There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
09-08-2010, 11:03 AM,
#91
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
WE just don't know, i find it fascinating, nothing is 100% sure! That makes complete sense to me because the very nature of consciousness is to be ALL to include ALL experience.
Which means everything must be 100% sure as well, it is a perspective.
Everything must be true because we can Experience anything as Truth.
That is how powerful and free we are... or maybe it is the opposite if you want a different point of view, err

;D

Blessed be our confusion and our clarity ! Everything and Nothing ! Back and forth ! Below and above !
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2010, 03:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-08-2010, 04:48 PM by Quantum.)
#92
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
unity100 Wrote:: infinity can never be finity. because, if it could, it means it wasnt infinity from the start.
βαθμιαίος Wrote:: I agree with this. Infinity can't be finity. The question then is how does finity come about. My answer, which I've really just cribbed, to the best of my ability, from Ra, is that infinity masks or distorts itself into the illusion we experience. That means that it's still infinity; it just appears, from our limited viewpoint, not to be.
Monica Wrote:: Sure. From infinity's viewpoint, it's still infinity. From ours, it's not. But ours is included in infinity's viewpoint, as is everything...
I have much enjoyed this most interesting dialog which (for the moment) captivated me more than any other conversation presently on the forum. I am most intrigued βαθμιαίος with not only your responses and noble attempts at sorting through the interpretations, but also for what I feel are the more correct. If I may in closing, in the hopes of assisting, rather than interrupting, or, heaven forbid derailing, what I consider to be your very clear and well thought out stream of considerations, wonder if I may add to it.

It is a given, as much as is painfully self-evident, that as unity100 points out, infinity can never be finity, in the same simple sense that hot can never be cold, or that up can never be down, or that in can never be out, etc. etc etc.. Ergo, we all can certainly agree that finity is not Infinity. We further agree Infinity contains all. Therefore as such, the all (Infinity) must also contain finity within it. The aphorism and adage of the "chicken and the egg" therefore does not as a result apply in terms of which came first. Infinity did...as much as it does, as much as "It Presently Is," as much as "It Always Was," as "It Always Shall Be."

To the statement(s) that I believe began this dialog: Do we agree/disagree with unity100 that the Creator, the Original Logos, God, or whatever name we wish to utilize, is not Infinity? As a consequence, do we agree/disagree that "We" are not Infinity as a result...given we are the Creator nonetheless in multi-faceted form? And herein I believe is where the gap and conversation divides itself to the dialog at hand.This harkens back to my original statement to unity100 in Post #43 and #49 (above) wherein I suggest that deduction/induction is not possible as relates to such questions, given that arriving at a hypothesis from the "particular" to the general vs from the general to the" particular" as definitions of deduction and induction, in and of itself infers that the particular may be defined by either path. Clearly this is far from the case. The particular shall forever remain masked and unknown. unity100 attempts nevertheless to deduce by cold logic alone that which is neither deducible nor inducible by first suggesting that the Creator and Infinity are not one and the same, and that as such the Creator is contained within Infinity rather than that the Creator is Infinity itself, this seemingly as a down stepped version of Infinity. The Creator is thus relegated to a seeming distortion of Infinity, and therefore is not Infinity Itself. He further then goes on to suggest that we are not Infinity. Yet Ra teaches us to see the Creator in the mirror as ourselves and as our brothers, and notwithstanding that Ra begins each and every single session with "I greet you in the love and in the light of the One Infinite Creator", versus "I greet you in the love and in the light of Infinity." I seriously doubt this as a trifling matter as I am sure that were there anything larger than the One Infinite Creator that Ra would have greeted us in that name vs its subordinate. Thus we have by unity100's descriptor a cold inert ineffable nothingness, or even perhaps a somethingness(?) that is nonetheless inert which he defines as Infinity which was and remains as not the same thing as the Creator becoming aware. He (unity100) states that as a result of Infinity at some point being unaware (which we all as followers of the LOO must agree is true) that it therefore also follows that a separation, distortion or division from Infinty must have occurred, rather than in fact assuming the more simple explanation that Infinity simply became aware as Ra simply states. Interestingly as a result this suggests that awareness is a distortion, a down-stepped devolution rather than an outgrowth and up-stepped evolution? Extrapolating this as a causative example, all children who become adults and ultimately attain awareness become ever more distorted and devolved as a result through it. As unity100 states, and I paraphrase: 'Infinity to be infinity always contained awareness (as much as its opposite unawareness) less it was never Infinity to begin with. See below the noble example of βαθμιαίος arguing for Ra whereas unity100 argues against.
βαθμιαίος Wrote:I'm not sure that your distinction between infinity and intelligent infinity is all that convincing. Ra doesn't describe intelligent infinity's intelligence as a distortion. The first distortion, according to them, is free will. Infinity became aware. There is no longer, as I understand it, any part of infinity that is not aware or intelligent.
Unity100 Wrote:: if infinity wasnt aware before, it means that it wasnt infinity. for something to be infinite, it has to be everything that there can be, and also be nothing. ie, infinity.

....for infinity to be able to be aware AFTER a certain state, and also to still have been infinity BEFORE that state, infinity would need to have split into 2 principles or states, aware and unaware. thus, before 'becoming aware', it would have been still infinity (because it was both aware and unaware), and so its infinity status would be actual.
Completely contrary to Ra.
And alas to these contradictions see below:
unity100 Wrote:i have no problems in disagreeing with Ra.


Here then are unity100's statements in summation:
1. Infinity was always aware according to unity100, contrary to Ra.
2. The Creator is not Infinity "that became aware"(as explicitly stated by unity100 above in his response) but is rather the creator (with a little "c") contained within Infinity, this contrary to Ra.
3. We as the Creator are not Infinity, this contrary to Ra, this by the simple statement wherein Ra states many times over that "we are the Creator."
4. Awareness, according to unity100, is the first distortion given that awareness was the first movement of Infinity contrary to Ra.

This again is not at all what Ra says. Ra states that the first distortion is free will, not that the first distortion was Intelligent Infinity which became aware which became the creator as a consequence.

If the Creator is Infinity, as Ra states, and we are the Creator, as Ra states, then it follows that we are also Infinity, as Ra also clearly states.

I return to my previous posts # 43 and #49 wherein I suggest that if a premise is from its inception false, then so too are all of its conclusions as a result thereafter. This is why I asked unity100 in the same post if we are philosophically arguing/debating or speaking to "unity100 philosophy" or if we are philosophically arguing/debating, or speaking "LOO philosophy." I have yet to receive a specific response to my question posed, less to my posts even generally?

Ra Wrote:"any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity."
Monica Wrote:If it's a portion, then it has differentiation...it has distortion....Therefore, the way I interpret it, a portion cannot be the whole.
A potion cannot be the whole? This is taken out of context. Ra did not state as deduced that a portion can not be the whole. Instead what is stated explicitly is that "a portion," in this context, is in fact elegantly: "that which contains the One Creator." The One Infinite Creator is Infinity. Infinity is the whole. Each portion of the Creator is the Creator. Each portion, if it must be seen as portions versus wholes in the context of mathematics, is in fact the whole in the context within the realm of Infinity/The Creator/Magic. How sublimely beautiful. There it is, yet not seen. Through the same faculty of deductive reason alone it is dissected and made instead into a statement of separation rather than one of Unity, i.e. "any portion of (any density or) illusory pattern contains the One Creator which is infinity. Intuitively speaking, might one assume, if read in this context, that Ra meant his statement as one that divides, or rather as one that unifies? In fact, the answer clearly tickles the obvious that the Ra quote is not an attempt to divide portions vs wholes, but is rather instead simply stating that any portion in fact very simply is Infinity, which is what is stated.

We become lost in a morass of words that in the end loose their continuity and meaning by the faculty of deductive reason and logic alone. It is my observation as suggested in my previous posts that rather through adductive/abductive reasoning processes vs deductive/inductive reasoning processes, that we are better served by reserving esoterica as something lending itself more to poetry than to the mathematics of deduction alone where particulars may be drawn out. Poetic analysis does not lend itself to segmentation and compartmentalization to even seemingly attempt to divide infinity.
I refer you to the following quotes if I may:
Monica Wrote:"My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion."
Illusion now has become real in the morass of words and deduction. Clearly illusion feels real. But just as certain illusion as illusion is not real. If so, we are now by this suggesting the antithesis of everything we came here to unlearn if we agree that the illusion is real. If so let us then abandon all philosophy that teaches us otherwise that the illusion of life is just that....an illusion....as in not really real.
Dictionary.com Wrote:Illusion - something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality; the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.

Humorously, through the morass of words and logic alone, we may actually within the illusion deceive ourselves into believing that the illusion is real.
Back on track the quote then continues
Monica Wrote:My interpretation of Ra's use of the word illusion is that it indicates a skewing, a distorting, of that which is real. That distortion might be an amplification of certain aspects, to the exclusion of other aspects, such as we might find in a fun-house mirror. A fun-house mirror doesn't show us what isn't really there; it just distorts what is really there.
But then goes back off track by stating:
Monica Wrote:When we cast aside the illusion (in meditation or when we leave this reality), we see our unity/infinity clearly, whereas we can't see it from within the illusion.
This simply re-posits the previous statement by again re-suggesting that we can not see it from within the illusion because it must necessarily be real once more? Herein is the power of the mask and the gift of illusion. It feels real in spite of all our mental efforts to the contrary which rally against the fact that it is not real. God knows it feels real to me as well. God also knows as much that as I logic this out spiritually on paper that when I place my pen down and step out into the "real" world again that the illusion becomes "seemingly real" once more. Even in the mental exercise above, one may shake it off momentarily in a thought exercise only to return to it all lover again. An illusion is just that: an illusion, i.e. not real.
Monica Wrote:It seems to me that the seeming disagreement is based on a confusion of these 2 terms. The arguments put forth seem to be in favor of us being infinite beings, and containing infinity, which I agree with. However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we are infinity. The reason I see it this way is that, in my understanding, the very definition of infinity is without distortion.
An excellent point to return to "unity100 philosophy" versus "The Loo." Certainly as unity100 would instruct, Infinity contains everything, which by definition must also contain distortion. Therefore unity100 must argue by reason of his definition of Infinity that Infinity would not be Infinity if it did not also contain the all inclusive definition of distortion as well. This is contrary to the Ra Material and teachings.
However to your point that infinity, the One Infinite Creator, is without distortion. It is according to Ra. My response as a reconciliation to these seeming contradictions you posit is is that We may don on our masks of illusion, but we are not our masks. Behind our masks are us.
You make a beautiful poetic reference to this below:
Monica Wrote:I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.
If at a party I don on a mask and am later incapable of withdrawing it, this for any number of reasons (insanity, drugs, paranoia, or more elegantly and simply stated = self chosen veils of unawareness) and am now unable to see myself but for it, as much as you are incapable of seeing me without it, this as a result of your own issues of same, this does not mean that I am my mask anymore than I am me separate from myself as a result of the mask you (or I ) see me through, nor that despite what we otherwise agree on that I have become my mask or am my mask, that I therefore am incapable of being who I really am behind it. I may be very lost in it, as much as you are with me in it, as much as you are in yourself through it by virtue of your own mask as well. But, you are you behind your mask in truth separate from your illusion within your mask of illusion.

