IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
05-14-2015, 05:29 PM,
#31
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
My mistake -- I should have posted the text of my opening statement rather than posting a link.

I first critique some Ra statements and then move to the channel session where LOO supporters challenge the IUP. I try to play their role to give you an idea of how to make challenges and to support your claims as would happen in a friendly philosophical debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Book 1: Session 1

Thus, we are speaking to you and accepting both our distortions and your own in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the Law of One.

What are the Venusians distortions relative to enunciating the laws of creation? Can we assume that they may be at 6.6.6 density which has a strong LoO bias? From this statement why don't they make explicit that the LoO is the fundamental law of creation?

That which is infinite (ie the set of natural numbers) cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept.

The set of natural numbers is a countable infinity and contains more than one number which means that it is an infinite plurality. A set or collective is considered a unity or a complete whole, so let's call the set of natural numbers a complete plurality.

You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

In short form this statement means 'You are All'. The converse of this statement in short form is  'All is you' or the Law of All.

The term 'converse' means 'reversed in order, relation or action' so the LoA and LoO have a bipolar reciprocal relationship. They have equal significance which is why IUP = LoA + LOO.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to the channel session.

Q. We mean no disrespect but we remain skeptical of some of the claims of the IUP.

You claim that, in theoretical terms, that IUP = LoA + LOO. We have heard from other channel sources, including your Venusian mentors, that theoretically, Oneness or LoO is sufficient to derive all the principles of knowledge and experience.

We find the LoO as both attractive and compelling as we seek the oneness and harmony of positively polarized 4th density whereby each individual seeks to identify with all others in order to create a robust Social Memory Complex.

We do acknowledge that this involves a mutually outward and projective focus and CCO/STO which you have stated is the essential nature of LoO or, according to you, that 'One is All'.

We claim that LoO asserts that Oneness encompasses Allness so therefore LoO encompasses LoA and that the notions of inward and injective focus and CCS/STS are aspects of Oneness and 'All is One' is not distinct from 'One is All', as you would claim.

We therefore claim that your assumption that IUP = LoA + LOO is extraneous and erroneous unless proven otherwise.

We would like as proof the following conditions.

1. Addressing our claim that LoO asserts that Oneness encompasses Allness so therefore LoO encompasses LoA.

2. More clarity and detail of your definitions of LoA and LoO especially as to how 'One is All' is distinct from 'All is One' -- a distinction which we presently refute.

3. Provide one or more specific examples of where the IUP supercedes the LoO as necessary in deriving aspects or principles of the Creation. We suggest explaining how the octaves and densities are derived and how they function according to the IUP as opposed to the LoO.

A. We thank you for being honest and forthcoming regarding your disagreement with our theoretical notion of the IUP.

We also mean no disrespect to you, to other channels and especially to our beloved Venusian friends who were functioning at a sub-sub-density of 6.6.6D at the time of their transmission of the LoO in our 3rd density. The density of 6.6.6 is an evolutional interval that is particularly focused on LoO principles.

In addition, their message of the LoO is essential for those entering 4th density and is, as you stated, attractive and compelling and rightfully so because both positive and negative 4D is a LoO motivated density due to outward focus and identification between individuals in order to form a Social Memory Complex.

We have opened the door to elaborate further on the densities and will do so in the order of your enumerated questions.

Regarding your first question of -- Addressing our claim that LoO asserts that Oneness encompasses Allness so therefore LoO encompasses LoA.

In a previous session we stated:

Unity/Infinity means 'One is All' and is called the Law of One or LoO.

Colloquially, one can say 'I am All' which allows an outward focus from Oneself to the All.

For LoO, projection or outward focus is emphasized by stating 'You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation...you are...All.'

From these statements we consider that LoO asserts that Oneness identifies with Allness but does not encompass Allness and, as a result, LOO does not encompass LoA.

There was a quote from our Venusian bretheren stating 'Unity contains all and so therefore it cannot abhor any' which we totally agree but there is a distinction between the quantitative 'all' and the qualitative 'Allness' which is subtle but significant and where the application of philosophical analysis is essential to understand such distinctions.

We would restate that 'Unity is Infinity and therefore contains all'. This makes clear that the qualitative notion of identification entails the quantitative notion of containing.

Let us refer back to this same session regarding LoA.

Infinity/Unity means 'All is One' and is called the Law of All or LoA.

Colloquially, one can say 'All is I' which allows an inward focus from the All to Oneself.

For LoA, injection or inward focus is emphasized by stating 'Every thing is you, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation...All is...you.'

