Pantheism?

[linsybyster]

does the law of one differ from pantheism? to me it seems like the same thing. it is just another name for the same beliefs?

[soup]

personally, i find the term pantheism interesting as interpreting this term as a contraction of "pan" and "theism". pan, a greek god, aka the great horned god, was known as being highly sexual. this could speak to the idea of experiencing a greater sense of unity through studies of the sexual arts, which may or may not have legitimacy here (as within the moderation constraints of this forum). book two of the law of one seems to contain some discussion of sexual energy transfers, though the idea of experiencing a greater sense of unity (i.e. a pantheistic perspective) by way of these transfers seems subordinated.

the ideas of unseen inner planes and shrouded mysteries as mentioned in the ra materials tend to suggest there is more than just the material universe and a concept of pantheism "god as the material universe" may be unnecessarily limiting, that there may be more than just the material universe.

another term, panentheism, seems to contain elements of "the creator" and "the logos" and a "transcending" god. the word "creator" seems to ressonate strongly with ra's law of one materials, and the transcending quality may better accomodate ideas of inner planes and shrouded mysteries may fit better (though ideas of morality may violate precepts of freewill and so may be distorted from it in that regard.)

a stronger impression is that the law of one is a dynamic moving super set which ever accomodates by its nature: both understandings and misunderstandings. as consciousness grows, so may our ability to contribute to our understanding of it in meaningful ways - everything has a place and some degree of legitimacy - if not in truth itself than in contrast to it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/panentheism

[billybobbutterball]

does the law of one differ from pantheism? to me it seems like the same thing. it is just another name for the same beliefs?

dear lin, this subject has been thrashed out several times in the past.
personally, i don't think the term "pantheism" does justice to the apparent situation. rather than trying to remount the discussion, etc. please use the search engine and plug in panentheism (that's panentheism ) i think that will lead you to enough material to satisfy your question ... if there is some glitch, please get back. okay?

warms, bill gieskieng, aka billybobbutterball

[billybobbutterball]

dear lin, this subject has been thrashed out several times in the past.
personally, i don't think the term "pantheism" does justice to the apparent situation. rather than trying to remount the discussion, etc. please use the search engine and plug in panentheism (that's panentheism ) i think that will lead you to enough material to satisfy your question ... if there is some glitch, please get back. okay?

warms, bill gieskieng, aka billybobbutterball


lin et al

i had trouble pulling up the subject from the search engine.
i did finally get one posting so am splicing it in.

i think that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism
is an extremely important one to keep in mind especially if you are
discussing the loo/ra material with someone who has a degree
of philosophical/theological awareness.


old posting

### hi,ron.

you can do a fruitfull google for panentheism.
one correspondent went to wikipedia for source.

the philosopher, charles hartshorne created a
truth table of around 26 variations of ideas
concerning divinity. the table disclosed that
panentheism came out the clear winner as the most
logicaly sound concept ...( pantheism was way down
the line. the stanford source concerning pantheism
speaks only to pantheism)

i edited the following quite severely in hopes
of getting it down under chris's size limit.

i think/intuit panentheism fits hand in glove with
the ra philosohy. keep in mind we need only the basic
concept...adding frills and details only increases
the chance of error.

snip

pantheism and panentheism

this universal arrangement is not pantheism
(all is god), but panentheism, a term devised
by karl c. f. krause (1781-1832) to describe
his thought. it is best known for its use by
charles hartshorne and recently by matthew
fox. panentheism says that all is in god,
somewhat as if god were the ocean and we were
fish. if one considers what is in god's body
to be part of god, then we can say that god
is all there is and then some. the universe
is god's body, but god's awareness or
personality is greater than the sum of all
the parts of the universe. all the parts have
some degree of freedom in co-creating with god.

snip

the most practical value of pantheism is
that it recognizes the presence of god
everywhere, but it does this at an enormous
cost. it provides for the presence of god
as the only actor; god's presence is an
overriding presence that cancels the
possibility of the existence of anything
else, of any genuine beloved, of any loving
or unloving response to god. in pantheism,
human existence or any other finite existence
is at best a mystery. explanation in any
satisfying sense is impossible. there can
be affirmation that there is nothing but
god, but where that leaves the affirmer
is unclear; his or her existence is no more
than appearance, and enlightenment brings
recognition of one's illusory status as a
unique, permanent perspective in reality.

it is not necessary to go to pantheism,
with a god that acts as a universal wet
blanket, smothering the possibilities of
everything else's genuine existence.
panentheism gives all that one could want:
an all-encompassing, growing, perfect god,
everywhere present and containing everywhere
within himself; and the reality of oneself
and others, freely deciding within god,
responding to god's overtures in the process
of co-creation. theism denies that the world
(including us) shares in god's being.
panentheism recognizes that everything
shares god's being (or becoming) but that
god's being operates from innumerable
relatively freely-choosing centers or
perspectives of existence. god and the
world, which is god's body, are interdependent.
to be is to be free, to be choosing, and to
be enjoying (slightly or greatly, positively
or negatively) the process of selecting from
among competing influences. to be doing this
is to be alive. to be doing it with the
complexity of performing these tasks
self-consciously, rationally, purposefully
is to be doing it as a person. to have
perfect awareness of all this, perfect
memory, love, and preservation of it, and
to be giving perfect guidance to the others
who are involved in the process is to be
the only perfect person, god.

santiago sia 1985] summarizes hartshorne's panentheism:


panentheism . . . holds that god includes
the world. but it sets itself apart from
pantheism in that it does not maintain
that god and the world are identical. . . .
hartshorne explains that god is a whole
whose whole-properties are distinct from
the properties of the constituents. while
this is true of every whole, it is more
so of god as the supreme whole. . . .
the part is distinguishable from the whole
although within it. the power of the parts
is something suffered by the whole, not
enacted by it. the whole has properties
too which are not shared by the parts.
similarly, god as whole possesses attributes
which are not shared by his creatures. . . .
we perpetually create content not only in
ourselves but also in god. and this gives
significance to our presence in this world.

hey! sound good to me!

billypanlogicophilosophicus

(ps. a scholary admirer of dr. hartshorne
dubbed him "the einstein of religious thought )



--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com, "ron erickson" <ronerick1@...> wrote:
>
> bill: hi. the ra material is not pantheistic. to belabor a point
that i've stressed before, the fusing of theism with pantheism is
neatly accomplished by the preferred logical solution as found in the
basic concept of panentheism. that idea fuses the seemingly mutually
exclusive concepts of immanence on the one hand and the quality of
> transcendence on the other. so, in panentheism, god is the cosmos
but the cosmos is not god.
>
> ron: i don't have your earlier posts on this subject at this
moment, but i'm not entirely clear if you are saying that the law of
one is (similar to) panentheism or is like neither pantheism nor
panentheism. i was not trying to say that the law of one and
pantheism are identical - just much more alike than theism.

(insert: bill: law of ra and panentheism are compatible...not
pantheism!)

snip


m.w.

#17 02-18-2006, 04:36 pm

[linsybyster]

thank you both!

[MarkM]

just curious to know what the contributors to this thread think in regards to this question:

how does the concept of panentheism, in which the parts are apparently distinguishable from the whole, the power of the parts suffered by the whole and not enacted by it, god being a whole whose whole properties are distinct from the constituents,

measure up with what ra says regarding oneness, in that there is no separation, no parts, that outside of distortion there is no distinction?

what of the 'fractal' or 'holographic' nature of reality wherein the tiniest apparent 'particle' contains within it, literally, all the universe?

while it seems to me to be a great, progressive concept of years gone by, certainly capable of helping to liberate the mind of many from the strictures of fear based dogma, it lacks the ineffible essense of oneness as shared by ra.

some folks i know tend towards a panentheistic viewpoint because they can't fathom or accept that they are god, or rather the unified quantum field, or if you prefer, the infinite creator itself.

shades of 'bruce almighty', you say? indeed, many would think you to be off your rocker if if you told them you were the infinite creator, incarnate, in a self imposed state of re-becoming.

but if you accept the teachings of ra, i can't see how you could conclude otherwise. nevertheless, i feel that we in this forum have the right to leave these matters open to debate, as free and open debate can lead to greater insight and understanding. and to that end, please offer your insights as i am no expert in philosophy, or panentheism in particular.

