01-31-2016, 09:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2016, 01:41 PM by 4Dsunrise.
Edit Reason: spell check
)
Ankh says
Since the Ra group is not, to me, flawless in their communication of the LOO, I have to say no to this question. Maybe there can be a grant towards LLResearch to have a group of philosophy majors from the Univ of Lville to read the Ra Material and give their feedback.
Gary's comment about academic play and word play is certainly valid b/c there is a lot of extraneous and verbose BS coming from academia and I noted that a year ago in the Xandria thread.
That's why I think in terms of both esoteric and academic research where I'm actually reevaluating both the Ra Material and the academics involved. The IUP/AOP and Metamonism Model is a result of fusing esoteric and academic, along with the Creator/Explorer dynamics with its use of AstroPsychology and archetypes in general.
In the following I address the word play and academic issue to some extent. It makes the case for a balance of both esoteric and academic research and it seems that Gary, Austin and Jim are not averse to this. They just don't resonate to it. I do know of Dan D, the PhD. He PM'd me once and was supportive of this academic approach. I've see him on Facebook in the LOO Study Group discussions a few times.
Here's my case for a balance of academics and esoterics.
---------------------
To determine "what is Ra's LOO" I approach the reevaluation of the Ra Material using the disciplines of critical thinking, logic and scientific reasoning which I think Don Elkins would appreciate. He was an academic and scientist who used a combination of esoteric and academic research.
A page called "about the authors" at the end of the hard copy of Book 1 has the academic backgrounds of Don, Jim and Carla.
Don holds four university degrees, has taught mechanical engineering at the University of Alaska, and has taught physics and engineering at the University of Louisville.
Jim received a master's degree in education from the University of Florida.
Carla received a master's degree in library science at the University of Louisville.
This is Marketing 101 to give the book more credibility. It's not the end-all be-all, but with a book like the Ra Material, it's good to know that it had some academic credibility.
So a combination of esoteric and academic research is, I think, right up Don's alley and he would welcome an intellectually honest critique and exploration of the Ra's LOO which is provided in:
Ra's Fundamental Postulates (or Axioms)
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871
To begin the talk with the three philosophy grads, I would definitely start here and mention Don Elkins and his precise scientific approach and his high regard for Dewey Larson and the axiom system of the RS. This axiom system goes well beyond word play by using logic (the reasoning aspect of logos) and, in academic terms, precise unambiguous metaphysical and metamathematical terminology.
This is necessary to emphasize b/c I'm talking to students versed in logic and metaphysics and who value critical thinking and logical consistency. They have had their term papers critiqued and reevaluated to gain this skill. If you've been to college you know of this and it's a blow to the ego to some degree. You get questioned and critiqued and therefore humbled, and this is probably what they also do in inner/outer plane classrooms ie on Saturn.
The three students here also value the intuitive wholeness of abstract thinking and feeling. What Carla calls a balance of rational and intuitive when channeling. See her Channeling Handbook. So they're not pure academic snobs, thank God.
--------------
We begin by going over the OP of Ra's Fundamental Postulates and so now I'll start a script and dialogue with the students Julie, Dave and Danielle.
I say: There is somewhat of a disclaimer by the Ra group in this session 1 quote:
"we are speaking to you ...in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the LOO" --they don't claim a fundamental law, do you agree?
They say: Clearly the phrases, "laws of creation" and "more especially the LOO" implies that the LOO is one of several laws of creation, or at least it is implied here.
I say: I would agree. It appears that the STO-biased Ra group is addressing the question "what is One" with the answer "One is All" based on the logic of "you are every thing". This is LoO and ultimately, Julie is All, Dave is All, Danielle is All in each one's unique way of projecting out to others and feeling the STO bias. So Ra's LOO is the STO version.
They say: We can logically conclude, that it is true that Ra's LOO is only one of several laws of creation b/c the reciprocal and complementary STS version of the LoA must needs be addressed. Briefly, "what is All?" is answered by "All is One" based on the logic of "every thing is you" by which All is Julie, All is Dave, All is Danielle with each one's unique way of injecting in to self and feeling the STS bias.
I ask: Do you think this is word play?
They say: Not at all, it is a logical dialectic of complementary opposites. It is logic of the Logos as far as Heraclitus and Aristotle were concerned.
They add: In OA or LoO, One has being as All and identifies and feels the yang nature of projecting outward, while with AO or LoA, All has being as One and identifies and feels the yin nature of injecting inward. OA radiating out and AO absorbing in -- a clear logoic duality.
I ask: Since you use the notions of yang and yin would you consider this a dialectic monism like the Tao defined as a symmetric AO + OA?
They all smirk: Of course! How else can dualities and bipolarities exist? STO/STS, Male/Female, Space/Time and Time/Space, Infinite/Finite, etc. This is NOT word play. This is conceptual dynamics at play. Who would think this is word play?
My response: I ask the same thing. Maybe a non-dualist who thinks words and concepts are extraneous as they strive for a nonverbal and nonconceptual state of Nirvana? Someone who strives for pure subjective mystical experience?
They respond: That's all well and good but why can't we do both like a John Lilly or a Franklin Merrell-Wolf, or even a Don Elkins who all value the dynamic fusion of rational and intuitive? You do know that some people become very imbalanced when they have these mystical breakthroughs?
I look up from my empty coffee cup: You three are blowing me away! I underestimated your knowledge of the so-called New Age movement. I'm going to need another Moca Joe.
----------------------
I'll end here for now, but that's the kind of discussion that some here could have with astute minded students at your local cafe. Plus free Coffee!
