Seeing an Individual in a Group of Individuals

[Plenum]

this is an issue which strikes at the heart of what we are doing here; being part of a 'group community' discussing and interacting over various things.

this being a 'public space' makes it a venue for yellow ray activity, and as such, brings to light issues of how an individual then relates and interacts with other individuals, on a group basis.

the basis of these interactions are a set of protocols (or called guidelines) that the 'owners' of this website set as foundational cornerstones, and define the process of moderation and what is inside the guidelines (permiitted) and what is not permitted (brushes up against or crosses the guidelines).

it is, like all yellow-ray 3d structures, going to irk some that think the guidelines are too restrictive or too loose, or that the 'enforcement' or deployment of those guidelines are being done in a biased or non-objective way. Such are the nature of rules; they both simultanously liberate one for group activity (coming together for common purpose) and they also restrict certain patterns, as that 'coming together for common purpose' by its various nature is definitive and boundary laying.

for eg, we come here primarily because each of us has somehow been called by the message of Ra and the Law of One, and that it resonates as being 'truthful' on various levels to us. Bring4th, for eg, is not a car-mechanics forum, or a place to find expert knowledge on degreasing your oven (as useful as such knowledge may be).

and yes, the 'Law of One' is all encompassing ... there is only 'one consciousness' and 'one being' and 'all things are one'.

not to ressurect the past, but the guidelines here have resulted in certain individuals being 'kicked' or 'banned' from participation. I will refer to them by initial so as not to arouse too much fury: 3D and S'A for eg.

the decisions that were made, I know for a fact with my personal communications with others, still sits uneasily with still present members. It has not been fully accepted, because even with the explanation from the mods, there is a sense that it was summary justice, and not fully subject to discussion. Of course, the majority of members are not privy to the decision making process that led to the outcome, so part of this dis-ease is a fear of the unknown and being in the dark on these issues; and part of this is an 'authority issue', and not wanting to be subject to 'rules' and being 'assessed' behaviourally by an other-self. That is catalyst in itself for the concerned individuals.

- -

I come to the main point that I wished to express:

that when a group of individuals come to a common place, there are patterns of interaction which set a certain minimal protocol for understanding and continued learning. For eg, if someone tried to post all their posts in Swedish, while the intention of that individual might be green-centred and wishing to share, it is not being done in a manner which facilitates the possibility of communication with others (yellow ray). I am sure we could all install google translate as an automatic in that case, but that individual, in posting everything in Swedish is somehow not 'cognisant' of the paramters of engagement, or the means by which 'useful' interactions may be effectuated. That is a self-ignorance for that individual which needs some addressing, or 'moderation' in this case.

And so it is with certain personality distortions and blockages which prevent an individual from interacting with a group of individuals ... it is not that those people are unwanted or unloved ... quite the contrary ... but those 'blockages' are the akin of speaking Swedish to a group of others (I am so 'ancient' for eg) and so again, some level of moderation is required to ensure that the interests of 'one individual' do not impinge unncessarily on the interests of a 'group of individuals'.

it is not that the 'group' triumphs or has priority over the individual (this is not the borg) ... on the contrary, it is the Sheer Fact that one individual does not have priority over a Group of Individuals (law of sqaures). This is a recognition of the fact that All Individuals are Equal in value and worth of representation; and that one individual does not dominate in terms of attention and their manner of expression.

the 'moderation' in this case is a re-asserting of the fact that one individual does not have the right to run roughshod over the interests of a group of individuals. It is a re-assertion of Equality; rather than the stomping down of one person for 'being who they are'.

this 'understanding' is the basis for all harmonious yellow ray groups and interactions ... that we come together for a common purpose, and for useful work to be done, certain protocols or expectations are in place for behaviour. This does not so much apply as to 'what is said' but rather to 'how it is said' ... going back to the Swedish analogy. The 'how it is said' is about effective work and communication from one to the other; it is not a clamping down on individuality, however that may be perceived by some when they get 'modded'.

anyway, that was a long post, but it sums up my current understandings and experience of yellow ray engagement, which is what we are doing by being here and participating in these forums.

peace y'all.

plenum

[ChickenInSpace]

The belief I've come facilitate is that to create coherence in a group is to let the group deal with issues. A hierarchy which produce or use 'summary justice' removes the chance for a group to deal with a problem thus also removing alot of responsibility to both group and self.

