David Wilcock

[Quantum]

you said you sent people messages, you also invited some to join in the conversation.

To be correct: I never said I sent people messages. I said people have sent me messages, and that they may elect to participate and that I expect them to.

I won't stick to the Law of One. That suggestion is unfair.

THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THESE PRINCIPLES WERE NOWHERE EITHER SPOKEN TO OR FOUND BEFORE OR AFTER AS GIVEN BY Ra IN "THE Law of One" TEACHINGS. THEREFORE "THE Law of One' IS SINGULARLY OUR SOURCE WHEN REFERRING TO THESE PRINCIPLES AS MUCH AS TO THESE ASSERTIONS.
I don't know how much more clear I can be? If one is going to invoke the principles of the LOO, then one must invoke only what was taught. Otherwise one is blending, mixing, and creating addendums to the LOO by blending a little of this with a little of that, thus diluting the LOO. This seems self evident and all too clear. If it is your request that we do this, then I question not only your logic, but your purpose. This is exactly what I am arguing against, i.e. diluting the teachings as though to create a hodge-podge, and then call it scholarly?

Telling us that we can judge ALL his comments purely from the Law of One knowing that he has multiple sources is in effect sabotaging the process and judging him unfairly.

I find this to be a curious statement. I am under the impression that we have a tacit understanding that this forum is for the further study of the LOO, not other sources as primary?

The way I see it you're quoting him stating from a non Law of One source, then claim that this is not a Law of One source, and therefore his understanding of the Law of One is flawed...

Your English alludes me here a little, but if I am correct in your meaning, this is exactly what I am stating, in as much as he is indeed utilizing the LOO, but not as undiluted LOO. We in effect are reading "Wilcokian" by virtues of it being based on the LOO, but not purely from the LOO. This in effect equals something different, but it assuredly is not Ra, or their teachings, or the LOO. You are in effect making all my points for me Ali? Can you see this?

This line of reasoning of course doesn't hold.

Again, I think your making this easier for me than expected. He has stated repeatedly that he is a scholar of the LOO. That is the only claim that begs questioning. How then is the line of reasoning flawed? Can we not simply as students of the LOO stick simply to the LOO and assertions made regarding the LOO? This has been from the onset and outset the question posed, Nothing else.

So I see two directions, either you try to make clear to me why we should judge Wilcocks (statements that are not sourced in Law of One) ONLY from the Law of One or I must reject this restriction as unfair and without basis in reasoning.

Same answer. Forget everything else Wilcock speaks about as regards all non-LOO materials or references, other than if the LOO principles are either referenced or spoken to. He may be emphatically correct on all other matters, or may be at fault on all other matters. Let us simply as students of the LOO stick simply to the LOO and assertions made regarding the LOO? This has been from the onset and outset the question posed, Nothing else.

Also you're misrepresenting the quote you're giving.... Let me cite it completely...(and then you do as seen above, and end with...)...So David mentions another as his source one you declined to mention. Instead you pretend he claims he gets this from the Law of One. Then state that the Law of One does not say this.

I am not interested in what other scientists say as regards Wilcocks assertions. I am only interested in what Wilcock says in regards to the LOO. Period. The scientists assertions may or may not be true. This is not in question. I do not pretend to claim at all that he gets his info only from the LOO? What are you misreading? I emphatically suggest that he indeed blends much info into the LOO, which mixes, distorts, and blurs the LOO.

David only states here that the Law of One describes the contact with 4d entities as vastly different from the contact with the current batch of 4d humans visiting earth. And ascribes this to polarity.

Please re-read my post again. Also re-read what Wilcock asserts? He clearly states 3D STO dies, but that 3D STS elite survive? He uses STO/STS/Positive/Negative/3D/4D terminology which is clearly from the LOO singularly. He does not "only state" comments about contact? Read it again? He sates mush much more?

You kind of mention the other source, but jokingly call it x-files. You consider them irrelevant and worthy of ridicule. ... Sadly as you already forbade us to talk about these other sources that's basically it for the discussion isn't it?

Not at all dear Ali. There is a wealth of discussion to be had as regards the assertions made as relates to the LOO singularly. May we not simply do this without all the other dialogue as to his other sources? I am only interested in the LOO as regards bring4th or as regards Wilcock's assertions. There are many many many other forums and sites that discuss all the other topics mentioned in all of Wilcock's posts. Wilcock may be brilliant as regards these. He may not be. I don't know. I am singularly concerned only as regards the LOO and to his assertions made with reference to LOO principles.

You say he claims something he does not actually claim, (Quoting from the Law of One, he's not doing that, he's not even referring to it except in one final case that you ignored)

Ali, I am perplexed that you are not understanding what may otherwise be a very simple exercise: speaking only to the LOO. He is indeed referring to the LOO throughout this assertion only by the mere fact that he is invoking principles of the LOO by using LOO vernacular, i.e. 3D, 4D, STS, STO etc.

However it somehow includes the "fact" that David says everyone will die in 2012. He does not say this. Certainly not in the quotes you give, and as far as I can tell, never ever does he state this.

Perhaps I have misjudged? I was under the distinct impression we were speaking on a level playing field, and that you were intimately familiar with his writings, his claims, and his assertions. It is extremely clear by this one single statement that you may not be? Wilcock coined the terms "Instantaneous vs Gradualist" positions, or perhaps at other times referred to as "Spontaneous vs Gradualist". He writes quite extensively about the fact that all must die at 2012.

He says "This is a quite spontaneous event when it happens, and will have an effect of popping us into time/space similar to the Bermuda Triangle and / or traveling through a ‘stargate.’ The process is not at all painful — it is like the energetic equivalent of a sudden dive into a pool of cold water. It is apparently the most spiritually ecstatic moment we will have ever experienced, and ancient mystics eagerly looked forward to it many thousands of years ago."

To me this does not sound much like death. And it certainly is not a quote from the Law of One... If you ask me it sounds like harvest and this a valid Law of One principle.

Again, it seems clearer now that you have not read Wilcock to any great extent as this is exactly a reference to death of the physical body, and that in his opinion it will not be "a painful death". He writes about 2012 quite extensively, and to this point of physical death at great length, and over a good many years. We may be at an impasse dear Ali if you are attempting to dialogue on the assertions that Wilcock has made and written to quite extensively, but are unfamiliar to what he is referencing, or believes, or has written? I understand more fully now the cross-roads you find yourself at as a result, in as much as it may be difficult if not impossible to move forward without these basic understandings. All is well my friend. I appreciate your impassioned attempts in any event and your willingness. Allow me to direct you to his DIVINE COSMOS site as well as his Ascension 2000 site for more information on his assertions. You will find much information there to be sure that will verify everything I have suggested here and much more as to the many other sources that may be of interest to you as well.

Peace to you my friend,

I don't want to get involved in this, but can I just say that those who foolishly try to change the opinion of one who is fixed in their views earns only fatigue and anger.

Hello Phoenix. Thank you for the wisdom as much as the concern. If the comment is directed to me with respect to fatigue and anger, know that I have none of either. I am attempting in my small way to do this for the unitiated in the LOO, as much to those of us as students as being the only ones capable of having this conversation. We are the only ones who may know the information. I have been asking from the beginning about those that are new to the LOO, or those that are completely unaware of the LOO but may have heard about it through radio spots or odd posts here and there. Do we have even a small responsibility to ask ourselves these questions for their sakes? Dropping even a small seed here and there may cause that certain someone to seek for themselves as a direct result of this exercise. Each must answer this for themselves.

If the information is directed towards members participating, then I hope the same may be in their minds as well as regards your concerns as well.