There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY

[Quantum]

The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe.

Why must one be negated in favor of the other? As Nassim Haramein's work illustrates, both are equally true.

What I note is that you (speaking to unity) must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same.

Please see above in bold.This is exactly what I said. I am attempting first to lead Unity to the converse of his one way logic in the hopes of then bridging it to the other side. See?

negative and positive polarization is the action of absorbing or emitting energy.

I would challenge this by simply suggesting that negative is about withholding light as its primary definition, which may at times encompass absorbing others light, but only at great risk to themselves, which clearly is indicative that STS does not engage in absorption as a definition or in consistency. STS in short is in a constant state of withholding light, but is not in a constant state of absorbing light, ergo negative definition is withholding vs absorbing. The opposite of emitting is withholding, not absorbing, as in offering love vs withholding love. Would that your definition were true, STS then would in fact be absorbing STO love, which they will ultimately do at mid 6th when merged with STO, which defines the point of the withholding initially but then absorbing ultimately. It is in the attempt to depolarize STO that allows STS to increase polarity, even to the point of snuffing out said light of STO (which is the antithesis of absorbing), this as another point and reference to the definition that they do not absorb STO but rather only depolarize STO, thereby polarizing more greatly as STS.

51% positive, and 95% negative polarization defines minimum negative, and positive. this, as Ra says, gives the potential to do work, in the ensuing densities to these focuses.

51% defines only positive in 3D? 95% negative defines only 3D? Please cite reference where Ra states this is same in ensuing densities. I in fact presume and wrote previously that at mid 6th said entropy may indeed increase for STS thus causing necessity of enfoldment into STO. One may argue same holds true for STO and that said 51% also increases in order to ensue further up the ladder of densities.

if we move to Ra's quote about entropy ... ra says that entropy causes disintegration of negative complexes, therefore maintaining balance.

You misunderstand the quote? Disintegration does not serve STS to maintain balance. Neither does STS disintegration serve to maintain balance generally for STO. Surely you are not suggesting that STS disintegrates willingly? STS disintegrates as a result of the definition of entropy which is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a process. What is the process inferred of STS in this case? The concentrated power required to control,manipulate, etc self vs others. What else is the definition of entropy but same, i.e. energy dissipating as a result of its constant drain to control self or others?

even if you take the entropy as the thing maintaining this balance, it would still mean that the balance is kept at a point where the negative entities are 1/10 of positives, but equal in power, and therefore laws of balance blinking to neither side.

Forgive me if I sound confused or coy, but are we speaking "Unity100 Philosophy" or "The LOO and Ra Teachings?" "The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness," not " the laws of balance blink to neither side." Unity, I am not being pedantic when I suggest that these misquotes and misunderstandings are no small points on your part. They distort the LOO teachings if left unchecked as much as derail the conversations. If we wish to challenge the Ra Material or question it, perhaps we may do so more openly on a separate thread rather than mixing terms and confusing dialogues as though they were Ra statements. This method would be far more elegant, open, and on the table, so to speak, given that you openly and honestly state, for which I commend you (see below):

i have no problems in disagreeing with Ra.

negative is not about 'control'. it is one of its traits, but it is not something as simple as that. negative polarization is about absorbing light. it is an energy matter, the potential which is used for work.

I respectfully disagree once again as addressed above. STS withholds vs absorbs. To use your verbiage in this case, negative may absorb yes, but only as one of its traits. Absorption as stated above is not its primary directive.Withholding love is. If you disagree that love is not light then we perhaps have another reason to create another thread to the above suggestion of what are the "Disagreements to the Ra Material." I can not however think of a single reason for doing so as it defeats the purpose for being here in as much as one might naturally assume that we are in agreement with the Ra Material.

an entity emits 51% light. this is its polarity, its power. another absorbs 95% light. this is its polarity and its power.

same point as before (re: absorption vs withholding).

therefore, regardless of how we take the balance situation Ra speaks of, we have the following situation...power of negative entities are equal to positives in totality, but they are always 1/10th the number of positives. and balance is maintained. that means, if the power of entire negative population is divided into negative population, that means the average power available to the average negative is 10 times the power available to average positive.

If a premise, and/or premises are incorrect, irrespective of the intellectual argument or the adroitness of them put forth, it nevertheless then follows that so too are its conclusions, thus rendering them moot.

there are considerations in regard to distribution of that power, it is possible that the ones higher in the pile in a negative hierarchy have more power, the average grunt has less power, and the resulting power ends up equal due to synergy of both sides inside themselves.

I agree with this. But this is self evident in any system of hierarchy.

Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.

two entropies are not necessarily same. the entropy the negative 6 d entity experiences is, transplanting itself in the place of infinite energy as the entirety of infinite energy. the other entropy is about energy balance

???? This does does not address my argument made above regarding your supposition of either absorption or entropy? I would only repeat the same as above. I would further add that you seem to be suggesting that STO also encounters disintegration/entropy through its efforts as well? I am willing to entertain this concept, but find no basis for same in the Ra quotes? I might even go so far as to dispute this notion as well (STO encounters entropy) as I do the absorption concept while utilizing one of your arguments against the other by suggesting that it is in fact STO that graciously, elegantly, gently, and efficaciously absorbs as much love as it emitts given that STO is the open heart (two way street) vs STS as the closed heart (one way street). It is in fact as a result of STS not being as efficient at absorbing light, given it more or less walls itself off from other selves through the act of withholding light, that STS disintegrates and struggles with entropy.

Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider.

this approach is erroneous, since it assumes negative polarity is control of others, and self. that is just one of the aspects of it. in pure form, negative polarity is absorbing light. it is directly relevant to energy. emitting or absorbing energy is potential, and it is power that does work.

Here we are again, and throughout your text of absorption. I restate the point that if the premise is false that so too is its conclusion, i.e. absorption vs withholding.

Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:
[quote= unity100]: therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite....

....infinity is not something that is particular to any kind of thinking or approach. infinity, is infinite.

Agreed. Infinity is Infinity. Agreed again that Infinity is furthermore not particular to any kind of thinking. I was not suggesting that it is. I was however very much suggesting that your thinking (as much as mine and everyone elses) is very very much something that is very much particular to your/our concepts of infinity or anything else for that matter.

and therefore, it is possible that just like how a 4 d entity may see love in everything and therefore mistake the infinite intelligence, the creator of this concept, as 'love', (as Ra tells us), it is also possible that 5th density entity may see the infinite intelligence as communication or free will, and, identify with that feeling meaning.and also, 6th density entity, may do the same by identifying itself with infinite intelligence and its infinity, through the same mechanic that causes the entities to identify creation and themselves with the relevant aspect pertaining to their density due to the feeling of that density.

A most interesting and well thought out consideration. I like it very much. Even our love for and concept of the Creator Itself is limited to the level we are at.

Q