From these statements we consider that LoA asserts that Allness identifies with Oneness but does not encompass Oneness and, as a result, LoA does not encompass LoO.

Let us state that 'Infinity is Unity and therefore contains one' whereby the phrase 'contains one' means 'contains one and only one of itself' and so again the qualitative notion of identification entails the quantitative notion of containing.

Let us again refer back to the session where we stated:

There is actually a two-fold reciprocal nature to the IUP. There is the Infinity/Unity aspect and the Unity/Infinity aspect. Existentially, Infinity preceded Unity but found its essence through Unity through focus and formulation and became aware. Unity gains being and awareness through the dynamism and activity of Infinity. Thus these two aspects are equally significant and form a Dyad.

In this case we do not use the algrebraic notion of Dyad due to the absolute nature of the terms Infinity and Unity and thus express in theoretical terms as IUP = LoA + LOO or colloquially 'All is One and One is All'

We hope this has sufficiently addressed your 1st question.

Q. Ah -- we'll get back to you after we do our own philosophical analysis. We appreciate your efforts and look forward to question #2.

A. We appreciate your healthy skepticism and shall now address your second question of -- More clarity and detail of your definitions of LoA and LoO especially as to how 'One is All' is distinct from 'All is One' -- a distinction which we presently refute.

We shall now introduce the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' which further clarifies and distinguishes LoA and LoO. The term 'absolute' refers to 'one and only one' as there cannot be more than one absolute Infinity or absolute Unity. The term 'relative' refers to 'more than one' as there can be more than one relative infinity ie countable and uncountable, and more than one relative unity ie unit intervals of a number line.

LoA -- 'All is One' means 'Absolute All is a relative One-exclusive complete Plurality' where 'relative One-exclusive' translates to 'excludes all but one, and so there is one and only one absolute Infinity'.

LoO -- 'One is All' means 'Absolute One is a relative All-inclusive complete Singularity' where 'relative All-inclusive' translates to 'includes all to form one and only one absolute Unity'.

An important point is that in both these definitions the notion of finity is a natural consequence of the absolute/relative dynamic and of terms ie singularity and plurality -- so thus there is a logical and natural emergence of finity and form in Creation.

In a past session we stated:

The distinction between LoA and LoO may seem subtle but it is significant for allowing the emergence of polarity and evolution.

Let us briefly state that 'Oneness is static without Allness and Allness is unfocussed without Oneness' so together they form a dynamic duo and dynamism entails polarity and evolution.

So, in conclusion, there is a distinction in the manner of complementarity. This complementarity implies a dynamic inseparable duality or unified bipolarity -- a notion that the philosophical system of Non-Duality requires.

We hope this has sufficiently addressed your 2nd question.

Q. We will again suspend judgement until we undergo our own philosophical analysis.

Perhaps the pull of 4D has us in an emotionally biased LoO mode and is clouding our perception of Allness and of LoA. We'll keep an open mind.

A. We again applaud you for maintaining a healthy discernment while leaving your minds and hearts open.

We now would like to show where both LoA and LoO as defined by our IUP are clearly necessary to produce polarity and evolution and which we will address in your 3rd question -- Provide one or more specific examples of where the IUP supercedes the LoO as necessary in deriving aspects or principles of the Creation. We suggest explaining how the octaves and densities are derived and how they function according to the IUP as opposed to the LoO.

We shall now attempt a sufficient explanation.

The natural bipolar relationship of LoA and LoO allows the bipolar relationship of number as odd/even, prime/composite, predecessor/successor to form 2x2x2 structures called octaves which are based on a natural vibrational or tonal progression which uses doubling effects to distinguish between successive octaves.  

The IUP asserts the initial notion that 'Infinity is Unity' -- it is the 1st assertion so therefore LoA is assigned #1. 'Unity is Infinity' is the successive 2nd assertion so therefore LoO is assigned #2. These assertions then alternate so that LoA is 1, 3, 5, 7 whereas LoO is 2, 4, 6, 8.

As previously mentioned, these numbers have vibrational being and, in this case, have beingness as the 8 densities of an octave. So LoA relates to 1D, 3D, 5D and 7D while LoO relates to  2D, 4D, 6D and 8D.

In other words, the densities of an octave take on the character and motivation of either LoA or LoO with further modification made by the sub-densities within each density which, in turn, has further modification made by the sub-sub-densities, and so on.

For all practical purposes the sub-sub-density level is sufficient for general evolutional understanding. For example, a density of 3.6.5 has the character and motivation of LoA/LoO/LoA in 3D with a natural evolutional draw to LoO motivated 4D.

