated than, trying to know exactly what a tesseract is while living in 3-space.
Is this in any way beneficial, or have I totally missed the mark?
It sounds like you're on the mark
I have a biggie for you. One I get stuck on frequently. If we summarize the above. Then we can loosely say "First there was nothing. Which then exploded." I can't find the reason. Why would this situation be preferable to the unbroken undifferentiated infinite? All that is now was known in that infinite. Another biggie. Why I am I me and not you? If we are one, then why am I me and not you? Because I identified with me. Sure but why is that? Because the experience of me karmically bound me. Sure but why is that? And so on. The primordial reason, the root cause is probably the same answer to why the infinite oneness became manifold.
For your entertainment: Bonus points if you can work a '42' in there
They say the writer for this clip, Douglas Adams, was an atheist. But he is so often close to life that I almost start to see him as an initiated priest Btw this is what happens if one innocently tries to figure out what a tesseract is. Thanks. My visual cortex is now sulking in a corner and feeling inadequate.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-24-2009
You've given us much again to consider. I'll cogitate on most of it, but in the mean time, I'll go for the prize.
Ali Quadir Wrote:I have a biggie for you. One I get stuck on frequently. If we summarize the above. Then we can loosely say "First there was nothing. Which then exploded." I can't find the reason. Why would this situation be preferable to the unbroken undifferentiated infinite? All that is now was known in that infinite.
Let me try two explanations:
1) It is all but impossible to appreciate any finite aspect of the undifferentiated infinite while existing within it. So, even though all exists in that infinite, none can actually be recalled. In order then, to recall everything that can happen, the Infinite Creator must actually cause it to happen. Sort of like re-reading every book within a library, but only being able to recall the book and story that is currently being read. To do this, Our Cosmic Reader must suspend belief (as opposed to suspending dis-belief as we do when reading a fiction novel) that all is One. It is this process of suspension of belief that actually creates the Logos (aka this octave of existence) and begins the experiences therein. Like opening a book and leaving your current mundane existence behind.
2) If every possible experience exists within the undifferentiated infinite, then every possible experience must have happened. So we are merely actualizing this eventuality through the illusion of Free Will. In reality we have no Free Will, we simply are acting in every possible way in every possible situation and following a single thread of consciousness and weaving it into a coherent story of existence.
As I recall, the answer to the ultimate question in the universe was "42" as computed by a finite improbability generator, but when the infinite improbability generator was created and tasked with now computing what exactly the ultimate question was it replied: "What is seven times seven." Yes, the universe is ever mysterious. Regardless, I would point out that I am now 49, and was 42 when I first discovered the Law of One in printed form.
Coincidence? You decide.
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - Ali Quadir - 08-25-2009
(08-24-2009, 04:36 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:But what is the reason to open the book ?Ali Quadir Wrote:I have a biggie for you. One I get stuck on frequently. If we summarize the above. Then we can loosely say "First there was nothing. Which then exploded." I can't find the reason. Why would this situation be preferable to the unbroken undifferentiated infinite? All that is now was known in that infinite.
Let me try two explanations:
1) It is all but impossible to appreciate any finite aspect of the undifferentiated infinite while existing within it. So, even though all exists in that infinite, none can actually be recalled. In order then, to recall everything that can happen, the Infinite Creator must actually cause it to happen. Sort of like re-reading every book within a library, but only being able to recall the book and story that is currently being read. To do this, Our Cosmic Reader must suspend belief (as opposed to suspending dis-belief as we do when reading a fiction novel) that all is One. It is this process of suspension of belief that actually creates the Logos (aka this octave of existence) and begins the experiences therein. Like opening a book and leaving your current mundane existence behind.
Why is recall required? I do like the analogy here though. I think it's an appropriate perception to see time/space/possibility that in it's undifferentiated state like an unopened book. It's also an effective solution to the question if God's omnipotence breaks our free will.The question why am I me and not you is asked within my book. In essence the question could not be asked with the same meaning in any other book. It's the usual mantra, "I cannot see what you see because I see what I see".
(08-24-2009, 04:36 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: 2) If every possible experience exists within the undifferentiated infinite, then every possible experience must have happened. So we are merely actualizing this eventuality through the illusion of Free Will. In reality we have no Free Will, we simply are acting in every possible way in every possible situation and following a single thread of consciousness and weaving it into a coherent story of existence.I agree.
But what is the first motivator? Why would the creator desire to know himself. Why did he open the books in the first place?
There has to be some kind of unavoidable root cause. Like I said before I have a hard time accepting that it was just a fancy. "Hey let's kick off the morning by having a good experience of self. And maybe if there is time we'll have boiled eggs afterwards."
It's really: "First there was nothing, which then exploded... Without adequately explored reasons."
Perhaps we should put it to Quo...Quote:I would point out that I am now 49, and was 42 when I first discovered the Law of One in printed form.Well what are the odds to that?
Coincidence? You decide.
I think you just won the bonus points
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-25-2009
Hi Ali,
Of course, you are asking questions that are unknowable, and I am far too humble a servant to assume that I have answers that you do not. So please take the following as fodder for further discussion, rather than an answer to end it. Having three children, I know full well that there is no answer for which there cannot be another: "Why?". That said, let's dive in.
(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: But what is the reason to open the book ?
From our limited 3D perspective, I think we tend to focus too much on the fact that in an infinite universe anything can happen, and not enough on the fact that in an infinite universe everything must happen. Recall is required sooner or later, it seems to have happened now. Congratulations on the good fortune of being here now. Of course, you were also there, then and will ever be there-ever, forever.
(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: The question why am I me and not you is asked within my book. In essence the question could not be asked with the same meaning in any other book. It's the usual mantra, "I cannot see what you see because I see what I see".
How do you know you're not me? The only experience you have of me is pixels on a monitor. How do you know that it isn't really your eyes that imagine that the pixels are there and you've really just conjured up the whole illusion? Even if we met face-to-face, I could argue that the only experience you have of me is through your senses as processed by your mind, and we have technologies already that can fake most if not all of your senses, and lord knows that your mind fools itself all the time. I understand that this "brains in vats" argument is old (older still after having been beaten to death by the Matrix movies), but it still hold water.
As for seeing what I see, again why do suppose that I see anything at all? In reality (and mean this absolutely literally), I have no existence except through you, and you can never prove otherwise. The same goes true for you from me. I don't have to worry about dying, because this entire elaborate stage was constructed exclusively for my entertainment. I can't be written out of the script except by my choice (perhaps even my conscious choice, I haven't quite decided on that one yet) . I may choose to write you out of my script, but I think I'll keep you around for at least a little longer, because I like you Ali.
So you see, the process of evolving is really just the process of my becoming more in touch with this godliness that I know I possess. Becoming more and more in control of the creation and destruction process, as it were. I wouldn't say that nothing can "hurt" me, because I recognize the benefit of feeling pain as a catalyst to aid me on my journey of self discovery, but I do know that even if I feel the most excruciating pain imaginable for an entire eon, that it has not actually harmed me in any real way.(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: But what is the first motivator? Why would the creator desire to know himself. Why did he open the books in the first place?