We've really gotten ourselves into a fine mess haven't we when we're both viewing each other and everything else in the universe through our rather cumbersome masks ( illusion ) which aren't really us, but which nonetheless seem to have become us, given we've become lost in them. Just for fun, lets pretend we don't have them on, but will don them on later for the party, and then at the party become submerged in them like a drug. Now, while at the party under the influence of the drug we have a wonderful conversation about not being Infinity as a result of fully being lost in the pretense that we're finite while fully believing that we're also incapable of removing our masks in this venture for which we signed up for, i.e. "Piercing Veils and Removing of Masks 101" to begin with, either in the effort of seeing me or yourself successfully through them and/or without them. In fact with them we are incapable of seeing anything as clearly, given these masks are truly filters for illusion vs filters for filtering out illusion. This is reminiscent of the Einstein quote, to paraphrase, "one is incapable of solving a problem from the level it is created at."

1. I am not my mask. I am not illusion.
2. Infinity is not illusion. Infinity is not the mask.
3. Infinity contains and offers illusion as the mask. The mask is finity.
4. Finity is illusion.
5. Ergo, if I am not the mask and not the illusion, I am Infinity. I am the Creator. I am Infinity masked. I am the Creator masked. I am not finite.
6. I am infinite infinity choosing to be finite as a gift to the Creator myself through the mask of illusion.

Having created the poetic metaphor of the mask as illusion, let us not now strain to divide illusion, as if possible, this by suggesting that the opposite of that which is real (Infinity) is the illusion of finity. We must agree that finity is indeed illusion. The mask of finity is illusion.Therefore finity is in fact illusion and not real. Therefore finity as an illusion does not truly exist, and particularly in the manner we seemingly see it.....if at all. Thus we are as Ra states, Infinite. We are the Creator.

Attempting to have a dialog as if though there were two separate realities in which one I am the mask and in which the other we all know I am not, limits the truer understanding of what wearing masks are about, less we become lost in said mask wearing.

Much of this entire dialog which unity 100 created, although interesting enough, is completely contrary to the Ra Material. Period. And that's OK (in a sense). But for those not as able to pull from it (The Ra Material), or for those not as familiar with it (The Ra Material) this might otherwise be a rather convincing argument if left unchecked. But we are here to study the Ra Material, not distortions or misrepresentations of it, are we not? Therefore I salute you βαθμιαίος and your noble attempts to do so and remain on track as a student and vanguard standing sentry to it.

One last example to unity100 philosophy, this on a similar thread and conversation just days ago on "Biased Views of STS"
unity100 Wrote:infinity cannot create. even the concept 'create' is contained within infinity, in its infinite number of forms
As stated before, each and every single session begins with Ra stating explicitly "I greet you in the love and in the light of "THE ONE INFINITE CREATOR." Is Ra toying with us by stating that the Creator as Infinity unaware became aware and that it is now the ONE INFINITE Creator? Surely we think not. Thus much of the unity100 logic on this thread as well as Biased Views of STS, although enticing are simply contrary to the LOO.
What does the term Creator imply but to create? What does the term Infinite Creator imply but a Creator that is Infinite...and as such Infinity. The language is not confounding. It is painstakingly clear.

It is honestly pointed out by unity100 that he disagrees with Ra. Let us not miss this. What are we speaking to then? βαθμιαίος has placed himself into the position of arguing for Ra whilst unity100 is arguing against. And from here as a result there have been pages of dialog on two threads simultaneously centering around a self admittedly contrary position to the Ra Material. Perhaps this is OK. I am reticent to say. It certainly provides fodder to clarify the material. Should a member wish to argue against the Ra material, perhaps much may be learned through it by this method? This discussion has in some ways been vaguely reminiscent of one I engaged in on "Biased Views of STS" with Chaotikmind and AwakenedOne in 2009 wherein I made the same observation as to how easily the Ra Material may be distorted if not put on the table as honestly and immediately as did unity100. I admire that unity100 was as quick to admit he disagrees with portions of the Ra Material and that he furthermore has no problems to do so. This is honest and forthright. Any member should be as fair and honest such that the argument is out on the table as either a question or a challenge to the material rather than as seemingly stated facts within the material less it derails the material otherwise (however slightly), given that newbies and those that have yet to read for themselves may cite dialog and opinion within the forum as valid source material.

It has been a most interesting thread, even if much of it has self admittedly been entirely contrary to the teachings of the LOO from its inception, which again is no small or trifling or inconsequential matter, but which is made so quickly if checked and challenged.

~Q~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2010, 06:57 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-08-2010, 11:23 PM by Monica.)
#93
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Interestingly as a result this suggests that awareness is a distortion, a down-stepped devolution rather than an outgrowth and up-stepped evolution?

Why do you equate distortion with 'down-stepping devolution' as though it were something negative?
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Here then are unity100's statements in summation:
1. Infinity was always aware according to unity100, contrary to Ra.
2. The Creator is not Infinity "that became aware"(as explicitly stated by unity100 above in his response) but is rather the creator (with a little "c") contained within Infinity, this contrary to Ra.
3. We as the Creator are not Infinity, this contrary to Ra, this by the simple statement wherein Ra states many times over that "we are the Creator."
4. Awareness, according to unity100, is the first distortion given that awareness was the first movement of Infinity contrary to Ra.

This again is not at all what Ra says. Ra states that the first distortion is free will, not that the first distortion was Intelligent Infinity which became aware which became the creator as a consequence.

If the Creator is Infinity, as Ra states, and we are the Creator, as Ra states, then it follows that we are also Infinity, as Ra also clearly states.

Respectfully, Quantum, I don't think your 'summation' of the many nuances presented by unity100 is accurate.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Ra Wrote:"any portion of any density or illusory pattern ... contains the One Creator which is infinity."
Monica Wrote:If it's a portion, then it has differentiation...it has distortion....Therefore, the way I interpret it, a portion cannot be the whole.
A potion cannot be the whole? This is taken out of context.

And, respectfully, my own statement as well. My use of the word 'whole' was differentiated from the word 'infinity.' As I stated many times, we do indeed contain infinity, as Ra said.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I refer you to the following quotes if I may:
Monica Wrote:"My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion."
Illusion now has become real in the morass of words and deduction. Clearly illusion feels real. But just as certain illusion as illusion is not real.

What do you mean by 'not real?'

If it's 'not real' then are you suggesting it exists outside of infinity?

If infinity contains all, then how can something exist outside of it?

How can anything truly be 'not real?'

Illusion doesn't necessarily mean 'not real.' It can also mean distorted. Most illusion have some sort of basis in reality. Even the seemingly illusory oasis in the desert seen by a person dying of thirst, has its basis in physical reality. There is a logical, physiological explanation as to why he thinks he sees an oasis. A magician's magic trick also has a basis in reality. The reality just isn't what we are led to believe it is.

Again, if illusion isn't real, then is it outside infinity?

What is 'real?' How do we define 'real' in a holographic UniVerse where thoughts are things, and time can be traversed as easily as we now traverse space?

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  If so, we are now by this suggesting the antithesis of everything we came here to unlearn if we agree that the illusion is real.

Respectfully, you have misunderstood my words. I am not saying that what the illusion shows us is the reality of our being. To say that the illusion itself is real, is not the same as saying the reality depicted by the illusion is real. I am referring to the illusion as an entity unto itself. Illusion exists.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  An excellent point to return to "unity100 philosophy" versus "The LOO."

Quantum, we are all doing our best to understand the Law of One. I don't think any one person's views can be accused of being contradictory to the Law of One just because their interpretation of Ra's words may be different from our own.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  However to your point that infinity, the One Infinite Creator, is without distortion. It is according to Ra. My response as a reconciliation to these seeming contradictions you posit is is that We may don on our masks of illusion, but we are not our masks. Behind our masks are us.

So, am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that:

1. We are the Creator
2. We are infinity
3. Illusion ('mask') is not real; therefore not part of infinity
4. We can don our mask or take it off
5. Since we are ALL, and we can exclude our masks, then the masks are...not part of ALL?

Huh

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  You make a beautiful poetic reference to this below:
Monica Wrote:I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.

This statement was made by βαθμιαίος, not me.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  you are you behind your mask in truth separate from your illusion within your mask of illusion.

If we are separate from the mask of illusion, then we aren't infinity, because infinity contains ALL, even the illusion!

I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  1. I am not my mask. I am not illusion.
2. Infinity is not illusion. Infinity is not the mask.
3. Infinity contains and offers illusion as the mask. The mask is finity.
4. Finity is illusion.
5. Ergo, if I am not the mask and not the illusion, I am Infinity. I am the Creator. I am Infinity masked. I am the Creator masked. I am not finite.
6. I am infinite infinity choosing to be finite as a gift to the Creator myself through the mask of illusion.

Well, I guess that pretty much settles it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree!

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Attempting to have a dialog as if though there were two separate realities in which one I am the mask and in which the other we all know I am not, limits the truer understanding of what wearing masks are about, less we become lost in said mask wearing.

Curiously, and respectfully, that is precisely how I interpret your assertion that the illusion is not part of infinity. It seems to me that you are creating 2 realities, while my assertion is that infinity is 1 reality; infinity encompasses all and has no divisions, no contradictions...and no exclusions (not even the exclusion of illusion).

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Much of this entire dialog which unity 100 created, although interesting enough, is completely contrary to the Ra Material. Period.

Period? As in, case closed? Hmmm...

Well to that I will just say: You are entitled to your opinion!

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  It is honestly pointed out by unity100 that he disagrees with Ra. Let us not miss this. What are we speaking to then? βαθμιαίος has placed himself into the position of arguing for Ra whilst unity100 is arguing against.