Even worse is the 'behind the curtain' dealing of PM's when there is no issue which cannot (all issues can) be discussed in open, just like plenum does now.

In a surprisingly short amount of time drama/catalyst will, in this model, crystallize group mentality in regards of how to run itself more efficiently and purely detrimental/deleterious action/mode of being will be dealt almost solely without the need for hierarchical moderation.

'Mod powers' will then only be needed when a certain attack never stops. That 'an attack' occurs in the first place is not something bad in or of itself and can be dealt with accordingly given the knowledge of how to answer such.

These are my first-hand experiences on the matter from running a long-standing community. Take it as you will.

[Adonai One]

Who defines the interests of the individuals? Their representatives or the individuals themselves?

Or dogma?

The most common problem I see with "rules" is the vague idea of the "public good" and "common sense." There is always the cop-out in most political theory and that's the social contract which is implied consent when you join a community, that your contributions are implicitly owned by "the community" -- which in the end is just a buzzword for the executive powers within the community. It makes things sound voluntary and just when it's just synonymous with "what you will do is up to the discretion of the powers that be."

And we can live under a social contract, that's fine but it's pretty absorbent and conformatory. Ultimatums for new and dynamic people is a good way to inhibit diversity in thought and culture.

I propose free will is respected at all times during conversation and in-thought on a individual-basis in a community that holds itself as positive and radiant. Speech should not be censored unneccessarily unless it's pure noise pollution as in the case of the Swedish poster.

the 'moderation' in this case is a re-asserting of the fact that one individual does not have the right to run roughshod over the interests of a group of individuals. It is a re-assertion of Equality; rather than the stomping down of one person for 'being who they are'.

Does the moderation know what's best for individuals? Does it know what the interests are for everyone? Are they the sole judgers of equality?

The whole fallacy here is our reliance on a centralized group of voices on judging what the "common interest" is. It's a veil. Let's accept the fact that a community often has owners, if that's what they want. Let's accept that we may be removed and censored at their sole discretion. Let's not play with words and make everything sound nice and fair when the real fact is that there may not be equitable representation of all individual interests.

It's so idealistic to think otherwise. This isn't a just world. It's not inherently a re-assertion of equality. It may only be the assertion of power according to subjective preference.

Of course, the majority of members are not privy to the decision making process that led to the outcome, so part of this dis-ease is a fear of the unknown and being in the dark on these issues; and part of this is an 'authority issue', and not wanting to be subject to 'rules' and being 'assessed' behaviourally by an other-self. That is catalyst in itself for the concerned individuals.

It's also catalyst for the ones with power. Not to only those being ruled. That's another fallacy I see here.

Being subject to "rules" isn't some keystone of society unless you view humans as cattle that need be put in their place. Rules are a restriction of free will and are not needed when the veil is removed.

There is no justice nor equality in what you propose. Only illusions of it. It remains illusory until every last individual is sovereign and his choice remains his own.

What you have proposed is this:

Accept the authority here because I have on good terms that what they believe is just and represents our subjective idea of the "public interest." We justify it because we believe [insert action here] infringed on others [in this way].

Pure idealism. Which is fine. Idealist and emotional arguments work on most people. They have never convinced me.

I will also add is that you never added any real conflicts. You only added arguments against removing noise-pollution under clear parameters. Nothing with areas of grey.

This makes things very one-sided, my friend, and it overly simplifies the issue.

[Unbound]

Lets just have anarcho-syndicalistic commune.