There has to be some kind of unavoidable root cause. Like I said before I have a hard time accepting that it was just a fancy. "Hey let's kick off the morning by having a good experience of self. And maybe if there is time we'll have boiled eggs afterwards."
It's really: "First there was nothing, which then exploded... Without adequately explored reasons."
Or rather, "First there was nothing, which then exploded... Without obviously explored reasons." One wouldn't want to be too presumptuous about what you did before you chose to forget. Here's an interesting question for you though. As a psychologist, I'm sure you're familiar with tricks that people develop to compensate for memory loss. They leave little notes around reminding them what to do when, or even who they are. Perhaps you did the same thing before you chose to forget. Have you looked for any of your notes? Would you recognize them if you saw them?
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - Ali Quadir - 08-25-2009
(08-25-2009, 11:27 AM)3D Sunset Wrote:I don't see this. A line is infinite, nothing is supposedly bigger than infinite. But a plane is still infinitely larger. Just because a universe is infinite does not mean everything can or will happen. It just means that everything that has a chance of happening will happen. There is a principle of consistency. The universe cannot be in an inconsistent state. It can be in an undefined state. But it cannot be inconsistent.(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: But what is the reason to open the book ?
From our limited 3D perspective, I think we tend to focus too much on the fact that in an infinite universe anything can happen, and not enough on the fact that in an infinite universe everything must happen. Recall is required sooner or later, it seems to have happened now. Congratulations on the good fortune of being here now. Of course, you were also there, then and will ever be there-ever, forever.
Essentially this means that we should take the suggestion that in an infinite universe everything in the most literal sense of the word will happen with a dose of salt... I'd suggest everything that can happen will happen.. But we'll never see pigs fly unless they evolve into something with wings or anti-gravity glands or what ever that then no longer can be accurately called a pig. I hope you get my point.
So my question would be rephrased as why could this happen? Why do I perceive this particular state of possibility. And you another one? And essentially playing the why game from there. (I identified with this, why? Something in me resonated, why?) This will lead to a point where I have no answers.
I realize that a fool can ask more questions than a thousand masters can answer. The role of a fool works for me, so I'll ask a lot of questions of you
It's not up to you to solve them all. It is neither required nor likely that all my questions will be answered in this life. If they do I'll probably invent new questions just for the fun of it. Besides, putting on the garb of a master brings with it the mundane fact that every pocket in the garb both hidden and in plain sight is filled to the brink with expectations to live up to. I consider that cruel and won't do it to anyone.
(08-25-2009, 11:27 AM)3D Sunset Wrote:While on a level we are in fact one. The Law of One is clear on this. On another level we most definitely are not. I cannot speak through your mouth or grab with your hands on the mundane everyday level. And the question isn't "is that all there is?" I know there is more. The question to me is: Why is this?(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: The question why am I me and not you is asked within my book. In essence the question could not be asked with the same meaning in any other book. It's the usual mantra, "I cannot see what you see because I see what I see".
How do you know you're not me?
(08-25-2009, 11:27 AM)3D Sunset Wrote: The only experience you have of me is pixels on a monitor.Presumably
(08-25-2009, 11:27 AM)3D Sunset Wrote: How do you know that it isn't really your eyes that imagine that the pixels are there and you've really just conjured up the whole illusion? Even if we met face-to-face, I could argue that the only experience you have of me is through your senses as processed by your mind, and we have technologies already that can fake most if not all of your senses, and lord knows that your mind fools itself all the time. I understand that this "brains in vats" argument is old (older still after having been beaten to death by the Matrix movies), but it still hold water.Exactly... So why did I convince myself of this particular illusion and not yours? Why in essence am I me in conscious experience, and you in a much more philosophical manner?
Don't get me wrong. I do realize that we're one, I get a lot of impressions, pixels on a monitor is not all you are to me. Yet there is a most definitive difference between being me and being you. I am identified with the one, you with the other... Why?
The answer. There is no "Me" is just ignoring the whole experience of "Me"... That can't be right can it?
Quote:As for seeing what I see, again why do suppose that I see anything at all? In reality (and mean this absolutely literally), I have no existence except through you, and you can never prove otherwise.Proving is done with the mind. You're correct. I cannot prove otherwise. Yet I still know for a fact that what is inside of me is outside of me. You are a reflection of a principle. You do exist. You have thoughts emotions feelings and a life separate from mine. This isn't a philosophical opinion. It is a direct experience. I can easily sense great compassion in you. I cannot however look though your eyes.
You speak from a philosophical point of view. And it is good to entertain these thoughts on a regular basis. I certainly think along these lines myself. However, you are also on some level an entity that is completely separate from me and this perception is as valid as realizing that on some level you are me...
Quote:The same goes true for you from me. I don't have to worry about dying, because this entire elaborate stage was constructed exclusively for my entertainment. I can't be written out of the script except by my choice (perhaps even my conscious choice, I haven't quite decided on that one yet) .I think you can't even do that. If you write yourself in the script you'll still be in it. And the moments you were in it will influence the whole script. If you put two hands filled with water together then no force in the world will ever be able to separate the two waters. You can make two new hands filled with water. But the waters are forever bound together. The fact that you exist right now is true. From here there is no future possible where you did not exist before. Even if you find a way to write yourself out of the script or some approximation.
Quote: I may choose to write you out of my script, but I think I'll keep you around for at least a little longer, because I like you Ali.You like me... Not bad for a bunch of pixels eh?
All kidding aside, you honor me The feeling is mutual. And it is exactly these thought provoking exchanges that keep me hooked on this forum.Just think about it. If I walk up to the cashier at the local supermarket. And ask her "Why am I me... And not you?" She'd at least raise one eyebrow. And at worst call security saying that I was making insinuations about becoming one with her.
Quote:So you see, the process of evolving is really just the process of my becoming more in touch with this godliness that I know I possess. Becoming more and more in control of the creation and destruction process, as it were. I wouldn't say that nothing can "hurt" me, because I recognize the benefit of feeling pain as a catalyst to aid me on my journey of self discovery, but I do know that even if I feel the most excruciating pain imaginable for an entire eon, that it has not actually harmed me in any real way.Why did you stop being totality and become individuality. If your goal is then again to strive for totality? Would it not be smarter to just pick a side and stay there? Or rather be both and stop striving.
There is a spiritual elitism we easily fall prey to. If it isn't that we judge others on this principle, it's that we judge or motivate ourselves with it.
So I tried to stop doing this to myself.
(08-25-2009, 11:27 AM)3D Sunset Wrote:You're right we must not be presumptuous. Ironically that's why I presume there is a reason and try to find it. Wretched isn't it?(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: But what is the first motivator? Why would the creator desire to know himself. Why did he open the books in the first place?
It's really: "First there was nothing, which then exploded... Without adequately explored reasons."