This too is your opinion. The opposite can just as easily be argued. Who is to say who is correct? None of us can authoritatively speak for Ra. We can only offer our own interpretations. This isn't a religion and it cannot be said that a certain member has it 'right' while another member is 'wrong.'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2010, 11:16 PM,
#94
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-02-2010, 12:35 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I would challenge this by simply suggesting that negative is about withholding light as its primary definition, which may at times encompass absorbing others light

Just came across this:

(80.17) "the Significator of the Spirit is that living entity which either radiates or absorbs the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator, radiates it to others or absorbs it for the self."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2010, 11:38 PM,
#95
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Interestingly as a result this suggests that awareness is a distortion, a down-stepped devolution rather than an outgrowth and up-stepped evolution?
monica Wrote:Why do you equate distortion with 'down-stepping devolution' as though it were something negative?
I don't. I suggest it in the context of what unity100 states that 'he" does. Re-read what unity100 writes, i.e. that either the One Infinite Creator apparently must have already been aware (which is contrary to the LOO) or that the One Infinite Creator now aware came after the fact, which certainly implies the Creator is not Infinity but a 2ndary subordinate to it and thus created or segmented from it, as opposed to previously simply being Infinity unaware as Ra states, and to which unity100 disagrees that Infinity being Infinite must have been also aware(which again is simply openly contrary to the Ra quote). Ra states very clearly that Infinity very definitely was at one point unaware. unity100 disagrees and has no problem doing so as he states.
May I ask your simple opinion as to which you believe, so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity once unaware that now is? ....and which is not unity100's Infinity?
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Here then are unity100's statements in summation:
1. Infinity was always aware according to unity100, contrary to Ra.
2. The Creator is not Infinity "that became aware"(as explicitly stated by unity100 above in his response) but is rather the creator (with a little "c") contained within Infinity, this contrary to Ra.
3. We as the Creator are not Infinity, this contrary to Ra, this by the simple statement wherein Ra states many times over that "we are the Creator."
4. Awareness, according to unity100, is seemingly the first distortion given that awareness was the first movement of Infinity, contrary to Ra given that free will was the 1st distortion.
Monica Wrote:Respectfully, Quantum, I don't think your 'summation' of the many nuances presented by unity100 is accurate.
Agreed. unity100 indeed makes very many compelling arguments for Infinity for which we owe him gratitude. Credit where credit is due. These are not at issue however. Its the ones that are contrary and openly so that I address. What part of the summation do you disagree with respect to what unity100 wrote? These are his words, not mine.
Monica Wrote:"My contention is that the illusion itself IS the limit! It is no less real because it is illusion."
Quantum Wrote:Illusion now has become real in the morass of words and deduction. Clearly illusion feels real. But just as certain illusion as illusion is not real.
monica Wrote:What do you mean by 'not real?' If it's 'not real' then are you suggesting it exists outside of infinity?
If infinity contains all, then how can something exist outside of it?
How can anything truly be 'not real?'
Illusion doesn't necessarily mean 'not real.' It can also mean distorted.....Most illusion have some sort of basis in reality. Even the seemingly illusory oasis in the desert seen by a person dying of thirst, has its basis in physical reality. There is a logical, physiological explanation as to why he thinks he sees an oasis. A magician's magic trick also has a basis in reality. The reality just isn't what we are led to believe it is.
"Most illusion have their basis in reality"? You mean some do and some don't? Which ones do and which ones don't? More importantly, which ones as an example don't?
monica Wrote:...Again, if illusion isn't real, then is it outside infinity?
Great question. The mask is given by the Creator to the Creator as so poetically and exquisitely shared by βαθμιαίος as "an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It is as the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself." It is therefore very much within Infinity. But except for that which does not exist, we may dispense with what is and is not within Infinity questions as it is self-evident that all that exists is within Infinity. But we must agree that there are things which do not exist. There are things which do not exist within this context, are there not? Were it otherwise then Infinity would be less than Intelligent Infinity. Certainly the Creator wishes and desires for some things not to exist. Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity. This does not limit Infinity but rather orders it intelligently. Galaxies and planets do not spin and revolve in both directions simultaneously just because it is a consideration within Infinity. Nor do dragons decimate villages and planets just because it is a consideration within Infinity. So no, not everything is in Infinity. In fact in this context it may be argued that there are a great many more things which are not in Infinity than there are those things which are in Infinity.
This answers your following questions"
monica Wrote:What is 'real?' How do we define 'real' in a holographic UniVerse where thoughts are things, and time can be traversed as easily as we now traverse space?
Answered above. But not everything is real....correct? I imagine there are things the Creator wishes not to create or imagine, don't you? I imagine my thoughts are not as real in this context as you imagine yours are. God, I hope many of my thoughts are not real. This is what I mean about becoming lost in a morass of words about things we can never resolve. For example, are thoughts really real????
monica Wrote:I am referring to the illusion as an entity unto itself. Illusion exists.
An entity as I understand it is a sentient life replete with senses. How do you define entity? Clearly an illusion requires a sentient being to have one, but this is not to suggest that an illusion then is a sentient being? I am open to understanding more on this as a concept. If I may have an illusion which is not real, given that some illusion are not real, such as a delusion, then is that also an entity, a sentient being? Illusions do not emanate from themselves...do they? Again, we become lost in a morass of words and concepts.

quantum Wrote:An excellent point to return to "unity100 philosophy" versus "The LOO."
monica Wrote:Quantum, we are all doing our best to understand the Law of One. I don't think any one person's views can be accused of being contradictory to the Law of One just because their interpretation of Ra's words may be different from our own.
Most of us are doing our best to understand. Agreed. Some of us however openly do not agree with some of the points of the LOO which is contrary to understanding and is in fact an admission to disagreement. I am not accusing unity of anything. He openly accuses himself of being in disagreement ( i.e. contrary) to some of the LOO and Ra quotes. This may not be defined as an interpretation that is different when it is his opinion in admission and disagreement to Ra that is different. Let us be fair and not suggest that accusations are being made when in fact admissions are being written.They are unity100's words. unity100 states he has no problems disagreeing with some of the LOO or Ra by his own statements. If he disagrees openly and honestly, as he does, for which I commend him for his forthrightness and integrity, how else may one phrase what he openly states as an admission of disagreement other than as contradictory? Contrary is a word with a definition. There is no judgment or condemnation where in fact there is admission. It is an admission, honestly and openly so. Having said all this, I understand fully your greater motive of attempting to keep a decorum of civility and a modicum of order. It is good that you do so. But let also a mans truth and admission stand as his own as well that he disagrees.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  However to your point that infinity, the One Infinite Creator, is without distortion. It is according to Ra. My response as a reconciliation to these seeming contradictions you posit is is that We may don on our masks of illusion, but we are not our masks. Behind our masks are us.

monica Wrote:So, am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that:
1. We are the Creator
2. We are infinity
3. Illusion ('mask') is not real; therefore not part of infinity
4. We can don our mask or take it off
5. Since we are ALL, and we can exclude our masks, then the masks are...not part of ALL?
1. yes
2. yes
3. answered above, i.e. some illusions are real, some are not. Not real must also be part of infinity albeit non-manifest
4. We are Infinity behind the mask. This is in no manner to suggest that all are capable of performing higher mathematics or concerto piano pieces anymore than All are capable of said mask removing. They are lost in their masks as shared previously, but lost by choice versus a terrible punishment inflicted upon them. Are we not here to pierce the mask (veil)? Some have. I suggest that there have been adepts that certainly have. They are the Way-showers. They certainly have removed their masks. Don't you agree?
5. The masks are indeed part of the All as shared

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  You make a beautiful poetic reference to this below:
[quote=monica]I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself.
monica Wrote:This statement was made by βαθμιαίος, not me.
My apologies βαθμιαίος. It remains a beautific piece of mystical prose.
monica Wrote:I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.
Sure it can. That which is not created and so illusory that it does not exist. We go in circles.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  1. I am not my mask. I am not illusion.
2. Infinity is not illusion. Infinity is not the mask.
3. Infinity contains and offers illusion as the mask. The mask is finity.
4. Finity is illusion.
5. Ergo, if I am not the mask and not the illusion, I am Infinity. I am the Creator. I am Infinity masked. I am the Creator masked. I am not finite.
6. I am infinite infinity choosing to be finite as a gift to the Creator myself through the mask of illusion.
monca Wrote:Well, I guess that pretty much settles it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree!
I have little more to offer than the many quotes βαθμιαίος so brilliantly already ofered with his many explanations.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Much of this entire dialog which unity 100 created, although interesting enough, is completely contrary to the Ra Material. Period.
monica Wrote:You are entitled to your opinion!
unity100 is entitled to his opinions in this case, not I mine. It is he that offered them and he that stated they were in disagreement to the Ra quotes, not I. Mind you, this in no manner is meant to convey that EVERYTHING untiy100 offers is out of order. Certainly not. He has offered some rather compelling thought and dialog generally to the concept of Infinity.Some of it is very much in order. That which is contrary has been recited several times.
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  It is honestly pointed out by unity100 that he disagrees with Ra. Let us not miss this. What are we speaking to then? βαθμιαίος has placed himself into the position of arguing for Ra whilst unity100 is arguing against.
monica Wrote:This too is your opinion. The opposite can just as easily be argued. Who is to say who is correct? None of us can authoritatively speak for Ra. We can only offer our own interpretations. This isn't a religion and it cannot be said that a certain member has it 'right' while another member is 'wrong.'
True enough. But we have unity100 stating it is contrary, not myself or βαθμιαίος, or anyone else. Let us be as forthright as he is by commending him for stating so, and for being as honest. His dialog as such has provided much for discussion.

May I in closing for clarity's sake ask your simple opinion once more? Which do you believe so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity unaware, that now is (aware)?.........and which is not unity100's Infinity?

~ Q ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 12:30 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-09-2010, 12:51 AM by Monica.)
#96
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I don't. I suggest it in the context of what unity100 states

You are entitled to your interpretation of what Ra says, what I say, what unity100 or any other member says. But we start down a slippery slope when we attempt to summarize or simplify another's words, because that inevitably results in more distortion. My interpretation of Ra's words, and of unity100's words, is different from yours. It is not a given that either of our interpretations is correct. Therefore, I respectfully request that we allow other members to speak for themselves.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  May I ask your simple opinion as to which you believe, so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity once unaware that now is? ....and which is not unity100's Infinity?

I have already answered that question, and turned it inside out and sideways. I honestly cannot think of anything to add to what I've already said. Regrettably, I wasn't able to convey my opinion on this in a way that was understood. Or, maybe it was understood but simply not agreed with. I don't think we'll ever reach a conclusive resolution, so repeating myself won't help.

Suffice to say that I don't see it as the simplistic 'either/or' scenario you are asking me to choose from.

(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  unity100 indeed makes very many compelling arguments for Infinity for which we owe him gratitude. Credit where credit is due. These are not at issue however. Its the ones that are contrary and openly so that I address.

I disagree that his points are contrary to the Law of One. I happen to agree with many (though not all) of his points.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  What part of the summation do you disagree with respect to what unity100 wrote? These are his words, not mine.

Those may be his words, but without the context and nuances necessary for understanding them. I won't speak for unity100 but the gist of the summation does not, in my opinion, accurately convey his points.

