Ra's Fundamental Postulates
05-14-2015, 04:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-17-2015, 03:18 PM by 4Dsunrise.)
Ra's Fundamental Postulates
4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com

If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstream university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.

Finish this statement 'The LoO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'

Just as Nehru and Peret reevaluated Larson's Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System or RS, a reevaluation is here attempted of Ra statements that come closest to being postulates.

From their reevaluation RS2 was created using more accurate and complete postulates to provide a better foundation for deriving corollaries and theories of physics, biology, and to some extent, mathematics and metaphysics. It became a more consistent and understandable system that could determine and explain in better detail principles and phenomena.  It is still a work in progress but is an advancement of RS.

If you get the postulates or axioms right the rest of the system should harmoniously fall into place and new research and development can take place.

My purpose here is to reevaluate the postulates or general principles of the LoO and develop more accurate ones.  It takes using critical thinking and questioning at a level that may seem harsh but that's what a thorough reevaluation calls for.

The goals are for:
1. a clear and complete description of the monism properties of the LoO.
2. a description of how these monism properties or principles can be used to derive other principles and forms of existence
3. creating a comprehensive philosophical treatise and curriculum worthy of university study and making L/L Research relevant to mainstream academia

There are some serious researchers and educators out there so critical and constructive questions and comments are welcome.
RM session 1 postulate:

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.

So I am every thing. Therefore I am all things.  I am a single entity that is all things. I, as a one, am all things. So therefore, one thing is all things, and by induction, One is All. Unity is Infinity. This is the LoO.

The I am All nature of LoO is outward and projective. I identify with you -- I project myself into you -- I am you. An unbalanced and extreme LoO can result in borderline personality disorder. Standing on the border in no man's land with no personal identity leads to projection on everyone else. Also bi-polar disorder, martyr complex, co-dependence, ungrounded flightiness.

The converse of the LoO is LoA

Every thing is you, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. Unity is you. Infinity is you. Love/light, light/love are you. All are you. This is the Law of All.

So every thing is I. Therefore all things is I. All things is I as a single entity. All things is I, as a one. So therefore, all things is one thing, and by induction, All is One. Infinity is Unity. This is the LoA.

The All is I nature of LoA is inward and injective. You identify with me -- you inject yourself into me -- you are me. An unbalanced and extreme LoA can result in narcissism and grandiose egotistic delusions, power trips, sadism, manic depression and bi-polar disorder.

There are significant semantic problems of the RM session 1 postulate:

The muddled mixing of relative and absolute terms is problematic -- beings, emotions, events, situations are relative concrete terms and should not be mixed with unity and infinity which are, as Ra uses them in the statement, absolute abstract terms. Love/light and light/love are relative and a combination of concrete/abstract so are mixable with the relative concrete.

Infinity denotes All and Unity denotes One and Infinity/Unity denote each other. They are abstract absolutes that precede and encompass the relative concrete/abstract. Therefore, I would not include infinity and unity in the initial statement. Pull them out and use them like I did in the inference chain where All is One infers Infinity is Unity.

RM session 4 postulate:

The Law of One, though beyond the limitation of name may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.

The LoO may be approximated or estimated as the statement all things are one -- this is an admission of vagueness because of translation problems.  All things are one is the basic statement of a vague arbitrary monism. What specific kind of monism is LoO?

There is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony --- all negation-based -- similar to non-duality and an absolute indifference. So are we talking about the Law of Non-Duality or Law of Indifference instead of LoO? Again vagueness from translation problems.

There is only identity -- so there's only sameness or equality.

Identity is expressed in the Styx song, Grand Illusion -- Just remember that...it's a grand illusion... and deep inside we're all the same. We're all the same as what kind of monism?

A = A  is self-identity.  Infinity = Unity and Unity = Infinity are symmetric identities that necessitate the dialectical monism of the Infinity/Unity Principle or IUP.

Equality (=) is a binary relation. You must have two things to have an equality. 4/2=2 and 5x3=15, etc. Duality is needed for equality to be expressed.
All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the infinite Creator.

In the RM session 1 postulate above -- LOO asserts that you are all, so therefore One is All -- it's clear and explicit. Now it's claimed that All is One and that one is a duality of love/light and light/love. What happened to declaring no polarity or duality and only identity? Conflicting statements between sessions 1 & 4 and within session 4 itself.

