Warm/Cool Male /Female

[waterflame5]

I've been spending too much
time in the jacuzzi and have
found myself depleted, low
drive, etc. So I was
considering that the Jacuzzi
may be a way to Pacify Men
with too much testosterone...

Wandering down that path,
I found this article about
a genetic heat switch theory
that may determine male/female.
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030421/030421-10.html

What I found affirming was that
hot was associated to males,
cool to females which corresponded
to severity/mercy and the hot/cool
color combinations that seemed to
be analogous.

So there is some glandular analogy,
associated to chakras and such,
just dipping the surface so to speak...

In bubbles, Pat

[Jason Wharton]

> ... So I was
> considering that the Jacuzzi
> may be a way to Pacify Men
> with too much testosterone
> ...

Testosterone itself is morally neutral. It's what the soul of the man would
do with the additional energy, strength, vitality, etc. that matters. Taking
away testosterone from a man is like applying drugs to mask yet another more
root issue.

Having a higher testosterone level also enables men to be more patient and
cool headed, more the master of their own destiny rather than a passive
couch potato adrift in life. I lift weights and exercize regularly to
maintain a good level of it and as a result my intelligence is higher, I'm
much more productive in my employment, I'm more patient with my children and
my wife is married to a real man that I know on a fundamental level gains
her deepest respect. I'm not talking about bedroom performance, though I'm
sure that is a bonus as well.

I'm not real keen on the femminizing of males and masculenizing of women in
this age. Let's have real men and real women and appreciate the dignified
expression of each in their role. Confusing the roles even more isn't going
to be a solution in my view. These are movements inspired by those who reap
'their order' out of 'our chaos'.

I believe for ascension to be a reality for society we need to put a stop to
this global manipulation game. A very good start will be for us to discover
and appreciate the roles and expression of our divine natures as men and
women. We will know we've done it when sexual expression between men and
women is in a bonded and mated context (marriage) welding a family unit with
fidelity. To the degree this becomes predominant is when 'our order' will be
'their chaos' and the manipulation will be largely stopped.

Jason Wharton

[Jeremy Weiland]

> I believe for ascension to be a reality for society
> we need to put a stop to this global manipulation
> game. A very good start will be for us to discover
> and appreciate the roles and expression of our
> divine natures as men and women. We will know we've
> done it when sexual expression between men and
> women is in a bonded and mated context (marriage)
> welding a family unit with fidelity. To the degree
> this becomes predominant is when 'our order' will be
> 'their chaos' and the manipulation will be largely
> stopped.

IMHO, this gender role conspiracy is a transient issue
that has *nothing* to do with ascension. No offense,
but trying to put harvest in such a social and
political context is a little distorted. There are
many aspects of our culture being manipulated, and
they don't change the rather simple metaphysical
fundamentals of the harvest time.

Didn't want silence on this issue to be interpreted as
acceptance of this view of ascension. The issue of
gender roles is no more or less important than any
day-to-day, transient issue that contributes to
polarization towards (or away from) service to others.
We all have our pet axes to grind, but let's not lose
our focus on the important points.

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

[Jason Wharton]

> No offense,
> but trying to put harvest in such a social and
> political context is a little distorted.

The context for service to others and/or service to self exists within a
socio-political context does it not? Service implies that a person or
persons is receiving some sort of benefit based on the acts of another.
Thus, to consider a person is receiving a benefit implies there is some sort
of moral backdrop actions are measured against.

You will have a very hard time convincing me there is no moral basis of some
kind as the back drop to what determines whether a person is providing
service to others or self.

Much of what we have by way of 'traditions of our fathers' is nonsense, I
agree. But, there is a great amount of things that are absolute people seem
to be trying to rationalize into dispensible/relative things. These are
principles like integrity, fidelity, chastity, etc.

There's a lot of messes on this planet that need cleaning up which will not
simply get solved by getting collective agreement to sweep them under the
rug. If we purport to be light workers then we need to face the truth of
things head on regarding the absolute principles of our current context.

It is a complete deception to think principles can be laid aside and to
expect some kind of utopian reality to result just by getting more people to
collectively agree upon the deception.

In short, it appears to me as an elaborate scheme to give people a false
sense of security by opening apparently safe doors to violate principles
which in reality are absolute.

That's largely what I perceive in the Law of One mindset. Perhaps you could
address my issues here and show me where I have blind spots.

Jason Wharton

[Jeremy Weiland]

Jason:

<sigh> I'm not trying to start another ideological war
of the worlds. On the other hand, it's important that
people distinguish between one person's political
baggage and our core mission. Of course, this would
be an insignificant problem if people would just be
familiar with the material before coming to the table.


I don't like having to challenge people like this but
as our new guidelines state, the value of this list is
in the maintainance of its focus. So don't take any
of this personally is what I mean.