---

It remains illusory until every last individual is sovereign and his choice remains his own. 

Is this not already the natural way of things? Isn't the perception that we are not just an illusion?

---

I propose free will is respected at all times during conversation and in-thought on a individual-basis in a community that holds itself as positive and radiant. Speech should not be censored unneccessarily unless it's pure noise pollution as in the case of the Swedish poster. 

Also, these sound strangely like 'rules', hehe.

[Adonai One]

Lets just have anarcho-syndicalistic commune.

---

It remains illusory until every last individual is sovereign and his choice remains his own. 

Is this not already the natural way of things? Isn't the perception that we are not just an illusion?

---

I propose free will is respected at all times during conversation and in-thought on a individual-basis in a community that holds itself as positive and radiant. Speech should not be censored unneccessarily unless it's pure noise pollution as in the case of the Swedish poster. 

Also, these sound strangely like 'rules', hehe.

Indeed, we are sovereign at our core but do we not wish to bring that power within our illusions?

Well I am not trying to transcend rules but rather get to the core truth, the core structures of these systems.

I will admit that some minimal rules are neccessary. However, I wish to contend that indefinite expansion of rules will lead to subjective and over-extensive application of them rendering them meaningless, in the end. In some governments and communities, it should be accepted that there is no law; Only discretionary rulers. The truth will set you free.

The illusion of law and justice is a dangerous force. It's equivalent to deception.

[Unbound]

Personally, looking at this from my view, I just see the archtypal Luciferian struggle between collective and individual. Each side justifies itself through its own relationship with its ideal and interprets the perspective of the other through its own eyes.

Yet, is there any real conflict outside of personal taste?

The biggest flaw I see in any such conversation is "should"s and "shouldn't"s, which is immediately a projection of one's own opinion on to the other. The next biggest flaw is what I would call "speaking for the divine", which I see oodles of on this site, and something I am probably guilty of as well, and that is using such arguments as are beyond our level of perception. The most classic use of this is the "It is God's will".

Most often here I see references to "truth of unity", "higher self's will", "freedom from illusion", "the true nature of things", "in higher consciousness", "higher/lower density" (none of these actual quotes from anyone, but general references to what I have seen over time) etc all used to justify one's perspective in relationship to their idealistic vision of these states of awareness and thereby attempt to grasp that and insert it in to the reality of one's experience. Not to say they aren't true or valid, but in most cases this is simply considered attempting to "walk one's talk", however in nearly every situation I have seen there is evolution, and one viewpoint never stays around for too long.

So, that being said, a view point or perspective is finite insofar as it is exclusive of any of its particulars. Which brings me to the point: Is there any real incompatibility between the view points of individual and collective, or is that entirely a result of an individual engaging the illusion of incompatibility?

---

Lets just have anarcho-syndicalistic commune.

---

It remains illusory until every last individual is sovereign and his choice remains his own. 

Is this not already the natural way of things? Isn't the perception that we are not just an illusion?

---

I propose free will is respected at all times during conversation and in-thought on a individual-basis in a community that holds itself as positive and radiant. Speech should not be censored unneccessarily unless it's pure noise pollution as in the case of the Swedish poster. 

Also, these sound strangely like 'rules', hehe.

Indeed, we are sovereign at our core but do we not wish to bring that power within our illusions?

Well I am not trying to transcend rules but rather get to the core truth, the core structures of these systems.

I will admit that some minimal rules are neccessary. However, I wish to contend that indefinite expansion of rules will lead to subjective and over-extensive application of them rendering them meaningless, in the end. In some governments and communities, it should be accepted that there is no law; Only discretionary rulers. The truth will set you free.

The illusion of law and justice is a dangerous force. It's equivalent to deception.

So how about such 'laws' as the laws of physics? In a universe with no innate rules there sure seems to be a lot of order.

To me that power is already here, available, to each and all. We simply give ourselves access to it in varying degrees based on our beliefs.

