Principles

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hi Jason:

> 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.

The comment I made about being familiar with the
material was not aimed at you, but other people who
may not be familiar with the "required reading" for
this list and would misinterpret what you are saying
as verbatim Law of One rather than merely an
interpretation. It would lift a great load off my
shoulders if everybody took it upon themselves to
understand the material themselves rather than learn
it here by osmosis. I'm not saying we all have to be
experts, but we do need a common conceptual basis from
which we can proceed.

In short, I am always fearful that one person's
opinion will become, in the minds of some, David's
message. You have every right to state your
interpretation of our core values, Jason, and my
intent in part was to make sure it was perceived as
such.

>> 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?

As David is wont to say, something that is intransient
is something that will be true both today and in 100
million years. A system of 3D morality wouldn't apply
in that case.

> 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.

Out of line compared to what? IMHO, what we're going
through now is exactly what I planned preincarnatively
and is precisely the experience I need to polarize
sufficiently. And that goes for everybody else too,
of course.

There is trouble but only in the sense that we cling
to that which is material and "passeth away".
Wouldn't you agree?

> 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.

Then it is indeed ok for us to discard structures of
belief that have outlived their usefulness.

> 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.

Right - but insofar as you say, "this is the way a
male should act. This is the way a female should
act," you are putting strictures on what is always and
ever the free will decision of an entity. If
something "works" why does an entity need to do it
your way?

The masculinization or feminization of entities is
always and ever a matter of choice of that entity,
either incarnatively or preincarnatively. Nothing is
happening to them against their will. There is no
"danger", only experience.

>> 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.

It's not appropriate for this forum to talk about them
in detail, but they are essentially libertarian /
voluntaryist, and more and more, anti-corporate.

> 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.

Well, if you're not saying "this is my opinion" when
talking about absolutes, then it's damn close to
pushing. You're (inadvertently) requiring belief in
one thing to be a belief in what you're talking about.
That said, I probably misinterpreted your intentions,
and I apologize for making you feel unwelcome.

> 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.

Not weakminded at all. But personally there are
things said on this list a lot of the time that I do
think are distorted that should not just be accepted -
they should be challenged more often, so that the
group can be useful for one another in recognizing
what is truth and what is not. I did not mean to be
antagonistic.

>> 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.

Opportunity for learning. Right and wrong implies
judgement. This is unneccessary, for all is the
creator, and all is acceptable.

David alerted me to a great Ra quote that says it much
better:

"The primary purpose of an entity is in this density
to experience all things desired, to then analyze,
accept and understand these experiences, distilling
the love and wisdom contained within them...
Nothing is to be overcome, that which is not needed
falls away."

> I think impersonal, meaning no respect to persons,
> would be a better way of stating it than absolute.

Perhaps.

> 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.

None taken. I acknowledge that it is a cop-out. The
question is whether the issue is worth fighting over,
and therefore whether a cop-out, so to speak, isn't
the wisest path.

Why struggle over rules for living when life is an
experiment, a single mode in an infinite experience?
Why should we rely on rules that are not reflected in
our inner understanding of truth and reality, merely
because somebody else says so? This is where I see
systems of ethics and morality as lacking. That's why
I said that their power is in personal obedience and
acceptance - because they are abstractions that have
no reality except in humans adhering to them. The
more a person can discover the underlying reality that
loosely governs such coarse and unwieldy moral
strictures, the more they can serve as effective
representatives of a higher reality, and the more pure
love/light they can channel in their activities.

Our core values are those outlined in the Law of One
series. They are not weakly defined, but they are not
spoonfed to people on this list. There is absolutely
no reason somebody can't read book I, get an idea of
our basic philosophy, and participate in a useful
manner. You wouldn't show up in literature class
unless you had read the book being discussed.

As far as the disapproval comment is concerned, you're
right - the gist of the Law of One is to accept all as
part of the self/Creator. There is no reason a person
cannot be accepted regardless of the situation by the
balanced entity. Our task, as I see it, is to
understand that. And to that end, I commend you for
not pretending to go along with a thought system that
you don't feel is right.

>> 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.

I'm not certain what you mean by "collapsed" but I'm
merely pointing out that all paths are open to an
entity in their choice of experience through the
cycles of soul evolution. It is not wrong to follow
the negative path. It is but one flavor of experience
an entity may choose.

> This is possibly so but for this creation there are
> fixed consequences that at a fundamental level
> become absolute(impersonal).

Such as? I don't think I understand quite what you
mean here.

> Are you suggesting we all have our own private
> morality?

Like I said above, I'm saying that morality only
exists when people acknowledge it in their actions.
Without adherance and obedience it is merely an
abstraction.

> Implying we can chose our own consequences as well
> as actions?

No. I'm simply saying that, because morality is
confined to a limited, 3D mindset, it will not be
terribly good at predicting consequences in an
absolute and universal sense.

> 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?

Like it or not, people do this all the time. Until we
can pierce the veil, you and I are as deceived as
anybody else.

And I would likewise argue that putting forth any
principles of morality fails to take that lack of true
perception into account, and is just as much an act of
"backdrop alteration" as discarding that morality
system is.

> 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.

Yes - the question is whether anybody on this planet
can speak authoritatively about it, and therefore
whether they can formulate accurate principles on that
basis.

>> 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.

Somebody may have an experience, for example, where
they choose to steal something. A system of morality
may provide internal catalyst that gives a person a
sense of "guilt" and therefore an opportunity to
persecute the self or forgive self. This is
independent, of course, of the social and legal aspect
of their action. The experience was what caused
polarization - the morality system was a tool that
provided opportunity for same. The level of self
acceptance is what (roughly speaking) determines the
energy configuration that allows for ascendability,
not whether the person ever stole anything.

> This brings me to the supposition that the Law of
> One could actually be their religion or at least
> very similar in nature.

"RA: It should be noted, and carefully pondered, and
accepted, that the Law of One is available to any
social memory complex striving together for any goal,
be it service to others or service to self. The laws
are placed into operation and the illusion of
space/time is used as a medium for the development of
the results of the choices freely made. Thus all
entities learn, no mater what they seek." (B1, 100)

"RA: THOSE WHICH HAVE CHOSEN THE SERVICE-TO-SELF PATH
HAVE SIMPLY USED THE VEILING PROCESS IN ORDER TO
POTENTIATE THAT WHICH IS NOT. THIS IS AN ENTIRELY
ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE OF AND BY THE
CREATOR." (B4, 91)

> 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.

See, this is where I lose you. There's only one
person who makes a decision to express or repress an
aspect of their nature - the individual entity.

Furthermore, I would say that the actualized and
empowered individual will seek a basis for their
actions and behavior that is rooted in their own
understanding of truth and reality and not "the
accumulated learning of mankind". If a person wants
to experience distortion, they can do it very easily
on their own without getting bogged down in the
dialectical history of man. Not that there is nothing
to learn from history, but merely that experience, or
specifically: trial and error, is a much more potent
teacher.

> Surely this learning would accumulate in a pattern
> of principles which cause harmony, peace, unity and
> freedom.

I'm willing to accept that the process of soul
evolution and learning in 3D is not completely
uniform.

> 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.

I haven't been addressing the issue of organizations
at all - my argument has been confined to that of the
individual perrogative. Organizations are merely
supersets of what is inherently an individual
polarizing process in 3D.

But I'm curious: are there any organizations you're
referring to in particular?

> 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.

What are you trying to say here? I honestly don't get
it. Ra says that polarization is a function of
energy. Those who are able to use a sufficiently
dense configuration of energy ascend. That is all
there is to it - anything else is superfluous 3D
baggage.

> 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.

