4th Dimension VS 5th Dimension

[curball2002]

Hey Everyone,

The Law of One talks about going to the 4th dimension now. Other
spiritual sources mention the 5th quite a lot. I think we are
essentially talking the same language, about the same thing but our
terms are just a little different. Or is there a difference?

Why do they refer to the 5th if it's really the 4th? Or is this just a
word choice/terminology thing? Do these differences come from
different sources for a reason? Or is it just the way things get
filtered through down to us, and it's really not that important?

Be one,

Bradly

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

Hi Bradly,

The law of one uses an 8 dimension octave system.
According to this we are now in the 3d dimension so the next one is
the 4th. Why there are other sources saying we will go to the 5th or
whatever dimension probobly has several reasons.

"
RA: The term density is a, what you call, mathematical one. The
closest analogy is that of music, whereby after seven notes on your
western type of scale, if you will, the eighth note begins a new octave.

RA: The nature of vibration is such that it may be seen as having
mathematically straight or narrow steps. These steps may be seen as
having boundaries. Within each boundary there are infinite gradations
of vibration or color. However, as one approaches a boundary, an
effort must be made to cross that boundary. These colors are a
simplistic way of expressing the boundary divisions of your density.
(B2, 42)
"

With the analogy of sound -> it's known that sound can be organised on
diffrent ways. So some channels maybe prefer the eight "pure" tones of
the octave, known as the Diatonic scale system while others prefer the
Chromatic scale system of 13 notes which is based on half steps. It's
basicly the same only diffrently approached.
Check
http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91
for more info. Or search on divine cosmos after chromatic and diatonic
. You can find more info there.
I also think that in the end it doesn't really matters, it's just a
number. It can be confusing when the other source also uses a 8 scale
system and says the next dimension is the 5th. But you have your own
discerment then to see what feels best for you. A lot of channeled
sources have big distortions to...

Greets,
Filip

[Ron Erickson]

Bradly: "The Law of One talks about going to the 4th dimension now. Other
spiritual sources mention the 5th quite a lot. I think we are essentially
talking the same language, about the same thing but our terms are just a little
different. Or is there a difference? Why do they refer to the 5th if it's
really the 4th? Or is this just a word choice/terminology thing? Do these
differences come from different sources for a reason? Or is it just the way
things get filtered through down to us, and it's really not that important?"

Ron: The Law of One uses both of the terms "dimension" and "density", but my
understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "density" is the preferred term
in the asc2k context. The difficulty with "dimension" is that it carries
"physical baggage" along with it. In other words, we might imagine the 4th
dimension to be an extention of the 3-dimensional physical universe. So, how
does this relate to the "time dimension" of Einstein's general relativity?
Obviously, use of the term "dimension" quickly gets problematic because it
suggests that the physical "universe" is the primary reality and that life and
consciousness occurred independently and "after-the-fact" by some accident, and
that "physical existense" and time are epiphenominal with respect to
consciousness. Personally, I believe that it is more likely that
"consciousness" - not just individual human (3D) consciousness but "universal
consciousness", is the primary reality, and this is also what the Law of One
seems to to be saying.

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

[Ron Erickson]

Filip: "The law of one uses an 8 dimension octave system. According to this we
are now in the 3d dimension so the next one is the 4th. Why there are other
sources saying we will go to the 5th or whatever dimension probobly has several
reasons."

Ron: I think we need to be careful when using the musical "octave" analogy. The
diatonic sets within the Western equal-temperred system are secondary groupings
of pitches (5 tones and 2 semitones) within the 12-tone equal-tempered system
consisting of 2 ^ (1/12) relative increments. Use of the word "octave" to refer
to a 7-step diatonic set has always been a misnomer. In a previous post in this
forum, I propsed using the 8-level Harmonic Scale as an analogy for the
8-density system referred to in the Law of One. In 1977, I developed an 8-level
"harmonic scale" based on the harmonic series, and, as such, it is not temperred
but rather exactly pitched according to true harmonic ratios, and because it
consists of a logical 8 x 8 matrix of these pitches, it also supports "key
modulation" (although this term may carry with it a bias toward diatonic pitch
sets). Since then, I have composed music using both the 8-level harmonic scale
and also the 12-level harmonic scale. As far as I know, I am the only composer
who has ever used the 12 x 12 harmonic scale to date.

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

[jeffreykiksit]

Mr Erickson, is your music available on the internet for our listening
pleasure? Id love to hear it, thanks.




--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=bVE9ajGAp5PXLCAe9Dxr054BoR0Y1R2bEacPDd 23SbfobWZp_hdy9nMJAYaxK0SrIiPjzdlKZMXwGppf), "Ron Erickson" <ronerick1@...> wrote:
As far as I know, I am the only composer who has ever used the 12 x 12
harmonic scale to date.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>