[Adonai One]

I just wish to argue towards the nature of power and towards the notion that the Executive branch of any legal system usually holds all the power. All else is usually fluff.

---

So how about such 'laws' as the laws of physics? In a universe with no innate rules there sure seems to be a lot of order.

These laws are applied equitably without any possible holes. Illusory laws applied by humans are easily evaded by those with more power than others and are subject to bias and corruption.

Humans cannot create laws like natural laws. They can only create the illusion of them until they are inevitably broken by a higher power.

[Spaced]

Until you reach a state of unity with all things there will always be rules or limitations on your free will. This includes self-imposed limitations, socially enforced rules and the limitations and framework of the paradigm of belief you operate within. What you need to realize is that these limitations can actually be extremely beneficial tools as they funnel consciousness into certain areas in order to expand experience within those areas. For example, I post on another message board that has no moderation and no rules other than a loose social convention established by the regular posters. That format works on that forum because it is a very open ended forum where a wide variety of topics and has a small, closely knit group of core posters. It's like a hangout. On Bring4th however there is a very specific central theme which is the philosophy of the Law of One and B4th serves as a public platform in which this philosophy can be discussed. In this case it's beneficial to have rules and a moderation team tasked to keeping the forum on topic and . . . . I'll say 'presentable' so as it can serve the public as a useful resource regarding the Law of One.

Now something I am wondering, do rules REALLY limit you so much? In my opinion within the framework of any set of rules and limitations there is still an infinite amount of possibility. Think about the English language, you have 26 letters and very firm rules about how they are to be combined and used and yet you can express an almost infinite amount of ideas and concepts in endless different ways.

[Unbound]

Power is just an illusion. Only the Creator has power, and we as its facets "allocate" it according to our own minds. Well maybe the Creator doesn't "have" power, but rather allows the distortion of power.

Any supposed power any external faction has over the self is given by the self. The attempt may be made to enslave, but enslavement only truly happens when you kneel of your own free will.

---

Until you reach a state of unity with all things there will always be rules or limitations on your free will. This includes self-imposed limitations, socially enforced rules and the limitations and framework of the paradigm of belief you operate within. What you need to realize is that these limitations can actually be extremely beneficial tools as they funnel consciousness into certain areas in order to expand experience within those areas. For example, I post on another message board that has no moderation and no rules other than a loose social convention established by the regular posters. That format works on that forum because it is a very open ended forum where a wide variety of topics and has a small, closely knit group of core posters. It's like a hangout. On Bring4th however there is a very specific central theme which is the philosophy of the Law of One and B4th serves as a public platform in which this philosophy can be discussed. In this case it's beneficial to have rules and a moderation team tasked to keeping the forum on topic and . . . . I'll say 'presentable' so as it can serve the public as a useful resource regarding the Law of One.

Now something I am wondering, do rules REALLY limit you so much? In my opinion within the framework of any set of rules and limitations there is still an infinite amount of possibility. Think about the English language, you have 26 letters and very firm rules about how they are to be combined and used and yet you can express an almost infinite amount of ideas and concepts in endless different ways.

This is a good point and I will add to it with this:

Infinity uses finite limitation, commonly known as organization in order to established unlimited, infinite realms of perception.

[Adonai One]

Now something I am wondering, do rules REALLY limit you so much?

No matter how minor the enslavement, it has net effects on society. Rules can lead to higher food prices and people working much harder than they should. It can lead to very undesriable effects. However, that's on a governmental level.

I am not willing to accept enslavement as a byproduct of rules. People think I am being melodramatic but humans with power can make life pretty bad. Of course I can survive anything but I will have my preferences.

The rules here limited me in so far that I cannot pursue channeling through my close relationships with my preferred entities. So, yes. they limit me. Of course there are infinite possibilities but that's not relevant. You can use that argument to justify absolute tyranny: "Everything is good so compromise on all of this. You can have the rest."