Nothing wrong with that, though. I wouldn't want to
enter into a completely alien experience until I was
ready - and 4D is definately something for which you
need to be ready, as I understand it.

I think if we're all honest with ourselves, deception,
illusion, falsehood all play an active role in our day
to day experiences. To me, this is the nature of 3D -
to be in an experience that is completely "fake" and
somehow, through that exposure to that which is so
utterly false, find that within and without that is
true (or rather go the negative route and embrace
falsehood to an absolute degree). That is
polarization.

> Our agency, that element of choice we have above
> animals, was given to us by the Creator.

- which is essentially the self.

> It is a precious gift we must care for or lose or
> have revoked.

I disagree. We *always* have the ability to choose.
One of the byproducts of polarization is the use of
will, which is a big lesson in 3D. Choice and
creation are merely matters of will, and how much
intelligent energy you can tap into as a function of
your connection to intelligent infinity.

> Yes, we are eternal entities, but the scope of
> operation and influence we have in the creation(s)
> can progress or digress considerably.

By choice :-)

> 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.

They did not put themselves in that position through
free will? They did not choose the experiences that
led to that situation preincarnatively? Nobody has
ever recovered from addiction and been a better person
for it? It is all experience; it is all acceptable;
it is all the Creator, and therefore it is all me, and
you, and everyone, and everything.

> 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.

But I'm very suspicious of organized religious
morality as a barometer for that. Religion is a
social animal and as such has issues with power.

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

This would be most helpful. Unless I'm specifically
quoting or paraphrasing Ra, I attempt to do this as
well. I do not want to be a stumbling block for
anybody, seriously.

>> 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?

Oh, yes. It is the essential operating principle of
the Wanderer.

>> 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.

In some cases, definately. But that does not matter.
Entities offer what they can to contribute to the
harvest. Wisdom is not always the modus operandi of
Wanderers - nobody here would argue with you on that
:-)

>> 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?

Not sure what you mean here. I did make assumptions
about you: specifically, I assumed that you were
trying to argue that the conservative morality of the
nuclear family and clearly defined gender roles are an
analog for the Law of One, and I take great exception
to that as an exclusive and absolute principle.

My point is that all service is a function of
love/light exclusively - any other aspect is merely a
distortion, a projection of that love/light onto a
limited and distorted perception.

> I agree a lack of love/light exists and it is a
> great source of problems.

But also a great source of opportunity for learning
about the self/creator.

> All the principles I am referring to have to do with
> love/light.

Umm... I agree, they do. But they are also incomplete
principles because they encompass *more* than merely
love/light, such as a directive for the proper roles
of people based on gender.

> I hope we can distill things down to see if we
> connect or if there are subtle differences and what
> those differences are.

As do I.

> I'm not the one saying I can create my own personal
> reality and thus be an arbiter of it.

But you are the Creator - you *are* creating your
personal reality. You are the 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.

I think at this point it would be best to lay out
those parameters.

> We are all in this together and I don't think for a
> minute I myself contain all that answers.

Then I look forward to both of us learning something
from this. :-)

Me, I learned not to assume. To be quite honest, I am
highly suspicious of organized religion and it's
constituent principles as likely resources for
positive polarization on this planet. That's my bias
- I admit it.

> Are you implying I am here to get you to pledge
> blind obedience to an outmoded system of repression
> and expectation?

No - but I think most organized religion expects this.

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

I am more than willing to do that.

> 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.

That's cool - but I would argue that acting in line
with principles that apply only to 3D is not a
fulfillment of the full potential of the Wanderer.

> 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.

As long as Pat is allowed to drain his testosterone
via hot tub baths, we're cool <lol>.

> The 10 commandments are lines in the sand pointing
> towards a higher truth.

"RA: The origin of the 10 commandments follow the law
of negative entities impressing information upon
positively oriented mind/body/spirit complexes. The
information attempted to copy or ape positive
information while retaining negative characteristics.
This was done by the Orion group." (B1, 152)

"QUESTION: It would be wholly unlike an entity fully
aware of the knowledge of the Law of One to ever say,
?Thou shalt not?. Is this correct?

RA: That is correct." (B1, 152)

> 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.

Then we're both saying the same thing :-)

> 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.

Well, I don't know if I'm that patient, but I'll
try... :-)

> 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.

Yeah, and I support communism on the same basis. :-)

> I hope this is done, otherwise I could remain
> confused myself and also contribute to the confusion

> of others regarding the Law of One.

We all need to keep an eye on each other and provide
effective mirrors. There is no higher function for
this list. Thank you for providing me with an
opportunity to forgive an integrate a part of myself
that has been suppressed.

Jeremy

__________________________________
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=z9omv8ssN0CrYLkl4MwTchswppcLRxjlZmkjGJ 6iYs5uQoYetk6QcB0jL2sYBq0rZRvvHHM-qd1OeLRN), Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@y...> >
> From the sounds of it they are nearly as clueless as
> the rest of us are then.

In some cases, definately. But that does not matter.
Entities offer what they can to contribute to the
harvest. Wisdom is not always the modus operandi of
Wanderers - nobody here would argue with you on that
:-)


This is a classic, a keeper! Thank you!

[Jason Wharton]

I'm trying to keep my comments brief as I have a tendency to be wordy.
Eliminating all the verbiage to soften statements helps me be more concise.
Please take all I say as my own personal beliefs and viewpoint on life.

>>> 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?
>
> As David is wont to say, something that is intransient
> is something that will be true both today and in 100
> million years.

Ok, that's more clear.

> A system of 3D morality wouldn't apply
> in that case.

I am speaking of intransient principles.

Integrity leads to trust. Will it still lead to trust 100 million years from
now?

I agree if things aren't intransient we don't need to be overly concerned.

> > I'm not necessarily referring 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.
>
> Out of line compared to what? IMHO, what we're going
> through now is exactly what I planned preincarnatively
> and is precisely the experience I need to polarize
> sufficiently. And that goes for everybody else too,
> of course.

I agree there is a natural growth progress that is taking its course. In
that respect nothing is out of line. I suppose this enters the paradoxical
discussion of fate vs. free will. On the other hand, I think there is a trap
in the "all is well" attitude. Thus I am driven to seek, learn, share and
progress.

> There is trouble but only in the sense that we cling
> to that which is material and "passeth away".
> Wouldn't you agree?

I believe we will eventually have an immortal material existence, thus I
must say "corrupt materiality" is that which "passeth away".

> > 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.
>
> Then it is indeed ok for us to discard structures of
> belief that have outlived their usefulness.

They aren't discarded per say. They are merely obsolete.

The difference is, if people are living the higher laws someone could
observe the society and recognize that they are actually also living the 10
commandments in much greater compliance than when the 10 commandments were
the laws of the day. Thus, they are not discarded but actually more fully
integrated into the nature of the society via the higher laws.

If you aren't angry with someone you aren't going to murder.
If you aren't lusting after someone you aren't going to commit adultery.
And so on...

> > 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.
>
> Right - but insofar as you say, "this is the way a
> male should act. This is the way a female should
> act," you are putting strictures on what is always and
> ever the free will decision of an entity. If
> something "works" why does an entity need to do it
> your way?

I'm not the one putting the strictures on them. Nor am I the one imposing
consequences. It's a function of our current creation upholding them. When
you see the impersonal and consistent manner in which cause and effect plays
out and you point it out to people you are merely the messenger of a truth,
not a creator and enforcer of it. Our creation is full of such truths that
are impersonal and consistent.

When they understand the truth they either continue what they are doing,
fully accepting the consequences, discontinue what they are doing, thus
avoiding the consequences, or go into denial and continue what they are
doing and reap consequences anyway while then taking on other elements of
rationale and justification to keep the deception in place to preserve the
denial.