-mark

[soup]

...indeed, many would think you to be off your rocker if if you told them you were the infinite creator, incarnate, in a self imposed state of re-becoming...


i can remember days when i was verbally abused as being scolded in a condescending, shameful, and publicly humiliating way: "you think you're god!"

funny, it was in these moments of high emotional tension (which happened more than once by different people) that i would not typically respond: i would withdraw from comment or retort, as my intuition would offer a simple "yes, and you are too...."

i would reflect on how my behaviors might suggest such an idea because it didn't seem like one that i promoted by things that i said, but what if it was? what would god write, what would she write? maybe i write for her now.

maybe others can relate and so i share something about such catalysts.

[billybobbutterball]

just curious to know what the contributors to this thread think in regards to this question:

how does the concept of panentheism, in which the parts are apparently distinguishable from the whole, the power of the parts suffered by the whole and not enacted by it, god being a whole whose whole properties are distinct from the constituents,

measure up with what ra says regarding oneness, in that there is no separation, no parts, that outside of distortion there is no distinction?

what of the 'fractal' or 'holographic' nature of reality wherein the tiniest apparent 'particle' contains within it, literally, all the universe?

while it seems to me to be a great, progressive concept of years gone by, certainly capable of helping to liberate the mind of many from the strictures of fear based dogma, it lacks the ineffible essense of oneness as shared by ra.

some folks i know tend towards a panentheistic viewpoint because they can't fathom or accept that they are god, or rather the unified quantum field, or if you prefer, the infinite creator itself.


-mark

dear mark, i'm not certain i grasp the thrust of your objections. anyway i'll bravely try to stumble through your caveats.

question: is there something basically awry with the idea that the whole (creator)suffers the part? sure, the terminology is archaic, but i assume that it means nothing more sinister than that, in our specific case, our actions as souls are engineered by our causal "free will" rather than compelled. i believe that condition of freedom and non interference is the pillar of our incarnation...otherwise why is it that ra and q'uo are so everlastingly concerned about tainting our idiosyncratic free will? i suspect that you are undervaluing the unique fact of distortion -- indeed, it is distortion that removes us from that mentioned undifferentiated state of total realized oneness. i suspect that idealized oneness for most on this list is at least down the line some millions of years ( the ra, when pressed, said that the ra was indeed hot on the trail of the next dimension upgrade, and should achieve that prized goal-stage in about 1.5 millions of earthly years) (:>)

the holographic universe (ala the netted jewels of indra ) may very well be, but that applies -- as i see it -- to the cosmos ... i.e., the creation of the one creator. i would surmise that the undifferentiated creator must have preceded the creation. is it fair to consider the cosmos a major distortion in itself? i would think so.

does panentheism lack the ineffable essence of oneness? not necessarily; the term panentheism is a starting place, an outline. you are free to stick in all the ineffableness you think fit.

you actually know folk who "lean towards" panentheism? (99.44% of people i query about the subject immediately assume that i've misspelled pantheism.) i don't see how it would serve to relieve any doctrinal fears; after all the bible does state specifically that god is both immanent and transcendent -- a good enough pocket description of panentheism for government work. if they are told that they are indeed gods that comment should really scare the hell out of them! keep in mind that their thoughts will quickly fly to the case of doomed lucifer who dared think himself god's equal! ... most christian's know where he ended up.

it is not a perfect analogy but think of the undifferentiated creator as a spiritual ocean. in this vast still ocean we itsy bitsy little minnows swim around expressing our distortions as individualized persons and beings. even though we came into being from the sea we are not the ocean proper....that is a later development. but we are an essential part of it.

i can accept it intellectually but i don't feel much like publicly claiming to be god. that would imply something i don't resonate with. apropos: i have a sore boil on my butt. it got carried away this morning when it finally understood that its cells are stuffed with dna. i could feel it wincing and jerking around down there. finally i heard a teeny whisper of a message. "i am bill." i didn't respond... later: "hey, you up there, i'm bill!". well, i shut up little bill with a band-aid then dragged him along with big bill off to work.. give a boil and inch and they....

billybob ...for the moment an earthside sub-sub-sub-sub-logi.

[MarkM]

hi, bill, thanks for your reply to my question. i find panentheism a fascinating philosophical point of view, something i first read about and contemplated as a teenager.

i those tender years, i encountered pantheism and panentheism around the same time, and to me it was a segment of a conceptual development for me.

when i was seven or eight years old, i was full of questions regarding religion and took myself across the street to the local bible chapel (my parents were not churchgoers) and engaged the pastor with my questions about what happens when you die. i vividly recall being told, when i questioned his assertion that the earth was only six thousand years old, that faith in the bible should preclude me from asking such questions. when i mentioned fossilized evidence suggesting a much older age, he countered that those were planted by the devil to deceive us, and that to question that and other suspect postulations was to invite the eternal damnation of my soul.

after some years of trying to balance my fear with my ever inquiring mind, it was my discovery of such philosophies as panentheism that allowed me to have the courage to break out of the box of residual fear and begin to fearlessly become a free enquirer.

now i didn't mean to denigrate panentheism in anyway, and i do see it personally as a step along my own road of awakening, an awakening still under way, that i have worked very hard at for almost forty years, throughout an early life filled with a fair share of traumas, trials and tribbles.

i don't mean to steal your thunder, bill, and if this the effect of my last post on this thread i am truly sorry. in fact, i held dearly to this and similar philosophies for many years. but i do feel that the law of one has filled in for me something lacking of late.

i can no longer see myself as merely a free will fish in the ocean, i believe that this is a distortion, albeit a distortion planned by the one infinite creator, for it's own purposes, and i am challenged by my own higher self to know that despite my limitations of view, i am the one infinite creator now, forever and always. this is my birthright, my reality, my catalyst and my heritage. this is the literal, intrinsic meaning of oneness, in that even my becoming is an illusion.

if all time is simultaneous, i can no longer think in terms of millions of years down the road. any separation is illusion, plain and simple, and this is what ra moved heaven and earth to tell us. i may be stuck in maya, or illusion, but am challenged by life to learn to live my life as best i can in the reality of oneness, to minimize as best i can the urge to embrace the illusionary concept of duality and maximize my intuitive knowledge of only oneness.

again, these are my thoughts, not intended to in any way impugn anyone else's, or to suggest that anyone else's thoughts are in any way less valid than mine.

in the exhilarating spirit of good debate, your always, and your friend, mark:)

[billybobbutterball]

hi, guys. can't seem to leave this topic alone. rather than re-do my
thoughts as expressed in an email i'm simply posting it here.

i don't know how to move links from inserts to this site, so please bear with me. one can find the channeling mentioned below by googling llreasearch.org
and utilizing their search engine to locate nov 4, 1990. since so much of our activity on site is basically intellectual this channeling is most valuable
in that it explores non-intellectual qualities of worship... spiritual aspect i sorely lack and need to open up to.


concerning llresearch transcripton november 4th 1990


----- original message -----
to: ll research
sent: wednesday, july 11, 2007 5:48 pm
subject: fw: l-l research frame page


hi, gary, sending this link to you is like the old expression, "sending coal to newcastle". i've been engaged in a thread on divine cosmos dealing with pantheism (is the loo identical with pantheism?) my position is predictably, "no!"(i'm a panentheist ) some of the thinking expressed
about all being divine seems to me to be verging dangerously close to negative polarity when one makes a big deal out of thinking and presenting oneself as "god." i know that david w. makes a stong point that there is no aspect of the creation more valuable or precious than another ... i.e., we should not feel inferior/less than higher/highest spiritual beings. (my inaccurate paraphrasing, you understand )

sure, from one point of view this concept is valid and true, but i think it a subtle refinement of thought dangerous to emphasize as one can too easily confuse the transitory ego with being the "real self" ... thus leading to
some degree of concentrated self-worship -- which of course is fine, except few understand what kind of hellish path lies ahead! (personally i don't have the anti-heroic qualities needed for that demanding journey! )

anyway, i did a search at llresearch for pantheism and came up with a real gem ....i know you live and breathe this stuff -- being a part of llreasearch yourself -- but perhaps it might be a semi-forgotten masterpiece evaluating types of worship that would be good to know about -- or become re-acquainted with.

i'm somewhat of a fast reader, but this one took some real study. i had to keep putting on the brakes to go over parts again and again. i still don't have a secure handle on it.

this reading has been particularly valuable to me since i'm a disillusioned "christian" yet realize there are aspects that are spiritually powerful -- if one can shed the negative traps seeded throughout the biblical text and traditions like some deadly minefield.

your good bud, bill gieskieng, denver

[moderator: ok, i understand the problem with getting ll research urls:). so i will let this theu, although it is lengthy]

sample:

snip
there are identifiable types of worship. there are three main categories of worship. the first is worship without an object. when one moves into the frame of mind that says that all that there is is the creator, and all is to be worshipped, one has failed to identify any object of worship beyond the phenomena experienced by the self. the closest name that you have to this type of worship is pantheism, that is, the thoroughgoing worshipful attitude towards all that one beholds, but with the unspoken inference that when one comes to the end of all that there is, that is the limit of the creator. thusly, with those who worship without an object, many see difficulties connected with the inability to move beyond a certain point in evolution of spirit without either a subjective or reflective object of worship upon which one may focus again and again and again, infinitely, in each present moment.

the worship of an object, or symbol, which indicates to the entity a living and participating creator, is most, most helpful in the simplification and clarification and lucidity of what one is aware of about one’s self, for worship must be the worship of an entity for nothing or something. the unexamined thoughts and feelings and actions of many of your peoples create distortions which indicate that worship is a kind of hysteria within which one is able to release all the negative portions perceived subjectively within the self. this is not particularly helpful to the evolution of the individual’s spirit. however, we mention both worship without an object, and worship of an object, as being somewhat helpful, for these are stages which may be traversed as the incarnate entity slowly begins to open the door to the possibility that the object of its worship is an utter and complete mystery.

true worshipful living is a high risk occupation. it is not a loop into the light, but rather a loop into darkness. the illusion creates an emotional, mental and spiritual twilight in which ideals, the purification of emotions from attachments, and the mindfulness of continuing awareness of the worship bloom in the darkness of blind faith. that is, the true worship is worship of a mystery; awe, wonder, a greater and greater subjective feeling of being held firmly by that which is not illusion, although one cannot understand it, so that the entity rests at last in a completely subjective and subjectively truthful journey. in this regard, worship may be seen as motion, motion of a metaphysical kind rather than a physical kind.

snip


http://www.llresearch.org/main.htm

[Kenneths149]

“i am the true vine and my father is the husbandman. john 15:1, 5 kjv
i am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and i in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. for without me ye can do nothing.”

“i am the real vine and my father is the gardener. john 15:1 lb
i love these scriptures quotes for the way they distinguish panentheism or what in theology is termed “eminence” “eminent” the “indwelling god.” ( god incarnate, the holy spirit)

i like the discussion and wonder how we could share such a thought with a person who had no intellectual vocabulary to discuss this. the idea of the vine makes it somewhat concrete. so does the holographic image as well. yet third world people have not seen a holographic image or understand this invention until they see it.

i had a guided meditation that works with this idea of the oneness of all. i was asked to visualize a mountain, which i did, with all the farms, forests, meadows, families, children playing, adults working streams, trees, birds and animals living on it. we then went to the night time and the mountain being alive could see the night sky with all the stars and even the galaxy of andromeda. (at this point the meditation took an unexpected turn.) i saw the stars and the galaxy and it all quickly became a presence of warm, bright, living golden, white light. indescribable living light and the entire starry universe disappeared into this light. i was aware of the light only. all the universe is this living light. then just as gently the light toned down and i could see the mountain in sunny detail again with the trees and people on it.”
i felt so happy to see the oneness of all as light.
i remember and treasure this meditation because of the sense of unity it gives about light and the material world. i connect his meditation to the string theory that all is vibration of the strings of light. string theory make it possible for multiple dimensions and multiple universes and infinite intelligence.

i have come as well to understand the word “distortion” as a form of what i call veiling of energy. veiling is a covering of vibration in material 3 d dimensions. in higher vibrations material veiling changes with the vibration rates. this way you can have simultaneous realities at varying vibration rates. it becomes infinite as vibrations of light.

if any one has thoughts on distortions or references please share them with me .. distortion has a negative implication to me yet veiling does not. i will continue to reflect on these words as it applies to our studies lol and reflections.
kenneths149

[soup]

...i like the discussion and wonder how we could share such a thought with a person who had no intellectual vocabulary to discuss this...

the book of john can seem poetic with many images of beauty that can help a person feel good. maybe a discussion could center upon such feelings and lead to the idea that people can share similar feelings, which connects them in that way. i would consider such a discussion a success if it touched upon a sense of gratitude, as if a kingdom of heaven could be made accessible by giving thanks for such good feelings, in recognition of those similar feelings in each other.

thanks for sharing so, it helps me feel good.

[billybobbutterball]

[quote=kenneths149;22552

if any one has thoughts on distortions or references please share them with me .. distortion has a negative implication to me yet veiling does not. i will continue to reflect on these words as it applies to our studies lol and reflections.
kenneths149 ]

dear kenneth,

your posting is beautifully done.

but i wonder at your negative evaluation of the term, "distortion". and of course "veiling" has little if any connection at all with "distortion" such as used by the ra and associates. distortion is good, great, wonderful and absolutely essential for the creation! without distortion from the one -- having an un-differentiated state of being -- there would be no cosmos, much less our humanoid selfs.

when one becomes without individualized distortion, then what? then one ain't one anymore but rather the one. that may be our ultimate goal, but we are here on a job to be done, which is to explore the all finite aspects of the creator. were not supposed to short-circuit ourselves by shirking our purpose of being here and exploring varieties of "distortions." in all aspects we are right where we are supposed to be. true? untrue? well, maybe? :cool:

to switch gears.

i had some business with gary bean of llresearch and took the opportunity
to query him on the question of pantheism.

hi, gary.

the main question in my mind is whether or not the concept of panentheism fills the gaps and overcomes the perceived defects that have been leveled against simple pantheism. as the ra/q'uo pointed out, that with the creator identified with the creation one's attempting worship of such a combination reaches the end of the creator when one encompassing the cosmos by thought. this does not occur with panentheism which stipulates that "god" is indeed immanent in the cosmos but is really much more than the creation through the transcending of it...and perhaps that special aspect of the creator being transcendent contains the ineffable mystery.

##
gary said "okay" to add his thoughts to the "pantheism" file at divine cosmos.
##

----- original message -----



sent: saturday, july 14, 2007 6:08 pm

yo, bill,

i’ve come across the concept of pantheism here and there and wondered just that question to myself, “how similar is this to the law of one?” i’ve never undertaken any study of pantheism, but i would imagine that its general philosophy has many congruencies with the law of one, though i’ve never come across any single body of material outside of truly mystical literature that so technically and eloquently uses words to point to that wordless unity as does the law of one material. (in the book mysticism, evelyn underhill seems to speak about pantheism with some measure of disdain.)

i would imagine that the ego could take a disproportionately significant role in the pantheist’s view, as you warned was a possible consequence of that particular world view, to the extent that the ego, or any sensory phenomena, becomes opaque. though, as ra says, every iota contains the one in its entirety as does the hologram, most in consensus reality *perceive* every iota as having an independent and separate reality, rather than seeing that iota as but a symbol for an underlying, unitary reality.

if the pantheist sees the divine and unity in all things through its transparent symbols of manifestation on the surface, then i would not imagine that that entity would confuse the ego with the heart of self. if the entity with the pantheistic outlook took things for what they were on the surface and declared it all divine, then perhaps the illusion about it and the illusion of self would instead be worshipped, rather than the manifestation of the one those things are meant to partially represent.

regardless of the labels upon one’s intellectual views, they are just that, intellectual viewpoints. while the intellect may aid or inhibit the quest for truth, truth is, in my understanding, something that is experienced. so that if the pantheist knows unity on the level of experience and can truly commune with the one in the face of the many, then no matter how that entity intellectually frames the situation, he or she will definitely not be worshipping the ego.

just my thoughts.

bill says: thanks, gary. nicely put.

[billybobbutterball]

i ran into an llresearch.org channeling from oct 17, '93 that is most interesting. ( google llresearch, go to the search feature and put in the date)

this episode answered questions concering the ra material regarding the sun.
in shedding some light :d on the pantheism/panentheism distinction it seems to indicate that the visable cosmos represents only an infinitesimal fraction -- and even that restrictive term may be overly generous -- of the one creator. one important point made-- not included here -- is how all is created from "light"

snip

q'uo:

... let us move to the beginning where there is only intelligent energy created by free will, which creates unpotentiated love, which in turn, it being the first articulation of singular characteristic, out of this singular characteristic, creates one thing—the photon.

this photon is timeless and spaceless. it is unity and infinity. it does not have number. it is solid, that is, in its estate as light limitless, it is solid. all that there is, dwells in (inaudible) of that one original thought. and at the level of this one great original thought there is, eternally, the endless creation of light or what you call the photon.

we refrain from calling the first emanation of the sun-body light, for we wish to distinguish between the timeless, spaceless light which is limitless and a child (the sun. b.g.) of this light which is radiation of the light as you experience it upon your level of existence and as others experience it in theirs.

at the photon level, light is all that there is. this limitless light is the background created by love before any articulated creation made from light. this light everlasting, shall be as always, infinitely creating in an infinite and eternal present. at this level, light is a thought. that is, it is a perfect creation of a thought. it does not contain error but is a creature of utter love containing the infinite intelligence without distortion.

within the context of third-density lessons of love, this plane of light has little substance in reference to questions of moving from third to fourth density, learning the lessons of love. it is to the light which interests your peoples as an ideal is to a philosopher. yet this is the environment, shall we say, within which the infinite creator has being. this is for that mystery which is the creator.

the way entities seeking to love the one creator may visualize moving into the highest of all tabernacles, pure, limitless light, there is this place where light is still, for it completely fills all that there is. at this zero time/space intersection, there is the seed of all infinity and all eternity.

snip

billybob says...i'm constanty having to remind myself that an essential requirement for spiritual advancement is to fully realize that one doesn't really understand zip about anything. but i keep trying anyway.:rolleyes:

[gbyrd75]

metaphysics is just another form of semantics that disguise and obfuscate the truth of our unity. all forms of religion and the studies, tretices and dogma are just evolved forms of attempting to prove we are right and therefore deserve power over those who don't see it our way. anything we say or imagine or believe in we give power. the higher power doesn't want or need our worship it/he/she/they want us to remember, to awaken, rejoin and get on with it. the law of one is information, not a call to form a religion and worship the law. jesus didn't ask to be worshiped nor did he leave instructions to build a religious organization in his name. he left us two simple comandments and a prayer( that we know) all of which is perfectly aligned with thew law of one. but,hey! what do i know?

[billybobbutterball]

metaphysics is just another form of semantics that disguise and obfuscate the truth of our unity. all forms of religion and the studies, tretices and dogma are just evolved forms of attempting to prove we are right and therefore deserve power over those who don't see it our way. anything we say or imagine or believe in we give power. the higher power doesn't want or need our worship it/he/she/they want us to remember, to awaken, rejoin and get on with it. the law of one is information, not a call to form a religion and worship the law. jesus didn't ask to be worshiped nor did he leave instructions to build a religious organization in his name. he left us two simple comandments and a prayer( that we know) all of which is perfectly aligned with thew law of one. but,hey! what do i know?

hi, gbyrd

thanks for contributing your considered thoughts on this matter. i think i can see where you are coming from, but wonder at the particular airports you selected to land at.

one of my quibbles would be your assertion that metaphysics obscure the "truth" ... but by what other name would you define the "the ra material"/information? after all it has been described as "a philosopy of religion". if that ain't metaphysics what is?

i do agree in part that the one creator does not need our worship in a literal, primitive sense. however, worship is what fuels our spiritual drive to push "upwards and onwards" (actually, inwards :) ) the question that this topic of pantheism (vs panentheism) explores is to discover just what is most logically the proper object of worship. from what i can figure out it is not the man jesus/krishna/mithra etc...nor the sub,sub logi, the earth, nor the sub logi, the sun, nor the apparant cosmos, nor the "holy spirit" (which is an attribute of the one creator) but rather the immanent and trancendant ultimate which is the all.

gbyrd, you are absolutely right that we have been warned not to creat a dogmatic religious system centering on the ra as a prophet and taking the material as sancrosact holy writ... and of course david wilcock is handy to have around even though he steadfastly refuses to play the role of infallible guru.

the role of religion has played a positive role dispite its horrendous track record of enthusiastically killing infidels for christ, or allah, or whatever.

from llresearch we understand that long-established traditions and rituals --followed by millions of believer's now deceased -- do allow those practicing believers to tap into some great, long-established spiritual reservoirs that have existence on spiritual planes. so it seems that all that rigamarole i once scoffed at as tomfoolery does have a substantive role ...

concerning religious belief systems. when i studied myself out of christianity i didn't default to atheism but maintained a strong conviction in the reality of somesort of prime creator. in my random searching i ran into the near-death experience of mellen thomas benedict, which effected my thinking dramatically (in fact it set the stage for my smooth introduction to the ra material et al which came on its heels) mellen -- who is probably a 5th or 6th density wanderer -- was given a fascinating must-read tour of the cosmos. his tour guide played the role of "god". mellen asked what religion was the one that "god" most favored. "i don't care" was the surprising answer. "that's up to you, that's your concern" :eek:

wow! :cool:

(one should be alert for continuing to drag along guilt concept hangovers instilled by orthodoxy brain-washings. hey! they don't wash out so easy!)

once again i apologize for not knowing when to stop writing... abyrd is right about the misuse of knowledge to bludgeon others over the head until they conform. i remember certain individuals who carried their bibles like they were "big iron on their hip" (country western talk) i was guilty also ... but then again i was a straight-shooter :o ( that should actually be a shame-faced icon.)

finis, with love. billybob -- busily chewing on a hayseed while contemplating the mysteries of infinity.

[MarkM]

for me, the trouble has always seemed to start when labels are put on, and distinctions are made, between various schools of thought, philosophies, religions, etc. when one entertains a belief system and immerses into it to some degree, one often gains some personal insights into their own personal lives; and this is all well and good, and can serve as a boost upon one's own individual path of awakening.

then what often happens is you meet someone who 'belongs' to a differing school of thought, who feels illumined by their own participation in their respective studies, and each will attempt to persuade the other of their 'more enlightened' viewpoint, and this is how it has always been.

a great stage in my own becoming occurred when i decided to swear off all 'isms', and turned the spotlight of seeking away from pre-existing, man-made structures of thought, and into my own heart, mind and soul.

that's not to say that i don't borrow a bit of wisdom from here or there, if it resonates well within me, i might use it for a while until perhaps it becomes redundant to me or is replaced by something more useful, or perhaps even is kept, but allowed to morph into something more in keeping with my own personal spirituality.

like philosophy, the results of scientific enquiry are often grouped by man into various schools of thought, and it is not rare to encounter 'scientific fundamentalists' who have built a closed system of belief in a given set of parameters, and devote a lifetime developing and espousing said system, often attaining the status of 'guru' in the eyes of those who cast their lot with the espouser.

yet if you show him an observed fact that undermines or even disproves his science, he will often pretend to have never seen the fact, deny it's very existence or react with a huge grief sequence, mourning his wasted career or loss of status in the eyes of his beholders.

i've seen this happen myself; therefore i do not allow a closed system of belief to distill in my own mind. although i have dabbled in many, many different things, i was lucky as a youngster to to have had an eye-opening experience with religious fundamentalism, that led me early on to seek my own truths, and allow everything i encountered to be subject to change on a moment's notice.

in having no static belief systems of my own, i believe that i am better able to have a less distorted contact with my own higher self (okay, so i believe i have a higher self, but that belief is also subject to change!:d ). although i am currently studying the law of one philosophy, i feel no pressure from anyone, much less myself, to have to accept it all hook, line and sinker.

i mean, the oneness aspect of it is so resonant with me, it seems to put voice to what i have seen with my own inward and outward looking eyes for many years.

likewise, david's 'convergence' series does genuinely offer a unified model of the cosmos as a living field of conscious energy.

but it is a model, and we all know it is a distorted model, as is any view of the universe from human eyes, and so is subject to revision and/or refinement. i doubt if david would reject a new or improved model of super-cluster physics, for example, if it necessitated a rethinking of other aspects of his work.

as so many on this forum are stressing right now, the most fruitful avenue of inquiry for us all is within. for although catalyst seems to come from without, it only points you to that which lies within you. catalyst, or the impetus to change, is useless unless you take up catalyst's challenge to dig within yourself for that which blocks your own contact with your maker, and hold those blockages up to the light of the present moment to be seen clearly, understood clearly and then bathed in forgiveness.

this is the purpose of catalyst, this is the way to clear the path for service to others, and this is the way to 'gain in this lifetime.' and all your reading, studying and dabbling in philosophies and religions can only lead you to, ultimately, seek within.

mark

[soup]

one of my quibbles would be your assertion that metaphysics obscure the "truth" ... but by what other name would you define the "the ra material"/information? after all it has been described as "a philosopy of religion". if that ain't metaphysics what is?

this reminds me of many passages that suggest "a fondness for the naming" which in itself may be part of the issue - as if something quite profound seems diminished by the act of naming or labeling, as if the act of classification may become a step in the direction other than the one intended to progress toward.

another thing it reminds me of seems the inherent limitation of language, as if its intrinsic limitations acts to obscure the "truth": as if concepts communicated through symbolic forms can only come so close. for example the complex of mind/body/spirit may be only partially stimulated in grasping the truth - by way of symbolic word forms...

[billybobbutterball]

this reminds me of many passages that suggest "a fondness for the naming" which in itself may be part of the issue - as if something quite profound seems diminished by the act of naming or labeling, as if the act of classification may become a step in the direction other than the one intended to progress toward.

another thing it reminds me of seems the inherent limitation of language, as if its intrinsic limitations acts to obscure the "truth": as if concepts communicated through symbolic forms can only come so close. for example the complex of mind/body/spirit may be only partially stimulated in grasping the truth - by way of symbolic word forms...

hi, soup ( is that as in minestrone or chicken gumbo? inquiring minds need to know :) )

you make some excellent points.

at a more basic level i would defend naming things with names as being a quite essential part of mental road maps to interesting subjects. if i declare myself to another as being "christian" "muslim" "atheist" "agnostic" ect. they will then have a general idea concerning my belief system, and to what degree we might share some commonality. or not.

yes, the ra may be merely accomodating our mental handicap by giving us a "name". of course the bare name means nothing in itself but when i read or hear that particular identifying name of "ra" a whole universe of associations -- right or wrong -- pop into my my mind.

and then again the ra and q'uo sometimes apologize for their instrument's lack of vocabulary by not having the needed word available in their mind bank

it also seems that english is not a particulary good lanquage for conveying complex ideas (what does one call a person who can speak three languages?
a trilingualist. a person who speaks two languages? a bilingualist... one language? an american. hmmm.)

the controversial ufo contactee, billy meier has been "told" that german is the needed language for accuracy... english doesn't get the job done.

then there is hebrew, which is enormously complex with cultural association baggage ... with the letters formed by the casting of a shadow from different directions by light passing through a geometric spiral...with each letter having an associated number which becomes a vital part of the semantic structure. whew! that's enough reason why i incarnated as an american :confused:

so, i would claim that names of things are our friends -- even if they are not perfect and we often abuse and misuse them.

i think there was an original point to this posting, but i find myself with an embarrasing loss of words.

my name for today is billybobbutterfingers :rolleyes:

[soup]

...so, i would claim that names of things are our friends -- even if they are not perfect and we often abuse and misuse them...


it doesn't seem a very complex idea to classify things and neatly bin sort them into organized compartments with everything in its place - but this doesn't seem the only way to operate.

for example at some level finely intermixed swirls of panoramic color may seem misplaced in a system built upon finite gray scales. the work to cram the colors in such a limited system can diminish beauty to faded renditions.

likewise, the languages of metaphysics likewise contains inherent limitation, and so obscures truth. in some cases it may be useful to drop names and acts of classifications in effort to appreciate a greater reality.

friends can help us discover ourselves in ways which we may not get opportunity for otherwise. there seems trade-offs: different types of friends help us in different ways, and people seem to have a limited bandwidth with which to manage their friendships (hence the trade-offs.)

so if one makes friends with simple acts such as naming and classification, keep in mind there seem other friends out there who offer an alternative to such simple acts - friends who strive not to obscure the truth as such, i.e. by communicating complex ideas as best they can (without names).

[billybobbutterball]

[quote=soup;22744] for example at some level finely intermixed swirls of panoramic color may seem misplaced in a system built upon finite gray scales. the work to cram the colors in such a limited system can diminish beauty to faded renditions.

## (sorry, don't know how to highlight the box quotes)

hi soup

i think i can see the problem of what you are alluding to, but it seems possible to circumvent perceived difficulties by using a dialectic to further define and elaborate the terminology i.e., in order to upgrade the semantic description ... here is a sloppy example: there is no science of "darkness", however there is a science of light, namely optics. an intended study of darkness turns out to be rather lame, so i would need to re-classify my subject under the heading of "the phenomenon of light" as being the proper object of knowledge.

##

(soup) likewise, the languages of metaphysics likewise contains inherent limitation, and so obscures truth. in some cases it may be useful to drop names and acts of classifications in effort to appreciate a greater reality.

##

(bb) i would think the same argument goes for the above. can you give me an example of appreciating a greater reality by dropping names and classifications? the ra and its #1 offspring q'uo often make a point that words cannot adequately encompass the concept they desire to get across --so they try the best they can through generating an indirect inference... but words are used to accomplish this ... perhaps telepathy could do the job; but if words are not used for the transmission the alternatives, mental images or emotive stimulation, still need to be translated to convey insights to others.

well, i guess there is that last resort of appealing to the concept term, "enlightenment" :)

darn! just another thing name.

perhaps the world of words can be compared to classical physics ... in that it also falls to uselessness in the realm of the quanta. i guess, soup, we really need quantum communication. :cool:

pondering the futility of trying to understand anything, i remain, billybaffled

[MarkM]

having been an artist, i view artforms as a celebratory attempt on the part of humanity to re-create and communicate our environment in ways that vary, in that an artist can interpret any subject, concept or object in an infinite number of ways, depending on his whim.

people have always enjoyed performing or purviewing art, and as such art has always been associated with the best that human culture has to offer.

the artist has the freedom to communicate his own interpretations of that which exists to others in the tacit understanding that what the artist purveys is never to be mistaken as the 'real' thing; for example, a realistic wildlife panorama by robert bateman can take one's breath away, but no one mistakes a painting of a wolf for a wolf. the painting is understood to be a profoundly crude facsimile, although we cherish the work for it's beauty and inspiration, what it tells us of the love of the artist for his subject, and what it has given us in terms of a glimpse into the sensitivities and 'humanness' of the artist.