Or rather, "First there was nothing, which then exploded... Without obviously explored reasons." One wouldn't want to be too presumptuous about what you did before you chose to forget. Here's an interesting question for you though. As a psychologist, I'm sure you're familiar with tricks that people develop to compensate for memory loss. They leave little notes around reminding them what to do when, or even who they are. Perhaps you did the same thing before you chose to forget. Have you looked for any of your notes? Would you recognize them if you saw them?
As far as remembering is concerned: I'm basically assuming that if the creature I was before forgetting is really as powerful as it seems. I won't need to recognize them. I wont even need the notes. The creature will just tell me. It's talking I think I can assume that it's telling me what it wants me to know.
There is a slight difference in approach for me as a Muslim that I have been able to make out. You might know the phrase "Insha'Allah" it pretty much means. If it is Gods will. I can say "I go to the bank tomorrow" but to be precise I have to add "Insha'Allah". I don't know if I will go to the bank, if it is Gods will.. I will.. If God decides against it... I won't.
Now we can call God Allah Jahweh, higher self, Buddha Nature, great spirit or the sky fairy. But in the end, if your higher self decides against it, you won't be going to the bank.
It's clear to me that this is correct. How can you argue with an advanced version of yourself? But that leaves me asking. Why am I at all required? I cannot stop or accelerate the higher plan. I can only really be me and assume that nature in all it's wisdom is somehow on the job. What is the root motivation?
What is the meaning of life?
(Maybe we should not touch that one. Nasty things can happen if people go philosopholizing about the meaning of life.)
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-26-2009
(08-25-2009, 04:52 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I don't see this. A line is infinite, nothing is supposedly bigger than infinite. But a plane is still infinitely larger. Just because a universe is infinite does not mean everything can or will happen. It just means that everything that has a chance of happening will happen. There is a principle of consistency. The universe cannot be in an inconsistent state. It can be in an undefined state. But it cannot be inconsistent.
Essentially this means that we should take the suggestion that in an infinite universe everything in the most literal sense of the word will happen with a dose of salt... I'd suggest everything that can happen will happen.. But we'll never see pigs fly unless they evolve into something with wings or anti-gravity glands or what ever that then no longer can be accurately called a pig. I hope you get my point...
But what is the first motivator? Why would the creator desire to know himself. Why did he open the books in the first place?
I do see your point, and yet I still disagree. To me, it seems equally likely that infinite is indeed infinite. The degree of likelihood of a locally absurd event happening (like pigs sprouting wings and flying and still being pigs for example) is related to its degree of consistency with the current logos, as you say. But there are other Logoi in which these absurd things happen regularly, and sure you've even visited some of them in your dreams. Now, I will grant you that within this logos, we have a fairly strong set of consistency requirements that don't allow for a lot of bending of the rules related to aeronautical pigs. Still, in an infinite universe I suggest that there is a logos that is very similar to ours which does allow for such elasticity of the rules regarding pigs.
Regardless though, I think the degree of infinity of our Creators infinite universes need not be resolved to address your underlying issue, which is: "Why did the Creator choose to experience himself?" Even in your more finite (or restricted) infinity, it is clearly allowable to say that the Creator could choose to experience himself, and therefor it seems safe to conclude that since he could decide this, that he eventually did decide it. By this argument we are here not because there is anything special about here and now, per se, but rather it was simply our turn to manifest.
(08-25-2009, 04:52 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: So my question would be rephrased as why could this happen? Why do I perceive this particular state of possibility. And you another one? And essentially playing the why game from there. (I identified with this, why? Something in me resonated, why?) This will lead to a point where I have no answers.
Why did you stop being totality and become individuality. If your goal is then again to strive for totality? Would it not be smarter to just pick a side and stay there? Or rather be both and stop striving.
According to the Law of One (as communicated by Ra), your current perspective on life, the universe, and everything (credits to Douglas Adams and his Hitchhiker's Guide series) is a function of your cumulative experiences since you became a differentiated spec of consciousness. As such, you bring with you all the distilled experiences of hydrogen-ness, silicon-ness, rock-ness, amoeba-ness, planet-ness, wolf-ness, and perhaps even non-flying pig-ness in addition to all your human experiences after you activated your spirit and combined it with your mind/body complex. As such, I might ask you the opposite question: Why do we perceive things so similarly? (If this doesn't make sense yet, try again when you're 42).
Please indulge my digressing for a moment and reviewing what has happened with your consciousness leading up to the "You" that is here, now. Per my interpretation of the LOO, Dewey Larson and other synergistic works, if we were to move back in creation(s) to the moment that you became a differentiated spec of consciousness, we will see you initially as a photon having been created by the fusion of two atoms within a star. You are the offspring of very advanced entities at or beyond mid 6th density. You have within you all the frequencies of light that exist in our universe and you are still quite close to unity. As you continue riding the expanding universe you may choose to further condense and take on mass. With time you continue to become more and more physical, as it were, moving through states of matter from atoms to molecules and from plasma to gas to vapor, to liquid and eventually to solid. At the same time you combine with other such atoms/molecules and blend your consciousnesses as it were into larger ones.
In our Logos, it appears that solids are the most dense materials (and hence the most far removed from unity). At some point around here, you begin now your movement back to the creator. During your condensing phase you were also gaining experiences that are part of your consciousness, but you are existing in a timeless state of Earth, Air, Fire and Water learning the lessons of being (or existing in space/time) and striving toward this realization. Achieving this awareness of existence, prepares you to move into life based forms (ie., 1D is over for you and you are moving to 2D). The foundation upon which your trip back will build has now been set, and as a 2D entity you are striving to learn the lesson of self realization. Having done so, only now do you sprout forth as a mind/body/spirit complex that can begin experiencing catalyst aimed initially at activating the complex (through choice) , and ultimately in polarizing the complex to allow further upward growth.
It is only from this complex background that we can view the "you" that is you. This you could not be me, because I followed a different (albeit similar) path to get to this point.
(08-25-2009, 04:52 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: Besides, putting on the garb of a master brings with it the mundane fact that every pocket in the garb both hidden and in plain sight is filled to the brink with expectations to live up to. I consider that cruel and won't do it to anyone.
Fortunately, my masters robe (which, in truth, resembles a dunce's cap) is devoid of pockets, so I have no expectations that I feel the need to live up to. I also hope that you have no such expectations of me, but even if you do, there are no pockets to hold them. I like to think of this as simply two fools driveling. Of course we do still stand a chance of coming up with something worthwhile just based upon the monkeys and typewriters paradigm.
(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I think you can't even do that. If you write yourself in the script you'll still be in it. And the moments you were in it will influence the whole script. If you put two hands filled with water together then no force in the world will ever be able to separate the two waters. You can make two new hands filled with water. But the waters are forever bound together. The fact that you exist right now is true. From here there is no future possible where you did not exist before. Even if you find a way to write yourself out of the script or some approximation.
This is an intriguing tangent, which I'd like avoid it for now, by saying that by "writing myself out" I simply meant removing myself from the stage (i.e., death), not removing my prior existence therefrom as well.