Anyway, why is it so important to scrutinize and analyze one particular member's opinions? Unity100 has expressed his opinions, and others have as well. Why are his opinions being singled out for scrutiny? If you wish to know more about his opinions, perhaps you can if/when he posts more. But I'm not in the habit of discussing other members' posts. I don't see the point of it. We can all express our own opinions without other members speaking for us.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  "Most illusion have their basis in reality"? You mean some do and some don't? Which ones do and which ones don't? More importantly, which ones as an example don't?

Maybe they all do. I can't think of any that don't. Even unicorns are real in some reality.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  But except for that which does not exist, we may dispense with what is and is not within Infinity questions as it is self-evident that all that exists is within Infinity. But we must agree that there are things which do not exist.

A negative cannot be proven.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  There are things which do not exist within this context, are there not?

Not that I can think of. If I can think of it, then it's real in some reality, even if it's only in my mind. Tongue

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Were it otherwise then Infinity would be less than Intelligent Infinity. Certainly the Creator wishes and desires for some things not to exist.

That is an assumption. We cannot speak for the Creator.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity.

We have a fundamental difference in opinion as to what infinity is. I respect your opinion but categorically disagree with it.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  This does not limit Infinity but rather orders it intelligently. Galaxies and planets do not spin and revolve in both directions simultaneously just because it is a consideration within Infinity. Nor do dragons decimate villages and planets just because it is a consideration within Infinity. So no, not everything is in Infinity. In fact in this context it may be argued that there are a great many more things which are not in Infinity than there are those things which are in Infinity.

That is pure speculation.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Answered above. But not everything is real....correct?

I believe everything is real in some dimension. Dreams, for example.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I imagine there are things the Creator wishes not to create or imagine, don't you?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't consider imagination real. I do. It's just unpotentiated.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  are thoughts really real????

Well sure.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  An entity as I understand it is a sentient life replete with senses. How do you define entity?

Yes, but in this context, I was referring to entity as in a thing, something that exists, to distinguish it from that which is symbolizes; ie. illusion as illusion, rather than that which is it distorting.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:Quantum, we are all doing our best to understand the Law of One. I don't think any one person's views can be accused of being contradictory to the Law of One just because their interpretation of Ra's words may be different from our own.
Most of us are doing our best to understand. Agreed. Some of us however openly do not agree with some of the points of the LOO which is contrary to understanding and is in fact an admission to disagreement.

However, it is opinion as to whether some of these points are in fact contrary to the Law of One. They are subject to interpretation and it cannot be assumed that our own interpretation is the 'correct' one. Let us not fall into the trap that the religions do and start making judgments about who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' in their interpretations.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I am not accusing unity of anything. He openly accuses himself of being in disagreement ( i.e. contrary) to some of the LOO and Ra quotes. This may not be defined as an interpretation that is different when it is his opinion in admission and disagreement to Ra that is different. Let us be fair and not suggest that accusations are being made when in fact admissions are being written.They are unity100's words. unity100 states he has no problems disagreeing with some of the LOO or Ra by his own statements. If he disagrees openly and honestly, as he does, for which I commend him for his forthrightness and integrity, how else may one phrase what he openly states as an admission of disagreement other than as contradictory? Contrary is a word with a definition. There is no judgment or condemnation where in fact there is admission. It is an admission, honestly and openly so.

What is at issue here is that the points that you consider to be in disagreement with the Law of One are not necessarily the points that others (including the author of said points) consider in disagreement.

Just because someone says "I disagree with Ra sometimes" that is not an admission of disagreement on points we happen to personally disagree with. I happen to agree with some points and consider them in alignment with the Law of One, so it's simply not accurate to assess the entire disagreement as being contrary to Ra's intention.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Having said all this, I understand fully your greater motive of attempting to keep a decorum of civility and a modicum of order. It is good that you do so. But let also a mans truth and admission stand as his own as well that he disagrees.

Each person's truth can indeed stand on its own. Speaking for someone else is entirely different.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:So, am I understanding you correctly? You are saying that:
1. We are the Creator
2. We are infinity
3. Illusion ('mask') is not real; therefore not part of infinity
4. We can don our mask or take it off
5. Since we are ALL, and we can exclude our masks, then the masks are...not part of ALL?
1. yes
2. yes
3. answered above, i.e. some illusions are real, some are not. Not real must also be part of infinity albeit non-manifest
4. We are Infinity behind the mask. This is in no manner to suggest that all are capable of performing higher mathematics or concerto piano pieces anymore than All are capable of said mask removing. They are lost in their masks as shared previously, but lost by choice versus a terrible punishment inflicted upon them. Are we not here to pierce the mask (veil)? Some have. I suggest that there have been adepts that certainly have. They are the Way-showers. They certainly have removed their masks. Don't you agree?
5. The masks are indeed part of the All as shared

I see this as a contradiction. If we are the Creator, and we are infinity, then we are ALL. If, as you say, the illusion is not part of us, then how can it be part of ALL?

You also said that the 'mask' is not real. If it's not real, it's not part of ALL. But now you say the 'mask' is part of ALL.

Sorry, but this feels to me like getting drawn into a maze, an illusion itself...getting this entire discussion deeper than it needs to be. Once again, I do respect your opinions but we don't even have a common ground here, so I hope you don't mind if I discontinue participation.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.
Sure it can. That which is not created and so illusory that it does not exist.

If it doesn't exist, then it's not an it, is it? Tongue

And therefore not part of the equation.

The illusion, however, does exist. It's a construct.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  We go in circles.

Agreed. I'm getting dizzy. I'm getting off the merry-go-round.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:This too is your opinion. The opposite can just as easily be argued. Who is to say who is correct? None of us can authoritatively speak for Ra. We can only offer our own interpretations. This isn't a religion and it cannot be said that a certain member has it 'right' while another member is 'wrong.'
True enough. But we have unity100 stating it is contrary, not myself or βαθμιαίος, or anyone else.

I don't think that's accurate. As I stated above, I see many points which unity100 (and I, as well) consider to be in alignment with the Law of One, according to our interpretations, and you are stating that he claims to be in disagreement with the Law of One. While it is true that unity100 has admitted to being in disagreement on some points, they are not all the same points you consider them to be. Therefore, I ask you again to please avoid making blanket assessments about unity100 or any other member's views.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  May I in closing for clarity's sake ask your simple opinion once more? Which do you believe so that we are clear? Do you believe that the One Infinite Creator that Ra greets us in in every single session is not the same as was Infinity unaware, that now is (aware)?.........and which is not unity100's Infinity?

It is impossible for me to answer this to you, since I don't agree with the very premise of the question. In addition, I don't consider my views to be 'beliefs' because that term, to me, indicates a static state of dogma, which I try to avoid. I prefer to consider my views as ever-unfolding as I learn and grow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 12:51 AM,
#97
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
Quote: But we must agree that there are things which do not exist. There are things which do not exist within this context, are there not? Were it otherwise then Infinity would be less than Intelligent Infinity. Certainly the Creator wishes and desires for some things not to exist. Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity. This does not limit Infinity but rather orders it intelligently. Galaxies and planets do not spin and revolve in both directions simultaneously just because it is a consideration within Infinity. Nor do dragons decimate villages and planets just because it is a consideration within Infinity. So no, not everything is in Infinity. In fact in this context it may be argued that there are a great many more things which are not in Infinity than there are those things which are in Infinity.

Infinity is not all things ?
The Creator wishes for things to not exist ?

The moment you wish for something to not exist it exists, otherwise you would not be able to imagine it in the first place. (you are focusing on it)

Consciousness is boundless and unconditional and undefined, that is why it can be bounded and conditioned and defined in infinite ways.

Everything you are able to conceive/imagine is real in some way or form somewhere somewhen somehow.

That is the very axis of conscientiousness it allows all things and in turn is all things.

All states, all experiences and all views.

True unbounded, unconditioned and limitless infinity.

Yes i am defining all of this, but so what ? If we are to talk we have to come with something -D
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 01:46 AM,
#98
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
Monica, you say we can't speak for the Creator, but how can that be true when we are the Creator? We speak for the portion of beingness that we are aware of, as a group of entities. Smile Maybe you meant "we can't know the Creator's original thoughts on the matter"?

Having fun watching the merry go round... :p
"A mountain holds an echo deep inside. That's how I hold your voice."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 10:53 AM,
#99
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
(09-09-2010, 01:46 AM)Aaron Wrote:  Having fun watching the merry go round... :p

Around and around it goes, and where it stops, nobody knows!

[Image: muppet-show5-300x225.jpg]

Just poking you all in the side Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 11:33 AM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
(09-09-2010, 01:46 AM)Aaron Wrote:  Monica, you say we can't speak for the Creator, but how can that be true when we are the Creator? We speak for the portion of beingness that we are aware of, as a group of entities. Smile Maybe you meant "we can't know the Creator's original thoughts on the matter"?