What people need is an understanding of truth to make informed decisions and
thus be able to be the master of their own destiny. True principles become a
roadmap for people to direct themselves. When people are deluded with false
ideas they are a ship without a rudder to be blown and tossed by every whim
and desire until at last they are more than likely wrecked upon the
shoreline.

> The masculinization or feminization of entities is
> always and ever a matter of choice of that entity,
> either incarnatively or preincarnatively. Nothing is
> happening to them against their will. There is no
> "danger", only experience.

Sure they can chose to some extent but each choice affects possible future
choices. They can't chose the consequences and in most cases where people
are operating out of fear, anger, lust, etc. they do things they would
otherwise not do and regret their choices severely.

> >> 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.
>
> Opportunity for learning. Right and wrong implies
> judgment. This is unnecessary, for all is the
> creator, and all is acceptable.
>
> David alerted me to a great Ra quote that says it much
> better:
>
> "The primary purpose of an entity is in this density
> to experience all things desired, to then analyze,
> accept and understand these experiences, distilling
> the love and wisdom contained within them...
> Nothing is to be overcome, that which is not needed
> falls away."


Learning comes from one of two processes.

Learn by faith and precept from the Creator.
Learn by trial and experience from the creation.

The same things are eventually learned and held as truths but as a
consequence the station and capacity of the entity is entirely different in
the end. The first leads to freedom and the latter leads to captivity.

A simple example, two people are standing at the edge of a ledge. One person
has been there before and the other has not. It's foggy and the bottom is
obscured from view. Thus, the question looms, might it be safe to jump or
not. The one says to the other, "Don't jump or you will die." At this point
the other could take the attitude, "How dare you limit what I can do, I want
to know for myself." If he jumps, he dies. He learns the truth, the same
truth had he heeded the message. In his case he is now in bondage to death,
whereas if he listened to the one who was there to deliver truth he would
know the same thing and yet be alive and free.

The challenge we face in life is to tap into a credible source for correct
information to make inspired choices. There are definite entities who desire
the captivity of the souls of men and they labor with every means of deceit
and trickery they can muster up. There are also benevolent entities laboring
to bring peace, freedom and eternal life to mankind. It's our test to
discern between the two and chose wisely lest when we are standing near an
edge with someone saying, "Go for it! Ye shall not surely die, but be as the
gods, having knowledge." and then you jump and find out you were lied to.

Does one prefer to be bound by the Creator or the creation is what it seems
to boil down to.

> > 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.
>
> None taken. I acknowledge that it is a cop-out. The
> question is whether the issue is worth fighting over,
> and therefore whether a cop-out, so to speak, isn't
> the wisest path.
>
> Why struggle over rules for living when life is an
> experiment, a single mode in an infinite experience?

Because there are very real consequences which bind eternally.

> Why should we rely on rules that are not reflected in
> our inner understanding of truth and reality, merely
> because somebody else says so?

What I'm promoting is distinct from that.

The Creator is the "sombody". His plan is in harmony with the divine part of
our inner nature. It is at odds with the fallen nature which is also in us
since the fall. It's easy to confuse one for the other or discount the
existance of the dichotomy.

> This is where I see
> systems of ethics and morality as lacking.

I agree mankind has been very lacking here. The vast majority of religions
are corruptions of the plan I mentioned above. Men have placed themselves in
God's station and are attempting to prevent people from connecting
personally with the Creator. I'm not about promoting the world's commonly
held religious failings.

> That's why
> I said that their power is in personal obedience and
> acceptance - because they are abstractions that have
> no reality except in humans adhering to them.

I agree much of what we have in the world is as you say here.

> The
> more a person can discover the underlying reality that
> loosely governs such coarse and unwieldy moral
> strictures, the more they can serve as effective
> representatives of a higher reality, and the more pure
> love/light they can channel in their activities.

Now we are on the same page here except for we seem to differ in our
preferred method of discovery.

> Our core values are those outlined in the Law of One
> series. They are not weakly defined, but they are not
> spoonfed to people on this list.
> There is absolutely
> no reason somebody can't read book I, get an idea of
> our basic philosophy, and participate in a useful
> manner. You wouldn't show up in literature class
> unless you had read the book being discussed.

Agreed, do you consider the material on David's site sufficient or should I
get the whole series? What's the best source to acquire it?

> As far as the disapproval comment is concerned, you're
> right - the gist of the Law of One is to accept all as
> part of the self/Creator. There is no reason a person
> cannot be accepted regardless of the situation by the
> balanced entity.

I would prefer to say love all rather than accept all. You can love someone
without accepting behaviors they exhibit or beliefs they hold. Do you allow
such a distinction or do you hold that: To love one must also fully accept?

To be precise, I can give acceptance in the 'what is so' sense but not in
the condoning sense. I'm getting the feeling LawOfOne includes condoning all
as well as accepting all. I also mean condoning as something beyond just
forgiving, as I hold that I am to extend forgiveness to all and endeavor to
do so.

This is where it gets juicy... for me that is a huge fine point.

> Our task, as I see it, is to
> understand that. And to that end, I commend you for
> not pretending to go along with a thought system that
> you don't feel is right.

Thanks, I appreciate the level we are able to communicate on. It's
refreshing.

>>> 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.
>
> I'm not certain what you mean by "collapsed"

I have polarization based on adhearance to divine laws. Thus, I hold
divine-law based morality as a one-to-one factor with polarization. We'd
probably have to disect things down furthur to see our root differences. We
could be more similar as I presume natural laws of some kind govern
polarization. I mean something/someone makes a determination at harvest time
as to who is harvested and who isn't.

I get the idea it is something that is imposed upon an entity whether or not
they are harvest grade or not. An entity choses whether they are harvested
and how indirectly based on their cumulative choices prior to the harvest.
Like a plant either grows and produces ripened fruit or it doesn't but it
isn't determined in a moment.

> but I'm
> merely pointing out that all paths are open to an
> entity in their choice of experience through the
> cycles of soul evolution. It is not wrong to follow
> the negative path. It is but one flavor of experience
> an entity may choose.

It's not wrong in the 'what is so' sense but that path does have its
parameters, environment and context. If one desires that path and choses it
willfully under no amount of guise then all the power to them. But, the
thing I see is people who end up there do so under a guise of some kind and
end up miserable and full of bitterness.

Is there such thing as a guise in Law Of One terms and how is that looked
at? Are we to accept and condone an entity who is a liar? Is this the
justifying rationale to the deceived, "If someone is weak/dumb enough to get
duped into something they lacked vision to see through they deserve the
experience to educate them. I am to be honored for providing that service to
them."?

> > This is possibly so but for this creation there are
> > fixed consequences that at a fundamental level
> > become absolute(impersonal).
>
> Such as? I don't think I understand quite what you
> mean here.

Integrity is a basis for workability and establishment of trust. No
integrity, no trust.
Chastity is a basis for healthy and orderly family units. No chastity,
messed up families.
Sacrifice is a basis for maintaing unity. No sacrifice, no unity.

If you want an orderly family chain that operates with complete trust and
unity then there will be integrity, chastity and sacrifice present. If you
don't possess those principles then you cannot have the results no matter
who you are and what your intentions were. That's the impersonal part.

> > Are you suggesting we all have our own private
> > morality?
>
> Like I said above, I'm saying that morality only
> exists when people acknowledge it in their actions.
> Without adherance and obedience it is merely an
> abstraction.

I suppose this is a little too academic for me here.