Also, human laws are not like natural laws. Humans laws are bypassed by higher powers.

We are a force in this world, gentlemen. We can help shape the world to what we wish it to be or we can stand by and submit to any given force. Are you willing to accept enslavement? I am not.

[Unbound]

I just wish to argue towards the nature of power and towards the notion that the Executive branch of any legal system usually holds all the power. All else is usually fluff.

---

So how about such 'laws' as the laws of physics? In a universe with no innate rules there sure seems to be a lot of order.

These laws are applied equitably without any possible holes. Illusory laws applied by humans are easily evaded by those with more power than others and are subject to bias and corruption.

Humans cannot create laws like natural laws. They can only create the illusion of them until they are inevitably broken by a higher power.

Would you say that morals are an "unnatural" law?

---

Now something I am wondering, do rules REALLY limit you so much?

No matter how minor the enslavement, it has net effects on society. Rules can lead to higher food prices and people working much harder than they should. It can lead to very undesriable effects. However, that's on a governmental level.

I am not willing to accept enslavement as a byproduct of rules. People think I am being melodramatic but humans with power can make life pretty bad. Of course I can survive anything but I will have my preferences.

The rules here limited me in so far that I cannot pursue channeling through my close relationships with my preferred entities.

So, yes. they limit me. Of course there are infinite possibilities but that's not relevant. You can use that argument to justify absolute tyranny.

Also, human laws are not like natural laws. Humans laws are bypassed by higher powers.

We are a force in this world, gentlemen. We can help shape the world to what we wish it to be or we can stand by and submit to any given force. Are you willing to accept enslavement? I am not.

I am confused, you have not been restricted in any way from pursuing your own endeavours by the rules of the forum. It seems you equate the presentation of the exploration with the exploration itself.

[Adonai One]

Power is just an illusion. Only the Creator has power, and we as its facets "allocate" it according to our own minds. Well maybe the Creator doesn't "have" power, but rather allows the distortion of power.

Any supposed power any external faction has over the self is given by the self. The attempt may be made to enslave, but enslavement only truly happens when you kneel of your own free will.

It's all illusion up to the first distortion, Eternal. You can only cop-out of it so much.

[Unbound]

Cop-out of what? Being enslaved? I am confused aha

[Spaced]

Now something I am wondering, do rules REALLY limit you so much?

No matter how minor the enslavement, it has net effects on society. Rules can lead to higher food prices and people working much harder than they should. It can lead to very undesriable effects. However, that's on a governmental level.

I am not willing to accept enslavement as a byproduct of rules. People think I am being melodramatic but humans with power can make life pretty bad. Of course I can survive anything but I will have my preferences.

The rules here limited me in so far that I cannot pursue channeling through my close relationships with my preferred entities.

So, yes. they limit me. Of course there are infinite possibilities but that's not relevant. You can use that argument to justify absolute tyranny.

Also, human laws are not like natural laws. Humans laws are bypassed by higher powers.

We are a force in this world, gentlemen. We can help shape the world to what we wish it to be or we can stand by and submit to any given force. Are you willing to accept enslavement? I am not.

Why are you so convinced that others have power over you? I'm not willing to accept enslavement, and that's fine because I'm not a slave.

You don't get freedom from any source other than yourself. I consider myself free, and it is so.

I would rather accept what the world offers to me in an attitude of good faith and allow it to be transformed THROUGH me if possible rather than seek to transform it simply to suit my purposes.

[Adonai One]

I just wish to argue towards the nature of power and towards the notion that the Executive branch of any legal system usually holds all the power. All else is usually fluff.

---

So how about such 'laws' as the laws of physics? In a universe with no innate rules there sure seems to be a lot of order.

These laws are applied equitably without any possible holes. Illusory laws applied by humans are easily evaded by those with more power than others and are subject to bias and corruption.