Having fun watching the merry go round... :p

Each of us is the Creator, sure, but we're still distortions. So yes, definitely we "speak for the portion of beingness that we are aware of, as a group of entities" which still indicates a level of distortion. I meant the Creator, undistorted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 12:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-09-2010, 12:27 PM by Quantum.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  unity100 indeed makes very many compelling arguments for Infinity for which we owe him gratitude. Credit where credit is due. These are not at issue however. Its the ones that are contrary and openly so that I address.
monica Wrote:I disagree that his points are contrary to the Law of One. I happen to agree with many (though not all) of his points.
To dispense with the point quickly, do you agree that Infinity was never unaware, contrary to what Ra teaches?
Do you agree that Infinity, to be infinity as unity100 states infinity is, that it must have also always been aware?
monica Wrote:Anyway, why is it so important to scrutinize and analyze one particular member's opinions?
H-m-m-m-m...I assume this is one of the reasons we are here for. To learn/teach to teach/learn...to share?
monica Wrote:Unity100 has expressed his opinions, and others have as well. Why are his opinions being singled out for scrutiny? If you wish to know more about his opinions, perhaps you can if/when he posts more. But I'm not in the habit of discussing other members' posts. I don't see the point of it. We can all express our own opinions without other members speaking for us.
I am not speaking for him. I am responding to him. It just so happens that it is now you and I that are speaking together to one another about his statements. He may join at any point. You say: "I'm not in the habit of discussing other members' posts." I'm confused???? We all are very much in this habit of speaking to others posts. We do it as a matter of function of the forum? unity100 may respond at any point. My original post was in fact to him, or anyone else Tongue
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  "Most illusion have their basis in reality"? You mean some do and some don't? Which ones do and which ones don't? More importantly, which ones as an example don't?
monica Wrote:Maybe they all do. I can't think of any that don't. Even unicorns are real in some reality.
I guess I don't understand this
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  But except for that which does not exist, we may dispense with what is and is not within Infinity questions as it is self-evident that all that exists is within Infinity. But we must agree that there are things which do not exist.
monica Wrote:A negative cannot be proven
Sure it can. Many many times over. My keys don't fall up to the ceiling in my living room. They always fall down to the ground.
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  There are things which do not exist within this context, are there not?
monica Wrote:Not that I can think of. If I can think of it, then it's real in some reality, even if it's only in my mind.
Perhaps this might lend itself to an altogether interesting and different thread. But I don't believe that everything that's in between my ears or yours is real. Peter Pan didn't exist, even though I loved him as a child. I don't even know how to have a rational conversation about the fact that he might have?
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Were it otherwise then Infinity would be less than Intelligent Infinity. Certainly the Creator wishes and desires for some things not to exist.
monica Wrote:That is an assumption. We cannot speak for the Creator.
But we are the Creator in facets. In any case it seems abundantly clear that some things do not exist. I believe I can find at least one quote if not many wherein Ra corrected Don that something was not true that he assumed was. But using your logic in any case, then I must be correct in my thought that some things do not exist just by virtue of the fact that this thought is real because its in between my ears. Then if your logic were true, then reality is a hodgepodge in that every one's thoughts about it must be true, this in spite of what the Logos created for us to experience through it.
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity.
monica Wrote:We have a fundamental difference in opinion as to what infinity is.
But do you agree that there are laws and rules created by the Logos? If so it rather naturally answers the point.
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  This does not limit Infinity but rather orders it intelligently. Galaxies and planets do not spin and revolve in both directions simultaneously just because it is a consideration within Infinity. Nor do dragons decimate villages and planets just because it is a consideration within Infinity. So no, not everything is in Infinity. In fact in this context it may be argued that there are a great many more things which are not in Infinity than there are those things which are in Infinity.
monica Wrote:That is pure speculation.
I certainly hope that ordering the universes by virtue of laws and rules created by the Logoi is not an assumption on my part. I take it at face value by virtue of our own sciences if not the" Law(s) Of One." Even the title itself LOO is rather self-evident that Laws exist. As such, if there are laws, then it is rather self evident that there are also laws that govern certain actions and reactions against certain other things, e.g. I may think (believe) it is quite alright to behave in certain STS ways and yet still graduate into STO would fly in the face of those rules which govern STO protocol. It therefore seems abundantly self evident that there are rules which suggest that one may not make certain assumptions in accordance with certain other rules to the contrary and then assume they are true in any case.
(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  An entity as I understand it is a sentient life replete with senses. How do you define entity?
monica Wrote:Yes, but in this context, I was referring to entity as in a thing, something that exists, to distinguish it from that which is symbolizes; ie. illusion as illusion, rather than that which is it distorting.
I don't understand. Perhaps using the term entity is just a misnomer?
monica Wrote:What is at issue here is that the points that you consider to be in disagreement with the Law of One are not necessarily the points that others (including the author of said points) consider in disagreement.
Same question as above so that we may move through this to resolve it:" Do you/do we know that Ra stated unequivocally that Infinity was at one time unaware? Yes or No? unity100 states otherwise. There it is. Why may we not discuss this with the suggestion that unity100 is in disagreement to Ra, and openly so by his own admission? This is a simple contrary statement to Ra. If we then wish to have a more enlightening response from unity100 or any other member why Ra might be wrong, should that be their or our desire, we may.
monica Wrote:Just because someone says "I disagree with Ra sometimes" that is not an admission of disagreement on points we happen to personally disagree with.
I don't understand the structure or meaning of this sentence.
monica Wrote:I happen to agree with some points and consider them in alignment with the Law of One, so it's simply not accurate to assess the entire disagreement as being contrary to Ra's intention.
Agreed whole hardheartedly. That's why I said credit where credit is due and that unity100 made some remarkable observation with regard to Infinity, notwithstanding the main point of the ones that were simply pointed out as contrary to Ra quotes...not as a personal disagreement or interpretation, but as simply openly contrary by his own admission, e.g. Infinity was always aware.
monica Wrote:Each person's truth can indeed stand on its own. Speaking for someone else is entirely different.
It is continually suggested that I am speaking for unity100? I am responding to his statements. Thats all. I am questioning them yes. But this is a far cry from speaking for him???
monica Wrote:I see this as a contradiction. If we are the Creator, and we are infinity, then we are ALL. If, as you say, the illusion is not part of us, then how can it be part of ALL?
This clearly is a dicey conversation that perhaps must by definition be circular. It is circular btw. I did not say that illusion stands outside of infinity. Please re-read my post. If the Creator fashioned said mask and offered it to us for our more expeditious processes towards polarization then it exists. All that the Creator creates is within infinity. Only that which it does not create is not within infinity. This has been addressed previously
Monica Wrote:I contend that the illusion too is part of infinity. Nothing can be outside infinity.
Quantum Wrote:Sure it can. That which is not created and so illusory that it does not exist.
monica Wrote:If it doesn't exist, then it's not an it, is it?
Correct
monica Wrote:I don't think that's accurate. As I stated above, I see many points which unity100 (and I, as well) consider to be in alignment with the Law of One, according to our interpretations, and you are stating that he claims to be in disagreement with the Law of One.
Not fair. I've said many times credit where credit is due. I've said many times that unity100 has brought much to the conversation with respect to concepts regarding infinity. I've never stated he disagrees with the Law of One as if though in total? Please free to cut and paste one single example of any of this from any of my posts. I've simply drawn a single quote from unity100 here and there that as simply is in non-accordance with the Ra quotes, which I in fact take less credit for having drawn out than I do for giving to my predecessor in the conversation who I acknowledged as being a vanguard for the material.
monica Wrote:While it is true that unity100 has admitted to being in disagreement on some points, they are not all the same points you consider them to be. Therefore, I ask you again to please avoid making blanket assessments about unity100 or any other member's views.
Blanket assessments? Same response as throughout to your whole and repeated incorrect assessments. Not fair. I repeat as above: I've said many times credit where credit is due. I've said many times that unity100 has brought much to the conversation with respect to concepts regarding infinity. I've never stated he disagrees with the Law of One. Please cut and paste one single example of any of this from my posts. I've simply drawn a single quote from unity100 here and there that as simply is in non-accordance with the Ra quotes which I in fact take less credit for having drawn out than I do for giving to my predecessor in the conversation who I acknowledged as being a vanguard for the material.

Experience You Wrote:Infinity is not all things ? The Creator wishes for things to not exist ?
The moment you wish for something to not exist it exists, otherwise you would not be able to imagine it in the first place. (you are focusing on it). Consciousness is boundless and unconditional and undefined, that is why it can be bounded and conditioned and defined in infinite ways.
Hi E. Perhaps this might be an interesting topic by itself. You can see much of my response to monica above.

Hello Aaron...thanks for the brevity. Hello Lavazza...I'm still trying to figure out how to cut and paste pictures in the text rather than as an attachment. Instructions are welcomeBig Grin

In closing, I believe these to have been important points that have in fact been drawn out, as well as important conversations to them. I'm not sure much more can be added?

~ Q ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 12:55 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Hello Lavazza...I'm still trying to figure out how to cut and paste pictures in the text rather than as an attachment. Instructions are welcomeBig Grin

If your image is already on the internet (like mine was) you can simply cut and paste the URL pointing to it in to the little photo icon at the top of your reply box. It looks like this: [Image: icond.jpg]
If your image isn't already online, you can use this service: http://imageshack.us/ which is a free image hosting website.

To infinity, and beyond!
~Lavazza
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 01:08 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Hello Lavazza...I'm still trying to figure out how to cut and paste pictures in the text rather than as an attachment. Instructions are welcomeBig Grin
Lavazza Wrote:If your image is already on the internet (like mine was) you can simply cut and paste the URL pointing to it in to the little photo icon at the top of your reply box. It looks like this: [Image: icond.jpg]
If your image isn't already online, you can use this service: http://imageshack.us/ which is a free image hosting website.
So thats how its done Idea O-h-h-h-h-h. Thanks for the tip. Now about my spark plugs that seem to be gumming up on me on my Infinity Warp Drive. Is it sometimes supposed to putter and stall when in finity?
P.S. - Curious also what type of cleaning fluid you use on your vessel windows at said warp speeds...

To infinity, and beyond back at ya!

~ Q ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 02:40 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
I just can't help sharing the following observations:

1) These infinity discussions are more than vaguely reminiscent to me of the religious arguments between priests of yore, regarding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

2) Interestingly, although it also is clearly the antithesis of transitory material, it strikes me as equally useless to spend time concerning ourselves with. By this I mean: Is there anything that we would do differently - in say preparation for the harvest, fulfilling our Wanderer agreement, just living out our current 3D existence, or anything else for that matter - based upon a hypothetical (but clearly impossible) resolution to this argument one way or the other? I think not. So why spend our time on it?

But, I'm probably just offering another unwanted opinion... So...

Carry On!

3D Sunset
Ra Book III Session 65.
Could your planet polarize towards harmony in one fine, strong, moment of inspiration? Yes, my friends. It is not probable; but it is ever possible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 03:52 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-09-2010, 05:20 PM by Monica.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  To dispense with the point quickly, do you agree that Infinity was never unaware, contrary to what Ra teaches?

I don't disagree with Ra. I disagree with your interpretation of Ra's words, as well as your interpretation of unity100's words. I disagree with the very premise of your question, so there is no way to answer it beyond that which I've already done.

(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Do you agree that Infinity, to be infinity as unity100 states infinity is, that it must have also always been aware?

I have already politely declined further discussion, as I see no point in repeating myself. My viewpoints cannot be reduced to fit such easy compartmentalizations, sorry. I don't think anyone's can, when discussing a topic such as this!

(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:Anyway, why is it so important to scrutinize and analyze one particular member's opinions?
H-m-m-m-m...I assume this is one of the reasons we are here for. To learn/teach to teach/learn...to share?

Yes, but not to summarize another member's viewpoints. This isn't fair to the other person, since we cannot possibly represent their viewpoints accurately.

(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:Maybe they all do. I can't think of any that don't. Even unicorns are real in some reality.
I guess I don't understand this

My opinion is that thoughts are real. Thus, in the realm of thought, unicorns are real. And maybe in some other dimensions as well. It cannot be proven that they aren't real.

(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:A negative cannot be proven
Sure it can. Many many times over. My keys don't fall up to the ceiling in my living room. They always fall down to the ground.

That's not a negative; that's a positive. You can prove that your keys behave a certain way, at the negation of another way. That is based on the evidence of absence, and absence of evidence. That's not the same thing as proving a negative.

