(08-31-2009, 11:02 PM)Quantum Wrote: Once again, we agree more than disagree? I find it curious that as much agreement is present between us, but that one of us perceives it otherwise...again. You perceive the stated definition as given by the dictionary as suggesting something other than the same exact definition you have just emphatically outlined. From my perspective you are merely offering an example of the definition but would nonetheless be forced to define it in the same exact manner were you to offer an alternative definition.
You see my definition as the same as the dictionary definition? I am puzzled.
I shall attempt again to clarify:
Distortion as defined in the dictionary shows A as right and B as wrong, or, at best, both A and B as wrong and C as right. 'Wrong' as in, to use your words: twisted, perverted... UNtrue, false.
Distortion as used by Ra shows both A and B as parts of C (Oneness). Not twisted or perverted at all...not wrong at all...just incomplete.
(08-31-2009, 11:02 PM)Quantum Wrote: I believe the only point you seem to be making is that were indeed "All One" that there then would be no distortion. This is self evident. But as all is not perceived as one, it leaves us with distortion. This too is self evident.
No, that's not the only point I was attempting to make. That was part of my point, but not all of it. My other point is that our distortion, as used by Ra, is not a twisting or perverting of truth, but a valid portion of truth. I see a clear difference between the two. I don't think Ra used the term distortion to connote absolute mistakes/untruths. Perhaps I am mistaken in this and you can provide an example?