Humans cannot create laws like natural laws. They can only create the illusion of them until they are inevitably broken by a higher power.

Would you say that morals are an "unnatural" law?

Yes, they are completely subjective. As for the barometers for polarity, the desire for control as opposed to love for others can be quantified in some metaphysical way. Beyond that, these barometers do not limit nor intervene.

Contrived morals by legal systems are not like physics.

I am confused, you have not been restricted in any way from pursuing your own endeavours by the rules of the forum. It seems you equate the presentation of the exploration with the exploration itself.

I have been restricted from communicating with others about my channeling who are willing to accept such service.

Presentation can make the difference between a successful product and a failing one.

---

Now something I am wondering, do rules REALLY limit you so much?

No matter how minor the enslavement, it has net effects on society. Rules can lead to higher food prices and people working much harder than they should. It can lead to very undesriable effects. However, that's on a governmental level.

I am not willing to accept enslavement as a byproduct of rules. People think I am being melodramatic but humans with power can make life pretty bad. Of course I can survive anything but I will have my preferences.

The rules here limited me in so far that I cannot pursue channeling through my close relationships with my preferred entities.

So, yes. they limit me. Of course there are infinite possibilities but that's not relevant. You can use that argument to justify absolute tyranny.

Also, human laws are not like natural laws. Humans laws are bypassed by higher powers.

We are a force in this world, gentlemen. We can help shape the world to what we wish it to be or we can stand by and submit to any given force. Are you willing to accept enslavement? I am not.

Why are you so convinced that others have power over you? I'm not willing to accept enslavement, and that's fine because I'm not a slave.

You don't get freedom from any source other than yourself. I consider myself free, and it is so.

I would rather accept what the world offers to me in an attitude of good faith and allow it to be transformed THROUGH me rather than seek to transform it simply to suit my purposes.

I was convinced when little girls have to apply for business permits to start a lemonade stand. When police officers shoot barking dogs on sight because it violates their personal safety. When protestors are mauled because they are unhappy with their governments.

I cannot start businesses without forcibly giving my labor to the state which in turn is used to fund wars.

I can find freedom despite this but don't tell me I am unilaterally free in my ability to serve humanity. Do not tell me I am not enslaved by this entire paradigm.

It's easy to think you are free as an employee. But when you want to own your businesses, your own enterprises and be a leader in the world, you are nearly stopped at every corner and you have to ask for permission to do just simple things.

We live in a slave state. It's not chattel slavery but it's coercive.

This planet burdens the innovators of this world. I intend to innovate and I will despite the coercion. But do not tell me the coercion does not exist.

---

Cop-out of what? Being enslaved? I am confused aha

The illusion. We are not here to be dead. We are here to work through our bodies. There is nothing wrong to desire freedom as we are incarnate. This desire should not just be thrown aside.

[Unbound]

So, there is no natural system which may occur between individuals to bring about peaceful, harmonious coexistence? Where from comes cooperation if the universe contains no information pertaining to moral interaction between entities? If intelligence is the mode of the universe, how does it progress in sophistication?

Is not the foundation of many spiritual paths the cultivation of virtues? If it is so useless to have morals, then why are they given such apparent emphasis by our planetary logos ala the choice of polarity? Is not the choice of polarity ultimately a moral one?

Personally, I find it somewhat unsettling to refer to a spiritual communication as a "product". Ra for sale, only five bucks!

---

Also, no, there is nothing wrong with desiring freedom in whatever fashion that is, but the greater question to me is, what will I choose to do with that freedom? What am I choosing to do with the freedom I already possess?

[Adonai One]

So, there is no natural system which may occur between individuals to bring about peaceful, harmonious coexistence? Where from comes cooperation if the universe contains no information pertaining to moral interaction between entities? If intelligence is the mode of the universe, how does it progress in sophistication?

Is not the foundation of many spiritual paths the cultivation of virtues? If it is so useless to have morals, then why are they given such apparent emphasis by our planetary logos ala the choice of polarity? Is not the choice of polarity ultimately a moral one?