An example of proving a negative would be: "Unicorns don't exist at all anywhere on Earth." This cannot be proven, because there are still place on Earth as yet unexplored. I can prove that a physical unicorn doesn't exist in my house, but I cannot prove that a physical unicorn doesn't exist anywhere on Earth, until I have scoured every square inch. Nor can I prove that a unicorn doesn't exist in some other reality, right here under my nose, but I just can't detect it. Another example is: "Ghosts don't exist." This cannot be proven. The existence of ghosts might someday be provable, but the non-existence of ghosts will never be provable.


(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  But I don't believe that everything that's in between my ears or yours is real. Peter Pan didn't exist, even though I loved him as a child. I don't even know how to have a rational conversation about the fact that he might have?

OK, that's cool. I very much believe Peter Pan exists, in some dimension of imagination. Tongue

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  But we are the Creator in facets. In any case it seems abundantly clear that some things do not exist.

Perhaps to you. But can you see that not everyone shares your opinion?

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I believe I can find at least one quote if not many wherein Ra corrected Don that something was not true that he assumed was.

That's an entirely different issue. They were speaking of specifics. To claim that anything is possible, and thoughts are real, doesn't negate the fact that, when speaking of specifics, some points are true and some aren't.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  But using your logic in any case, then I must be correct

You are certainly free to believe you are correct in whatever you wish! Who am I to say you are or are not correct? Can any of us say conclusively that we are correct or that someone else isn't correct? No, we can't. We can only share our viewpoints. One viewpoint is as valid as another.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  in my thought that some things do not exist just by virtue of the fact that this thought is real because its in between my ears. Then if your logic were true, then reality is a hodgepodge in that every one's thoughts about it must be true, this in spite of what the Logos created for us to experience through it.


What is reality?

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  Certainly there exist fine laws, rules, order, and a system within Infinity as opposed to EVERYTHING exists in Infinity.

That is your opinion! Thank you for sharing it! Wink I happen to disagree.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  But do you agree that there are laws and rules created by the Logos?

Sure.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  If so it rather naturally answers the point.

Not necessarily.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  I don't understand. Perhaps using the term entity is just a misnomer?

No. In that particular context, I was using the conventional definition, rather than Ra's esoteric definition.

en·ti·ty
   /ˈɛntɪti/ Show Spelled[en-ti-tee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ties.
1.
something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2.
being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3.
essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.


(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  This is a simple contrary statement to Ra.

I don't see it that way. This is a very deep topic and cannot be reduced to such simplicity. We are attempting to resolve paradox, and name that which cannot be named. Ra also stated that any definition is incorrect.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
Monica Wrote:Just because someone says "I disagree with Ra sometimes" that is not an admission of disagreement on points we happen to personally disagree with.
I don't understand the structure or meaning of this sentence.

The statement was made that disagreement sometimes happens. That doesn't give us license to assume we understand precisely which points the other-self disagrees with. It's easy to assume that just because we happen to disagree with them on some of their interpretations of Ra's words, that they also acknowledge disagreement with others of Ra's words. They may in fact disagree on some points, but not the points we thought they were disagreeing on. In their view, they might consider themselves agreeing on the points we thought they disagreed with.

(09-08-2010, 11:38 PM)Quantum Wrote:  not as a personal disagreement or interpretation

Anytime we speak for another person (ie. summarize their thoughts), we are coloring it with our own interpretation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2010, 05:00 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-09-2010, 05:02 PM by Quantum.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
(09-09-2010, 02:40 PM)3D Sunset Wrote:  I just can't help sharing the following observations:
1) These infinity discussions are more than vaguely reminiscent to me of the religious arguments between priests of yore, regarding how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
2) Interestingly, although it also is clearly the antithesis of transitory material, it strikes me as equally useless to spend time concerning ourselves with. By this I mean: Is there anything that we would do differently - in say preparation for the harvest, fulfilling our Wanderer agreement, just living out our current 3D existence, or anything else for that matter - based upon a hypothetical (but clearly impossible) resolution to this argument one way or the other? I think not. So why spend our time on it?

But, I'm probably just offering another unwanted opinion...
Not at all 3D. Thank you for the sobering wake up call. I seem to have entered into a fray, so to speak, which was already long going round and round in circles before entering. Wherein I thought I might add to many of βαθμιαίος's opinions and interpretations, of which I am in full agreement with, including his assessment that unity100 made contrary statements (that are self admissions of contrariness) to Ra quotes, I find myself in the position wherein taking up the gauntlet to point them out once more would only repeat what has already been repeated.

I close on a positive that for βαθμιαίος's poetic prose regarding the mask of illusion that he can hardly be assisted: "I think of illusion as an exquisitely-wrought mask for infinity. It's the carefully-crafted gift that our logos is offering to the Creator so that it may know itself."

Rumi himself would have acknowledged the same.

~ Q ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2010, 09:32 AM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
Sobering thoughts Quantum..

Rumi would first laugh his head off and then offer everyone a cup of wine.

I believe we all carry a bit of the puzzle. If we're trying to figure out who is holding the right piece we're just wasting time as every puzzle piece has it's own place, and is the right piece in that context but by the same understanding the wrong piece in any other.

I don't care, I just don't want to get the feeling that merely one position is acceptable here. That would stifle growth for all but especially for the person who follows this one position...

“Oh soul,
you worry too much.
You have seen your own strength.
You have seen your own beauty.
You have seen your golden wings.
Of anything less,
why do you worry?
You are in truth
the soul, of the soul, of the soul.”
Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2010, 09:50 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-10-2010, 09:50 AM by Quantum.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
(09-10-2010, 09:32 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote:  Sobering thoughts Quantum..

Rumi would first laugh his head off and then offer everyone a cup of wine.

I believe we all carry a bit of the puzzle. If we're trying to figure out who is holding the right piece we're just wasting time as every puzzle piece has it's own place, and is the right piece in that context but by the same understanding the wrong piece in any other.

I don't care, I just don't want to get the feeling that merely one position is acceptable here. That would stifle growth for all but especially for the person who follows this one position...

“Oh soul,
you worry too much.
You have seen your own strength.
You have seen your own beauty.
You have seen your golden wings.
Of anything less,
why do you worry?
You are in truth
the soul, of the soul, of the soul.”
Rumi

Well spoken my friend. You shall hence forth and forevermore be Rumi Quadir. Angel So it written. So it shall be.

~ Q ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2010, 09:59 AM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
I cannot accept that honor my friend. Smile

I can only wish I had his capacity for words. And his heart for love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2010, 03:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-10-2010, 03:23 PM by Monica.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
Quote: I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said,

"Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
"Well, there is so much to live for."
"Like what?"
"Well, are you religious?"
He said yes.
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Lutheran, Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of the Lord."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of the Lord or are you Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord."
"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord, reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of the Lord, reformation of 1879."
I said, "Die, heretic scum" and pushed him off.

~Emo Phillips
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2010, 04:04 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-14-2010, 04:05 PM by Monica.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-03-2010, 11:39 PM)Poffo Wrote:  Assuming a vacuum clear of gravitationally significant bodies, light would travel in a straight line, but interestingly it is made of these two sine wave fields that move in and out of each other, and the waves can be described as the plot of points on a circle.

So, you could think of a circle as representing the infinite whole, in that it can be a container for ALL and also that there is no real beginning or ending point to it. We also could say that what we know of as white light contains all the colours of the visible light spectrum and is thus a unity of finite elements.

I hope this made some sense! Smile

Wow, Poffo, I just now finally read your post. I confess I was a little intimidated at first, but you've explained it so well, I actually think I got it! I never thought of a circle as an infinite polygon - that really does clear up the paradox! Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-14-2010, 04:28 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
Poffo, the two sine waves you mention remind me of the relation between sine and cosine. Cosine follows Sine by 90-degrees or PI/2 Radians. Sine, representing the vertical parts of the circle, and Cosine representing the horizontal parts, together forming the whole circle.

Nassim Haramein explains perfectly how a circle can contain the infinite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-15-2010, 11:42 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-15-2010, 11:45 AM by unity100.)
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-09-2010, 12:17 PM)Quantum Wrote:  
(09-08-2010, 03:52 PM)Quantum Wrote:  unity100 indeed makes very many compelling arguments for Infinity for which we owe him gratitude. Credit where credit is due. These are not at issue however. Its the ones that are contrary and openly so that I address.
monica Wrote:I disagree that his points are contrary to the Law of One. I happen to agree with many (though not all) of his points.
To dispense with the point quickly, do you agree that Infinity was never unaware, contrary to what Ra teaches?
Do you agree that Infinity, to be infinity as unity100 states infinity is, that it must have also always been aware?

first of all, Ra says they do not want to be bringers of unchanging dogma. this means that, since they state that they are also learning, what they dispense to us are not necessarily unchanging truth, or free of mistakes.

ra has had to do a lot to clean up the aftereffects of the egypt experiment. it would be disservice to them to elevate and honor them to the status of gods bringing unchanging dogma.

second, Ra says 'infinity became aware'. for infinity to become aware, infinity would need to be unaware 'before'.

in my perspective, infinity would not become anyhting, would not change its nature, situation, at any given point. infinity would be aware, and unaware, at all times, if one looks from this awareness point. because infinity is infinity, it needs to be everything at all times.

anything that is not infinity, need to be subsets of it. therefore, 'infinity becoming aware' would mean that, in my understanding, there has occurred (actually always were) a subset of infinity, which is only differentiated from infinity by the means of being aware.

ie, this, the intelligent infinity, is what many call god. yet, it is still not infinity, because it is differentiated from infinity by being aware, and henceforth, lacking something, which is probably the complementing counterpart of the concept 'awareness', and therefore, it is able to experience octaves, create and experience.

Quote:Peter Pan didn't exist, even though I loved him as a child. I don't even know how to have a rational conversation about the fact that he might have?

peter pan exists 'somewhere, sometime' in infinity. else, infinity cant be infinity, for existence of peter pan, now a concept and possibility that is even perceived by an existing entity (you), has to be real, for infinity to be comprised of everything known and unknown and its counterparts. you, then, are manifesting in a universe that lacks the 'existence' of peter pan. there is a universe, or, some other kind of reality in infinity, in which 'existence of peter pan' is contained.

Quote:But do you agree that there are laws and rules created by the Logos? If so it rather naturally answers the point.

laws and rules that are set by the logos of this universe apply to this universe. moreover, all sub logoi of this sub logoi of this universe also set various derivative rules. this is what we learn from ra.

that means, there are innumerable laws and rules governing innumerable universes, existences, realities. because even the central sun of this universe (the manifesting part of the logos of this universe) is just a sub logoi of infinite intelligence.