So at this particular stage of 3.6.5D the self-aware 'All is I' character of 3D is modified by the 'I am All' character of a 3D-filtered 6D which, in turn, is modified by the 'All is I' character of a 3D/6D-filtered 5D. As you can see it has a hierarchal and complex interactive structure.

In addition, this hierarchal density complex in 3D is modified by the ethical bipolar draw of 4D and its 'I am All' character.

This rich interplay of LoA and LoO through the filterings of number and density is that of a tone poem or chromatic composition -- expressive, dynamic and alive with polarized tension and action.

We sense a query. Do you wish to respond?

Q. No, we were just caught off guard with your notion of a density filtering process and of tone poems and chromatic compositions. These are new concepts to consider and to put into perspective.

A. We suggest opening one's heart and one's intuitive and artistic senses as you consider these concepts. Musical and color arts training is most beneficial in this regard. Let us provide an example that is relevant to your 3D condition..

To evolve to 3D the need for individuality and self-awareness is motivated by 'All is I' consciousness and inner focus which provides a level of cognition/affection for integrating 1D and 2D consciousness. Once in 3D the 4D consciousness is activated but only faintly until one reaches 3.4D and clear ethical awareness emerges and one evolves beyond a clan or tribal ethic. Notice that 3.4D has LoA/LoO motivation.

When in LoA/LoA motivated 3.5D one most likely feels as an outcast of the clan or tribe and inner focus and integration takes place in accord with the 'All is I' sub-density. One becomes more open and aware of a global or universal ethic and strives to understand its principles.

The STS principles are towards understandings and methods of manipulation of clans and tribes for personal power of a CCS nature, whereas STO principles are towards understandings and methods of peaceful coalescing of clans and tribes for personal power of a CCO nature.

When in LoA/LoO motivated 3.6D one becomes socially involved with others of like mind and ideals which reflects outer focus in accord with the 'I am All' sub-density. Political, military and corporate power structures appeal to the social focus of STS while charity and grassroots movements appeal to the social focus of STO.

Finally, when an individual is at 3.7D she is experiencing LoA/LoA consciousness and an acute integration of LoO sub-densities 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 with also a strong awareness and draw to LoO motivated 4D. She has also been integrating LoA sub-densities 3.1, 3.3, 3.5 and their lessons and is deciding her ethical 4D fate with much inner reflection and perhaps inner conflict and turmoil. The tone poetic and chromatic drama is being played out on both inner and outer planes of her soul/chakra system and her daily life.

We wish her well in her efforts to progress to 4D.

As we mentioned our Venusian friends were at 6.6.6D which reflects LoO/LoO/LoO when offering the LoO to us as we were entering the LoO motivated 4D. That LoO bias tends to overstate LoO and understate LoA and our notion of the IUP.

We presently exist at 6.7.3D which reflects LoO/LoA/LoA and are motivated by both LoO and LoA as we are drawn to LoA motivated 7D.

We again sense a query. Do you wish to respond?

Q. I don't know where to begin. I can relate to that person in 3.7D since that is where we are personally and as a planet. The elaborate interplay of LoA and LoO within myself is such a new concept to consider, but I must admit it has an intellectual elegance.

A. We understand and offer a few examples. Your breathing in and out is a LoA/LoO process. Your heart beats by contracting and expanding and is a LoA/LoO process. Your inner/outer focus and CCS/CCO is LoA/LoO.

Also, to understand the dynamic interaction of LoA and LoO throughout 3D we suggest that you consider the idealized developmental evolution of a person from infancy to old age recognizing that at 3.1 an infant experiences itself as the center of the universe while at 3.7 an octogenarian is self-reflecting and inward seeking in preparation for rebirth. As you can see both 3.1 and 3.7 express LoA /LoA or 'All is I' consciousness but with much different levels of maturity.

Do you have a query?

Q. Yes, we have a question regarding densities and octaves particularly the discrepancy of 7 densities in an octave which, by definition, should be 8 densities. We noticed that you explicitly enumerated 8 densities per octave. Are we to assume the 8th density of one octave coincides with the 1st density of the next octave and does this directly correspond to the musical diatonic octave?

A. Yes this is quite true. There is an overlap of 8th density and 1st density from one octave to the next and this indicates further elaboration of the term density and of 8th and 1st density principles.

In the pure sense, a density is a sub-octave or a minor octave and a sub-density is a sub-sub-octave or sub-minor octave and so on. Octaves within octaves within octaves.