(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: As far as remembering is concerned: I'm basically assuming that if the creature I was before forgetting is really as powerful as it seems. I won't need to recognize them. I wont even need the notes. The creature will just tell me. It's talking I think I can assume that it's telling me what it wants me to know.
To me, this gets to the issue of finding the love in each moment. My examining each moment and recognizing in its simplicity, complexity, emotions, desires, fears, fascinations, etc, we are, I think reading the notes. What we then do with this love, once we find it is up to us.
(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: There is a slight difference in approach for me as a Muslim that I have been able to make out. You might know the phrase "Insha'Allah" it pretty much means. If it is Gods will. I can say "I go to the bank tomorrow" but to be precise I have to add "Insha'Allah". I don't know if I will go to the bank, if it is Gods will.. I will.. If God decides against it... I won't.
Now we can call God Allah Jahweh, higher self, Buddha Nature, great spirit or the sky fairy. But in the end, if your higher self decides against it, you won't be going to the bank.
It's clear to me that this is correct. How can you argue with an advanced version of yourself? But that leaves me asking. Why am I at all required? I cannot stop or accelerate the higher plan. I can only really be me and assume that nature in all it's wisdom is somehow on the job. What is the root motivation?
Consider a pin-ball machine as an analogy. For simplicity let us say that the movement of the ball within the machine represents the pin-ball's free will choices of where to go. Those choices are influenced by the bumpers over which it has no control. The higher-self, who is interested in aiding the ball by maximizing its experiences while in play, is also able to influence the ball on occasion, in such a way as to help keep it in play. Still, the ball does have its own free will and sometimes, despite the best intentions of the higher self to help the ball, it instead, knocks it into a bumper that immediately slams it out of play. So why are you (the ball) required? Because with[out] you, there is no play! The machine (our Logos) is waiting for our higher selves to step up and start the game.
(08-25-2009, 04:38 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: What is the meaning of life?
(Maybe we should not touch that one. Nasty things can happen if people go philosopholizing about the meaning of life.)
By the above analogy, the purpose of life is to get as many points as possible. That is to say, bring back to the One Infinite Creator the best possible bounty of experiences that we can from our existences.
Or then again, it may be to amuse our higher-self as it sips the cosmic beer that it has rested on the machine while it plays.
3D Sunset
[]=edits after the original post
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - greywolf - 08-26-2009
(08-24-2009, 10:29 AM)3D Sunset Wrote:Ra, Book II, Session 29 Wrote:Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field.
Questioner: Do the sub-Logoi such as our sun have a metaphysical polarity positive or negative as we have been using the term?
Ra: I am Ra. As you use the term, this is not so. Entities through the level of planetary have the strength of intelligent infinity through the use of free will, going through the actions of beingness. The polarity is not thusly as you understand polarity. It is only when the planetary sphere begins harmonically interacting with mind/body complexes, and more especially mind/body/spirit complexes, that planetary spheres take on distortions due to the thought complexes of entities interacting with the planetary entity. The creation of the one infinite Creator does not have the polarity you speak of.
Based upon this, it would seem that the harmonic interactions can be with mind/bodies (i.e., 2D life forms) as well as mind/body/spirits (i.e., 3D life forms). So by "harmonic", I think Ra means that there is a mutual give and take between the lifeforms - like evolution say - not that the give and take is necessarily always in perfect harmony (as might be more expected in 4D and beyond). So, it wold not make sense to me that a planet would be a Logos while in 2d then revert to its parent Logos while in "disharmonious" 3D until it can again emerge as a Logos in 4D. Much more likely that the Earth has emerged as a Logos distinct from, but hierarchically subordinate to, its Sun Logos when it emerged from its timeless state in late 1D.
I think I see now how this can be interpreted that way. Perhaps another reason for the statement about the questioner being a sub-sub-logos is the other statement that one single logos has created the entirety of this particular galaxy. Perhaps in this galaxy there could then be some form of direct relationship between planets and the "galactic center" or "primal source". A planetary logos if it exists seems to be a fairly passive entity in general, I think Ra also mentions the solar logos setting the parameters/rules (or "distortions") for the entire solar system.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-26-2009
(08-26-2009, 11:19 AM)greywolf Wrote: A planetary logos if it exists seems to be a fairly passive entity in general, I think Ra also mentions the solar logos setting the parameters/rules (or "distortions") for the entire solar system.
This gets, to me at least, to one of the more interesting aspects of this discussion. Although the solar logos does define the overall rules for how the solar system will evolve, it would seem that the Earth, as logos, has free will to define how things will evolve within those rules. Thus, my assertion that the quarantine was also necessary due to the infringement of the free will of the Earth as logos, when Yahweh modified the genetic code of humans to make them closer to his view of what was more conducive to the 3D experiences when he was transporting those from Mars to Earth for their continued 3D existence. Note that this story is strikingly similar to the biblical tradition that "God created man in his own image." "His image" being not what He looked like, but rather His mental image of what they should look like.
If my interpretation of the words of Ra are correct however, it begs the question of why Ra would have chosen to obscure this relationship of Earth as logos, and also why Ra indicated that it was only the free will of those of Mars that were infringed by Yahweh's altering the genetic code. It would seem that the process of bringing alien 3D consciousness to Earth would also infringe upon Earth's free will, especially in that Earth was inherently tasked with harmonic interaction with them, as well as the duty/honor of providing them an environment for resolving their karmic debt for rendering their home planet inhabitable.
I may be completely off base in my interpretations, but these thoughts resonate with me, and so I am pursuing them.
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - greywolf - 08-26-2009
(08-26-2009, 12:51 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 11:19 AM)greywolf Wrote: A planetary logos if it exists seems to be a fairly passive entity in general, I think Ra also mentions the solar logos setting the parameters/rules (or "distortions") for the entire solar system.
This gets, to me at least, to one of the more interesting aspects of this discussion. Although the solar logos does define the overall rules for how the solar system will evolve, it would seem that the Earth, as logos, has free will to define how things will evolve within those rules. Thus, my assertion that the quarantine was also necessary due to the infringement of the free will of the Earth as logos, when Yahweh modified the genetic code of humans to make them closer to his view of what was more conducive to the 3D experiences when he was transporting those from Mars to Earth for their continued 3D existence. Note that this story is strikingly similar to the biblical tradition that "God created man in his own image." "His image" being not what He looked like, but rather His mental image of what they should look like.
If my interpretation of the words of Ra are correct however, it begs the question of why Ra would have chosen to obscure this relationship of Earth as logos, and also why Ra indicated that it was only the free will of those of Mars that were infringed by Yahweh's altering the genetic code. It would seem that the process of bringing alien 3D consciousness to Earth would also infringe upon Earth's free will, especially in that Earth was inherently tasked with harmonic interaction with them, as well as the duty/honor of providing them an environment for resolving their karmic debt for rendering their home planet inhabitable.