Quote:I may think (believe) it is quite alright to behave in certain STS ways and yet still graduate into STO would fly in the face of those rules which govern STO protocol.

that would fly in the face of the rules that govern sto protocol in this universe. that would not fly in the face of rules that govern sto protocol in another universe. that would be even irrelevant, for manifestation and rules in regard to some other universe or reality.

Quote:Same question as above so that we may move through this to resolve it:" Do you/do we know that Ra stated unequivocally that Infinity was at one time unaware? Yes or No? unity100 states otherwise.

we know that infinity was 'at one time' unaware. Ra's answer to 'what was the first thing in existence' by don, while explaining the creation, tells us that. Ra says, 'there was infinity. infinity became aware'. then moves on to tell us the infinite intelligence, and then infinite energy and the logoi that occur as a result and subset of infinite energy.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=13&ss=1#5

Quote:13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the first known thing in the creation?

Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

Category: Cosmology

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?

Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

Category: Cosmology

13.7 Questioner: After this, what came next?

Ra: I am Ra. Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

technically, when 'infinity becomes aware', it would be actually not infinite that became aware, but, we, as the 'aware' parts of infinity, the deviations from infinity, have started being aware, ie having the distortion of awareness. therefore, our perception and understanding starts from that point, we became aware, as the aware part of the infinity. we could feel like we became aware, and infinity was not aware before, but actually, in regard to infinity, situation wouldnt change. 1-2 levels above us, infinity would still be both aware, and unaware, (and whatever complements these all in infinite variations), unchanged and everchanging, just as it was at any instant.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-17-2010, 04:49 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-14-2010, 04:04 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  
(09-03-2010, 11:39 PM)Poffo Wrote:  Assuming a vacuum clear of gravitationally significant bodies, light would travel in a straight line, but interestingly it is made of these two sine wave fields that move in and out of each other, and the waves can be described as the plot of points on a circle.

So, you could think of a circle as representing the infinite whole, in that it can be a container for ALL and also that there is no real beginning or ending point to it. We also could say that what we know of as white light contains all the colours of the visible light spectrum and is thus a unity of finite elements.

I hope this made some sense! Smile

Wow, Poffo, I just now finally read your post. I confess I was a little intimidated at first, but you've explained it so well, I actually think I got it! I never thought of a circle as an infinite polygon - that really does clear up the paradox! Thanks!

Ok, good to know!

One interesting thing I've realized since making those posts, was that the lenticular shape is defined by the inner part of the vesica piscis (2 circles interlocked at each other's center point):

[Image: vesica_pisces.gif]

As shown in the image, it also contains the square roots of 2, 3, and 5 (if considering the horizontal radius joining the two circles as having the value of 1). This is important because the square root of 2 defines 2D space (as the value of the diagonal of a square vs. one of its sides), and the square root of 3 is the inner diagonal of a cube/3D space (where any side is also 1, like the square). The square root of 5 is fundamental to the golden ratio which is (1+sqrt5)/2.

Anyway, quite off topic at this point, but just thought I'd share my observations Smile

Heart/Idea
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-17-2010, 05:19 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
Next time you feel the urge, please do! I thought that was brilliant.. What does it mean that those numbers are all in there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-17-2010, 10:43 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY
e^(pi i) = -1
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-17-2010, 11:37 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-17-2010, 04:49 PM)Poffo Wrote:  As shown in the image, it also contains the square roots of 2, 3, and 5 (if considering the horizontal radius joining the two circles as having the value of 1). This is important because the square root of 2 defines 2D space (as the value of the diagonal of a square vs. one of its sides), and the square root of 3 is the inner diagonal of a cube/3D space (where any side is also 1, like the square). The square root of 5 is fundamental to the golden ratio which is (1+sqrt5)/2.

Yikes, just when I thought I understood it! Tongue

Just kidding. Thanks for educating us on this!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-19-2010, 02:48 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-15-2010, 11:42 AM)unity100 Wrote:  technically, when 'infinity becomes aware', it would be actually not infinite that became aware, but, we, as the 'aware' parts of infinity, the deviations from infinity, have started being aware, ie having the distortion of awareness.

Very astute point!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-30-2010, 01:27 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
unity Wrote::infinity, is infinite. there is no other case or situation. its not even left to believing. its not a matter of belief...pose your question in the thread you mean to, and i will reply. before it gets lost in the shuffle
Quantum Wrote:You seem adamant in your convictions. I agree infinity is infinity. But what does that mean? Lets pick it up on your thread "There isnt that much freedom it seems...and INFINITY"

You have spoken much to the concept of Infinity. I would invite all readers interested to take but a moment to review some or all of your sentiments as written in the several links with respect to your statements on Infinity in that they bring up interesting points of contemplation. For that I thank you. But you fail to see where these sentiments place you. You run the risk of a very tenuous position which by definition places you into a corner of non-argumentative status as such. In other words, everything you argue against and everything that another suggests and argues for is in your realm by own own definition not only as plausible, but moreover as correct, this at your own hand and by your own position. Your own position as such is an untenable one incapable of being defended as much as is anothers position, or to the converse, both positions are true in an Infinite Infinity where everything exists and is possible, making participation a moot point, given that in Infinity, as you define it, everything is correct and nothing is incorrect. Therefore everyone you have debated with is as correct and no more incorrect as are you, as much as everything you have argued for is as incorrect, given the other party is more correct. Your position therefore truly is either untenable or one that argues for nihilism.

For example, if you believe in Infinity, and an Infinite Creator as such, which you admit that you do, which is capable, and in fact does and has created Infinitely anything and everything capable of being created, then you must be as willing to allow that such an Infinite Creator has not only the possibility, but the absolute wherewithal, of creating all possibilities within which in that creation there are impossibilities. If you argue against this, then you have limited Infinity as much as you have the Infinite Creator's infinite ability. Where are your restrictions to your argument. If you do not allow that the Creator has not restricted creation, or has the ability to, then you have restricted Infinity.

I can not fly in this illusion, nor may I live forever. You would argue that this is so only in this limited creation, but that I can in other infinite creations. That would be changing what I just proposed however. What I proposed was limiting the possibility in any creation as per the laws of the Infinite Creator. If the Infinite Creator as Infinity can not do this, then you have limited Infinity.

A better example would be this: There are laws and rules in 3D in order that 3D may operate within the confines and restrictions of 3D which were created by design to be restrictive . By your definition, as well as an ardent supporter of yours in your previous threads, the laws of 3D may be suspended in an infinite creation where everything and anything is possible. Extrapolating this logic out, all densities laws may be suspended in an Infinite Infinity in other creations. There are no laws as such in such creations. You and your supporter have just argued for nihilism, as much as against the purpose for creation.

It may be argued that nihilism at least operates within the confines of creation, in that nihilism at least acknowledges the existence of creation and its laws, albeit that these laws need to be overthrown. But in your world view, you must by your own definition allow that within Infinity, where all possibilities are Infinite and definitely exist, that infinity and creation itself also never happened. If so, then what we are doing is not happening, which is a total contradiction of the fact that it is. I am. I need no other proof for it than I think. Someone/something is here. If we have therefore but even one single circumstance wherein Infinity is restricted, given creation did happen, and that not all things infinitely happen, i.e. the un-creation of what already is, or the non-event of creation which already is created, then Infinity has restrictions, and moreover restrictions by design.

You certainly may not propose that in Infinity, where everything is infinitely not only "possible", but "IS," as you adamantly state it is, that the "IS" that always was, never was, as much as the "IS" that happened also didn't happen. It is an untenable position to argue. But you must do so in order to sustain your position. Your position is unsustainable. Your position is untenable.

If on the other hand you are willing but to make for but one single exception to your argument that yes, nothingness never existed, then you must also be willing to allow that the Infinity as the One Infinite Creator also is Infinitely capable, and not only capable, does/may, restrict "ITS" creation in degrees infinitely by its laws in all other creations as well. If you likewise allow for this, then you must also likewise allow for the one single possibility that in all of "ITS" creations there is/may be one single constant which IT may not allow. If you allow for this, then you must also allow that there are more than one dis-allowances. For example, it would seem that one dis-allowance would be the non-existence/inability for free-will. This would be the antithesis of "ITS" creation and individuation(s), for without free will, "IT" is just many of ITselves divided, but as one organism nonetheless. We know by the LOO that free will was one of the very first distortions, this before even creation.
Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The Law of Confusion or Free Will is utterly paramount in the workings of the infinite creation. That which is intended has as much intensity of attraction to the polar opposite as the intensity of the intention or desire.
There is no possibility within Infinity for non-free will. It is utterly paramount! Utterly paramount are not light words. Free will just is! There is no where in the universes of creations that it isn't, even in an Infinitely Infinite Infinity of unrestrictive possibilities as you make a case for.

Questioner: Wrote:Then can you tell me how the galaxy and planetary systems were formed?

Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.

The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

Questioner: In yesterday’s material you mentioned that the first distortion was the distortion of free will. Is there a sequence, a first, second, and third distortion of the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra. Only up to a very short point. After this point, the many-ness of distortions are equal one to another. The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love. This intelligent energy thus creates a distortion known as Light. From these three distortions come many, many hierarchies of distortions, each having its own paradoxes to be synthesized, no one being more important than another.

Free Will---> Love---> Light. These are individuations/creations/distortions throughout the Infinite Creation of Infinity where without which there is no other possibility, even within an Infinity you seemingly seem to suggest for otherwise. These are restrictions. Laws. Peter-Pan in all likelihood does not exist other than as a wonderful imaginative character and caricature between J.M. Barries ears. God is Infinite. I would argue that HIS/ITS Infinity as Creation is not, this by virtue of the fact that IT deemed to restrict same by virtue of ITS Infinite Wisdom, which we know absolutely nothing of. Thus it may be argued that GOD ITSELF has restricted ITSELF by virtue of ITS FREEWILL to allow ITS creations FREEWILL. To undo this creation/distortion of the allowance of and for freewill would undo ITS creation. Thus there are restrictions as an expression of Infinite Infinity expressing ITself, less you would argue against Infinite Infinity's ability to do so which would be tantamount to suggesting that it is not Infinite.

In closing this post, I will no doubt simply continually refer you back to it based on your responses. If you would further allow me, I would very much like to take up several more points you have additionally proposed in other posts as well. I will reiterate as stated in my last post and thread "2nd LOO Question: Creation" that your logic and interpretations are as interesting as they are intriguing, but perhaps as suggested in this post, untenable.