Personally, I find it somewhat unsettling to refer to a spiritual communication as a "product". Ra for sale, only five bucks!

That natural system is knowing yourself as the creator. You can't bring that about by law. You can't force people to behave in that manner.

The interaction of entities happens as a natural process, not by decree. Everything can progress naturally as the universe started in pure unadulterated chaos, as the planets started in chaos.

The logos does not rule by dogma nor a prescribed moral system. It allows its creations to do as it wishes according to natural, unavoidable laws that do not include morality.

Virtues are contrived. All is virtue. All is one. All things are virtuous under The Law of One. There are no non-virtues as there are no mistakes under The Law of One.

Also, the "product" reference was a metaphor. Of course my profit in such a metaphor is only a sense of service.

---

Also, no, there is nothing wrong with desiring freedom in whatever fashion that is, but the greater question to me is, what will I choose to do with that freedom? What am I choosing to do with the freedom I already possess?

I choose to strive for more freedom for humanity and myself then innovation and service can occur more efficiently and effectively.

[Spaced]

I don't want to come off as insulting, but you are reminding me a lot of the L/L Research mascot here Adonai. You'll find there's no end of windmills to tilt at . Just remember that the true freedom of peace is always waiting for you to choose to let it in.

[Unbound]

Well, with that being said, all of the apparent enslavement on this planet is thereby acceptable under natural law. So are you just complaining about where you have found yourself in that natural order? I mean, humans are logoi too, right? We are just fractals of the logos of the planet and sun and galaxy, so why are all our laws apparently nonexistent but the laws of the other logoi are?

With the primal distortion of free will, each galaxy developed its own Logos. This Logos has complete free will in determining the paths of intelligent energy which promote the lessons of each of the densities given the conditions of the planetary spheres and the sun bodies.

Note that our Logos is also a free will entity. I do also recall that Ra said that our Logos has a bias towards compassion.

[Adonai One]

I don't want to come off as insulting, but you are reminding me a lot of the L/L Research mascot here Adonai. You'll find there's no end of windmills to tilt at . Just remember that the true freedom of peace is always waiting for you to choose to let it in.

There is infinite peace in infinite conflict. True freedom is already here, indeed, but that will not stop me from pursuing freedom within the illusion. I will not accept illusory slavery because there is no true slavery.

I am not going to cop-out of the illusion.

---

Well, with that being said, all of the apparent enslavement on this planet is thereby acceptable under natural law. So are you just complaining about where you have found yourself in that natural order? I mean, humans are logoi too, right? We are just fractals of the logos of the planet and sun and galaxy, so why are all our laws apparently nonexistent but the laws of the other logoi are?

With the primal distortion of free will, each galaxy developed its own Logos. This Logos has complete free will in determining the paths of intelligent energy which promote the lessons of each of the densities given the conditions of the planetary spheres and the sun bodies.

Note that our Logos is also a free will entity. I do also recall that Ra said that our Logos has a bias towards compassion.

Does the Logos directly intervene all the time though? Do they go against robbers and try to stop crime?

I am not complaining. I am just discussing how we interact with the illusion and what we could do.

What demands have I made?

[Unbound]

The Logos is the robber, the crime, the cops, the bystanders, the civilians, etc, so yes, I would say the logos has an active role in everything that goes on within it! Aha

I am just making discussions aha

[Adonai One]

The Logos is the robber, the crime, the cops, the bystanders, the civilians, etc, so yes, I would say the logos has an active role in everything that goes on within it! Aha

But does that make a typical moral system? Most people define morals as only harmony... not robbers, crime, etc.

[Unbound]

Doesn't morals as a total idea include both ends of the spectrum? Such is the choice of polarity.

---

I would say what you are referring to is the application of morals, but I am refering to the conceptualization.

[Spaced]

I am not going to cop-out of the illusion.