I'm not sure I see it as a violation of free will since the power to act is not altered only the subsequent design modified somewhat. And this design I see as being carried out passively through its own momentum, since an activist planetary logos would surely prevent negative polarization (given how it's discouraged) or destruction of the planet at least. Also the design of the Earth need not involve third density beings at all, they after all are said to come freely from around the galaxy anyway. And a pre-determined design or mold on them seems to be a violation of their free will to evolve as they wish.
The quarantine can maybe be seen as some kind of "double punishment" after infringing the free will, but it can also be seen as a negative compensatory act after giving the enhancements, blocking further assistance towards polarization in either direction (so assistance can only be given if invoked through free will). On other planets/systems more direct interference is perhaps possible.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-26-2009
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: I'm not sure I see it as a violation of free will since the power to act is not altered only the subsequent design modified somewhat.
It would seem to me that the modification of the design from that which was produced by the planetary logos is, per se, an infringement of its free will to create designs. It would seem to me that the term "not invented here" may apply.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: And this design I see as being carried out passively through its own momentum, since an activist planetary logos would surely prevent negative polarization (given how it's discouraged) or destruction of the planet at least.
You lost me on this train of thought. Please elucidate what you mean by "And this design I see as being carried out passively through its own momentum"
As for planetary Logoi being able to prevent destruction of the planet, I would suggest that this is not the case as witnessed by both Mars and Maldek.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: Also the design of the Earth need not involve third density beings at all, they after all are said to come freely from around the galaxy anyway.
True, it need not. But the time had come for it to, as was obviously the plan of the solar system and galactic Logoi.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: And a pre-determined design or mold on them seems to be a violation of their free will to evolve as they wish.
I believe that we are making the same point from slightly different perspectives, and it gets back to the issue of harmonious interaction between planet and m/b/s complexes. If those m/b/s complexes are allowed to evolve and transition to and through 3D on their home planet, using the designs of the home planet that were harmoniously developed between the m/b complexes and the home planet, then it would seem that both parties free will remains uninfringed.
Per your argument, in the case where an alien is injected into a foreign planet, it's free will is infringed if the available m/b complexes are too different than on its home planet.
Similarly, by my argument, the planet's free will is infringed if changes are made to its locally developed m/b complexes in an attempt to minimize the changes experienced by alien entities now inhabiting the planet.
I am beginning to like this train of thought.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: The quarantine can maybe be seen as some kind of "double punishment" after infringing the free will, but it can also be seen as a negative compensatory act after giving the enhancements, blocking further assistance towards polarization in either direction (so assistance can only be given if invoked through free will). On other planets/systems more direct interference is perhaps possible.
I haven't really gotten into the question of how the quarantine was intended to be effective, but I don't see it as a punishment. Rather, I see it as a protection because it was felt that the changes may well have included a tendency toward negative polarization. I will offer as an example here the opposable thumb which Ra states was selected by our Logos for its 3D forms.
Law of One, Book IV, Session 90 Wrote:Questioner: There seems to have been created by this Logos, to me anyway, a large percentage of entities whose distortion was towards warfare. There have been the Maldek and Mars experiences and now Earth. It seems that Venus was the exception to what we could almost call the rule of warfare. Is this correct and was this envisioned and planned into the construction of the archetypical mind, possibly not with respect to warfare as we have experienced it but as to the extreme action of polarization in consciousness?
Ra: I am Ra. It is correct that the Logos designed Its experiment to attempt to achieve the greatest possible opportunities for polarization in third density. It is incorrect that warfare of the types specific to your experiences was planned by the Logos. This form of expression of hostility is an interesting result which is apparently concomitant with the tool-making ability. The choice of the Logos to use the life-form with the grasping thumb is the decision to which this type of warfare may be traced.
Questioner: Then did our Logos hope to see generated a positive and negative harvest from each density up to the sixth, starting with the third, as being the most efficient form of generating experience known to It at the time of Its construction of this system of evolution?
Ra: I am Ra. Yes.
Was there perhaps another change that was local to Mars, that it was felt important to bring forward to 3D Earth, that also created a bias toward STS rather than our Logos' preferred bias toward STO? If so, then the quarantine would be appropriate for these three reasons acting in concert: 1) infringement of m/b/s complexes free will, 2) infringement of planetary free will, and 3) infringement of the Solar systems' free will to bias 3D toward STO.
Pure speculation here, but interesting thoughts none the less.
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - greywolf - 08-26-2009
(08-26-2009, 03:59 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: I'm not sure I see it as a violation of free will since the power to act is not altered only the subsequent design modified somewhat.
It would seem to me that the modification of the design from that which was produced by the planetary logos is, per se, an infringement of its free will to create designs. It would seem to me that the term "not invented here" may apply.
Well with this argument any human action on the planet is also a violation of this free will.
(08-26-2009, 03:59 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: And this design I see as being carried out passively through its own momentum, since an activist planetary logos would surely prevent negative polarization (given how it's discouraged) or destruction of the planet at least.
You lost me on this train of thought. Please elucidate what you mean by "And this design I see as being carried out passively through its own momentum"
That the logos does nothing subsequent to creating a design.
(08-26-2009, 03:59 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: Also the design of the Earth need not involve third density beings at all, they after all are said to come freely from around the galaxy anyway.
True, it need not. But the time had come for it to, as was obviously the plan of the solar system and galactic Logoi.
And if there is no prior design for third density there was no violation of it.
(08-26-2009, 03:59 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: Per your argument, in the case where an alien is injected into a foreign planet, it's free will is infringed if the available m/b complexes are too different than on its home planet.
No it's a violation if there exists at all a design or plan for third density beings which they are expected to conform to in all their actions. Not just a template but something that's not allowed to be manipulated in any way.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-26-2009
Hello again dear greywolf,
I thought that we were closing ground, but it appears we are instead growing further apart. Still, I would like to make sure I completely understand your perspective on these topics.
(08-26-2009, 04:22 PM)greywolf Wrote: Well with this argument any human action on the planet is also a violation of this free will.
Not at all, my friend! The whole purpose of life on a planet is interaction. Rather, what I said was the imposition or tinkering of a design by forces outside of the planet (i.e., Yahweh) is a violation. Note that the evolution of m/b and m/b/s complexes are the responsibility of the planetary logos. Once aliens (or resident) m/b/s complexes are here, they must be able to act in accordance with their free will distortions, provided that the planetary Logos has granted Free Will to its 3D entities (as is clearly the case here on Earth).
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: That the logos does nothing subsequent to creating a design.I would content rather that the Logos remains involved in evolving the design after it has created it.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: And if there is no prior design for third density there was no violation of it.
But clearly there was a design intended to evolve into 3D, much of it being dictated by the Solar Logos. That being the "bipedal, erect form of the second-density apes". Again, my point is only that per Ra, Yahweh modified the form of the apes to better accommodate the needs of those from Mars. As long as you believe that Yahweh is not the name for the Earth Logos, I do not see how you can argue that this provides the opportunity for infringement of Earth's free will to evolve its own base forms for use by 3D life forms.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: No it's a violation if there exists at all a design or plan for third density beings which they are expected to conform to in all their actions. Not just a template but something that's not allowed to be manipulated in any way.
As I stated earlier, there clearly was a design for 3D beings stated by the Solar Logos. I'm not sure what you mean by 3D m/b/s complexes "conforming to their bodies in all their actions". But the m/b portions of the m/b/s complex (not just the templates for them, but the actual physical m/b) are provided by the planet. Once they reside in the m/b complexes they are free to manipulate them however they may choose through their free will actions. Note that this does include the genetic engineering of human m/b complexes.
Thanks for your continued feedback and patience as we strive to hash this out,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - Ali Quadir - 08-26-2009
(08-26-2009, 10:52 AM)3D Sunset Wrote:I am afraid you missed my point. You're totally right every thing you state happens at some point in space time. But these creatures are not pigs. These avian hogs are neither descended from or ancestors to our earthly more pedestrian pigs.(08-25-2009, 04:52 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: Essentially this means that we should take the suggestion that in an infinite universe everything in the most literal sense of the word will happen with a dose of salt... I'd suggest everything that can happen will happen.. But we'll never see pigs fly unless they evolve into something with wings or anti-gravity glands or what ever that then no longer can be accurately called a pig. I hope you get my point...
I do see your point, and yet I still disagree. To me, it seems equally likely that infinite is indeed infinite. The degree of likelihood of a locally absurd event happening (like pigs sprouting wings and flying and still being pigs for example) is related to its degree of consistency with the current logos, as you say. But there are other Logoi in which these absurd things happen regularly, and sure you've even visited some of them in your dreams. Now, I will grant you that within this logos, we have a fairly strong set of consistency requirements that don't allow for a lot of bending of the rules related to aeronautical pigs. Still, in an infinite universe I suggest that there is a logos that is very similar to ours which does allow for such elasticity of the rules regarding pigs.
In other words. If I take a random pig from our terrestrial stock. Then both it's future and past are undefined. The closer we come to the now the more certain we are about the things that lead up to or originate from our pig.
For example I might know for a fact that the pig stole an apple pie yesterday. I also know that it will eventually end up on someones plate. Although that latter bit is less certain. I know that aeons past the ancestors to this pig were wild hogs. I don't know where they were or what they were doing like I know what the pig is doing now. And I know that in future times the ancestors of this pig wil likely evolve into something different. I do know for a fact that nothing could have happened in the past that would make this pig impossible. It's ancestors were not at some point wiped out. It's ancestors did not grow into birds. And they certainly did not learn to make their own apple pies.
Neither in future, nor past for this particular pig is this pig avian. With the exception that I mentioned earlier. It might actually evolve wings over time. We will call that thing differently our pig was the ancestor for the avian pig but it will not be an avian pig itself.
It might sound far fetched or odd to look at it like this. I see a symmetry with self. Just like the pig has a kind of local truth that limits its manifestation. I too have a local truth. I do not manifest as you. Because I manifest as me. Manifesting as you would exclude my experience as self and since I experience that I exist this cannot be.
Quote:Regardless though, I think the degree of infinity of our Creators infinite universes need not be resolved to address your underlying issue, which is: "Why did the Creator choose to experience himself?" Even in your more finite (or restricted) infinity, it is clearly allowable to say that the Creator could choose to experience himself, and therefor it seems safe to conclude that since he could decide this, that he eventually did decide it. By this argument we are here not because there is anything special about here and now, per se, but rather it was simply our turn to manifest.Isn't that invoking the god of statistics? I'm usually a big fan by the way. But it seems to me that a chance for something to happen means there is a reason for that something to happen. Without the reason the chance would be zero.. I want to know the reason, I know it must be there because it happened. The chance that it happened can be everything between one and zero. Actually excluding zero itself since we know it happened.
Quote:It is only from this complex background that we can view the "you" that is you. This you could not be me, because I followed a different (albeit similar) path to get to this point.I agree! But the question is not so much how did it happen.. The question is why did it happen?
Quote:Consider a pin-ball machine as an analogy. For simplicity let us say that the movement of the ball within the machine represents the pin-ball's free will choices of where to go. Those choices are influenced by the bumpers over which it has no control. The higher-self, who is interested in aiding the ball by maximizing its experiences while in play, is also able to influence the ball on occasion, in such a way as to help keep it in play. Still, the ball does have its own free will and sometimes, despite the best intentions of the higher self to help the ball, it instead, knocks it into a bumper that immediately slams it out of play. So why are you (the ball) required? Because with you, there is no play! The machine (our Logos) is waiting for our higher selves to step up and start the game.I think this is actually a very good analogy... First of all it expresses that the ball is an essential part of the machine. Secondly it describes how the ball inherently influences the machine. Thirdly it describes how the ball has no control over the machine beyond it's own inherent properties.
However it fails to explain why I experience me, and not you. Without my conscious experience I would be an automaton, like the ball in the pinball machine. And the machine would work. Ball consciousness is not required for the machine to function. The ball will remain in play Insha'Allah, or the ball will exit the game, Insha'Allah.
If the ball had consciousness then it might have a tremendous time between being launched and leaving the game. Or it might hate every second of it. The player won't notice because the ball's consciousness has no effect..
Consciousness must have an effect. Why am I me? What is the effect of this that made it a requirement?
Quote:By the above analogy, the purpose of life is to get as many points as possible. That is to say, bring back to the One Infinite Creator the best possible bounty of experiences that we can from our existences.With more definitive answers pending I'm rooting for the point being the cosmic beer
Or then again, it may be to amuse our higher-self as it sips the cosmic beer that it has rested on the machine while it plays.
I'm not clear on the subject yet. It might seem I'm looking for a strange problem here. But I've been stuck on it for the last ten or more years. I never was able to figure out why I would experience this self and not some other self. Or why I experience now, and not my future or past self.
Just before my initiation into Sufism we walked towards a specific tree in a forest. I had made a particular connection with that tree before. Not only did I feel better about that tree than I felt about the local Sufi temple. It was also much more practically located. At any rate as we were walking there. I got the impression of walking there from a thousand different angles. It was like me. In a lot of different alternative universes. Or in other words: me, extended on the probability axis. This legion of me was walking towards the same tree all converging in the same conscious moment which was extreme. The energies involved were strong I wondered if I could remain standing, my knees were buckling my witness had burst into tears and my initiator later commented that he had not seen this very often.
I feel the unusual power surge was the gathering of myself into that particular time and place creating a focal point for our collective energies to create one major experience for us all to have, we became one in that moment.
I can't figure out why we're not one all the time. We are but why don't we experience this?
The alien part of my psyche came from a place where this wall is much less strong. To know everything about an individual you'd only need to focus your attention on them. This individualisation phase that humans have excelled at is a bit lost to them. Which is part of why I'm here. It appears to be an important part of the earth experiment. This gives me the feeling that it's odd for us spiritual types to want to rush out of this unique state so quickly back to the more common state of unity. Are we perhaps leaving Aladdin's cave without retrieving the lamp?
