Free Will Infringement, what is it?

[Steppingfeet]

Spaced, in response to the OP I was going to express gratitude for a fascinating question + accompanying research, but then multiple other people did that, so I’m not going to tell you that I find this a fascinating question, which it is. : )

Over the years I have encountered multiple surprises in the Law of One like this that turn up only when running a keyword search and reading every iteration. I hadn’t run this particular one before, so it’s something of a minor revelation to know that Ra used the term “infringement” almost entirely in association with the relationship between higher and lower-density beings. Thank you for that. Having not run the search myself, I shall trust your findings, but I shall arrive at a different conclusion.

I understand why you would arrive at your conclusion, but my takeaway from your search is that higher-to-lower infringement is only one type of infringement, one that was particularly germane to the contact. Ra, a sixth-density SMC, was relating to a group of three third-density humans whilst exploring much about the relationship between third-density beings and their higher-density polarized counterparts.

My larger understanding is that infringement can occur between any two sentient beings capable of making the Choice.

Let’s take an extreme example and consider chattel slavery. What could be a greater violation of the inherent free will within the other-self than to wholly subvert and deny them their exercise of free will?

As chattel, the other-self is identified as property from birth to death, to be bought and sold in an exercise of ownership over nearly every aspect of their lives, from their living conditions, to their daily activities, to their health, to the ability to inflict pain and torture with impunity, to the fate their body, their children, their family, etc., with little capacity for the enslaved to say “no” or request alternative or otherwise deny the master.

In the enslaved person’s heart is the desire to be free—free to make their own choices, determine their own movements, and chart their own course in self-sovereignty. What is it but to infringe by imposing your (general “your”) will on the other and robbing the other-self of those full array of choices? Instead of honoring the sovereignty of the other, you are making them a tool of your own free will, forcing and coercing – often through physical and psychological violence – the other-self to serve you and do your bidding.

Merriam Webster: to infringe:

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

To continue exploring this question in the extremes (where it’s clearer), this proclivity for infringement is the M.O. of those seeking to polarize their consciousness negatively.

Ra describes that the energy spectrum of the STS entity is missing the green ray, the ray of acceptance, of love. What is it the STS entity is not accepting but the divinity and sovereignty of the other-self, that is, the other-self’s sacred right to the exercise of free will.

Instead of acceptance, the STS entity practices control. The other-self, naturally, doesn’t want to be controlled*, thus to impose control upon them is to literally infringe on their free will.

[*Unless perhaps they seek willing enslavement in order to advance negatively. And we needn’t explore consensual BDSM - the crux of actual infringement is non-consent.]

My general point is that the capacity for a third-density entity to infringe upon the free will of another third-density entity can be extrapolated and substantiated within the substance of the philosophy without needing the exact keyword to appear as a verb. My supposition, at least.

However, extrapolation need not be our only method. Without having run a search myself, I know that there is at least one instance of “infringement” used in the third-density context, though it also surely applies to all polarized densities:

18.6 Questioner: Basically, I would say that to infringe on the free will of another self, or another entity, would be the basic thing never to do under the Law of One. Can you state any other breaking of the Law of One than this basic rule?

Ra: […] The distortions to be avoided are those which do not take into consideration the distortions of the focus of energy of love/light, or shall we say, the Logos of this particular sphere, or density. These include the lack of understanding of the needs of the natural environment, the needs of other-selves’ mind/body/spirit complexes. These are many due to the various distortions of man-made complexes in which the intelligence and awareness of entities themselves have chosen a way of using the energies available.

Thus, what would be an improper distortion with one entity is proper with another. We can suggest an attempt to become aware of the other-self as self and thus do that action which is needed by other-self, understanding from the other-self’s intelligence and awareness. In many cases this does not involve the breaking of the distortion of Free Will into a distortion, or fragmentation, called infringement. However, it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful in avoiding the distortions of man-made intelligence and awareness. […]

Now whether decisions of certain third-density individuals or governments or societies actions are *actual* infringements upon free will, and whether, if so, some infringements may be warranted (as may happen in legal code or for a collective good)... these are the questions that are the the stuff of third density. And beyond my powers to figure out from my standpoint of confusion.

But Louisabell asked the most important question. We must know whether arrow face made it in the club.