L/L

~ Q ~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-30-2010, 08:37 PM,
RE: There isnt that much freedom it seems
(09-30-2010, 01:27 PM)Quantum Wrote:  You have spoken much to the concept of Infinity. I would invite all readers interested to take but a moment to review some or all of your sentiments as written in the several links with respect to your statements on Infinity in that they bring up interesting points of contemplation. For that I thank you. But you fail to see where these sentiments place you. You run the risk of a very tenuous position which by definition places you into a corner of non-argumentative status as such. In other words, everything you argue against and everything that another suggests and argues for is in your realm by own own definition not only as plausible, but moreover as correct, this at your own hand and by your own position. Your own position as such is an untenable one incapable of being defended as much as is anothers position, or to the converse, both positions are true in an Infinite Infinity where everything exists and is possible, making participation a moot point, given that in Infinity, as you define it, everything is correct and nothing is incorrect. Therefore everyone you have debated with is as correct and no more incorrect as are you, as much as everything you have argued for is as incorrect, given the other party is more correct. Your position therefore truly is either untenable or one that argues for nihilism.

im not 'defending' anything. people are talking, and im replying, and sharing what i have concluded.

my conclusions and understandings are results and deductions of what i have learned, as my signature says. these include ra material. i give references to the various pieces of information when it is necessary, if it is something that is an elaborate conclusion from a seemingly insignificant piece of information, but important when seen with the light of other information given in the same material.

someone who wants to discuss in intricate details, has to at least have an understanding and remembrance of intricate material in the book, and should have not passed any information as 'insignificant and unimportant', but reflected on it, as someone who is after intricate information and deep detail should have.

as an obvious example, when i say that 'infinite intelligence is not infinity', and then someone comes up and says 'this is your own deduction, it is neither right or wrong just like any other, infinite intelligence is infinity', my adamant perceptive is not my 'conviction' and my 'nihilism', but, having spent the effort to understand what has been taught, as opposed to the other entity which proposes otherwise.

in this case, the other person apparently have not paid attention or does not remember the fact that ra says that 'there is infinity' and then moves on to say that 'infinity became aware', and then says this concept has found focuses and became infinite intelligence, hence, intelligent infinity becoming a principle that is differentiated from infinity, by being aware, and then finding focus points.

this, is an obvious example. naturally, as with any kind of discussion, one expects that someone who wants to discuss in such intricate levels, should have reflected on the material s/he wants to discuss.

but, many, apparently did not, and does not.

i dont feel obliged to give repetitive references to people who will keep doing the same one after another. especially, for things such obvious and important.

granted, there are a lot of information that can be concluded by bringing together innumerable seemingly 'unimportant' information, and these may merit giving reasoning, and links to, and im doing that when necessary.

however still, for people who havent treated the material they had seriously and in detail, it would still be harder to construct a big picture by all these interconnected and seemingly 'unimportant' pieces of numerous information, because it is something that one needs to do BEFORE discussing them in detail.

Quote:For example, if you believe in Infinity, and an Infinite Creator as such, which you admit that you do, which is capable, and in fact does and has created Infinitely anything and everything capable of being created, then you must be as willing to allow that such an Infinite Creator has not only the possibility, but the absolute wherewithal, of creating all possibilities within which in that creation there are impossibilities. If you argue against this, then you have limited Infinity as much as you have the Infinite Creator's infinite ability. Where are your restrictions to your argument. If you do not allow that the Creator has not restricted creation, or has the ability to, then you have restricted Infinity.

i didnt 'admit' anything, and i dont 'believe' anything. believing is irrelevant. i know what i know, or what i have been taught.

simply, i know that infinity exists, because, Ra says infinity exists. my conclusions from other ponderings also support that, hence, infinity exists. as for infinite intelligence, which you dub creator, i learn of its existence from ra, and by bringing together the pieces of major and minor information, i can understand its nature and construct a framework of interconnected information.

when these interconnected information supports each other, and one can navigate from one point to another without breaking the framework, it means that this framework is valid.

what you name as 'creator', aka infinite intelligence, is already restricted. it is restricted in the sense that it is aware, conscious, and differentiated from infinity by being as such, as what we know from ra, by 'infinity became aware'.

and because it is not infinite, it is possible for it to explore infinity. and that will take an infinite amount of time, because nothing less than infinity, can be infinite. this also validates the concept that ra tells us as existence being able to discover multiple-beingness for eternity by creating infinitely.

there is no 'impossible'. everything that exists, exists. that is the existing part of infinity. therefore, there is no 'creator' that has to be able to create the 'impossible'. intelligent infinity exists, and it discovers what does exist.

Quote:A better example would be this: There are laws and rules in 3D in order that 3D may operate within the confines and restrictions of 3D which were created by design to be restrictive . By your definition, as well as an ardent supporter of yours in your previous threads, the laws of 3D may be suspended in an infinite creation where everything and anything is possible. Extrapolating this logic out, all densities laws may be suspended in an Infinite Infinity in other creations. There are no laws as such in such creations. You and your supporter have just argued for nihilism, as much as against the purpose for creation.

for infinity to be infinite, the parts of the infinity that exist, has to contain such realities in which the 'laws of 3d' are 'suspended'. not only not working or different, but, actually, have been working like the reality you are in as of now, but, 'suspended' by its local creating node. not only that, but infinite realities in which all densities' laws have been 'suspended' as such, and infinite other ways, has to exist, for infinity to be infinite.

whatever 'nihilism' is here, and how it ties to the subject, beats me.

Quote:But in your world view, you must by your own definition allow that within Infinity, where all possibilities are Infinite and definitely exist, that infinity and creation itself also never happened. If so, then what we are doing is not happening, which is a total contradiction of the fact that it is. I am. I need no other proof for it than I think. Someone/something is here. If we have therefore but even one single circumstance wherein Infinity is restricted, given creation did happen, and that not all things infinitely happen, i.e. the un-creation of what already is, or the non-event of creation which already is created, then Infinity has restrictions, and moreover restrictions by design.

i snipped the parts relating to 'nihilism'.

and yes, all possibilities are infinite, and definitely exist, and creation has also never happened, when you combine the 'aware' and 'existing' subset of infinity, with its counterpart, the (probably) 'unaware' and 'nonexisting' subset of infinity, or, whatever its exact complementary counterpart is.

Quote:You certainly may not propose that in Infinity, where everything is infinitely not only "possible", but "IS," as you adamantly state it is, that the "IS" that always was, never was, as much as the "IS" that happened also didn't happen. It is an untenable position to argue. But you must do so in order to sustain your position. Your position is unsustainable. Your position is untenable.

your arguments are untenable. not only that, but you also apparently have read whatever i said carelessly.

in infinity, everything that IS and can BE are found. however, that is not entirety of infinity.

what you term as 'possible' and 'impossible', are also just concepts, terms, identifying various adjectives and states of things that can 'be' in infinity.

infinity, is not limited to 'be'ing. infinity is not limited to any of these. all of these are subsets of infinity. for every 'possibility' of 'being' that one can find or think, there exists also a counterpart of that situation, that is totally the exact opposite, and complements it to point infinity, perfect state of nullification and balance. if there is a 'creator' there is a 'non creator'. if there is an 'infinite intelligence', there is also an infinite 'unintelligence'. crude may be the naming, the concept is evident.

Quote:If on the other hand you are willing but to make for but one single exception to your argument that yes, nothingness never existed, then you must also be willing to allow that the Infinity as the One Infinite Creator also is Infinitely capable, and not only capable, does/may, restrict "ITS" creation in degrees infinitely by its laws in all other creations as well. If you likewise allow for this, then you must also likewise allow for the one single possibility that in all of "ITS" creations there is/may be one single constant which IT may not allow. If you allow for this, then you must also allow that there are more than one dis-allowances. For example, it would seem that one dis-allowance would be the non-existence/inability for free-will. This would be the antithesis of "ITS" creation and individuation(s), for without free will, "IT" is just many of ITselves divided, but as one organism nonetheless. We know by the LOO that free will was one of the very first distortions, this before even creation.

i dont need to 'allow' anything. for every 'possibility' you list there, complementing counterpart of that possibility to nullification exists within infinity.

Quote:
[quote] Ra Wrote:Ra: I am Ra. The Law of Confusion or Free Will is utterly paramount in the workings of the infinite creation. That which is intended has as much intensity of attraction to the polar opposite as the intensity of the intention or desire.

There is no possibility within Infinity for non-free will. It is utterly paramount! Utterly paramount are not light words. Free will just is! There is no where in the universes of creations that it isn't, even in an Infinitely Infinite Infinity of unrestrictive possibilities as you make a case for.

in your haste to discredit anything that goes, apparently against the conceptualization of an all powerful god, apparently you are misreading or skipping a lot of important distinctions :

infinite creation is NOT infinity. infinite creation, is the subset of infinite intelligence, which is the subset of the part of infinity that 'became aware', which is the subset of infinity. the creation going to be existing and unfolding for eternity, and being infinite inwards, and its expansion and outwards, does not make the creation, infinity itself.

Quote:Free Will---> Love---> Light. These are individuations/creations/distortions throughout the Infinite Creation of Infinity where without which there is no other possibility, even within an Infinity you seemingly seem to suggest for otherwise. These are restrictions. Laws. Peter-Pan in all likelihood does not exist other than as a wonderful imaginative character and caricature between J.M. Barries ears. God is Infinite. I would argue that HIS/ITS Infinity as Creation is not, this by virtue of the fact that IT deemed to restrict same by virtue of ITS Infinite Wisdom, which we know absolutely nothing of. Thus it may be argued that GOD ITSELF has restricted ITSELF by virtue of ITS FREEWILL to allow ITS creations FREEWILL. To undo this creation/distortion of the allowance of and for freewill would undo ITS creation. Thus there are restrictions as an expression of Infinite Infinity expressing ITself, less you would argue against Infinite Infinity's ability to do so which would be tantamount to suggesting that it is not Infinite.

In closing this post, I will no doubt simply continually refer you back to it based on your responses. If you would further allow me, I would very much like to take up several more points you have additionally proposed in other posts as well. I will reiterate as stated in my last post and thread "2nd LOO Question: Creation" that your logic and interpretations are as interesting as they are intriguing, but perhaps as suggested in this post, untenable.

this last block, gives various important feelings in regard to your approach, motives and the language of the post and associations you have made in between me and 'nihilism' and my ponderings of infinity.

you seem to be defending the concept of an all powerful god, rather than pondering infinity together. tone has become somewhat condescending and also you have gone the extra mileage of attributing various adjectives to my persona or approach, like 'nihilism' and whatnot.

im not offended, neither do i give much importance to such, however it is quite unproductive and im not interested in defenses of an all powerful 'god' belief, or its debunking, or anything relevant to these. therefore i wont be participating in any kind of reply exchange with people who desire as such. up to this point, and especially in this topic, you have shown your desire to be as such. if you want to ponder infinity and exchange thoughts with me without feeling the need to defend an all powerful god concept and even coerce it over me, be my guest. but if i feel that it is happening as otherwise, and it is, as of now, i will just opt out of discussing with you. no offense, of course.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)