Enjoying your time on this planet is not a cop-out, in fact I'm of the opinion that it's the most powerful thing you can do haha

[Adonai One]

Doesn't morals as a total idea include both ends of the spectrum? Such is the choice of polarity.

---

I would say what you are referring to is the application of morals, but I am refering to the conceptualization.

Yes, then I would agree with your conceptualization of morality, at least in the context of this galaxy.

---

I am not going to cop-out of the illusion.

Enjoying your time on this planet is not a cop-out, in fact I'm of the opinion that it's the most powerful thing you can do haha

I am not here to chill-out but to help and to serve. I will suffer and sacrifice if my service entails that. Which may seem like suffering but in reality I will be happy with whatever choice I make.

[Spaced]

How do you expect opportunities to serve to arise if you are :

a) limiting the avenues through which the Universe can deliver them to you by creating preconceived notions of how it SHOULD be?

b) focusing on that which you DON'T want (i.e. focusing on things that reinforce the ideas of enslavement and loss of control)?

[Unbound]

I have a story I feel is very relevant to this discussion.

There is an old monk and a young monk walking down a pathway beside a river. They are enjoying the day and wandering along when suddenly they notice a woman who appears to be trapped on the other side of the river. She calls to them and ask if they can help her cross the river.

Now this is a dilemma for the monks, as part of their monastic vows included that they would never touch or lay hands upon a woman. After the two seem to deliberate, the old monk finally decides to cross the river, pick up the woman and carry her back across. Having assisted her to safety she thanks them and the monks go on their way.

As they continue on their walk, the young monk is very frustrated and even angry that the old monk broke his vow and carried the woman. He is brooding over this and questioning the discipline of the old monk, when they old monk looks over at him and says, "I put that woman down over two hours ago, but you have continued to carry her."

[Adonai One]

How do you expect opportunities to serve to arise if you are :

a) limiting the avenues through which the Universe can deliver them to by creating preconceived notions of how it SHOULD be?

b) focusing on that which you DON'T want (i.e. focusing on things that reinforce the ideas of enslavement and loss of control)?

How have I done A? There are no shoulds but only preferences. I acknowledge this.

How does one create a statue without focusing on parts of the marble block that you do not want while focusing on what you do want?

I could just accept having a blank marble block but that's also denying what it could be.

Manifesting any creation in this galaxy requires acceptance and rejection of certain things. I am not here to be a monk but a Creator. Creation requires the veiling and unveiling parts of the One. I still accept all as one but I also accept the entire nature of the illusion. I will still play as an actor within this illusion.

[Unbound]

When I was learning about drawing there was the concept of "negative space" which was the space surrounding the definitive sillouette. Even though the negative space is part of the definition of the form, there is not actually anything there to focus on, the negative space only had meaning once the form, the positive space, has been decided and focused upon and then "that which is not needed falls away of its own accord".

So yes, it is good to be aware of negative space, but you cannot create a form if you think only of the negative space and not the form it is defining.

I think both are necessary, but there is a functional relationship.

[spero]

adonai if our logos had chosen not to implement the veiling system and we as sub-sub-logoi couldnt therefore choose any polarity but sto, would u consider that enslavement. ra certainly says those early creations lacked free will. in allowing veiling/free will the logos has allowed the exact situation you feel so adamant against, that is negative elites which desires to enslave you. i hope u can see the paradox of rallying against the free will which allows another sub-sub-logos the right to enslave you. however you are also within your right to reject this enslavement, although this doesnt build positive polarity (a natural law?) since you're not accepting what they are attempting to give. the natural laws outlined by the logoi can seem unfair at times depending on whether your on the disadvantaged side. even the conditions that define movement through the densities could be taken as something to rebel and rally against. why cant a sts 6d entity push past mid 6d. why should they have to conform just because some higher power set the rules on distortion requirements. this thread has been riveting btw. i cant keep up with everyones posts lol