Muddled mixing and conflicting statements clearly show session 1 & 4 as ineffective postulates.

We at least know that Ra asserts a type of monotheism with a single infinite Creator but unclear about other characteristics and properties. The IUP asserts panentheism which fits perfectly with its dialectical monism.

Other than RM session 4, Ra makes only one other reference to 'all is one' in the whole 4 book series which is quite surprising -- and in RM session 66 it is not explicitly referring to the LoO but to the Creator knowing Itself, which is consistent with LoA integration and self-awareness.
All is One does not refer to the LoO as everyone assumes. (I used to assume this too - its a kind of mantra -- but its a LoA mantra or a monism mantra.)

The order of reference is significant and is clear in the following.

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

RM session 66
Questioner: Is this desire and will that operates through to the time/space section a function only of the entity who is healed or is it also the function of the healer, the crystallized healer?

Ra: I am Ra. May we take this opportunity to say that this is the activity of the Creator. To specifically answer your query the crystallized healer has no will. It offers an opportunity without attachment to the outcome, for it is aware that all is one and that the Creator is knowing Itself.
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 3 users Like 4Dsunrise's post:
Aion, Bring4th_Plenum, JustLikeYou
05-23-2015, 08:50 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-24-2015, 10:42 AM by 4Dsunrise.)
RE: Ra's Fundamental Postulates
Plenum and Tanrar -- thanks for the responses -- and feel free to elaborate as to what you found likable and unlikable. The feedback in these threads will be used to form and refine aspects of the treatise and create material for curricullum Q&A's.

Another piece of evidence that supports the One is All nature of Ra's LOO in session 1 is the following:

In session 10 the Ra group asserts that you can accelerate towards the LoO by perceiving the Creator.

Exercises to accelerate towards the LoO.
1. See through distortion to the love underlying all moments. See the Creator.
2. Look at another being. See the Creator.
3. Look at your reflection in the mirror. See the Creator.
4. Look at the creation. See the Creator.

The above exercises clearly involve perceiving outward which is consistent with an outward projection characterized by One is All of the LoO in session 1.

Now lets do the converse of each exercise to accelerate towards the LoA which is perceiving inward and is consistent with an inward injection characterized by All is One. The grammatical form of the exercises is somewhat awkward but the meaning comes across clearly enough.

Exercises to accelerate towards the LoA.
1. Assert or allow the love underlying all moments to see you as the Creator. See the Creator as you.
2. Assert or allow another being to look at you as the Creator. See the Creator as you.
3. Assert or allow your reflection in the mirror to look at you as the Creator. See the Creator as you.
4. Assert or allow the creation to look at you as the Creator. See the Creator as you.

If you're not a narcissist yet you'll be one after those exercises!

Actually the allow mode appears biased towards CCO/STO or a neutral position while  
the assert mode definitely appears biased towards CCS/STS.

CCS/O is care concern for self/other starting in late 2D into 3D.

If you do both the LoO and LoA exercises you pretty much cover the whole spectrum and can resonate to the supposed Buddha quote from:

Law of One @COfTheLawOfOne  

“He who experiences the Oneness of life sees his own-self in
all beings, and all beings in his own-self. ~Buddha

Notice the projective LoO and the injective LoA. The Oneness of life is therefore experienced through a dialectical monism or a unified bipolarity which is expressed by the Infinity/Unity Principle or its equivalent, the All/One Principle or AOP.

IUP = AOP (equivalence)

AO means All is One  (AO is equivalent to the Law of All)
OA means One is All  (OA is equivalent to the Law of One)

IU means Infinity is Unity
UI means Unity is Infinity

Note to everyone:

I type up most of my posts ahead of time and in a form that is pedantic so as to be rough drafts to be reworked and used in the treatise.
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes 4Dsunrise's post:
06-14-2015, 08:04 AM,
RE: Ra's Fundamental Postulates
Finish this statement 'The LoO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'

Another brief mention by Ra of the Law of One begins to address the above statement but still does not meet the criteria of a complete and clearly defined postulate. This is Philosophy 101 in that the Law of One is the key thesis that should be clearly and completely defined if you are to teach it to a class or to present it as a treatise.

I've said before that llresearch's 4 book transcript was not meant to be a treatise and is not at fault. Don asked more than once to get a clear and detailed definition, but it is what it is.