Hopefully this gives you some insight in my underlying motivations for asking the question.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - greywolf - 08-27-2009
(08-26-2009, 04:56 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 04:22 PM)greywolf Wrote: Well with this argument any human action on the planet is also a violation of this free will.
Not at all, my friend! The whole purpose of life on a planet is interaction. Rather, what I said was the imposition or tinkering of a design by forces outside of the planet (i.e., Yahweh) is a violation.
Ok, that's where we differ as I see no essential essential difference between forces outside or inside a planet. To me it seems somewhat like saying a foreigner coming to Egypt and defacing a pyramid is violating the free will of its builders. And distorting the design would appear at least to some extent the purpose of existence of the Orion forces (since they if nothing else seek to suppress free will) yet their actions are not compensated to the logos like you are suggesting did happen.
(08-26-2009, 04:56 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: That the logos does nothing subsequent to creating a design.I would content rather that the Logos remains involved in evolving the design after it has created it.
This would be to me too significant infringement of free will. I see the design as possibly working as an archetype or ideal in the root mind. Evolution is driven primarily by idealistic sexual selection and not by mutation as such.
(08-26-2009, 04:56 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: And if there is no prior design for third density there was no violation of it.As long as you believe that Yahweh is not the name for the Earth Logos, I do not see how you can argue that this provides the opportunity for infringement of Earth's free will to evolve its own base forms for use by 3D life forms.
I suppose the basic difference here is maybe that you believe in continued interventionist evolution, while I believe in the logos just setting the blueprint and leaving it at that. With your perspective, since humanoids have existed only for a relatively short time I suppose one would have to conclude most of the time the logos was just wasting time or playing games (since active genetic engineering can accomplish results in few generations as animal breeders could attest, the diversity of human forms also indicates this). Also he did not prevent near extinction of his prize creation in Lemuria (even scientists agree there was a massive reduction in human genetic diversity in the timeframe given by Ra). Ra does mention random events occuring in first density.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-27-2009
(08-26-2009, 05:42 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I am afraid you missed my point. You're totally right every thing you state happens at some point in space time. But these creatures are not pigs. These avian hogs are neither descended from or ancestors to our earthly more pedestrian pigs.
In other words. If I take a random pig from our terrestrial stock. Then both it's future and past are undefined. The closer we come to the now the more certain we are about the things that lead up to or originate from our pig.
For example I might know for a fact that the pig stole an apple pie yesterday. I also know that it will eventually end up on someones plate. Although that latter bit is less certain. I know that aeons past the ancestors to this pig were wild hogs. I don't know where they were or what they were doing like I know what the pig is doing now. And I know that in future times the ancestors of this pig wil likely evolve into something different. I do know for a fact that nothing could have happened in the past that would make this pig impossible. It's ancestors were not at some point wiped out. It's ancestors did not grow into birds. And they certainly did not learn to make their own apple pies.
Neither in future, nor past for this particular pig is this pig avian. With the exception that I mentioned earlier. It might actually evolve wings over time. We will call that thing differently our pig was the ancestor for the avian pig but it will not be an avian pig itself.
It might sound far fetched or odd to look at it like this. I see a symmetry with self. Just like the pig has a kind of local truth that limits its manifestation. I too have a local truth. I do not manifest as you. Because I manifest as me. Manifesting as you would exclude my experience as self and since I experience that I exist this cannot be.
This may be a good topic for another thread, but I still think that all your above statements about what can/did/could happen are foundationally based upon how things work in our current Logos. I am simply suggesting that these rules do not apply in other Logoi of which we can only imagine. And in an infinite universe of infiinate Logoi, there is a lot of room for not just everything we can image, but an awful lot that we can't.
Quote:Isn't that invoking the god of statistics? I'm usually a big fan by the way. But it seems to me that a chance for something to happen means there is a reason for that something to happen. Without the reason the chance would be zero.. I want to know the reason, I know it must be there because it happened. The chance that it happened can be everything between one and zero. Actually excluding zero itself since we know it happened.
Granted it is invoking the god of statistics, but that seemed like the most convenient way to agree that there is a solution to the question "Why did God choose to experience himself.", and move on. My point was that if the probability is not zero (as it clearly isn't, because we exist), then it must eventually happen in an infinite universe. There actually needn't be an underlying reason other than that.
As to the possible underlying reason, I personally like the idea that unity for ever and ever and ever and ever eventually gets boring. God wanted to spice up his existence a little bit or maybe he just wanted a vacation from all that perfect harmony, or maybe our Logos is the result of a cosmic burp. All kidding aside, I strongly resonate with the idea that the need to create or manifest is inherent in Godliness. These and similar argument simply put the probability closer to 1 than 0 though, the effect is the same. It had to happen eventually and so it did.
Quote:I agree! But the question is not so much how did it happen.. The question is why did it happen?
I know that this answer is not satisfying for you, but the above argument applies here as well, by extension. I think that it may be better than you think at first blush though, because there is, in my experience a very close relationship between the how's and the why's of existence.
It seems to me that given infinity to play with the parameters, I think this is a pretty decent approach for creating a stage on which specs of consciousness can act and interact. But hey, that's just me.
Quote:However it fails to explain why I experience me, and not you. Without my conscious experience I would be an automaton, like the ball in the pinball machine. And the machine would work. Ball consciousness is not required for the machine to function. The ball will remain in play Insha'Allah, or the ball will exit the game, Insha'Allah.
If the ball had consciousness then it might have a tremendous time between being launched and leaving the game. Or it might hate every second of it. The player won't notice because the ball's consciousness has no effect..
Consciousness must have an effect. Why am I me? What is the effect of this that made it a requirement?
[quote]I'm not clear on the subject yet. It might seem I'm looking for a strange problem here. But I've been stuck on it for the last ten or more years. I never was able to figure out why I would experience this self and not some other self. Or why I experience now, and not my future or past self.
The alien part of my psyche came from a place where this wall is much less strong. To know everything about an individual you'd only need to focus your attention on them. This individualisation phase that humans have excelled at is a bit lost to them. Which is part of why I'm here. It appears to be an important part of the earth experiment. This gives me the feeling that it's odd for us spiritual types to want to rush out of this unique state so quickly back to the more common state of unity. Are we perhaps leaving Aladdin's cave without retrieving the lamp?
Hopefully this gives you some insight in my underlying motivations for asking the question.
It does, thank you!
. I have a few passing thoughts that may or may not be relevant, but I want to share them nonetheless:Ra talks about our Logos choosing aspects of our bodies in order to thicken the veil. For example by creating the opposable thumb, it became easier to make tools rather than harness the power of our minds. I find the idea of a thicker veil intriguing, and am frustrated by its existence daily. But back to how/why dichotomy(?), I can see that the thicker veil can have the effect of increasing the richness of our experiences both before and after we penetrate it.