The term density is used because it is a measure of the degree of intensity of will, love and light and so it is equivalent to a measure of vibrational beingness. Density is likened to a degree of temperature and is convenient and descriptive for determining the evolutional stage of being. Drastic changes take place at a melting point and boiling point degree and similarly at a successive density or stage of evolution.

Let us now consider the overlap of densities 3.8 and 4.1 which is most relevant for you.

They both represent the same quantitative degree of intensity but have different qualitative modes and motivations in that 3.8 is LoA/LoO and 4.1 is LoO/LoA. These modes have a complementary and reciprocal relationship and provide the necessary linkage and transition between densities -- in this case between 3D and 4D. These complementary modes also allow for bipolar ethical expression whereby either 4D+ or 4D- is chosen.

To further elaborate, recall the example of the octogenarian at 3.7D preparing for rebirth. The transition from LoA/LoA of 3.7D to LoA/LoO of 3.8D is the final rebirth phase as one projects out of their physical body using the 'I am All' or LoO state of being to end the LoA mode of 3D. It is a releasing and exiting phase.

To continue with this example, at rebirth one is now injected into 4.1D which, at LoO/LoA provides the  'All is I' or LoA mode that properly plants or seats the distillations of 3.8D into 4D. It is a collecting and entering phase.

The blending of 3.8D and 4.1D is likened to a saxaphone and clarinet playing the same note of the same octave. They are of different timber but of the same tonal vibration and therefore this duet is essential for providing the foundation for the rich tone poetic and multi-instrumental ensemble of 4D.

We sense a conclusion to this rather lengthy exposition is appropriate.  

Q. Yes, we notice that our channel's voice is getting raspy so we agree that it's time to sign off. Thank you for taking the time to address our conditions. We will digest it carefully and get back to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-14-2015, 06:55 PM,
#32
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
Can't we be into both?

And what is LoA, the Law of Attraction?

Developing ability to connect to Source
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-17-2015, 03:12 PM,
#33
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
(05-14-2015, 06:55 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote:  Can't we be into both?

And what is LoA, the Law of Attraction?

Hey GW -- that's a good insight b/c they are 2 versions of the same thing except that imo the IUP is an updated version of the LOO and is actually not a difficult philosophy to understand -- contrary to what Ra asserted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LoA is the Law of All -- All is One  -- All is I

What is All? All is One -- All is the primary subject and One is the secondary predicate. LoA 

What is One? One is All -- One is the primary subject and All is the secondary predicate. LOO

In both LoA and LoO there is attraction-type action ie inward injection and outward projection -- maybe that's how the sub-principle of Law of Attraction is derived or perceived. It needs to be reworked b/c it has new age distortion and vagueness. Another interesting insight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, could you do a favor and edit your last post with the huge graphic? Can you reduce its scale so that it doesn't make the whole thread extra wide? It makes reading other posts a chore. Much appreciated!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-17-2015, 03:17 PM,
#34
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
(05-17-2015, 03:12 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote:  BTW, could you do a favor and edit your last post with the huge graphic? Can you reduce its scale so that it doesn't make the whole thread extra wide? It makes reading other posts a chore. Much appreciated!

Which post are you referring to? Can you post a link?

Developing ability to connect to Source
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-17-2015, 03:24 PM,
#35
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
(05-17-2015, 03:17 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote:  
(05-17-2015, 03:12 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote:  BTW, could you do a favor and edit your last post with the huge graphic? Can you reduce its scale so that it doesn't make the whole thread extra wide? It makes reading other posts a chore. Much appreciated!

Which post are you referring to? Can you post a link?

It's page 1 of this thread -- post #26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-17-2015, 03:30 PM,
#36
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
There, all I could do was post a link. It won't allow me to do an attachment in this thread.

Developing ability to connect to Source
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-19-2015, 01:39 PM,
#37
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
I finally have time to read your post and respond -- you've got some interesting thoughts.

VanAlioSaldo
said:
Quote:Youd be better off pronouncing it the Way of One.

Yes, I mentioned the Way approach and agree it's a better connotation and more attractive.

Quote:Law insists it is imposed or forced upon to human culture, its closer to a choice in our octave, a Way.

Yes,  Way would be a choice if there were other ways or paths to choose from -- but it's implied as the Way.

From a post in this thread of the grad students:
Quote:Does the term way in the context of the Way of One allow for a non-decreed law?

Put in this context, "It's the way it has always been and will always be. It's just the way. It will never change. It is an absolutely determined and constant rule of existence." Determined by what or by whose authority? We're back to the authority theme.

Way can be defined as path so the Way of One or Path of One is the one and only path.