> > Implying we can chose our own consequences as well
> > as actions?
>
> No. I'm simply saying that, because morality is
> confined to a limited, 3D mindset, it will not be
> terribly good at predicting consequences in an
> absolute and universal sense.

This sounds like more rationale for the cop-out to me.

> > 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?
>
> Like it or not, people do this all the time.

Examples please?

> Until we
> can pierce the veil, you and I are as deceived as
> anybody else.

I agree I'm still feeling my way out of deception.
I'm on a path that leads to passing through the veil.

> And I would likewise argue that putting forth any
> principles of morality fails to take that lack of true
> perception into account, and is just as much an act of
> "backdrop alteration" as discarding that morality
> system is.

Ok, this dance is really needing to be cut to the quick. Either there is a
uniform and impersonal backdrop or their isn't. Which is it?

I say there is such and to the degree a person correctly perceives it and
all of its parameters the more they can be in control of their own existance
within it. To the degree someone is deluded and kept in a deceived state the
more they can be manipulated and controlled.

When I'm referring to principles I am referring to the impersonal parameters
of the creation we reside in. If there is a correct plan for people to
acquire this information then at some point a large number of people will be
in tune sufficiently to spread this knowledge abroad. Thus, a group of
people figure out and transcend the creation and on they go to the next one
as they choose.

Now, from what I got out of the Ra material, there are such impersonal
principles in regard to who is harvestable and who isn't and on what side.
Positive or negative. There are even precisely stated ratios which implies
no respect to persons.

We may disagree on what the parameters are and what all paths, realms, etc.
are out there in existance, but I think we really must agree on a
fundamental level about there being such impersonal parameters. And, even in
the Law Of One model, if a person wants to harvest a particular way it
requires a cumulative effort and preparation.

> > 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.
>
> Yes - the question is whether anybody on this planet
> can speak authoritatively about it, and therefore
> whether they can formulate accurate principles on that
> basis.

Ok, this gets us somewhere. Goes back to my example of finding a source of
information you can trust. We can leave it at this for now since each person
has their own.

> >> 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.
>
> Somebody may have an experience, for example, where
> they choose to steal something. A system of morality
> may provide internal catalyst that gives a person a
> sense of "guilt" and therefore an opportunity to
> persecute the self or forgive self. This is
> independent, of course, of the social and legal aspect
> of their action. The experience was what caused
> polarization - the morality system was a tool that
> provided opportunity for same. The level of self
> acceptance is what (roughly speaking) determines the
> energy configuration that allows for ascendability,
> not whether the person ever stole anything.

Ok, so they nabbed something and went their way. If they remained
indifferent about it totally there would be no energy towards polarization.
But, since our society creates a moral stimulus surrounding theft the person
receives catalyst. On one hand they could 'repent' and amend their wrong and
take a path of service to others in repairing their wrong. On the other hand
the person could glory in their theft and deny any contempt for self.
However, if a person does nothing and remains confused and guilty their
harvestability is reduced. Is this what you mean by a moral system making
polarization more efficient? In providing catalyst?

I think I could begin to see more clearly what your point here is and how
that would remove some of my filters regarding the teachings of Ra.

> > This brings me to the supposition that the Law of
> > One could actually be their religion or at least
> > very similar in nature.
>
> "RA: It should be noted, and carefully pondered, and
> accepted, that the Law of One is available to any
> social memory complex striving together for any goal,
> be it service to others or service to self. The laws
> are placed into operation and the illusion of
> space/time is used as a medium for the development of
> the results of the choices freely made. Thus all
> entities learn, no mater what they seek." (B1, 100)
>
> "RA: THOSE WHICH HAVE CHOSEN THE SERVICE-TO-SELF PATH
> HAVE SIMPLY USED THE VEILING PROCESS IN ORDER TO
> POTENTIATE THAT WHICH IS NOT. THIS IS AN ENTIRELY
> ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE OF AND BY THE
> CREATOR." (B4, 91)

Funny how you can read something and miss an obvious point but then later on
it surfaces anyway...

> > 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.
>
> See, this is where I lose you. There's only one
> person who makes a decision to express or repress an
> aspect of their nature - the individual entity.

I'm not talking about an aspect of someone's nature here.

> Furthermore, I would say that the actualized and
> empowered individual will seek a basis for their
> actions and behavior that is rooted in their own
> understanding of truth and reality and not "the
> accumulated learning of mankind". If a person wants
> to experience distortion, they can do it very easily
> on their own without getting bogged down in the
> dialectical history of man. Not that there is nothing
> to learn from history, but merely that experience, or
> specifically: trial and error, is a much more potent
> teacher.

I think you missed my point. Let me be more blunt. There are a group of
entities who reap significant gains from mankind ignorantly fumbling over
and over and over again making the same foibles. There are truths which
would provide an escape from the misery and suffering that if people knew
and applied would lift them into a state to move on independant of this
manipulation. But, these entities use every trick in the book possible to
keep the deceptions alive and potent. They want people to continue learning
by trial and error. That is how they leach and drain and in essense vampire
people's souls. I put it forward that to promote direct experience is
keeping their game alive. Though I don't mean for one minute people should
ignore what they learn through experience.

> > 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.
>
> I haven't been addressing the issue of organizations
> at all - my argument has been confined to that of the
> individual perrogative. Organizations are merely
> supersets of what is inherently an individual
> polarizing process in 3D.
>
> But I'm curious: are there any organizations you're
> referring to in particular?

I was thinking in abstract at the time. A few I've been influenced by would
be the Boy Scouts of America, my church (Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints), Future Farmers of America, Constitutional Convention of
the United States of America, various charitable non-profit orgs, etc. None
of these are perfect but I see them being a source of greater light and
truth for people. They would be exemplary models to look at for learning.

It is also my belief that my church is literally guided by revelation from
Jesus Christ through prophets and apostles and its government and
organization is about as good as it gets in this fallen mortal realm.

There is also record of past civilizations that got their act in order to
the degree they were translated and taken into heavenly realms. The society
of Enoch and the society of Salem (Melchizedek) were the most successful
that I know of from this earth's past. The LDS society, though yet in need
of the prophesied cleansing, is destined to have a similar level of success
and gain a similar ascension to a Terrestrial Glory as these former
societies accomplished, though on a much larger scale. (There is no
exclusivity or guarantee based on church membership either.)

> > 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.
>
> What are you trying to say here? I honestly don't get
> it. Ra says that polarization is a function of
> energy. Those who are able to use a sufficiently
> dense configuration of energy ascend. That is all
> there is to it - anything else is superfluous 3D
> baggage.

I think what I've said is as you suggest, a 3D baggage colored
representation. In my mind anyway, I can take what I've said and correlate
it to an energy a person would possess by virtue of being at one end or the
other. I don't want to say that my statement sums it up better than Ra's
does. Seems that what Ra is saying is more abstract and far less biased. I
agree it is useful to remove the taint to get clearer understanding.

> > 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.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, though. I wouldn't want to
> enter into a completely alien experience until I was
> ready - and 4D is definately something for which you
> need to be ready, as I understand it.

I agree if I'm not ready I prefer to remain.

> I think if we're all honest with ourselves, deception,
> illusion, falsehood all play an active role in our day
> to day experiences. To me, this is the nature of 3D -
> to be in an experience that is completely "fake" and
> somehow, through that exposure to that which is so
> utterly false, find that within and without that is
> true (or rather go the negative route and embrace
> falsehood to an absolute degree). That is
> polarization.

I know this is spoon feeding me but I appreciate it.

> > Our agency, that element of choice we have above
> > animals, was given to us by the Creator.
>
> - which is essentially the self.

Yes, I agree.

> > It is a precious gift we must care for or lose or
> > have revoked.
>
> I disagree. We *always* have the ability to choose.
> One of the byproducts of polarization is the use of
> will, which is a big lesson in 3D. Choice and
> creation are merely matters of will, and how much
> intelligent energy you can tap into as a function of
> your connection to intelligent infinity.

I'll ponder on that. I was fuzzy on that when reading. It seems to
contradict beliefs that I hold but that's because my context seems wholey
focused on the STO domain.

I can agree your choice remains but your domain is such that opposing
factions no longer intersect. And if they intersect again there is a
harmoneous unification, which Ra seems to allude to both actually taking
place along the way prior to reaching One-ness again for both polarities.

Thus, in this case I'm just having blind spots filled in rather than a
direct contradiction.

> > Yes, we are eternal entities, but the scope of
> > operation and influence we have in the creation(s)
> > can progress or digress considerably.
>
> By choice :-)

Yes, but potentially under delusion.

Though as I admit elsewhere, all eventually have sufficient opportunity to
chose according to free will, which implies a context of clarity. Much labor
goes into this as a function of preparation for harvest.

> > 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.
>
> They did not put themselves in that position through
> free will? They did not choose the experiences that
> led to that situation preincarnatively? Nobody has
> ever recovered from addiction and been a better person
> for it? It is all experience; it is all acceptable;
> it is all the Creator, and therefore it is all me, and
> you, and everyone, and everything.

I agree with this in context of believing the Creator ensures all entities
have sufficient (not necessarily equal) opportunity to chose either path.
This is a part of the divine plan I'm attuned to.

This leads me to reflect on some of the comments I read in the study guide,
sorry I can't remember the reference. But there is an acknowledgement of the
tradeoff between depth of polarization and quality of energy post-harvest. I
think the veiling process factored in there too. Something to the effect
that this earth is a bit unusual compared to other systems in the logos. Is
there other material that covers this in greater depth you can point me to
beside the study guide?

> > 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.
>
> But I'm very suspicious of organized religious
> morality as a barometer for that. Religion is a
> social animal and as such has issues with power.

So very true indeed.

>>> 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?
>
> Oh, yes. It is the essential operating principle of
> the Wanderer.

Does that also imply a sense of immunity?

Must be nice. <g>

>>> 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.
>
> In some cases, definately. But that does not matter.
> Entities offer what they can to contribute to the
> harvest. Wisdom is not always the modus operandi of
> Wanderers - nobody here would argue with you on that
> :-)

I thought you would get a chuckle there. It was a risk I took. I'm glad you
got it in the intended vein.

> >> 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?
>
> Not sure what you mean here. I did make assumptions
> about you: specifically, I assumed that you were
> trying to argue that the conservative morality of the
> nuclear family and clearly defined gender roles are an
> analog for the Law of One, and I take great exception
> to that as an exclusive and absolute principle.

Fair enough.

> My point is that all service is a function of
> love/light exclusively - any other aspect is merely a
> distortion, a projection of that love/light onto a
> limited and distorted perception.

Might you accept there are post-harvest levels of glory that are based on
societal agreements? That could very well be what my religion, and others
for that matter, are up to.

Obviously Ra isn't the only wise head out there in the depths of the
logos...

> > I agree a lack of love/light exists and it is a
> > great source of problems.
>
> But also a great source of opportunity for learning
> about the self/creator.
>
> > All the principles I am referring to have to do with
> > love/light.
>
> Umm... I agree, they do. But they are also incomplete
> principles because they encompass *more* than merely
> love/light, such as a directive for the proper roles
> of people based on gender.

Ok, I see. Though instead of incomplete wouldn't you call them
super-complete?

> > I hope we can distill things down to see if we
> > connect or if there are subtle differences and what
> > those differences are.
>
> As do I.

I think I'm getting somewhere and I really appreciate your efforts.

> > I'm not the one saying I can create my own personal
> > reality and thus be an arbiter of it.
>
> But you are the Creator - you *are* creating your
> personal reality. You are the arbiter of it.

Well, in a manner of speaking, that is true within a domain and context.

> > 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.
>
> I think at this point it would be best to lay out
> those parameters.

In thinking of this more, you can't really have them without their
counterparts.

I alluded to integrity, chastity and sacrifice above. Feel free to pick
those apart.

> > We are all in this together and I don't think for a
> > minute I myself contain all that answers.
>
> Then I look forward to both of us learning something
> from this. :-)
>
> Me, I learned not to assume. To be quite honest, I am
> highly suspicious of organized religion and it's
> constituent principles as likely resources for
> positive polarization on this planet. That's my bias
> - I admit it.

I think it is very well founded too.

> > Are you implying I am here to get you to pledge
> > blind obedience to an outmoded system of repression
> > and expectation?
>
> No - but I think most organized religion expects this.

Yes, they generally do.

> > I invite you to lay that filter aside because I
> > clearly distinguish for myself where I am wholly
> > distinct from that.
>
> I am more than willing to do that.

Thanks.

> > 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.
>
> That's cool - but I would argue that acting in line
> with principles that apply only to 3D is not a
> fulfillment of the full potential of the Wanderer.

Isn't it true that you actually have communication with your higher density
self? If so I imagine life here can be quite a weird affair.

> > 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.
>
> As long as Pat is allowed to drain his testosterone
> via hot tub baths, we're cool <lol>.

You betcha!

> > The 10 commandments are lines in the sand pointing
> > towards a higher truth.
>
> "RA: The origin of the 10 commandments follow the law
> of negative entities impressing information upon
> positively oriented mind/body/spirit complexes. The
> information attempted to copy or ape positive
> information while retaining negative characteristics.
> This was done by the Orion group." (B1, 152)
>
> "QUESTION: It would be wholly unlike an entity fully
> aware of the knowledge of the Law of One to ever say,
> "Thou shalt not". Is this correct?
>
> RA: That is correct." (B1, 152)

I remember this part intrigued me. Though I was rather perplexed that they
would be credited to an STS influence in the context I have the delivery of
the 10 commandments in. My assumption is the Yahweh has been consistent all
along with the people and just worked with them where they were at. If the
people were ready for the higher law, that's what they would have been
given. But, out of concern for them, they were given a schoolmaster law.
What does Ra have to say about Yahweh anyway? I don't recall any specific
mention in the study guide.

> > 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.
>
> Then we're both saying the same thing :-)
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, I don't know if I'm that patient, but I'll
> try... :-)

Feel free to give up at any point. I'm already overwhelmed by your
generosity.

> > 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.
>
> Yeah, and I support communism on the same basis. :-)

Unfortunately the force part of attempted implementations has been much less
than inspiring. In my view worldly attempts have made the assumption people
needed to be controlled by an elitist society. They would exterminate those
who would expose them and they would also seed problems in the society so
that the people would beg for the solution they had in preparation. The
problem-reaction-solution manipulation. Not inspiring at all when you lift
the curtain on what goes on behind the scenes to put it in place.

True communism would become a natural expression of a society grounded in
pure STO principles. Otherwise, you either have a dictatorship of some sort
or yet another version of survival of the fittest.

But, I suppose we ought to leave political discussion alone here.

Thanks again for your generosity in answering and/or enduring my questions
and comments.