It also would appear that by working in consciousness as we do, we each are stretching or weakening different portions of our veils. You are currently pushing on that portion which hides the underlying reasons of "why". I am confident that you will eventually reach a satisfactory answer to that.
I am frequently struck by the sensation that I only just this instant entered my consciousness. Like everything was a paused video waiting for me to enter this scene and hit play. For just that moment, I genuinely know that all my memories are conveniently contrived to give me context in which to experience that very moment. I also know that in the next moment I will flash over to someone else that is someplace else. But for that moment I am there and I have an entire history and future that I can revel in, and I do. Whenever I have these moments of lucidity (as I call them), I make a point of really focusing on what's happening in and around me. What I find most fascinating is that these moments always occur at what seems the most mundane instants. Perhaps there is true profundity in the mundane.
When I was growing up I had a belief/feeling/intuition/fantasy that there were really on two entities in the world. They were me and my father. In this fantasy my father moved quicker than the speed of light and took on the roles of every other person in the world. Every conversation that I had was really a conversation with my father. Everything I did, I did with my father, and through our constant interaction he was helping me learn. At the end of the day, when I would see my father playing the role of himself, I always marveled at how well he kept up the charade. Eventually, I came to realize that my father in this fantasy was really me, and that I was even playing him. I came to this realization at about age 15. This was as close to a spiritual epiphany as I've ever had, but the close feeling of familiarity with everyone resides in me still.
Good talking to you, Dad.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - 3D Sunset - 08-27-2009
Hi again greywolf,
(08-27-2009, 02:49 AM)greywolf Wrote: And distorting the design would appear at least to some extent the purpose of existence of the Orion forces (since they if nothing else seek to suppress free will) yet their actions are not compensated to the logos like you are suggesting did happen.
I never intended to suggest that any compensation took place. Please clarify what you are referring to here.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: This would be to me too significant infringement of free will. I see the design as possibly working as an archetype or ideal in the root mind. Evolution is driven primarily by idealistic sexual selection and not by mutation as such.
Whose free will do you see being violated here? Are you saying that the parents free will is violated by random genetic mutations in their offspring? For this is what I see as a type of on-going interaction between the Logos (be it planetary or solar) and the life forms. Indeed, we learn from the Law of One that our 3D bodies will evolve into 4D forms. Whom do you say directs this evolution? Is it the logos or the m/b/s complexes? I suggest that it is the m/b/s complexes working in harmony with the planetary logos within the bounds established by the solar logos.
(08-26-2009, 01:54 PM)greywolf Wrote: I suppose the basic difference here is maybe that you believe in continued interventionist evolution, while I believe in the logos just setting the blueprint and leaving it at that. With your perspective, since humanoids have existed only for a relatively short time I suppose one would have to conclude most of the time the logos was just wasting time or playing games (since active genetic engineering can accomplish results in few generations as animal breeders could attest, the diversity of human forms also indicates this). Also he did not prevent near extinction of his prize creation in Lemuria (even scientists agree there was a massive reduction in human genetic diversity in the timeframe given by Ra). Ra does mention random events occuring in first density.
I never said that 3D life forms were the desired end game of the planetary logos. It developed and nurtured all consciousness from 1D trough 3D with the same love and care that it will bestow on 4D life forms after it helps them evolve. So no, I emphatically do not think that "the logos was just wasting time or playing games" prior to that.
Whether or not one believes in Lemuria, an evolutionary bottleneck that occurred roughly 70,000 years ago in Africa has indeed been scientifically documented. I feel that this is related to the extraterrestrial interaction that I've alluded to. It is estimated that at that time the world's entire population of childbearing women was reduced to about 5,000. This is an astonishingly small gene pool from which we have descended, and points to how genetically similar we really all are.
Ra indicates that random events occur all the time. From every pregnancy to many of the genetic issues that people possess (he also indicates that some of these are not random, but are pre-incarnatively chosen for a specific life lesson). So I don't get what you point is here. But just as many are random, I suggest that many others are guided by the hand of the logos to direct evolution of the physical forms, both prior to 3D and now as we prepare to enter 4D.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators in our Octave - Eddie - 08-30-2009
(08-21-2009, 11:13 AM)3D Sunset Wrote: Hello fellow students of the Law of One. ................
Sorry again for the length of the post. All comments are welcomed,
3D Sunset
That was an elegant and well-thought-out analysis.
I think that a lot of us here feel this way intuitively, but cannot always express our suspicions this well. Good work.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - Ole - 08-31-2009
This is a great thread, very interesting discussions.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - firesprite - 09-04-2009
It is my belief that as The Infinite One we lost perspective of our Self/Love. We needed a way of comparison and only as experiencing every single aspect of possibility that we regain the knowledge of True Self or complete Oneness. I believe that whether it is Me as this physical body or some other manifest of Me as One, every possibility exists at every now, always in it's own reality(which I think is important). Each of all play a crucial role that can be filled by no other manifestation of Me as One. This is what my intuition tells me now.
I love you,
Fire Sprite
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - 3D Sunset - 09-10-2009
Hello firesprite, and welcome to the forum. I hope that your travels continue well for you, and I look forward to interacting with you more in the future.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - paddy - 10-02-2009
Quote:...I can see that the thicker veil can have the effect of increasing the richness of our experiences both before and after we penetrate it. .."
It may be that the recognition of a veil is a baby step in penetrating it. For example, a person may better recognize the opportunity of ignorance as a factor in any important decision making process, which then may act as seeking catalyst that can result in some revelation that facilitates making a better choice.
The veil may be a moving target with trade offs. We unveil some facet and by trade-off we neglect some other facet which acts to veil us otherwise. I think recognizing the vehicle of the human being as having finite capacity to comprehend the whole reality may help a person to better arrive to the crux of their situations.
Thanks group for sharing your space and time here.
I am signing off, wandering off now, (as agreed upon earlier.)
blessings,
paddy
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - litllady - 11-22-2009
Loving this thread....interesting perspective. Appreciating the time others are putting into all the discussions here.
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - 3D Sunset - 11-23-2009
(11-22-2009, 05:01 PM)litllady Wrote: Loving this thread....interesting perspective. Appreciating the time others are putting into all the discussions here.
Hi Lynettte,
Thank you for your kind thoughts, and welcome to the forum. I think you'll like it here at Bring4th, I came from DC back in January and have really not missed it at all. I hope your mother is still doing well and your boys are busy as ever just being boys.
Love and Light,
3D Sunset
RE: Logoi and Co-creators - litllady - 11-23-2009
I am feeling very at home here...thank you so much!
To already have others here that I crossed paths with at DC is awesome. My mother is still fighting...I appreciate that she is still in your thoughts. My kids are wonderful, always busy bees. Ages 13, 11 (my girl) and my youngest will be 4 Dec. 16!
My mom will be in a fighting battle until she leaves this body here. She can use daily thoughts of strength and love to deal with the road she has been given. I believe part of the reason she is still with us is all the energies that people at DC has sent her.
My best always
Lynette