The below excerpt indicates Ra's somewhat casual attitude towards defining the Law of One by indicating how simple it is. It is relatively simple when it is clearly and completely defined with some additional relevant context.

session 6

Quote:Questioner: I think that it would be appropriate to discover how the Law of
One acts in this transfer of beings to our planet and the action of harvest?

Ra: The Law of One states simply that all things are one, that all beings are one. There are certain behaviors and thought-forms consonant with the understanding and practice of this law.

The question remains, 'are one what?' since there are many types of monisms that assert various types of oneness.

Monism is the doctrine that reality is in some sense one, unchanging, indivisible, undifferentiable -- the doctrine that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts.

Here's an attempt to fill in the blanks of the thesis statement at the top of the post using Ra's short statement in this session.

The LoO is the law that states simply that all things are one and that all beings are one, and from this it implies that:

all are of one substance which is -- spirit? consciousness? will? love? light?
all are of one origin which is -- Original Thought? First Cause? non-Being?
all are of one source which is -- primal infinity? primal unity? unmoved Mover?
all are of one universe which is -- infinite space and time? infinite dimensions?
all are of one essence which is -- infinite beingness? one being?
all are of one Creator which is -- transcedent? immanent? panentheistic?
all are of one realm of being which is -- the One? the All? the Mysterious?
all are of one divine purpose which is -- to know self? to love all? to be whole?
all are of one basic whole object that is prior to its parts -- a priority monism
all are of one (other types of monisms that need to be explored)

Priority monism (PM) asserts, for example, that a basic whole object, ie a circle, is prior to its parts, ie points or arcs of the circle, so there is oneness in being a part of the circle. In the case asserted by philosopher/metaphysician Jonathan Schaffer the basic whole object is the physical universe and we are one as parts of this physical universe. It is a materialist monism that is non-theistic.

We know by the Reciprocal System that we are in a physical, transphysical and metaphysical universe so, in terms of priority monism, we can consider it as a basic whole object of which we are one as parts of this more complete universe.

We can go beyond Schaffer's materialist PM by asserting a so-called metamonism which is holistic and allows for a variety of monisms within this RS universe. We may consider various monisms as valid within their parameters ie the physical (material), transphysical (mind) and metaphysical (spirit).

In my thread 'What is Ra's Monism?' I am still working on a metamonism that fully describes a complete Law of One thesis.

To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-30-2015, 04:02 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-11-2015, 12:56 PM by 4Dsunrise. Edit Reason: added another postulate )
RE: Ra's Fundamental Postulates
I think the primary postulates regarding the Law of One thesis has been covered in the first 3 posts of this thread. I'm sure there's still more to cover and clarify, so feel free to offer questions and comments.

I'll move on to what can be called secondary postulates of the Law of One which Ra asserts as:

1. the emergence of duality or bipolarity from an undifferentiated, deterministic and Absolute Unity. (or Absolute Infinity)

2. the emergence of the Primal Triad of Free Will, Love and Light from an undifferentiated, deterministic and Absolute Unity. (or Absolute Infinity)

3. the Original Impulse -- the Creator desires to know Itself

4. that the Universe is alive -- a panpsychism thesis

5. that the Universe is one Being -- a monism thesis that allows omni-consciousness and omni-presence -- the Ra group assert this as the ability to travel at the speed of thought, to go instantly to any locus of the universe
In regards to postulate #1 -- the emergence of duality or bipolarity -- I don't know of any explicit Ra statement of how how duality emerges from unity -- how is it the case that from undifferentiated Oneness comes differentiated Twoness?

I suggest the notions of projective identity and injective identity which also asserts self-reference and allows emergence from a static Existence Monism to a dynamic Dialectical Monism. The static stillness and silence of Oneness conceives of the notion of flow in its process of identity and self-reference -- therefore producing a dynamic within Itself that is dual or bipolar.

Here is the main excerpt from Ra providing the notions of outward and inward flow, rhythms and focuses (foci) and also potential and kinetic which seem to imply the emergence of duality or bipolarity. There is no mention of identity which is supposedly all there is --  as Ra says "there is only identity".

session 27

Quote:Ra: Intelligent infinity has a rhythm or flow...the presence of the flow inevitable as a tide of beingness without polarity, without finity; the vast and silent all beating outward, outward, focusing outward and inward until the focuses are complete.