> > No offense, but trying to put harvest in such a
> > social and political context is a little
distorted.
>
> The context for service to others and/or service to
> self exists within a socio-political context does it

> not?

Of course! But one context is transient, and the
other is intransient (or *much* less transient). That
was all I was trying to say. The behind the scenes
drama of polarity is much more significant and
meaningful than being on the right or wrong side of
the moral dichotomy on this planet. The social
structures we have here consitute a context in which
polarity functions, but it is not itself the polarity,
and that is an important point. I do not agree with
tying the message of the Law of One to any
sociopolitical baggage.

Believe me, David can tell you: I have my own set of
political beliefs that I feel are derivative of the
Law of One philosophy - and they very much have to do
with absolute principles. But I would never try to
push these principles on people and claim they are
themselves absolute, and certainly not as a function
of the Law of One. In so far as they apply to
worldly, 3D systems, I can see my political ideas for
what they are: my personal distillation of my
understanding of reality. They are meaningful, but
they *are not* absolute, certainly not for this list's
purposes.

> Service implies that a person or persons is
> receiving some sort of benefit based on the acts of
> another.

Only in the most universal sense: for example,
negative greeting being "service" in the sense of
providing an opportunity, *not* in the sense of being
"right or wrong".

> Thus, to consider a person is receiving a benefit
> implies there is some sort of moral backdrop actions

> are measured against.

The question, as you insightfully put it, is one of
scope. How absolute is that moral backdrop (at least
in the context of the Law of One, and therefore in
this list's scope)?

> You will have a very hard time convincing me there
> is no moral basis of some kind as the back drop to
> what determines whether a person is providing
> service to others or self.

Well, again I do not mean to step on toes, but it is
emphatically *not* the purpose of this list, nor the
goal of its moderators or members, to convince
*anybody* of anything. As the guidelines state,
participation on the list implies tacit consent with
our core values.

That said, morality is an agent in polarization, to be
sure - but that doesn't mean there is neccessarily a
one-to-one relationship between morality and the
functionality of polarity. In short, I believe that
from an unified point of view it is inescapable that
morality is subjective. However, morality is
subjective because to be most legitimate it is
personal - it derives its most power from personal
consent and obedience. It is a useful tool for
polarization and efficient experience in 3D, but it is
not the experience itself, nor the basis for ascension
in any fundamental way - certainly not in the same way
mainstream religion treats it.

> Much of what we have by way of 'traditions of our
> fathers' is nonsense, I agree. But, there is a great

> amount of things that are absolute people seem to be

> trying to rationalize into dispensible/relative
> things. These are principles like integrity,
> fidelity, chastity, etc.

But these "bad" things are not necessarily wrong in
any ultimate sense (according to the Law of One),
Jason. They are simply opporunities for learning and
experience. If morality is a force for repression
where no free will infringement is at stake, it is not
serving as a tool for efficient experience, and
discarding such morality is one choice available to
the entity. That an entity has that choice is
absolute - and you then have the choice to judge or to
accept. As Paul Kandrah eloquently puts it,
experience is exact.

> There's a lot of messes on this planet that need
> cleaning up which will not simply get solved by
> getting collective agreement to sweep them under the
> rug. If we purport to be light workers then we need
> to face the truth of things head on regarding the
> absolute principles of our current context.

Whoa. The whole reason I challenged the points in
your previous post was because I took exception with
the absolute nature of the principles you stated. So
let's not make any assumptions about where we agree.

One of the basic points of the Law of One is that
lightworkers (Wanderers) are here to radiate
light/love independent of context. Now, I concede
openly that they can (and probably often do) fulfill
this function in the context of the resident morality
structure. But the reason it is beneficial service is
because of the love/light radiated - not the form in
which that service exists. And that's where things
like absolute principles fail utterly, because they
are rules of form and not content. IMHO these
problems to which you allude are the result of a lack
of love/light - they are not systemic problems per se.

> It is a complete deception to think principles can
> be laid aside and to expect some kind of utopian
> reality to result just by getting more people to
> collectively agree upon the deception.

Besides the self-referential nature of this argument,
I think you may need to accept the fact that you are
no more an arbiter of reality than any of us. We may
agree and we may disagree, but that is a function of
who we are and not blind obedience to some arcane and
outmoded system of repression and expectation. And
that's my personal POV, BTW.

> In short, it appears to me as an elaborate scheme to
> give people a false sense of security by opening
> apparently safe doors to violate principles which in

> reality are absolute.
> That's largely what I perceive in the Law of One
> mindset. Perhaps you could address my issues here
> and show me where I have blind spots.

Have you read the Law of One series? Like our
guidelines say, it really is counterproductive to
repeatedly go over the basis for our community here
with those who do not share the core values. I'm not
trying to be rude but it seems like you insist upon a
belief system that is not quite in line with ours.
Which is cool as long as that incongruity is expressly
maintained and not passed off as absolute.

I would say that clinging to a set of irrefutable
principles and judging people by them is a normal
human experience certainly, but inasmuch as it is a
transient one I wouldn't identify any particular moral
code with this list or the Law of One (as articulated
by Ra at the very least). By that I mean: there is
absolutely *no way* I would go along with the idea
that, for instance, ascension is dependent upon one's
adherence to the 10 Commandments, as you (seem to)
imply.

I acknowledge that I might be putting you in a box in
which you do not belong, so if I'm doing that let me
know and I will apologize. But you seem to be a
proponent of organized religion, and the absolute
morals you're pushing as congruent with the Law of One
may be a function of that mindset. If nothing else I
feel it neccessary to distinguish between your
personal opinion and our basic core values here. I
don't have any problem with opinions as long as they
are not propped up on the Law of One, for that is
textbook distortion.

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

[Lesley Schultz]

Dear Jeremy and Jason:

--- Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=lXlaHGK11oAn-uAZQlb1as2LcP3dlP9Wz3AIBdDg-DEhze1YspaRssNtKEKr01Y2OFvotGQYq6hnpjqdudxPRQ)> wrote:
>snip> But you seem to be a
proponent of organized religion, and the absolute
morals you're pushing as congruent with the Law of One
may be a function of that mindset. If nothing else I
feel it neccessary to distinguish between your
personal opinion and our basic core values here. I
don't have any problem with opinions as long as they
are not propped up on the Law of One, for that is
textbook distortion.

Jeremy

LS: I have 2 cents to add, if I may:

Oragnized religion, any organized religion, also
changes with the times. If it wants to stay relevent,
it needs to adapt itself to the way the world is. To
give a Morman example, let's talk about plural
marriage and African members of the church. Both were
previously allowed in the first case and forbidden in
the second, and then there was a revelation that
reversed both. Vatican II was a major landmark in
reforming and revising cannon law and church positions
on a number of things, including the matter of Judaism
and Jews. The Pope and the Church are supposed to be
infallible, yet this was done. The Episcopalian
church allows gay marriage and the ordination of
women. Both were previously forbidden. I could go
on, but you get the point.

I think this might be one reason why, when you take
the long view as with the Law of One, morality
standards are such a moving target that they cannot be
taken as absolutes. So much of their revelence depends
on things like society and civilizations.

I can appreciate that you might feel that tossing them
aside seems hasty and leaves the door open for also
throwing out the idea of a Divine Justice, but if you
read the Law of One carefully you find that karma
takes care of the consequences of what you could call
sin. Causality, that's what I'm saying. Cause and
effect. Remember your chaos theory? A butterfly flaps
its wings in Tokyo and the weather is different in New
York. You think I'm exaggerating? Perhaps, but only
a tiny bit. The sloppy work of a farrier causes the
wreck of a kingdom [for want a nail, the shoe was
lost.....you know that old poem.]

Complex systems, like weather, like history, are the
result of sensitve dependance on initial conditions.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity says that the effect
of an observer on a system and the limitations of the
observer on observation, means that the exact nature
of initial conditions can never be known. From there,
we get Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. However,
philosophers ask the question: if God sees everything
and knows everything perfectly, does the Theory of
Relativity and the Uncertianty Principal still apply
in a practical sense? The answer is no-- BECAUSE ALL
IS ONE and the ONE is All.

If you want an absolute, there's one for you.

Blessings,
~lesley




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

[waterflame5]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=8b9wv0XIPEAf-pfXDS1LfDSiYGb2FLLqxGQ0ynEKMLNb8PT_e8Rbpw_qQxTrRLK BQ4wd2eOVmr_Guxqg9h0), Lesley Schultz <msthoth@y...> wrote:
"Complex systems, like weather, like history, are the
result of sensitve dependance on initial conditions."

That is a curious statement.
Initial condition:
One, then male and female?

Well gender seems fundamental, in
whatever sociological context,
whether it is harvest or service.

Sustaining dignity in the family
unit...has anyone ever noticed in
long time marriages how the woman
becomes more dominant?
Is it a decrease in testosterone
in the male that contributes to that
shift? There seems a relation of
testosterone to passivity or
aggressiveness. Certainly we can
be either in our "service" choices.

Another connection may be the
Kundalini energy - testosterone
tends to increase sexual drive and
through that there can be a Kundalini
transformation - evolved chakra
activation...which is not achieved
through passive means...an activation
that may make one more "harvestable."

Wasn't it Jesus that mentioned that
"The prostitutes will enter the
kingdom of heaven before you.".
Maybe this is why...that there are
divine energy transfers involved in
their work that promotes ascension.

Wondering and Wandering, Pat

[Jason Wharton]

> <sigh> I'm not trying to start another ideological war
> of the worlds.

I'm not trying to be an upset to this community.

> On the other hand, it's important that
> people distinguish between one person's political
> baggage and our core mission.

I guess that's what I'm doing here. I'm coming from a context that will no
doubt color how I understand the materials. I'm willing to put my POV out
there before others and anticipate I will elicite some quality posts out of
some of you. I'm not so much looking for agreement as I'm looking for a
bigger view of things.

> Of course, this would
> be an insignificant problem if people would just be
> familiar with the material before coming to the table.

I've read most everything on David's site, including all of the RA material
he has there. In fact I've re-read some of it over and over as well as
discussed it with family members. I was even moved to weep in parts. It's
powerful stuff. I've read most of David's autobiographical stuff too. I read
all the scientific stuff. Shift of the Ages, Convergence series, Divine
Cosmos, etc. I even read some material that doesn't appear to be on-line any
longer having to do with David's experience in spiritual realms that I found
highly interesting. Hoping to get ahold of it at some point too.

To the degree this applies, I'd appreciate it if you didn't cast me in the
role of somone who dabbled in David's material just enough to babble here
for the sake of pushing my own ideals on a community. I've studied it for
the past year or more in quite a bit of detail as well as other Law of One
materials.

> I don't like having to challenge people like this but
> as our new guidelines state, the value of this list is
> in the maintainance of its focus. So don't take any
> of this personally is what I mean.

I simply ask that there be honesty and don't worry about hurting my
feelings.

> > The context for service to others and/or
> > service to self exists within a socio-political
> > context does it not?
>
> Of course! But one context is transient, and the
> other is intransient (or *much* less transient). That
> was all I was trying to say.

I don't get what you are saying here. I'm going to need some blind spots
filled in. Perhaps an example?

> The behind the scenes
> drama of polarity is much more significant and
> meaningful than being on the right or wrong side of
> the moral dichotomy on this planet.

I'm not necesarily refering to our planet's moral dichotomy. Our planet is
largely out of line and this is why there is so much trouble in the world.
I'm certainly not trying to use it as a reference point. There are deeper
levels of truth I am trying to get some illumination on for the sake of
bringing peace, harmony and unity to this planet.

> The social
> structures we have here consitute a context in which
> polarity functions, but it is not itself the polarity,
> and that is an important point. I do not agree with
> tying the message of the Law of One to any
> sociopolitical baggage.

I'm talking about principles and recognizing how they pan out in a
sociological sense. Thus, I'm at least one step deeper than sociopolitical
areas.

> Believe me, David can tell you: I have my own set of
> political beliefs that I feel are derivative of the
> Law of One philosophy - and they very much have to do
> with absolute principles.

Well, I would be interested in hearing them.

> But I would never try to
> push these principles on people and claim they are
> themselves absolute, and certainly not as a function
> of the Law of One.

Define push. Pushing them on someone is saying if you don't agree with me I
want you off the list or some such threat. Sharing them as what you believe
for the consideration of others is nothing close to pushing them on someone.
Unless you presume your audience is a bunch of weakminded people. I don't
pretend for one minute this list would attract those who are weakminded and
I speak into that assumption.

> > Service implies that a person or persons is
> > receiving some sort of benefit based on the acts of
> > another.
>
> Only in the most universal sense: for example,
> negative greeting being "service" in the sense of
> providing an opportunity, *not* in the sense of being
> "right or wrong".

Opportunity for what? There is still an underlying basis in that word. Seems
you are really running hard to get away from "right or wrong" but using
words like opportunity brings you right back to it.

> > Thus, to consider a person is receiving a benefit
> > implies there is some sort of moral backdrop actions
> > are measured against.
>
> The question, as you insightfully put it, is one of
> scope. How absolute is that moral backdrop (at least
> in the context of the Law of One, and therefore in
> this list's scope)?

I would say the scope I am referring to has only to do with our current
space/time creation and it's etherical connection(s). I acknowledge the
possibility of other universes containing other experiments that may have
unimaginable parameters and contexts where what I call absolute may not
apply. I think impersonal, meaning no respect to persons, would be a better
way of stating it than absolute.

> > You will have a very hard time convincing me there
> > is no moral basis of some kind as the back drop to
> > what determines whether a person is providing
> > service to others or self.
>
> Well, again I do not mean to step on toes, but it is
> emphatically *not* the purpose of this list, nor the
> goal of its moderators or members, to convince
> *anybody* of anything. As the guidelines state,
> participation on the list implies tacit consent with
> our core values.

What are your core values? So far I get the impression they are very weakly
defined and more trying to say "I won't disapprove of you if you won't
disapprove of me." Which isn't really even a moral as much as it is a
cop-out. No offense intended, that's just how I see it.

> That said, morality is an agent in polarization, to be
> sure - but that doesn't mean there is neccessarily a
> one-to-one relationship between morality and the
> functionality of polarity.

If this is true then I have them collapsed as you suggest.

> In short, I believe that
> from an unified point of view it is inescapable that
> morality is subjective.

This is possibly so but for this creation there are fixed consequences that
at a fundamental level become absolute(impersonal). Yes, there are a wide
range of parameters that come into play, but just like today, tomorrow and
for some time to come, gravity just does what gravity does here in this
creation. Same is true of consequences to the principles I'm pointing out.

> However, morality is
> subjective because to be most legitimate it is
> personal - it derives its most power from personal
> consent and obedience.

Are you suggesting we all have our own private morality?
Implying we can chose our own consequences as well as actions?

I consider someone pretty well deceived if they think they are going to
alter the backdrop of this creation just to suit their personal liking. Can
one person have gravity be one way and someone else choses it to be another
way?

The backdrop of this material creation and its etherical interconnection is
what it is and will remain what it is until this creation has fulfilled its
purpose and we participate in another creation.

> It is a useful tool for
> polarization and efficient experience in 3D, but it is
> not the experience itself, nor the basis for ascension
> in any fundamental way - certainly not in the same way
> mainstream religion treats it.

I'd appreciate it if you would take this out of abstract and give me some
example I can use to get what you are trying to say. I still have things
collapsed and it will probably take an example of some kind to turn the
lights on for me.

> > Much of what we have by way of 'traditions of our
> > fathers' is nonsense, I agree. But, there is a great
> > amount of things that are absolute people seem to be
> > trying to rationalize into dispensible/relative
> > things. These are principles like integrity,
> > fidelity, chastity, etc.
>
> But these "bad" things are not necessarily wrong in
> any ultimate sense (according to the Law of One),
> Jason.

I'm beginning to discern this rationale more and more which is where some of
my red-flags are coming from. This becomes a context in which someone can be
greatly deceived. Evil can then appear as good but then good is also
considered evil.

It sounds very much like the rationale fallen 4D demonic entities
(religionists refer to as Lucifer or Satan and his hosts) would use to
promote their works of deceit, pain, misery and torment of souls here in 3D
as a charitable and loving endeavor worthy of praise and recognition. This
brings me to the supposition that the Law of One could actually be their
religion or at least very similar in nature.

> They are simply opporunities for learning and
> experience.

Ok, I'll grant that. So if these entities have been providing an essential
piece of our context for us in 3D to learn things, why do I get the idea
many people are endeavoring to repress the accumulated learning of mankind
here or keep it as a "do not discuss" area? Who's motivating that? Might
they want the game to keep rolling on? Of course they do.

Surely this learning would accumulate in a pattern of principles which cause
harmony, peace, unity and freedom. Surely those persons/organizations
adhering to them would represent such and promote them boldly but not
forcefully. Such principles can have any amount of light shed upon them and
they will stand tall, all others prefer the shadows in 'do not disturb'
zones lest their deceit be discovered.

At some point a polarization will be based upon those who keep the
principles and maintain peace and harmony and those who rebell and seek to
be a law unto themselves. This is for sure a polarizing criteria whether its
one that fits into Law of One or not. In my view I don't see any other basis
for one as yet.

This polarization has already taken place to some extent in the past. That's
why those negative 4D entities are bound to etheric realms and only have
control here in 3D to the extent people yield to their
influences/deceptions. The separation is not yet fully complete but that was
a major step towards it.

> If morality is a force for repression
> where no free will infringement is at stake, it is not
> serving as a tool for efficient experience, and
> discarding such morality is one choice available to
> the entity.

Of course, someone can always chose to ignore principles and be deceived and
go about learning everything on their own by their own (likely sad)
experience. That of course isn't absolutely necessary but it is an option if
a soul wants to go that route. However, it is clear to me there are cycles
of time which limits the amount we can dottle around. Wait too long to
figure things out and you get to miss the harvest.

> That an entity has that choice is
> absolute - and you then have the choice to judge or to
> accept.

Our agency, that element of choice we have above animals, was given to us by
the Creator. It is a precious gift we must care for or lose or have revoked.
Yes, we are eternal entities, but the scope of operation and influence we
have in the creation(s) can progress or digress considerably.

You act as though your level of choice you have now will never be taken away
or lost. This is not so. Just take anyone who is addicted to something as a
small example. They have given up ability to have choice in that area. We
have the capacity to do that with many things including spiritual things to
the extent we are no longer fit to function as a human being.