Kind regards,
Jason Wharton

[Erik Strasser]

> > The 10 commandments are lines in the sand pointing
> > towards a higher truth.
>
> "RA: The origin of the 10 commandments follow the law
> of negative entities impressing information upon
> positively oriented mind/body/spirit complexes. The
> information attempted to copy or ape positive
> information while retaining negative characteristics.
> This was done by the Orion group." (B1, 152)
>
> "QUESTION: It would be wholly unlike an entity fully
> aware of the knowledge of the Law of One to ever say,
> "Thou shalt not". Is this correct?
>
> RA: That is correct." (B1, 152)

I remember this part intrigued me. Though I was rather perplexed that they
would be credited to an STS influence in the context I have the delivery of
the 10 commandments in. My assumption is the Yahweh has been consistent all
along with the people and just worked with them where they were at. If the
people were ready for the higher law, that's what they would have been
given. But, out of concern for them, they were given a schoolmaster law.
What does Ra have to say about Yahweh anyway? I don't recall any specific
mention in the study guide.

Hello Jason, might i offer you this link in which Scott Mandelker speaks about
all of this:

http://www.universal-vision.com/Articles2/Gnostic_1.html

Scott uses statements from Ra- a humble messenger from the Law of One, Book 1.
Book 1 can still be accesed in its completeness here:( including a fine intro)

http://www.firedocs.com/infinityweb/RA_Material/book1/ra_intro.shtml

As for your fine discussion with Jeremy and the way you do it, i want to thank
you.
You have provided me great catalyst in how to try to be humble. ( which at times
i forget to do).

Strangly as it may seem, you yourself was mirrored as well, for remember the
days in which you was not so humble yourself, speaking about that demonstration,
remember? :-)

Love you all, Erik.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Jason Wharton]

Eric,

> Hello Jason, might i offer you this link in which Scott Mandelker speaks
about all of this:
>
> http://www.universal-vision.com/Articles2/Gnostic_1.html
>
> Scott uses statements from Ra- a humble messenger from the Law of One,
Book 1.
> Book 1 can still be accesed in its completeness here:( including a fine
intro)
>
> http://www.firedocs.com/infinityweb/RA_Material/book1/ra_intro.shtml

Thanks, these links provided hours of enjoyable reading.

More questions replaced old ones but this for sure filled in areas I was
looking for.

> As for your fine discussion with Jeremy and the way you do it, i want to
thank you.
> You have provided me great catalyst in how to try to be humble. ( which at
times i forget to do).

Thanks for the ackn, I considered it more of a feast...

> Strangly as it may seem, you yourself was mirrored as well,
> for remember the days in which you was not so humble yourself,
> speaking about that demonstration, remember? :-)

Oh, on the Hall of Records list? Yea, I remember that.

I was reacting to something there. I can't quite get a handle on it, but
there was too much of something and I couldn't silence part of me that just
had to level some stuff up. I got a lot out of that experience but
ultimately deemed it wiser to lurk. I really prefer not to get sucked into
the leftist/rightist manipulation scheme.

Jason Wharton

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hey Jason:

> I agree if things are intransient we don't need
> to be overly concerned.

Which is why I do not wish to take a position on
proper roles for males and females.

> I agree there is a natural growth progress that is
> taking its course. In that respect nothing is out of

> line. I suppose this enters the paradoxical
> discussion of fate vs. free will.

Since all is one, it seems logical to acknowledge that
fate *is* free will, and vice versa. The question is
whether you have faith in your true identity (of unity
with all).

> On the other hand, I think there is a trap in
> the "all is well" attitude. Thus I am driven to
> seek, learn, share and progress.

I don't think the "all is well" attitude is a trap,
since, to the unintegrated entity, it is patently
obvious that "all is not well" (hence: catalyst, and
one's inescapably obvious presence here in 3D). I
think what you're referring to is the idea that "all
is well, therefore I don't need to learn anything".
Acknowledging opportunities for growth as such (rather
than oppressive obstacles) is completely different
than simply ignoring them as inconsequential.

> > The masculinization or feminization of entities is
> > always and ever a matter of choice of that entity,
> > either incarnatively or preincarnatively. Nothing
> > is happening to them against their will. There is

> > no "danger", only experience.
>
> Sure they can chose to some extent but each choice
> affects possible future choices. They can't chose
> the consequences and in most cases where people
> are operating out of fear, anger, lust, etc. they do
> things they would otherwise not do and regret their
> choices severely.

Such is the nature of learning! The thing to keep in
mind is that the lessons we learn in 3D are, more
often than not, most fully gleaned postincarnatively,
since it is then that we get a truly comprehensive
idea of what and why we are learning these lessons.
Every once in a while, we experience a moment of unity
where something "clicks" - but this is not the sum
value of our experience. Just remember that who we
think we are in this experience is not necessarily who
we really are. The separated individual's regrets are
the unified Creator's treasure, from that standpoint,
since the individual is truly all experiences.

> Learning comes from one of two processes.
>
> Learn by faith and precept from the Creator.
> Learn by trial and experience from the creation.

I don't see a difference, honestly.

In the one case, the individual acts based on its
truest conception of self and creation and reaps the
fruits thereof, gaining catalyst and polarizing
experience for the self/creator.

In the other case, the individual acts based on its
truest conception of self and creation and reaps the
fruits thereof, gaining catalyst and polarizing
experience for the self/creator.

They are the same, because they both refer to the same
subject, verb and object. They are all one. And it
is in their unity that their deepest significance is
realized.

> The same things are eventually learned and held as
> truths but as a consequence the station and capacity

> of the entity is entirely different in the end. The
> first leads to freedom and the latter leads to
> captivity.

The question I see being posed is not one of
difference of style, but of loss. That something is
lost when a "mistake" is made. And IMHO, no loss is
possible - as Ra puts it, "There are no mistakes."
Experience is complete and exact from the unified
perspective. What we get as individuals is the
experience of separation and imbalance.

To use your diction, the self is both captive and
captor. There is no loss of freedom, only choice not
to accept it, to accept the nature of self.

> The challenge we face in life is to tap into a
> credible source for correct information to make
> inspired choices.

But what is credible to the entity is not at all
universal in the veiled experience. Surely this is
apparent. The more universal the information, the
less contextual it is, and therefore the more
liberating it is (in every sense of liberation).

> There are definite entities who desire the captivity

> of the souls of men and they labor with every means
> of deceit and trickery they can muster up.

But can they do anything to me, save that I let them?

> There are also benevolent entities laboring to bring

> peace, freedom and eternal life to mankind.

Ditto.

> Does one prefer to be bound by the Creator or the
> creation is what it seems to boil down to.

Exactly. Does one choose the positive path of what
is, of truth and unity, or the negative path of what
is not, of deception and separation?

And Ra indicates that the bias of an individual to go
one way or another is clad in mystery, but is exact
and unified. In other words, there is nothing lost in
either choice - there is only the gain of experience.

> > Why struggle over rules for living when life is an
> > experiment, a single mode in an infinite
> > experience?
>
> Because there are very real consequences which bind
> eternally.

This is the nexus of our difference. Only one thing
is eternal: the identity of the Creator, which is one.
Everything else, and I mean *everything* else, will
pass away.

> The Creator is the "sombody". His plan is in harmony
> with the divine part of our inner nature. It is at
> odds with the fallen nature which is also in us
> since the fall. It's easy to confuse one for the
> other or discount the existance of the dichotomy.

I don't agree with the idea of "The Fall". This was a
major stumbling point for me when I first encountered
the Law of One - the idea that our experience here on
earth is the result of a mistake, ad "wrong" choice.
I do not embrace that now. All *is* well - and in so
far as I do not accept that, I am distorted from the
truth. That's not to say that I simply zone out and
pretend I see no conflict and separation, but it's a
reference point, as you put it.

> > The more a person can discover the underlying
> > reality that loosely governs such coarse and
> > unwieldy moral strictures, the more they can serve

> > as effective representatives of a higher reality,
> > and the more pure love/light they can channel in
> > their activities.
>
> Now we are on the same page here except for we seem
> to differ in our preferred method of discovery.

