David Wilcock

[3D Sunset]

Your point two in the triage is where we may somewhat disagree in concept however in as much as one may then say anything derived from the LOO, but not be inconsistent with the LOO, simply because the LOO did not address it, and as a result does not contradict it? I may then make innocuous statements such as: (1) some of us in 3D go into 5D at 2012 simply because Ra did not say that we do not, or (2) I may likewise make absurd statements such as ET technology brought down the trade towers? It is in fact in point two that Wilcock mostly lives, both in the LOO as well as outside of the LOO. I maintain that given the author is speaking to LOO principles by simply invoking the vernacular (3D/4D/STS, etc), that most of the questionable concepts are simply inconsistent with the LOO in as much as it is nowhere mentioned in the LOO. This does not exhibit profound knowledge of the particular subject of the LOO, as much as it invokes profound speculation not supported by the LOO. I maintain that assertions such as these are not consistent with the LOO in as much as they are at the very least extremely transitory to the highest degree, which renders them inconsistent as a result by definition. If not mentioned or suggested in the LOO, it is less than presumptuous to suggest it as nothing less than wild conjecture from the LOO, and therefore clearly from an altogether different source other than the LOO.

I disagree with you on a number of levels. Clearly as scholars of the the Law of One, we are interested in expanding our understanding of the Law of One to areas beyond what is covered therein. This is both the nature of scientific inquiry and the nature of humans. You may choose to live only within the material specifically included in the works of Ra when you use its lexicon, I choose not to. I believe that this is consistent with both societal norms regarding the expansion of the use of words once they have entered a language, and with the scientific process.

I would also disagree that that any information outside that which is covered in the Law of One is transitory by nature. For example, Ra indicates that the works of Dewey B. Larson were "correct as far as they went". Thus, one would conclude that the Reciprocal System of Theories is consistent with the Law of One. However, Mr. Larson went on to publish other material after Ra made this statement. To me, this new material would be classified as "not inconsistent", but I find it absurd to claim that it is either transitory or inconsistent with the Law of One, simply because it was not specifically covered therein. This is a rather black and white example, there are many shades of gray.

I encourage you and everyone to form you own opinions and draw your own conclusions based upon your own reading of the Law of One. I am quite comfortable with my described methodology, and will keep to it. I think that you are correct in saying that this is a critical point, and difference between our approaches to analyzing Mr. Wilcock's work, but I think you are being far to restrictive on he and all others interested in filling in gaps not covered by the Law of One, if you withhold the use of even the terminology used by Ra to only those areas specifically covered by Ra.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset