I agree with your statements on several points, but I must ask. Is there something to be gained or questioned? Or simply your interpretation of what is?
I agree that the Law of One is an amazing piece of work. And I agree that the Law of One is the law of many (as all are one then all are many).
I have had the great advantage of working with Carla Rueckert for a few years, and through discussions and their (Her and Jim)'s on gleaning's of the information, the personal integration/undrstaning of the specs provided are as unique and as individual as the entity enveloping them.
I can say this, that concept of "a family sitting down with a puzzle" is not at all inaccurate. However, due to our inadequacies of accurately recording our history as a species, and the times leading up to them, we do not "have all the pieces".
So much of what we turn and toss is speculation based on an amalgam of great minds and thinkers, who have compiled and erected specific patterns of said puzzle into interesting and plausible shapes. David has gone the extra mile and looked at the amalgam and erected their puzzle pieces into a greater section of the center of the entirety.
However, some of those pieces may not be from the same puzzle, some may not fit the actuality of light/love love/light and the truth behind the intelligent infinity. We stand now at a pulpit braced and watching as a possibility/probability unfolds before us "making wagers" as it were towards the outcome. David has been VERY wise in his movement in regards to never jumping onto a ship lest his heart is fueling the sails, and thus, he has maintained credibility. His garned praise from the LL Research Foundation only adds to that.
I am afraid you didn't really posit a question, simply a statement, and thus, I responded in kind.
As an aside, the best way to share a truth or understanding is a simply as possible.... And we do not yet have the ability to do so:
The "special introduction" to the 1989 edition of the Feynman Lectures on Physics contains the following paragraph:
Feynman was once asked by a Caltech faculty member to explain why spin 1/2 particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. He gauged his audience perfectly and said, "I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it."
But a few days later he returned and said, "You know, I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it."
The complexity and depth of your musings show an incredible insight into the probabilities/possibilities of what may be/is actually. However, that same complexity will repulse all who do not have a similar grasp on the concepts at hand...
For example, I will condense my post into one sentence:
"So much of what we seek is complex, and we find ourselves trying to find the underlying; However, as other portions piece together their part of the puzzle, we can begin to approach a greater understanding of the final picture as our own pieces fall into place."
Continue Spiraling Ever Upwards