The intelligence or consciousness of foci have reached a state where their, shall we say, spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward, inward until all is coalesced. This is the rhythm of reality as you spoke.

Don: Then I think I have extracted an important point from this in that in intelligent infinity we have work without polarity, or a potential difference does not have to exist. Is this correct?

Ra: There is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity. The basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind. The rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself. From this undistorted unity, however, appears a potential in relation to intelligent energy.

In this excerpt is Ra's notion of intelligent infinity and intelligent energy as an apparent potential and kinetic. Somewhere in the transcripts Ra states or implies "intelligent infinity as unity" which begs the question of why not also the complementary notion of "intelligent unity as infinity"?

Ra offers a nondescript answer to this question in session 18

Quote:It is not our intent in this particular project to create erroneous information, but to express in this confining ambiance of your language system the feeling of the Infinite Mystery of the One Creation in its infinite and intelligent unity.

Here Ra describes an infinite and intelligent unity. And so combine that with the complementary notion of unified and intelligent infinity to get the IUP/AOP.

A convenient metamath formula is U : I --> I* where Primal Infinity becomes aware or Intelligent Infinity through the focus and formulation of Primal Unity.

The complementary formula is I : U --> U* where Primal Unity becomes aware or Intelligent Unity through the breadth and dynamism of Primal Infinity.

As usual the theoretical formula is IUP = IU + UI where IU refers to  U : I --> I* and
refers to I : U --> U*.

As also usual, the AOP = AO + OA is equivalent to the IUP, and so a metamath version
using All and One is possible in that AO refers to O : A --> A* and OA refers to A : O ---> O*.

So we could think in terms of Intelligent Allness and Intelligent Oneness if we'd like. They have a certain panache about them which can be used for contemplation and meditation.

So to sum up -- the emergence of duality or bipolarity in the LOO is suggested by Ra without the use of identity and self-reference, while the IUP/AOP makes use of identity and self-reference. The notions of potential and kinetic seem to be derived from identity and self-reference and need further development within the IUP/AOP.

The next post will be on postulates #2 and #3 which is a large subject involving the Primal Triad and a panentheistic Creator.
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2015, 01:14 PM,
RE: Ra's Fundamental Postulates
In the above post I just made an edit to add postulate #5 in that the Universe is one Being which I think is distinct from postulate #4 in that the Universe is alive.

This is because, to say that the Universe is alive doesn't necessarily imply that it is one alive Being. It could imply two alive Beings such as a male and female dyad as with the Hindu Shiva and Shakti, or the three alive Beings of the Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So these two postulates are related but distinct.

Also, the metamath formulae in the last post can be further clarified in that they represent transformations or metamorphisms which are commonly called mappings or functions by mathematicians.

U : I --> I*  can be written as U(I) = I* where U transforms I into I*
 I : U --> U* can be written as I(U) = U* where I transforms U into U*
O : A --> A* can be written as O(A) = A* where O transforms A into A*
A : O --> O* can be written as A(O) = O* where A transforms O into O*

So there's the dual and mutual transformation or mutual becoming of infinity/unity or all/one as a fundamental process.

Quote:The next post will be on postulates #2 and #3 which is a large subject involving the Primal Triad and a panentheistic Creator.

I haven't prepared this yet but briefly:

2. the emergence of the Primal Triad of Free Will, Love and Light from an undifferentiated, deterministic and Absolute Unity. (or Absolute Infinity)

Will need to clarify terms ie emergence, undifferentiation, determinism, absolute and their complements ie de-emergence, differentiation, indeterminism, relative.

Will need to define "free" and "will" separately and as the combined "free will". as well as "love" and "light".

3. the Original Impulse -- the Creator desires to know Itself

Will need to show why an impulse or desire precedes and underlies an action such as a thought, and how this self-referential intentionality and experentiality provides the conditions for vitalism or being alive. This vitalism is the basis for emotion and thought, which is galvanizing and electric in its nature and thus expresses the unified bipolar quality of love.

Will need to define panentheism in the context of the Creator knowing Itself.

Will need to describe the Original Thought of Love in the context of all this.
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-15-2015, 04:58 PM,
RE: Ra's Fundamental Postulates
Quote:The next post will be on secondary postulates #2 and #3 which is a large subject involving the Primal Triad and a panentheistic Creator.
I can only cover #2 in this post since there's much to sort out and redefine.

#2. the emergence of the Primal Triad of Free Will, Love and Light from an undifferentiated, deterministic and Absolute Primal Unity. (or Absolute Primal Infinity) 

An addendum:
Concepts ie Absolute is associated with Primal, and Relative is associated with Intelligent (or Aware)

Relative Intelligence or Relative Awareness emerges from the notions of "relative to" or "in relation to" because intelligence and awareness necessitates (must needs) a relativity or a relation in order to have a reference and to be expressed. 

In other words, if relativity or relation doesn't exist there's nothing to have "intelligence of" or "awareness of".

An example is with U : I --> I* in which Relative Intelligent Infinity emerges from the process of Absolute Primal Infinity being "relative to" or "in relation to" Absolute Primal Unity

session 13 

Quote:Don: Can you tell me how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself.
Ra: The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. 

Here the Ra group blends "intelligent infinity" with creator and seem to equate the concept of "freedom of will of awareness" to the concept of "finity" in order to bring about the "primal paradox or distortion" of Free Will. 

Paradox in this context perhaps meaning "there is Free Will when there apparently shouldn't be Free Will" and the LOO is still not clearly defined based on the OP of this thread -- some other issues are discussed several paragraphs down starting at #.

But first here's my reevaluation attempt of this session 13 quote that allows for emergence of Intelligent Infinity which will, in turn, results in emergence of the Free Will Principle.

As previously stated, U : I --> I* is equivalent to IU or "Infinity is Unity" which is a logical predication that implies the notions of "relative to" or "in relation to".

These notions, in turn, express "discernment" in which Primal Absolute Infinity discerns or becomes aware of the concept of finity (unity) in relation to Primal Absolute Unity and becomes Relative Intelligent Infinity.  This relativity, in turn, induces the individualizing process mentioned in the session 13 quote.

Combining notions of infinity/finity (unity), intelligence/awareness and relativity/individualization to induce Relative Intelligent Infinity leads to emergence of the Free Will Principle which has freedom from determinism or as a cosmic type of indeterminism

This type of indeterminism partakes in the metamonism process by seeking the variableness of the various stages of experience and evolution away from the Source or Existence Monism. This can be construed as the Original Impulse of Free Will to Experience Self.

Symmetrically in Dialectical Monism terms, as previously stated, I : U --> U* is equivalent to UI or "Unity is Infinity" which is a logical predication that also implies the notions of "relative to" or "in relation to", The emergence of Relative Intelligent Unity. (session 18 -- "the feeling of the Infinite Mystery of the One Creation in its infinite and intelligent unity" -- refers to Cardinal Octave emergence in What is Ra's Monism thread) 

And again, combining notions of infinity/finity (unity), intelligence/awareness and 
relativity/individualization to induce Relative Intelligent Unity leads to emergence of the Love Principle or perhaps better worded as the Logos Principle which is "the divine reason that is the organizing principle of the universe". 

This divine reason is a cosmic type of determinism that partakes in the metamonism process by seeking the constancy of the Source or Existence Monism. This can be construed as the Ra group's Original Thought of Love.

So, in quick summary, the IUP = IU + UI plus the above elaboration leads to the emergence of the Primal Triad of Free Will and Love and their natural dyadic, the Free Will/Love dynamic known as Light. The Light allows essence to have existence in order to allow the essence to be expressed.

# Now back to session 13 and session 27 regarding "intelligent infinity".

There are several undefined uses of "intelligent infinity" in a few sessions previous to session 13 ie "gateway to intelligent infinity" and "congruence of faith with intelligent infinity". 

In session 13 there's an attempt to define "intelligent infinity" based on the premises -- "The first known thing in creation is infinity. The infinity is creation....Infinity became aware." 

Then in session 27 a noticeably different attempt to define "intelligent infinity" is based on the premises -- "There is unity. This unity is all that there is. This unity has a potential and kinetic."

These two sets of premises are obviously different and lead to a mixed and muddled derivation and understanding of "intelligent infinity". There is good conceptual material here but it has to be sorted out and reconstructed into a more coherent form which leads to derivations from the IUP/AOP and metamonism.
To seek and grow is to research and develop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)