Quote:Another question is - who exactly are we writing all these introductions and explanations for in that case? Aren't Ra's words alone enough and even more than enough?
Since the Ra group is not, to me, flawless in their communication of the LOO, I have to say no to this question. Maybe there can be a grant towards LLResearch to have a group of philosophy majors from the Univ of Lville to read the Ra Material and give their feedback.
Gary's comment about academic play and word play is certainly valid b/c there is a lot of extraneous and verbose BS coming from academia and I noted that a year ago in the Xandria thread.
That's why I think in terms of both esoteric and academic research where I'm actually reevaluating both the Ra Material and the academics involved. The IUP/AOP and Metamonism Model is a result of fusing esoteric and academic, along with the Creator/Explorer dynamics with its use of AstroPsychology and archetypes in general.
In the following I address the word play and academic issue to some extent. It makes the case for a balance of both esoteric and academic research and it seems that Gary, Austin and Jim are not averse to this. They just don't resonate to it. I do know of Dan D, the PhD. He PM'd me once and was supportive of this academic approach. I've see him on Facebook in the LOO Study Group discussions a few times.
Here's my case for a balance of academics and esoterics.
---------------------
To determine "what is Ra's LOO" I approach the reevaluation of the Ra Material using the disciplines of critical thinking, logic and scientific reasoning which I think Don Elkins would appreciate. He was an academic and scientist who used a combination of esoteric and academic research.
A page called "about the authors" at the end of the hard copy of Book 1 has the academic backgrounds of Don, Jim and Carla.
Don holds four university degrees, has taught mechanical engineering at the University of Alaska, and has taught physics and engineering at the University of Louisville.
Jim received a master's degree in education from the University of Florida.
Carla received a master's degree in library science at the University of Louisville.
This is Marketing 101 to give the book more credibility. It's not the end-all be-all, but with a book like the Ra Material, it's good to know that it had some academic credibility.
So a combination of esoteric and academic research is, I think, right up Don's alley and he would welcome an intellectually honest critique and exploration of the Ra's LOO which is provided in:
Ra's Fundamental Postulates (or Axioms)
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871
To begin the talk with the three philosophy grads, I would definitely start here and mention Don Elkins and his precise scientific approach and his high regard for Dewey Larson and the axiom system of the RS. This axiom system goes well beyond word play by using logic (the reasoning aspect of logos) and, in academic terms, precise unambiguous metaphysical and metamathematical terminology.
This is necessary to emphasize b/c I'm talking to students versed in logic and metaphysics and who value critical thinking and logical consistency. They have had their term papers critiqued and reevaluated to gain this skill. If you've been to college you know of this and it's a blow to the ego to some degree. You get questioned and critiqued and therefore humbled, and this is probably what they also do in inner/outer plane classrooms ie on Saturn.
The three students here also value the intuitive wholeness of abstract thinking and feeling. What Carla calls a balance of rational and intuitive when channeling. See her Channeling Handbook. So they're not pure academic snobs, thank God.
--------------
We begin by going over the OP of Ra's Fundamental Postulates and so now I'll start a script and dialogue with the students Julie, Dave and Danielle.
I say: There is somewhat of a disclaimer by the Ra group in this session 1 quote:
"we are speaking to you ...in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the LOO" --they don't claim a fundamental law, do you agree?
They say: Clearly the phrases, "laws of creation" and "more especially the LOO" implies that the LOO is one of several laws of creation, or at least it is implied here.
I say: I would agree. It appears that the STO-biased Ra group is addressing the question "what is One" with the answer "One is All" based on the logic of "you are every thing". This is LoO and ultimately, Julie is All, Dave is All, Danielle is All in each one's unique way of projecting out to others and feeling the STO bias. So Ra's LOO is the STO version.
They say: We can logically conclude, that it is true that Ra's LOO is only one of several laws of creation b/c the reciprocal and complementary STS version of the LoA must needs be addressed. Briefly, "what is All?" is answered by "All is One" based on the logic of "every thing is you" by which All is Julie, All is Dave, All is Danielle with each one's unique way of injecting in to self and feeling the STS bias.
I ask: Do you think this is word play?
They say: Not at all, it is a logical dialectic of complementary opposites. It is logic of the Logos as far as Heraclitus and Aristotle were concerned.
They add: In OA or LoO, One has being as All and identifies and feels the yang nature of projecting outward, while with AO or LoA, All has being as One and identifies and feels the yin nature of injecting inward. OA radiating out and AO absorbing in -- a clear logoic duality.
I ask: Since you use the notions of yang and yin would you consider this a dialectic monism like the Tao defined as a symmetric AO + OA?
They all smirk: Of course! How else can dualities and bipolarities exist? STO/STS, Male/Female, Space/Time and Time/Space, Infinite/Finite, etc. This is NOT word play. This is conceptual dynamics at play. Who would think this is word play?
My response: I ask the same thing. Maybe a non-dualist who thinks words and concepts are extraneous as they strive for a nonverbal and nonconceptual state of Nirvana? Someone who strives for pure subjective mystical experience?
They respond: That's all well and good but why can't we do both like a John Lilly or a Franklin Merrell-Wolf, or even a Don Elkins who all value the dynamic fusion of rational and intuitive? You do know that some people become very imbalanced when they have these mystical breakthroughs?
I look up from my empty coffee cup: You three are blowing me away! I underestimated your knowledge of the so-called New Age movement. I'm going to need another Moca Joe.
----------------------
I'll end here for now, but that's the kind of discussion that some here could have with astute minded students at your local cafe. Plus free Coffee!
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)