> As Paul Kandrah eloquently puts it,
> experience is exact.
>
> > There's a lot of messes on this planet that need
> > cleaning up which will not simply get solved by
> > getting collective agreement to sweep them under the
> > rug. If we purport to be light workers then we need
> > to face the truth of things head on regarding the
> > absolute principles of our current context.
>
> Whoa. The whole reason I challenged the points in
> your previous post was because I took exception with
> the absolute nature of the principles you stated. So
> let's not make any assumptions about where we agree.

Ok, I'll try to state things as perceptions explicitely, though I'm sure
people understand anything I say is merely that, a view.

> One of the basic points of the Law of One is that
> lightworkers (Wanderers) are here to radiate
> light/love independent of context.

You claim independance from context is possible?

> Now, I concede
> openly that they can (and probably often do) fulfill
> this function in the context of the resident morality
> structure.
> But the reason it is beneficial service is
> because of the love/light radiated - not the form in
> which that service exists.

From the sounds of it they are nearly as clueless as the rest of us are
then.

> And that's where things
> like absolute principles fail utterly, because they
> are rules of form and not content.

Huh? Might you be making assumption of me now?

> IMHO these
> problems to which you allude are the result of a lack
> of love/light - they are not systemic problems per se.

I agree a lack of love/light exists and it is a great source of problems.
All the principles I am referring to have to do with love/light.
I hope we can distill things down to see if we connect or if there are
subtle differences and what those differences are.

> > It is a complete deception to think principles can
> > be laid aside and to expect some kind of utopian
> > reality to result just by getting more people to
> > collectively agree upon the deception.
>
> Besides the self-referential nature of this argument,
> I think you may need to accept the fact that you are
> no more an arbiter of reality than any of us.

I'm not the one saying I can create my own personal reality and thus be an
arbiter of it. I'm saying there are, as a function of the creation in which
we reside, parameters (impersonal principles) which when adhered to by
persons and organizations lead to harmony, peace, love, freedom, etc. But,
when laid aside and ignored or rebelled against lead to chaos, misery and
bondage.

Our Creator is the arbiter of these and we are all here to learn and grow
and develop according to this reality we are in. I'm wanting frank and open
dialog about these principles and hope to join our lights together to see if
we can produce a brighter beam to shine. The more colors of light you join
the whiter and brighter the light becomes. We are all in this together and I
don't think for a minute I myself contain all the answers. Humanity will
need to work together with frankness, openness and humility to get to the
bottom of this puzzle, IMHO.

> We may
> agree and we may disagree, but that is a function of
> who we are and not blind obedience to some arcane and
> outmoded system of repression and expectation.

Are you implying I am here to get you to pledge blind obedience to an
outmoded system of repression and expectation? If so, you are going to have
a very difficult time getting what I am saying with these kinds of filters
in place.

> And
> that's my personal POV, BTW.

Thanks for sharing that.

I invite you to lay that filter aside because I clearly distinguish for
myself where I am wholly distinct from that.

> > In short, it appears to me as an elaborate scheme to
> > give people a false sense of security by opening
> > apparently safe doors to violate principles which in
> > reality are absolute.
> > That's largely what I perceive in the Law of One
> > mindset. Perhaps you could address my issues here
> > and show me where I have blind spots.
>
> Have you read the Law of One series?

Once in full and more than once in many places.

> Like our
> guidelines say, it really is counterproductive to
> repeatedly go over the basis for our community here
> with those who do not share the core values.
> I'm not
> trying to be rude but it seems like you insist upon a
> belief system that is not quite in line with ours.

If I must be in line with yours I won't be offended if you excuse me from
the list. But, while you are patient enough to answer all my questions and
concerns I will greatly appreciate it.

> Which is cool as long as that incongruity is expressly
> maintained and not passed off as absolute.

When I say absolute just keep it in the context of our current material
creation and its etheric connections... I don't do more than speculate
beyond that.

> I would say that clinging to a set of irrefutable
> principles and judging people by them is a normal
> human experience certainly,

Judging of people is not what I'm about, nor would I promote some sort of a
tyrannical thought police that would enforce such a code. That's digressive.
We all have a conscience to serve that purpose if maintained in a reasonably
pure state.

> but inasmuch as it is a
> transient one I wouldn't identify any particular moral
> code with this list or the Law of One (as articulated
> by Ra at the very least).
> By that I mean: there is
> absolutely *no way* I would go along with the idea
> that, for instance, ascension is dependent upon one's
> adherence to the 10 Commandments, as you (seem to)
> imply.

The 10 commandments are lines in the sand pointing towards a higher truth.
Higher truths which if adhered to make the 10 commandments a non-issue. It's
a recognition, acceptance and application of these higher truths that I'm
pointing to, not the 10 commandments in a literal sense.

There are circumstances in which I would steal something and would hope
someone would steal from me if they had similar circumstances. Our
consciences are a source of internal knowing that would guide us in our
actions if we are tuned in to them.