What we prefer is hardly prescriptive of what we will
indeed experience - at least that's been my discovery
:-)

> Agreed, do you consider the material on David's site
> sufficient or should I get the whole series? What's
> the best source to acquire it?

Well, let me first of all say that I started out with
the study guide and read that for a LOOOOOONG time
before I ever read the actual Law of One text.
Because of that, I didn't get drowned in Ra's
laborious presentation since I had already digested
the core concepts. That said, if you're curious about
the Law of One, reading the text is an immeasurable
improvement over the study guide, once the guide is
understood. Go to www.llresearch.org and you should
be able to find an order form for the books. There's
five of them and altogether they'll probably put you
back about $60 which is pretty good if you ask me.

> > As far as the disapproval comment is concerned,
> > you're right - the gist of the Law of One is to
> > accept all as part of the self/Creator. There is
> > no reason a person cannot be accepted regardless
> > of the situation by the balanced entity.
>
> I would prefer to say love all rather than accept
> all. You can love someone without accepting
> behaviors they exhibit or beliefs they hold. Do you
> allow such a distinction or do you hold that: To
> love one must also fully accept?

You must accept that you are that of which you
disapprove, as much as you are that of which you
approve. How you act is still up to you of course.
It is more a matter of love and forgiveness, as you
suggest, than condoning.

> I'm getting the feeling LawOfOne includes condoning
> all as well as accepting all.

No: the Law of One provides no directives for action.
It simply says that all is one, and you can either
accept that or not, in an infinite number of degrees.
And the degree of your acceptance will accordingly
determine your actions. The condoning is a form of
judging, and is unecessary, though a possible choice
of activity.

> I have polarization based on adhearance to divine
> laws. Thus, I hold divine-law based morality as a
> one-to-one factor with polarization. We'd probably
> have to disect things down furthur to see our root
> differences. We could be more similar as I presume
> natural laws of some kind govern polarization.

Hmm... I get the distinct sense (forgive me if I
misstate your thoughts) that you perceive adherance in
the sense of what one "should" do. There is no
"should" - only what one does. I prefer to think of
natural laws as those that "cannot" be broken, unlike
manmade laws that "should not" be broken. I believe
this is what you're getting at, and in that sense I
agree. What I disagree with is the idea that ignoring
the "divine laws" can't be of equal (or greater) value
in polarization either way. Thus, the term
"catalyst".

> I mean something/someone makes a determination at
> harvest time as to who is harvested and who isn't.

Yes: you determine. More specifically, polarization
determines the intensity of love/light with which you
are able to work. The more you polarize, the closer
you get to the threshold of harvest.

> I get the idea it is something that is imposed upon
> an entity whether or not they are harvest grade or
> not. An entity choses whether they are harvested
> and how indirectly based on their cumulative choices
> prior to the harvest.

Yes - however, I do not think it is entirely
calculable what effect a given choice will have on an
entity's polarization. It is in this sense that I
differ with your idea of the one to one relationship
between morality and polarity.

> Is there such thing as a guise in Law Of One terms
> and how is that looked at? Are we to accept and
> condone an entity who is a liar?

First, as a said earlier, your acceptance is
completely separate from your judgement or condoning.
That entity *is* you. You are a liar. You either
have forgiveness and love for this entity / yourself,
or you don't. That in no way predetermines what you
yourself will do, but it is only over yourself that
you have control, anyway.

> Is this the justifying rationale to the deceived,
> "If someone is weak/dumb enough to get duped into
> something they lacked vision to see through they
> deserve the experience to educate them. I am to be
> honored for providing that service to them."?

I'm sure this is a common justification for free will
infringment by negatively polarized entities. It is
also exact in that the entity at some level is not the
victim but in fact chose the encounter and the
experience (and in that sense is not an infringement).

> Integrity is a basis for workability and
> establishment of trust. No integrity, no trust.
> Chastity is a basis for healthy and orderly family
> units. No chastity, messed up families. Sacrifice
> is a basis for maintaing unity. No sacrifice, no
> unity.

I find it difficult to work with these concepts in a
universal sense. As projections of love/light onto
veiled and limited experience, however, I agree that
they do present the entity with a fairly consistent
basis for choice in this particular realm.

However, let me demonstrate what I mean by this
difficulty. The idea of sacrifice is the giving up of
that which one wants for something else one wants.
It's just a choice - it is not "good" or "bad". I do
not find it terribly "noble" in the sense that
sacrifice is usually portrayed. In similar ways I do
not find integrity or chastity to be such absolutes -
they are merely manifestations of choice in a limited
existence. Furthermore, the more polarized an entity
becomes and the greater love/light they are able to
wield, the greater the ability the entity will have to
act in ways that defy the commonly accepted
action/consequence dichotomy. Such as, a negatively
polarized entity will become quite adept at repeatedly
gaining and breaking one's trust. Similarly, a
positively polarized entity may be able to break trust
and yet still work in the trusting entity's
acknowledged best interests.

> > No. I'm simply saying that, because morality is
> > confined to a limited, 3D mindset, it will not be
> > terribly good at predicting consequences in an
> > absolute and universal sense.
>
> This sounds like more rationale for the cop-out to
> me.

Then by all means, do not accept that which you do not
feel is truthful. However, recognize that your values
may be out of line with the ideas here, and we are not
obliged to act in accordance with them.

> > > 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?
> >
> > Like it or not, people do this all the time.
>
> Examples please?

People lie to themselves all the time about myriad
things, and then manifest that untruth in their lives.
If somebody for instance says that another hates
them, and then by reciprocal hatred and fear distances
that other person from him or herself, they have in
fact manifested an untruth in their life.

I also meant my comment in the sense that gravity is
merely a manifestation of a particular configuration
of thought/aether. It is absolutely possible to
manipulate it, just as most of consensus reality is.

> > Until we can pierce the veil, you and I are as
> > deceived as anybody else.
>
> I agree I'm still feeling my way out of deception.
> I'm on a path that leads to passing through the
> veil.

But that's the thing: *every* path leads that way.
Some just take longer than others, but we all end up
at the same place.

> Either there is a uniform and impersonal backdrop or

> their isn't. Which is it?

Which do you want it to be?

<lol> Sorry, just picturing the look on your face...
:-)

But I do mean it. Either a person views themselves as
separate from creation and subject to it, or he/she
views self as one creation and therefore master of
his/her destiny. Unity is the integrating factor of
the free will/fate paradox. But context is the
deciding factor.

> I say there is such and to the degree a person
> correctly perceives it and all of its parameters the

> more they can be in control of their own existance
> within it. To the degree someone is deluded and kept
> in a deceived state the more they can be manipulated

> and controlled.

But is a person who chooses to be controlled really a
victim?

> When I'm referring to principles I am referring to
> the impersonal parameters of the creation we reside
> in.

The impersonal or personl nature is competely subject
to an entity's concept of self/otherself. Either they
are one, and all is personal, or they are not and all
is impersonal. What a person does with this info is a
compeletely different story.

> Ok, so they nabbed something and went their way. If
> they remained indifferent about it totally there
> would be no energy towards polarization. But, since
> our society creates a moral stimulus surrounding
> theft the person receives catalyst. On one hand they

> could 'repent' and amend their wrong and take a path

> of service to others in repairing their wrong. On
> the other hand the person could glory in their theft

> and deny any contempt for self. However, if a
> person does nothing and remains confused and guilty
> their harvestability is reduced. Is this what you
> mean by a moral system making polarization more
> efficient? In providing catalyst?