There are no other paths to choose from. You have no choice but to take this path. You are therefore completely determined by this path. You don't have free will in this case. There is no universal free will or anarchy. William Wallace can yell 'Freeeedommm!' until he's blue in the face. He's totally bound by the Way or Law of One. He must appeal to an absolute authority.

I might respond and ask "Might he be appealing to himself? Perhaps deep down Wallace knows that "All is I and I am All" which the IUP presupposes as LoA and LoO. He therefore realizes that he is absolute and realizes that to be determined means to be chosen -- and to be chosen means to be loved -- which ain't a bad thing.

My take is that at 3D we are relative/absolute beings with relative free will but deep down we are determined by an absolute/relative will which we finally realize -- as a William Wallace might do. The Ron Paul thread -- using a Platonic dialogue format which allowed me to explore metaphysical Libertarianism -- attempts to deal with this.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10890

Quote:I think you're trying to attach a metaphysics philosophical debate to a purely philosophical concept riddled with metaphysics examples.

As far as a debate goes -- I was hoping to hear from LOO supporters as to their idea of what type of monism and what type of theism they attribute to Ra's LOO. They should also be responding to the Ra's Fundamental Postulates thread.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

I've been studying up on academic level metaphysics and metaphysical examples can be quite well defined. I think a philosophical treatise is doable and also a curriculum that is both philosophical and esoteric is doable. My background is education so I'm drawn to making this education project work for the 4D Terran population.

Quote:If youd rather integrate together rather than define differences, you could just make a LoO Metaphysics Study starting at the basic golden spiral design to the incredibly complex fractal manner of intelligently spreading Love/Light to develop the holographic universe to the illogical/hard to understand Beingness of Consciousness, Infinity, and Unity.

The spiral and fractal models are definitely part of this treatise and hoping to go beyond another LOO metaphysics study group, ala Scott Mandelker's, to target the mainstream college students. Make the material of the highest level of philosophical treatment to pass every critique test.

Quote:I disagree unsurely about infinity not having unity at one point.  Infinity implies unity.  Infinity came first and Unity was with it.  They were simultaneous which is why I often wonder why no one views simultaneity as a prereq like infinity, unity, and beingness to our current place.

I used Ra's direct statement in session 1 about Infinity existing first and then realizing itself as Unity and becoming aware. There's perhaps a logical or logoic notion of infinity preceding unity implied in this statement.

Quote:Youd have to step back from the placing of the Law or Way of One as the Capstone.  It is the First Distortion, the second step down of you will.  The first being True thing derived the original Ways of Infinity discovering itself.

The Law of One is not a decree.  It is a Way of Beingness.

Quote:You can break it.  You can choose to disconnect and look away.  You can even deny it.  It won't force you to believe.  It wont make you miserable for disagreeing.

I have later in this thread pointed out that an absolute and decreed law ie LOO or IUP isn't so bad since we, at our absolute/relative level have decreed it. The All is I and I am All is something worth exploring and I'm working on a thesis to see where it leads. To be posted later.

Quote:It is more than a universal Way, it is a Conscious Way.  Seek the Law of One to know yourself.  Seek the Way of One to know yourself.  There is only one.  The Law of One is part of that.  It isn't the one true absolute way.  Its a part of a way.

I think of it as the Way of the Creator.  The path of reexperience starts at the Law of One.

I agree with the words in bold since, based on session 1, LOO means One is All. The other part, imo, is LoA or All is One.

Quote:So in an infinity/unity principle we have semantics if you were to combine the two.  We also have an inherent issue with compatibility.  One says first came Infinity then Unity.While another says both are simultaneous.

You can Only have both if you wish to heavily complicate that combined system with paradox which up that high is not properly applied for paradoxes unify and cease before that point.

My take is that the identity law produces a symmetric relation in that
Infinity = Unity and Unity = Infinity leading to a dialectical monism.

Quote:I appreciate what you're going for though.  I wish I could derive a reciprocal holofractal system to mirror the creation i find myself in.

Beyond that.  More metaphysics would be nice.  We have foundations, we just need to build.

I actually used this exact term several years ago in the Reciprocal Systems forums and still think it applies to the RS2 of Nehru and Peret in some fashion. I hadn't used it since then but think it has potential to be used towards the IUP research.

There is a foundation but it needs careful and rigorous definition because it is the crucial foundation which everything rests on -- it's dry and detailed work but pays off when you can get into holofractal-like derivations and such.

Thanks VanAlioSaldo for your thoughtful input and positive feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2015, 08:40 PM,
#38
RE: IUP or LoO? A philosophical debate.
So.. is there a link to this IUP information? I like looking at things from new angles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)