> I acknowledge that I might be putting you in a box in
> which you do not belong, so if I'm doing that let me
> know and I will apologize.

As I said above, I suspect you could be missing some value in my words due
to such a filter, though I do recognize why you would take me as you are. I
think we can work past that if we are patient enough.

> But you seem to be a
> proponent of organized religion, and the absolute
> morals you're pushing as congruent with the Law of One
> may be a function of that mindset.

I do promote organized religion as long as it promotes truth and respects
free will and compassionately deals with our inherantly imperfect natures.
IOW, compliance with it must not be forced upon anyone against their will
and the most authority it has is to deny privilages in said organization.

> If nothing else I
> feel it neccessary to distinguish between your
> personal opinion and our basic core values here.

I hope this is done, otherwise I could remain confused myself and also
contribute to the confusion of others regarding the Law of One.

> I don't have any problem with opinions as long as they
> are not propped up on the Law of One, for that is
> textbook distortion.

Yes, due to my filters I may very well cross that line and I hope you will
continue to point it out. Of course there is the chance I could even help
deepen your own understanding of it as well by providing how it looks from
my view. Not implying agreement with me either.

Regards,
Jason Wharton

[Lesley Schultz]

My very dear Pat, L/L & Peace to All:

--- waterflame5 <patrick@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=XR6m1534Eik5nbawE4sLGy0Aix3XxpDXNuUgG7 nuGfAOh42hPWYgV05W5eBGqSRUeARb-6Vht7w)> wrote:
>
> That is a curious statement.
> Initial condition:
> One, then male and female?

LS: Actually, I was speaking generically. However,
you might recall from your biology that we all start
life as female, until the delicate hormone infusion
determined by the Y chromosome creates a male body.

This brings up an interesting point, regarding what
determines gender. It isn't entirely gondal. Our
science still doesn't know everything about what makes
us whatever gender we are. Sometimes there are
biological anomolies that can create a real dispute on
gender is really right in a given case.

Even with the majority of us, where we know what
gender we are and are comfortable with it, there are
elements of both sexes present in our bodies at all
times. The male body produces very small amounts of
estrogen and the female body produces very small
amounts of androgens. This is quite normal and harms
nothing.
>
>snip> > Is it a decrease in testosterone
> in the male that contributes to that
> shift?

LS: Have you considered that perhaps, after long and
intimate acquaintance, the more passive party is
simply choosing to pick their battles instead of
fighting at every opportunity? What appears to be
passivity might really be the exercise of tolerance.
How would someone from outside the relationship really
know for sure?

>snip> There seems a relation of > testosterone to
passivity or aggressiveness.

LS: There are strong women in the world too, and you
can't say that all strong women are strong because
they have too much testerone in their systems.
Personality and experience are not purely chemical.
>
>snip> Another connection may be the Kundalini energy
- testosterone tends to increase sexual drive and
through that there can be a Kundalini
> transformation - evolved chakra> activation...which
is not achieved through passive means...an activation
> that may make one more "harvestable."

LS: Interesting. It thought it was 51% service to
others or 95% service to others that determined
harvestability. I think it's the power associated
with choice and not kundalini energy that determines
whether the strength is there for ascension.
>
> Wasn't it Jesus that mentioned that
> "The prostitutes will enter the
> kingdom of heaven before you.".

LS: I think Jesus meant that at least prostitutes are
honest about what they're doing, and they are doing it
to stay alive. One does what one must to preserve
one's life, and often these women were left destitute
through the death of a husband or father or brother
to support them. Being poor is not a character
defect, except in America ;-).

>snip> Maybe this is why...that there are
> divine energy transfers involved in
> their work that promotes ascension.

LS: That's an interesting question. When one has
sexual relations with another, for reasons other than
a desire to share love/light with them, how efficient
is the transfer? The customer is seeking sexual
release, not spiritual or emotional communion. The
prostitute is seeking financial reward. One could
argue that marriage without love or a desire to seek a
life together in harmony is on the level of a
fiduciary exchange. But this is a very large can of
worms that shouldn't be part of this thread...
>
>snip> Wondering and Wandering, Pat

LS: Keep up with good work, brother. It's an honor to
serve with you.

Blessings,
~lesley


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

[waterflame5]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=v6Hn59xgZI_ef9NlUwsErI7uVg73iLx4LUs5AO wycZyHMH1xA1CeASuHlMlYMR3jzYgYwfe8347WjBPdwGzemQ), "Jason Wharton" <jwharton@j...> wrote:
> I don't have any problem with opinions as long as they
> are not propped up on the Law of One, for that is
> textbook distortion.

Yes, due to my filters I may very well cross that line and I
hope you will continue to point it out.