Yes - but I disagree on the particular parameters. I
do not think it is contempt of self that leads to
positive polarization, but forgiveness of self.
Contempt for self leads to contempt for others, and
more separation. Acceptance leads to unity.

> I think you missed my point. Let me be more blunt.
> There are a group of entities who reap significant
> gains from mankind ignorantly fumbling over and over

> and over again making the same foibles.

See, I do not choose to see the game as one of
victimhood. An entity receives what it calls to
itself. This may not be a function of conscious
decision, but it is not a function of an innately
masochistic universe.

> There are truths which would provide an escape from
> the misery and suffering that if people knew and
> applied would lift them into a state to move on
> independant of this manipulation.

But I would argue the manipulation is desired as a
catalyst for polarization. Victimhood is a choice of
the entity who chooses to see self as separate, and
subject to, otherself.

> It is also my belief that my church is literally
> guided by revelation from Jesus Christ through
> prophets and apostles and its government and
> organization is about as good as it gets in this
> fallen mortal realm.

Whoa. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it :-)

> I think what I've said is as you suggest, a 3D
> baggage colored representation. In my mind anyway, I

> can take what I've said and correlate it to an
> energy a person would possess by virtue of being at
> one end or the other. I don't want to say that my
> statement sums it up better than Ra's does. Seems
> that what Ra is saying is more abstract and far less

> biased. I agree it is useful to remove the taint to
> get clearer understanding.

I mean, it's not my place to tell you what you should
and should not believe. Your experience will be
unique and exact - and you will benefit from it one
way or another. There is no danger or urgency; we
have all of eternity to figure it out.

But it would be nice to take advantage of this
space/time nexus, from a space/time POV. :-)

> I'll ponder on that. I was fuzzy on that when
> reading. It seems to contradict beliefs that I hold
> but that's because my context seems wholey focused
> on the STO domain.

STO = acceptance of all as self. You serve self by
serving others.

STS = rejection of all as self. You serve others by
serving self.

Are they really that different. No. Just a matter of
emphasis. We *all* have parts of ourselves that are
STS, because in reality we are both polarities. The
question presented to us at this space/time nexus is
one of choice: do we embrace that or do we fight it?

Everything else is so much dogma (no offense) :-)

> I can agree your choice remains but your domain is
> such that opposing factions no longer intersect. And

> if they intersect again there is a harmoneous
> unification, which Ra seems to allude to both
> actually taking place along the way prior to
> reaching One-ness again for both polarities.

By 6D negative entities must switch their concept of
self to oneness with all in order to continue to
progress. Both paths lead to oneness.

> > > Yes, we are eternal entities, but the scope of
> > > operation and influence we have in the creation
> > > can progress or digress considerably.
> >
> > By choice :-)
>
> Yes, but potentially under delusion.

I'm gonna break out more Ra:

"If there were no opportunity for misunderstanding,
there would be no opportunity for understanding, and
therefore no experience."

This is why I say we all suffer from delusion: the
concept of us being separate from God is the ultimate
delusion, and simultaneously the ultimate gift.
Separation allows us to discover the self/creator.

> Though as I admit elsewhere, all eventually have
> sufficient opportunity to chose according to free
> will, which implies a context of clarity. Much labor
> goes into this as a function of preparation for
> harvest.

Exactly!

> I agree with this in context of believing the
> Creator ensures all entities have sufficient (not
> necessarily equal) opportunity to chose either path.
> This is a part of the divine plan I'm attuned to.

I would rather say that all entities have an equal
opportunity to choose either path, but their bias one
way or another is not necessarily equal, nor is it
understandable.

> This leads me to reflect on some of the comments I
> read in the study guide, sorry I can't remember the
> reference. But there is an acknowledgement of the
> tradeoff between depth of polarization and quality
> of energy post-harvest. I think the veiling process

> factored in there too. Something to the effect
> that this earth is a bit unusual compared to other
> systems in the logos. Is there other material that
> covers this in greater depth you can point me to
> beside the study guide?

Yes: the Law of One books themselves. The way I
understand it (David correct me if I am wrong, I'm
going out on a limb here), our planet is an experiment
consisting of a bunch of "loser" races from different
planets, all lumped together on one. That's why we
have so many different races on this planet - and it's
also why we aren't gonna have much of a harvest.

> >> You claim independance from context is possible?
> > Oh, yes. It is the essential operating principle
> > of the Wanderer.
> Does that also imply a sense of immunity?

No - it does not preclude the possibility of confusion
and depolarization, and therfore does not preclude the
necessity for catalysts for repolarization or
so-called "karmic balance".

> Might you accept there are post-harvest levels of
> glory that are based on societal agreements? That
> could very well be what my religion, and others
> for that matter, are up to.

Oh, *absolutely*. But I'd rather say that there are
societal agreements based on preincarnative (and
thusly post-harvest) "levels of glory" (though I'd
prefer to say "subsets" to avoid the implication of a
hierarchy to which anybody here is privy). Y'know,
like the idea of soul groups and stuff like that - I
believe we discover self and other self in a creation
that is highly structured.

> Obviously Ra isn't the only wise head out there in
> the depths of the logos...

Does Ra even have a head? :-)

> Ok, I see. Though instead of incomplete wouldn't you
> call them super-complete?

Perhaps extraneous, or accordingly distorted. IMHO
completeness in the truest sense would imply the
peeling away of the transient layers, though in a
universal sense, it's all complete already.

> > But you are the Creator - you *are* creating your
> > personal reality. You are the arbiter of it.
>
> Well, in a manner of speaking, that is true within a
> domain and context.

***And polarization is a function of this context***

Because the mental configuration that comprises this
context determines the amount of available love/light
energy an entity has at its disposal. And that
configuration is most potently effected by the STO/STS
dichotomy.

Does that make sense?

> In thinking of this more, you can't really have them
> without their counterparts.

EXACTLY.

> > That's cool - but I would argue that acting in
> > line with principles that apply only to 3D is not
a
> > fulfillment of the full potential of the Wanderer.
>
> Isn't it true that you actually have communication
> with your higher density self? If so I imagine life
> here can be quite a weird affair.

I'm beginning to think your experience here has been
WAY different than mine. :-)

Have you ever had any dreams that were not wierd? I
haven't.

> My assumption is the Yahweh has been consistent all
> along with the people and just worked with them
> where they were at. If the people were ready for the

> higher law, that's what they would have been given.
> But, out of concern for them, they were given a
> schoolmaster law. What does Ra have to say about
> Yahweh anyway? I don't recall any specific mention
> in the study guide.

If I remember correctly, the 10 commandments were
heavily influenced by Orion (STS) distortion.

However, remember that the Hebrews could not have been
thusly distorted if they had not called upon the
service of negatives.

> Feel free to give up at any point. I'm already
> overwhelmed by your generosity.

This is what I do. Talking about this stuff keeps it
fresh in my mind and exposes the flaws in my thinking
to well deserved scrutiny.

> Unfortunately the force part of attempted
> implementations has been much less than inspiring.

I believe it is because positivity is by its very
nature a libertaring and not a prescriptive
philosophy.

> True communism would become a natural expression of
> a society grounded in pure STO principles.
> Otherwise, you either have a dictatorship of some
> sort or yet another version of survival of the
> fittest.
> But, I suppose we ought to leave political
> discussion alone here.

Well, I'll just say that any mention of politics, or
the study of the power of one over another, by it's
very definition concerns STS ideas (gov't = force).
Whether these ideas are justified or not is up to the
entity.

If we were all STO, I doubt gov't would be necessary

Thanks for participating in this discussion, and sorry
it took me so long to get back to ya - I had a rather
extensive honey-do list this weekend. :-)

Jeremy

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com