similarly, a surrealistic mind tripping canvas by salvadore dali can inspire us to allow our own crazy inner vision to come forth and we can be impressed by dali's ability to roughly communicate his own imagination to us.

to someone who has never seen an animal such as a wolf, a painting will give only the most spurious idea of what a wolf is. from a painting, you will not get the feel of its breath on your face, the scent of its body or the hair-raising experience of its howl.

a dali-esque image of a melting clock face can stir your own musing of what lies beneath your perception of time, but little of dali's insights on this matter, even if this is part of what he was trying to convey.

all the same, the popularity of art has never waned in any culture, because it is the nature of people to want to express their own unique perspective of what is, as it is the nature of people to want to receive that communication and interpret it as best they can.

perhaps the great glory here is in the attempt itself, as we each hunger to be understood, and to understand others. ever refining our art as a progressive attempt to know each other. separate from each other, ever striving to be one. taking inspiration received from others and creating new styles - always searching for understanding.

in a sense, this is the story of humankind's sojourn in 3d earth. one result of the veiling (or blinkering ) of us here is that it has engendered a dynamic searching for each other, through the medium of art perhaps first and foremost, in ways as grand and beautiful and as varied as there are artistic styles on earth. we are all artists, each freely unique, and we spend all our lives refining our artistic abilities for the purpose of communication.

this great, dynamic tension created by the reaching out to each other through artforms spurs the great creative genius of mankind. we are set apart, yet yearn to be together. i suspect that this is one way in which the one infinite creator is enriched, edified, and illuminated; and that is, by setting up this game, setting up rules for itself, putting on the blindfold, tieing one arm behind its back and stepping out onto the gameboard, eager and excited to see what happens next, purposely not fast-forwarding to the ending to see what happens.

maybe by having just plain lived our lives all this time is the greatest gift and the truest form of worship there is.

mark

[soup]

...can you give me an example of appreciating a greater reality by dropping names and classifications?...

one time i was attempting to softly and sensually kiss a woman on her lips, and as we would pause, she would openly compare me to every kiss she ever had and rated the extent of my tongue movement on the roof of her mouth as hinting to my tongue upon her other body parts, ahem. i contemplated the possibility that we could just be quiet to foster a tenderness of the moment, (as i had enjoyed during better kisses in my lifetime,) as if that peace might enhance our connection, even though i felt totally turned off. i felt robbed by her acts of naming and classification. if there was a truth to be known within intimacy, it wouldn't be known between me and her.

[billybobbutterball]

quote:
...can you give me an example of appreciating a greater reality by dropping names and classifications?...

soup: one time i was attempting to softly and sensually kiss a woman on her lips, and as we would pause, she would openly compare me to every kiss she ever had and rated the extent of my tongue movement on the roof of her mouth as hinting to my tongue upon her other body parts, ahem. i contemplated the possibility that we could just be quiet to foster a tenderness of the moment, (as i had enjoyed during better kisses in my lifetime,) as if that peace might enhance our connection, even though i felt totally turned off. i felt robbed by her acts of naming and classification. if there was a truth to be known within intimacy, it wouldn't be known between me and her.

##

hi, soup.

well, that is certainly an interesting illustration.

i would offer that it misses the point in that i supposed we were discussing categorizing abstract philosophical concepts to help define the particular ball field (s) we are attempting to play in. (vz pantheism/panentheism )

on a higher conceptual level your observation that over-analyzing can ruin an emotional experience puts you -- for that moment anyway -- somewhere into hobbes particular philosophical classification of being a "sensationalist" i.e., a subvariety of empircism that holds that all knowledge is derived from sensation. ( kant used the term to designate the content sensed rather than the process of sensing.)

of course one might surmise that if the young (?) lady of your encounter had used positive tems of endearment your experience, and later verbal description, might have been elevated to a different and higher order. :)

hmmm. trying hard but failing to remember what kissing was all about. ( i quess i could be properly catagorized as being "brainiusdeadus")

best! billybutterpure.

[soup]

[quote]...on a higher conceptual level your observation that over-analyzing can ruin an emotional experience puts you -- for that moment anyway -- somewhere into hobbes particular philosophical classification of being a "sensationalist" ...quote]

there is a ayurvedic recipe for ghee (clarified butter) which involves slowly warming the organic unsalted butter until the water foams and evaporates and the milk solids sink in a way whereupon the more stable oil is skimmed and separated to form the ghee. they say that such oil is best for cooking as it increases one's immunity and inner strength. it is very stable and can be stored at room temperature without spoiling, and has a beneficial effect on cholesterol levels.

possibly this recipe may work in a metaphoric way, here in this forum.

[billybobbutterball]

[quote]...on a higher conceptual level your observation that over-analyzing can ruin an emotional experience puts you -- for that moment anyway -- somewhere into hobbes particular philosophical classification of being a "sensationalist" ...quote]

there is a ayurvedic recipe for ghee (clarified butter) which involves slowly warming the organic unsalted butter until the water foams and evaporates and the milk solids sink in a way whereupon the more stable oil is skimmed and separated to form the ghee. they say that such oil is best for cooking as it increases one's immunity and inner strength. it is very stable and can be stored at room temperature without spoiling, and has a beneficial effect on cholesterol levels.

possibly this recipe may work in a metaphoric way, here in this forum.

ghee, soup, i feel rather threatened... the vibe i pick up is that you are suggesting that i -- billybob butterball -- should be sat on a hot stove until i become melted down and thus rendered inpotent by being seperated into discrete parts. oh! the humanity!

hmmm. nah, just a coincidence in terminology...i'm sure, maybe. :)

sorry, soup, everybody, couldn't control myself ;)

best, billious g. aka b.b.butterfat :rolleyes:

[MarkM]

point 1: at work, we have a huge warehouse with endless rows of product, with over 15,000 different part numbers. without some efficient means of classification by type and labelling of bin boxes, etc., we would be lost.

point 2: medical science has an obsession with classification and labeling of various human afflictions. often a patient with, say, a mental or emotional problem is pigeon-holed into a pre-existing, defined diagnosis, and are then prescribed drugs which are given to all patients who fall into that particular slot.

now in the first example given, we see where compartmentalizing and labeling is a necessary thing.

in the second, we see the potential for the human predilection for labeling and so on to overlook the fact that every individual is unique, with a unique need for care and attention.

in my experience, a person is better served medically or psychologically by a personallized, wholistic approach, searching through various means to uncover the root causes of the ailment, and then designing a therapy to address these core issues, a therapy tailor-made for the patient.

generally speaking, ailments, especially of the mental and emotional kind, are as unique to the sufferer as the lives they have lived; and as such require a unique treatment.

in medicine, it is obviously necessary to classify and label human pathology, as it gives the pathologist a starting point in his search for a diagnosis. likewise, a certain remedy can be valued as being tried and true.

true healing doesn't occur, though, if the root cause of an ailment isn't discovered. this is where medicine sometimes falls short, in that often the healer looks only as far as the classification in his medical texts that his patient falls into, and prescribes drugs by rote that are often designed only to mask the symptoms.

in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, some compartmentalization, classifying and labelling is obviously a necessary thing, too, much as in a warehouse. again, this is but a starting point, a tool used in locating part #s3069-st-4, or in the case of my spirituality, a means perhaps to codify to myself and others certain precepts.


i'm a unique 'patient', though, and in my seeking inwardly for that which separates me from my maker, i find that much of what i used to utilize in the way of pre-built thought edifices is not as relevant as it once was.

but that's just me; it worked for me at the time, as it works for many.

-mark

[soup]

....ghee, soup, i feel rather threatened....

ghee is quite delicious and healthy too, nothing to be threatened by there. there's another ayurvedic recipe for kichari, which in a basic form contains brown rice, mung beans, ghee, cummin, coriander, and turmeric (this combination promoted as a form of basic regenerating medicinal food.)

possibly "all of us" combined form a sort of metaphoric medicinal food.