Is an opinion necessarily a distortion?
Could the Law of One be all encompassing,
for example all these little distorted
opinions are boxed up in a big room with
everything else, or else a possibility
they could be scattered about the room.
Maybe this is simply a statement about
chaos and order, a preference that our
forum remain orderly out of respect and
consideration. Just an opinion, Pat

[waterflame5]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=M9ibbt0J6WPmI4c_5uMlMHZuIcaE9V-RFJk9jsMaRLSybEov7g0vKrvrcQuQ0zlr9QEOxEcvCbmlDV0), Lesley Schultz <msthoth@y...> wrote:
LS: Actually, I was speaking generically. However,
you might recall from your biology that we all start
life as female, until the delicate hormone infusion
determined by the Y chromosome creates a male body.

Maybe it is neutral, positive,
and negative in a generic sense.

This brings up an interesting point, regarding what
determines gender. It isn't entirely gondal. Our
science still doesn't know everything about what makes
us whatever gender we are. Sometimes there are
biological anomolies that can create a real dispute on
gender is really right in a given case.

This gets back to the subject,
a temperature influence of some
sort, or in other words, a relative
energy difference.

Even with the majority of us, where we know what
gender we are and are comfortable with it, there are
elements of both sexes present in our bodies at all
times. The male body produces very small amounts of
estrogen and the female body produces very small
amounts of androgens. This is quite normal and harms
nothing.

Yes, we contain both polarities,
plus neutral.

LS: Have you considered that perhaps, after long and
intimate acquaintance, the more passive party is
simply choosing to pick their battles instead of
fighting at every opportunity? What appears to be
passivity might really be the exercise of tolerance.
How would someone from outside the relationship really
know for sure?

Dominance resolves conflict.
The one who get their way most
of the time is the likely
dominator. Take United States
for example...analogous on a
global scale.

LS: There are strong women in the world too, and you
can't say that all strong women are strong because
they have too much testerone in their systems.
Personality and experience are not purely chemical.

The chemistry is a component,
and the brain can drive chemistry.

LS: Interesting. It thought it was 51% service to
others or 95% service to others that determined
harvestability. I think it's the power associated
with choice and not kundalini energy that determines
whether the strength is there for ascension.

STO polarization is a more efficient
path of evolution. Quite possibly, a
Kundalini transformed individual can
offer service more efficiently because
they are more evolved. Could be part
of the same path.

LS: I think Jesus meant that at least prostitutes are
honest about what they're doing, and they are doing it
to stay alive. One does what one must to preserve
one's life, and often these women were left destitute
through the death of a husband or father or brother
to support them. Being poor is not a character
defect, except in America ;-).

I think Jesus picked up on something beyond
face value...what was it? What was the quality
in them that gave them an edge over others?
STO and Unconditional Love?

LS: That's an interesting question. When one has
sexual relations with another, for reasons other than
a desire to share love/light with them, how efficient
is the transfer? The customer is seeking sexual
release, not spiritual or emotional communion. The
prostitute is seeking financial reward. One could
argue that marriage without love or a desire to seek a
life together in harmony is on the level of a
fiduciary exchange. But this is a very large can of
worms that shouldn't be part of this thread...

Well money and Jesus didn't go well,
likely this is the misdirection that many
get caught in - the business of life that
distorts people from reaching the heights
of those sacred potentials. This touches
on the fact that certain behaviors offer
greater benefit than others, more bang for
the buck. Sorry if that is too wormy...

LS: Keep up with good work, brother. It's an honor to
serve with you.
Blessings,
~lesley

Thank you lesley, for such bold contributions,
encouragement and blessings. The honor is mine.
Blessings and Gratitude, Pat

[Mawk]

Dear Waterflame5 (Pat),

You seem in scintillating form today. What ever you had for breakfast, keep
taking it:-)

IMHO of course,

Mawk

[waterflame5]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=R-5_X8DfuqAQ6TPdQ-o-GYOJlZ4zASrWFhOzUDWfhVR8eHWtXMu4tAkdDp093JfZfYzJco SEH51AiLYNUkE), "Mawk" <mawk109@o...> wrote:

> You seem in scintillating form today. What ever you had for
breakfast, keep
> taking it:-)


Hi Mawk,
About every other month
for a few days I take
Psillium with herbs
to clear out my adhesions
from the donuts I normally
eat. It may be the
Chickweed...keeps the colon
healthy. There is a feeling
of growing younger when you
take them and de-toxify.
(The health of a system is
largely affected by the
health of its elimination
system.)

http://www.momentum98.com/holistic.html

Oh, but I also phased
off the antibiotics that
were countering a blood
poisoning caused by a
tic bite - I like to
play outdoors and that
is one of the hazards.

Maybe a transient event
of some sort...Pat