(08-26-2009, 04:11 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [quote='Quantum' pid='5024' dateline='1251132408']
...what does the term "distortion" mean. May the term distortion also apply to "willful misinformation"? Perhaps yes in a sense, but as a purist definition, I think not. Willful misinformation is simply lying, this in the willful effort to willfully mislead. Logic would seem to suggest that given this effort as being one "less than true" would therefore not be an effort that 6th density would engage in. Distortion, I am more inclined to feel, is "misinterpretation", either by the inability to understand fully or by the inability to receive clearly, but not as a result of the intent to purposely mislead.
Monica Wrote:My understanding of the term distortion as used by Ra has to do with perspective, not interpretation. Perspective can result in what may appear as bias/coloration to someone of a different perspective. Since we are all One, is it not perspective that gives each of us our uniqueness? Edgar Cayce's channeled works had a Christian flavor, which was a distortion. But I don't see that as a misinterpretation; it was just Cayce's bias due to his perspective. Misinterpretation implies a mistake. I don't perceive Ra's use of the term distortion to mean a mistake of any sort, but a just a variation in hue.
"Variations in hue" may distort just enough, or far more than enough, so as to create misinterpretations, or mistakes as you say. "Angels dancing on the head of a pin" is the term that comes to mind when attempting to dissect words. Lavazza was attempting to communicate that perhaps the Social Memory Complex of the Confederation charged with transmitting certain information as regards the Ohaspe "may have embellished" said information, or even perhaps "changed it slightly." I agreed as a possibility. But this might in my opinion be considered as potentially having changed the original game plan in fact approved, which I questioned. The Social Memory Complex of the Confederation by Lavazza's example, for example, "varied the hue" ever so slightly, as you say, so as to skew the message, if indeed the intended recipient didn't do the same.
Once again, "Angels dancing on the head of a pin." Lazazza and I then were speaking to the term "peppered" as regards an information being transmitted as being 'partially veiled', this in my opinion so as to not infringe upon free will. I then purposefully attempted to split hairs with an intent so as to draw the distinction between "willful misinformation/misrepresentation" vs "partially veiled" (to protect free will) vs the normal amount of distortion assumed on any given transmission being "interpreted". Your definition now suggests "perspective" to what I utilized as "interpretation". We oft speak to semantics in these contexts, for what is an "interpretation" of an art, as illustration, if it is not "perspective" or "perception"?
Dictionary.com Wrote:1.Perspective: the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship
2.Perceive:to recognize, discern, envision, or understand
3.Interpret:to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate
So we agree, even if we utilize differing words, notwithstanding that one of us sees the two words as distinct while the other yet sees them as the same. If pedantically disagreement persists in the similarity of these words in context, then surely there must be agreement in the very least, so as to make these terms indistinguishable, by their overlapping nature as relates to one another.
An interesting question however is raised. What is distortion?
Dictionary.com: Wrote:Distort: to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed, to give a false, perverted, or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts.
Distortion clearly is not seeing "truthfully" by this definition, whether through "perception", or "interpretation" or by "perspective". But this begs the question: does the act of distortion lie strictly in its "reception", i.e. by either it's perception, interpretation or its perspective,or, may it not also, as suggested in my previous post, precede reception by in fact its "transmission"? In other words, may not a "purposefully distorted truth" of a STO transmission purposefully and willfully interfered with by STS not also qualify as "distortion?" I think so. Distortion, whether an unintended blurred, crooked, deformed or perverted "reception" by its intended recipient, or by a purposeful interference of it's "transmission" by a secondary source such as STS to willfully make it blurred, crooked, deformed or perverted still shakes out the same. A perverted reception or a perverted transmission nonetheless equals a distorted truth.
Dizzy with words. Counting the angels on the head of a said pin is an exercise to be sure, but with subtle terms such as these for whats at stake, worth the effort.
Q