[billybobbutterball]

ghee is quite delicious and healthy too, nothing to be threatened by there. there's another ayurvedic recipe for kichari, which in a basic form contains brown rice, mung beans, ghee, cummin, coriander, and turmeric (this combination promoted as a form of basic regenerating medicinal food.)

possibly "all of us" combined form a sort of metaphoric medicinal food.

billous g. says: gee, soup, i was just engaging in a bit of tomfoolery. i've clarified butter in the past to make ghee ... now i generally use coconut, krill, cod, walnut, olive ... plus ground flax sesame and chia. i've done kichari but grains and beans are not part of my current diet -- which is admittedly weird -- but it seems to be working since in contemplating my rapidly shrinking age group i see that i'm among the last guy's still standing... but that of course could change at a moment's notice! :o

"all of us combined"? ...metaphoric med food? that is a stretch, but all of us combined into a social memory complex like the ra would make for an interesting soup-mix. :)

whoops! there i go again; more silliness .....sorry. :rolleyes:

[soup]

...that is a stretch, but all of us combined into a social memory complex like the ra would make for an interesting soup-mix...

the funny thing is that this could already be some reality, as if the ra is one of the master chefs in this kitchen called earth, who may seem behind closed doors of course (though more likely has some hand in "everything.")

[billybobbutterball]

bbb says:

as mentioned in this thread earlier all cosmos can be
resolved into light energy...i.e.,the mysterious photon
which pervades all space and fills it with unbelievable density.

omraam mikael aivanhov -- one of my favorite spiritual
giants of the past, thought to be one of the white
brotherhood, addresses this point:



"creation is an unbroken unity. although it appears to have
boundaries and discontinuities, in fact there are no actual
divisions anywhere. the refraction of light by a prism gives us
the most remarkable example of this.
a beam of white light represents the 1. when broken up into
parts, it becomes 7, the seven colours. isn't it extraordinary
to see how from this unity, this white light, such diversity is
born: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red? what
better than light represents this passage from unity to
diversity and diversity to unity?

and now, look at these colours and try to see where
the red ends and the orange begins. show me where
they separate, where the border lies between the two.
you won't find it, because it isn't there. and the
example of light is particularly interesting, since light
is the very substance of the universe."

omraam mikhaël aïvanhov

( this daily meditation came from prosveta publishing )

billybutterlight :)

[MarkM]

just the other night i was sat outside on a warm evening under a patio umbrella lined with little white lights, transferring my digital photo collection from dvd disk to my new laptop. as i held a disk in my hand waiting to put it in the computer i became enraptured by the prismatic effect of light reflecting off the disc.

such beautiful vivid colours! as i slightly tilted the disc back and forth, causing the multi-coloured rays of light to proceed out from the center of the disc and back, i tried to discern the relative length of each colour in relation to the other colours, knowing that one must account for the exponential increase in the average length of a colour the further you get from the center of the disc, trying to make a correlation between this relative interval and the interval between notes on the diatonic musical scale, i.e. whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half.

but the effort to discern the boundaries between colours proved a challenge, or at least where to place estimated boundaries anyway. i wondered if colour blindness or tone deafness is symptomatic of a blockage of an energy center. can people be tone deaf to some tones and not others?

musically i have perfect pitch, meaning i can instinctively tune a guitar, for example, without even fifth-fretting the adjacent string, or relying on a guitar tuner. but trying to pinpoint just where green becomes blue, for example, was indeed impossible.

musical notes combine, if you keep wthin the strictures of music theory, into beautiful sounding chords, of which there are thousands of variations. but notwithstanding quarter tonal music of the east, if just one note is slightly out of tune, the resulting chord or melodic progression is sour and quite unpleasant, unless bent into its anticipated resolution.

but strangely, i thought to myself, there are no un-beautiful colours on the spectrum. but if you hear one musical note alone, with no others, there is no relative framework to judge it as sour or true...it can be beautiful in its own right, like a colour, although colours can be said to 'clash'.



so i tried guessing at the location of the center of each colour, where red is the reddest, and blue is the bluest, without paying attention to where the colour divisions occur, and of course this is a subjective game at best.

but in general i did seem to be able to roughly detect a correlation, at least in my mind, between the spectrum and the diatonic scale, in the sense of intervals.

if one took an evenly projected prismatic spectrum of light and super-imposed it on top of an equal length line that has the diatonic notes marked upon it accurately plotted in terms of relative distance based on a cycles per second (remember this from music class?), i wondered what kinds of correlations i would see.

i wondered if any mathematical modelling of the platonic solids might betray some correlation between this 'whole, whole, half' aspect of music (with my perhaps imagined detection of the same intervalling in the spectrum) and the relative number of angles and/or the number of node points, for example, between each platonic solid, or in the relative ratios of degrees of separation of node points from one shape to the next.

or perhaps the number of lines required to draw each shape, or something, knowing that a pure diatonic musical tone will cause a platonic shape to form from colloids suspended in a drop of water.

i began to think of wilcock's research in regards to varying speeds of light throughout the densities of energy in the universe and wondered if these relative speeds which help define boundary areas between...

then a cat jumped into my lap and i almost dropped the disk. the computer was patiently asking me to 'insert disc now' i had been sat there staring at the damn disc for over half an hour!

what a wonderful contemplative meditation!

yours truly, markbedazzled

[soup]

...the computer was patiently asking me to 'insert disc now' i had been sat there staring at the damn disc for over half an hour!...

an irony seems that a musical cd or dvd disc can be used to build a very simple "cd spectrometer" which breaks light into a spectrum of colors.

[soup]

i think that the dvd format is changing to "blue ray" type which must offer more information density and speed. i wonder if chakras are the same way.


soup

[soup]

this may relate to the old notion of chakra racism,
where people get so caught up in the high information
density of higher chakras that they dismiss the lower
chakras as inferior in a way that an imbalance occurs
manifesting an inner schism, not so unlike the external
manifestation of racism so many seem familiar with.

in simpler terms, there seem inherent limitations
within superiority complex attitudes.


soup

[Metamike]

i have researched this subject earlier, so i am pretty certain i have my facts straight - but first of all this matter is only important in an academic framework. "god" is! monotheism is the belief that "god" is a personal entity with a personality as we might understand that. this is the basis of the christian and muslim belief systems. polytheism, is not necessarily the belief of many "gods" but rather the idea that "god" is an essence which is in all things. it also precludes a hierarchy of spiritual begins.

in this case, the case must be closed. we are all sparks of the same source.
:)

[billybobbutterball]

i have researched this subject earlier, so i am pretty certain i have my facts straight - but first of all this matter is only important in an academic framework. "god" is! monotheism is the belief that "god" is a personal entity with a personality as we might understand that. this is the basis of the christian and muslim belief systems. polytheism, is not necessarily the belief of many "gods" but rather the idea that "god" is an essence which is in all things. it also precludes a hierarchy of spiritual begins.

in this case, the case must be closed. we are all sparks of the same source.
:)

okay, meta, you hit a raw nerve ... meet me in the morning in the cemetary behind the church...bring your dueling pistols:mad:

:)

mike this very question has been thrashed out some years back and you can find some nifty discussions in the archives. the concept of pantheism has some major defects that seriously undermine its viability.

a far superior basic concept of god is that of panentheism -- which is the doctrine that god is both transcendant and immanent... it covers all the bases and fits in perfectly with the loo.

simple pantheism asserts that god is the cosmos and the cosmos is god.
panentheism in contrast makes an important distinction that god is indeed the cosmos, but the cosmos is not god. (i.e., the whole is more than the sum of the parts) doesn't that make sense?

if you google 'panentheism charles hartshorne', you can come up with a wealth of interesting essays. hartshorne developed a probablitiy "truthtable" that he used to rate some 16 or so concepts of god. the one coming out as the most likely candidate of being true was panentheism. (pantheism was far down the list)

a fellow scholar of his dubbed charles "the einstein of religious thought"
in christian theological circles the concept has fueled what is now known as "process theology".

here is one section that i lifted from a longer article:
## snip
... in other words, god is the universe but is also greater than the universe. often panentheists also believe that this god has a mind, created the universe, and cares about each of us personally. pantheists on the other hand believe that the universe itself is divine and do not believe in personal or creator gods.

as a result, for those who are familiar with the concept, panentheism is a "middle way" between the extremes of impersonal pantheism in which personal freedom and creativity become nullified in an impersonal world, and extremes of philosophical theism in which the divine may be personal, but is too remote to be of any comfort or interest.

panentheism differs from deism, which only postulates a god separate from nature. it differs from pantheism in that the latter identifies god with nature, although it agrees with pantheism that the god includes nature as a part of its being. probably the most definitive and systematic explanation of panentheism in modern times can be found in the writings of charles hartshorne, a follower of whitehead.

according to hartshorne, panentheism can best be understood through an analogy: just as a single organism exists both as as a collection of semiautonomous, individual cells and as an autonomous individual who is more than just a collection of cells, god can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. although we, along with the rest of existence, can be thought of as part of god's "body," god's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes god to be more than just a collection of parts.

as parts of god, our freedom is not absolute - just as the freedom of cells in our body is not absolute. at the same time, our actions and thoughts are not dependent upon or controlled by god any more than we are able to consciously control and direct the actions of our individual cells. we may be more than our cells, but we depend upon our cells acting independently of our minds in order for us to grow and even to be in the first place.

##snip

thanks, meta.you were close....just needed to insert the missing "en" :)
(hey! forget the dumb pistol business)

billybobphilosophicus

[Metamike]

the question discussed here is really one that asks us to take sides with one of two different choices, pantheism or monotheism. like the answer to my post, here you are providing a third example - which is more matching of the map to the territory.

the greatest problem i history is that mankind has such a limited grip on the territory, much less the map they use to navigate in it!

mike:)

[GeoLaureate]

(this was supposed to be a new thread, but the mods put it here.)

based on david wilcock's research and views, he seems to take a pantheistic stance that the universe is god, which i agree. what i don't understand (and would like clarified) is why he denies pantheism in interviews, and actually refers to it as if he doesn't understand what it means. in one interview, he explained how jesus came and enlightened us with monotheism over pantheism, polytheism, etc.

in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oirk7ojpa3w), he said:

"intelligence is an intrinsic quality of energy, space, and time itself. and every ancient tradition including christianity and all the world religions, essentially come back to a monotheistic concept in the end. they may have pantheism insofar as they see hierarchical structures of life beyond the level we're at now. but i think all philosophies of any lasting impact end up coming back to this idea that there is one creator, and it's basically a dream that the universe is having of duality, separation, space, and time. and in fact everything resolves to a singularity, and there is only identity, and the identity is one consciousness."

he is implying that pantheism is pluralistic and false, and monotheism is true, yet, suggests that the universe itself is conscious, which is exactly pantheism.

is there anyone that knows what he's talking about or can clarify this for me?

.

[billybobbutterball]

hi, geo.

you pose an interesting question...which i think one possible answer is presented two posts back (actually its one of my posts concerning the subject, of which happens to be a favorite obsession of mine.)

i'm not a christian per se, but i will drag out a biblical concept to further muddy the water.
the point is made that god is both immanent and transcendent, i.e., in the world yet beyond it. but christian theology cold-shoulders immanence and cleaves to theism -- a term that to me translates to 'transcendence'...implying an absolute separation between god and its creation....in bridging that great, bottomless gulf between the creator/creation is what jesus -- the christed one -- is all about.

now, i don't know all of david wilcock's thoughts on the matter, but i would guess that he would consider the concept ot panentheism (note the en!) a viable candidate as a suitable philosophical word label to stick on it.

so.....

in pantheism, god is the cosmos/the cosmos is god.

in panentheism, god is indeed the cosmos, but the cosmos is not god.

the difference is vast in that panentheism implies that the whole is greater than the mere sum of the cosmic parts.

the biggest danger here is in trying to expand on the basic, un-frilled concept by cluttering it up with half-baked ideas in trying to put a ribbon around it.

addendum. i ran across a web site that supports the concept of panendeism..:confused:.

i don't know what to make of it...deism is nicknamed "the absentee landlord" concept of deity..i don't see where this idea :eek: fits anywhere into the law of one.

hope some of the above addresses your philosophically insightful question.

and geo...since you are a thinker you will soon be raising questions about that slippery term.....free will ....there is a lot of postings on that subject lurking in the dusty archives.

best etc.:) bbb

as per usual...my own interpretations, not official pronouncements...use what fits,
circle file what doesn't. thanks!



based on david wilcock's research and views, he seems to take a pantheistic stance that the universe is god, which i agree. what i don't understand (and would like clarified) is why he denies pantheism in interviews, and actually refers to it as if he doesn't understand what it means. in one interview, he explained how jesus came and enlightened us with monotheism over pantheism, polytheism, etc.

in this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oirk7ojpa3w), he said:

"intelligence is an intrinsic quality of energy, space, and time itself. and every ancient tradition including christianity and all the world religions, essentially come back to a monotheistic concept in the end. they may have pantheism insofar as they see hierarchical structures of life beyond the level we're at now. but i think all philosophies of any lasting impact end up coming back to this idea that there is one creator, and it's basically a dream that the universe is having of duality, separation, space, and time. and in fact everything resolves to a singularity, and there is only identity, and the identity is one consciousness."

he is implying that pantheism is pluralistic and false, and monotheism is true, yet, suggests that the universe itself is conscious, which is exactly pantheism.

is there anyone that knows what he's talking about or can clarify this for me?

.

[MarkM]

i think that from a law of one perspective, no school of thought can be said to be intrinsically false. all journeys and their stages and philosophies are of intrinsic value to the creator. distortion of the oneness of the creator is what allows for experiencing, including the creator's own experiencing.

if not for a distorting of infinite intelligent unity into diversity, mystery and differing viewpoints, the creator would have no means of exploring it's own potential. something about distortion is that the concept of manyness then arises, and now the creator enjoys the distortion of being many seemingly separate individual entities, which can interact and learn from the standpoint of mystery.

a person who begins to wonder about their origins and reason for being and their purpose necessarily has the distortion of confusion as a starting point. many schools of thought will arise within the evolving human society, and it's this richness and diversity of experiencing which is the primary purpose of the creator's foray into distortion. yet there is always the up-calling to an increasing piercing of the veil and the lessening of distortion, and the process of self discovery and the dynamic evolution of one's own self-discovery is the joy of the creator. after all, it is 'our' experiences which serve as the experiencing of the creator, for every individual is the creator in a temporarily mystified form. it's not that you or i are a portion of the creator; each of us is in fact the creator in full, imo.

such a concept as falsity is a distortion, as no experience is without value to the evolving experiencer - but in order to exist here and function, the concept of greater or lesser distortion is useful. really, saying 'partial distortion' is like saying 'half bent',:p but some things outlive their usefulness to an individual and other distortions are sought and tried on. if you tell me that the world is only 6000 years old, for example, my first impulse would be to declare this as a falsity. yet this belief has been very useful to many, many souls in their becoming, and so the concept is as valuable in general terms as any other. depending on how you approach the conversation, everything or nothing can be false!

for me, to explore pantheistic philosophy (as i once did) is no longer appropriate for me as i work at applying loo principles in my daily life. this is where it's at for me at this time, and gives me joy and a sense of value.

i realize that the loo is a distortion itself, and begins and ends in confusion. but it can work to offer the seeking individual experiential insight into the idea that conscious awareness is a non-local phenomenon, that there's something to the notion of intelligent awareness being the primary reality, and that every manifest piece of creation contains the entire creator.

just my own rushed musings of comparative philosophy, take me with a grain of salt or three. mark