Canceling the Scholar's Edition of the Law of One material

[rva_jeremy]

It is not The Philosophy of One.  It is merely A Philosophy of One.  It is a single interpretation out of uncountable billions upon billions of interpretations, and all of them are also true, at least to those holding that interpretation.

Extremely well said!  I often point this out: that I don't like to say "All is one" in some final way; I'd rather point out that the unity perspective is simply available, and that I find value in it.  I'm glad others share this distortion.

[APeacefulWarrior]

With a save and load function. xD
I want both, but on a PS3

I can agree with your perspective.  I honestly thought you were saying so personally, not generally, sorry about that!

Heh. Well, I'm on a laptop that's going to be sweating and groaning to even run FO4 at min settings, so I think we're in roughly the same boat.

Anyway, don't worry about it. I can tend towards being high-minded, and I like discussing philosophy in the abstract even when others are, perhaps, more concretist about it than me. That makes it easy for the things I say to come off as more forceful than they're actually intended.

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

I'm just text stupid my friend
Don't mind me lol

Am waiting on one of the B4 seers to offer incite on this area though.

[Steppingfeet]

So am I correctly made to understand that the dispute here has been resolved and a new version will, in fact, be printed?  Paging @Bring4th_GLB and @Bring4th_Austin!

Hey Jeremy, the stars do seem to be mostly aligned to indicate this, yes. : )


Single Volume
Regarding a single-volume, special edition of the Law of One material, that is certainly a possibility that we'd love to accomplish, so long as it's logistically/economically feasible.

And for exactly the reasons you stated: it would simply have great, functional utility. Stronger binding. The entire contact in one place. A comprehensive single index. Portability. Etc.

In reply to APW, there are great advantages to digital versions and search engines, no doubt. But there are also, like Jeremy was saying, advantages to printed versions. For keyword searching I prefer the former. For reading I prefer the latter, especially as I am a highlighter, dog-earer, asterisk maker, underliner, in-the-margins notemaker, etc. : ) Neither fully trumps the other, though. Just different mediums, each with their pros and cons.

Added to the utility of a hardcover single-volume edition is something a bit more personal, which is another direction I think you, Jeremy, were headed. The material is of great personal significance to many who study its pages, and a single-edition hardcover creates the opportunity to clothe, as it were, the material in a garment that, for many, would accord the book its proper dignity and place in ones heart. A reasonable garment, not one that is covered in a thin layer of diamond-encrusted gold.

No, it's not strictly necessary to put it into a functional hardcover in order to imbue it with proper meaning and significance. Ra's words would be just as powerful to me if written on a roll of toilet paper. But in the very individual, subjective hierarchy of personal significance one ascribes to the great range of books in their lives, the humble messenger's message usually sits near the top for those who fall in love with their wisdom. And many, I'm sure, would simply personally enjoy having one of their favorite, even life-changing books in a nice hardcover edition.


The Bible
Though I know you referenced the Bible only to highlight the mechanical effectiveness of the book's physical features, doing so in a Law of One community is always a bit risky due to the knee-jerk reactions many of us have to comparisons between dogma-free philosophy that honors the First Distortion completely, and dogma-heavy religious structures that make a mess of the First Distortion. One does well to make clear disclaimers and qualifications when drawing comparisons between the two works. : )

While on the topic... the two works aren't so alien and mutually unintelligible that there is no common ground or overlap between them. There are connecting points, there are similarities - as there rightfully are between any two objects in a unified universe. But the two works are not equals, they're not on the same level, and they're not identical. They are fundamentally different enough that there is perhaps more contrast than comparison, and the categories to which they belong require different names. A great conversation for another day!


Loving something without fundamentalism

The Ra Material spoke to a depth within me, or spoke from a depth within me, that few if any sources of information can reach. Personally I feel Ra is a source more credible than anything or anybody I have encountered on this planet. Some of their extraordinary claims hold weight with me because I so implicitly trust Ra’s veracity. Not blindly so, I hope, but because it gets the rational mind’s full assent, and the heart’s deepest most resonant most cheerful “YES”. So far as can be discerned from communication alone, and the dynamics of their dance with the L/L trio, Ra’s intentions were pure, true, and constant; unmuddied by the dirt that distorts most human activity.

I could go on. And on. : )

Being in a representative position for L/L Research is a careful balance, though. To the extent that I am speaking for L/L to spiritual seekers, I don’t want to elevate the material to the position of a sacred cow, a holy work to be revered and upheld above the seeker’s own authority. So I tend to convey its personal significance to my own path while, as L/L Research has always done, reinforcing the seeker’s own inalienable power and authority to find, determine, and create their own path. In that light, the Law of One material becomes a resource, or tool, albeit a resource unlike any other on this planet, so far as I’m aware. Like APW was saying, a philosophy.

The material tends to attract a somewhat developed/mature/sophisticated seeker who is keenly aware of the damage that orthodoxy and dogmatism have rendered in this illusion, so it’s not uncommon to see context and disclaimers balancing professions of heartfelt love and reverence for this philosophy.

But - and I am just saying this for myself, not necessarily speaking to you, Jeremy - it is okay to love something! To cherish and uphold it, and to be unapologetic about ascribing to it great personal value. So long as that doesn't lead to proselytism or evangelical crusading, wear that s*** on your sleeve and beam with appreciation for the service that this philosophy has rendered unto you.

...and then pay it forward by serving others through the depth of your own radiation of realization of oneness with the Creator.

[rva_jeremy]

Thanks for providing some perspective, Gary. It's important that we always remember that personal significance is personal, and everybody is more than entitled to their own feelings and associations, as rich as they are. I have known for a long time that you and I, Gary, have a different character to our attachment to the Law of One Material. And I think I've always benefited from those moments when I could see the work through your eyes. I shall redouble my efforts to extend that empathy, so rewarding in its fullness, to others here.

[Steppingfeet]

Thanks for providing some perspective, Gary.  It's important that we always remember that personal significance is personal, and everybody is more than entitled to their own feelings and associations, as rich as they are.  I have known for a long time that you and I, Gary, have a different character to our attachment to the Law of One Material.  And I think I've always benefited from those moments when I could see the work through your eyes.  I shall redouble my efforts to extend that empathy, so rewarding in its fullness, to others here.

"Personal significance is personal. . . ." I think that's about as nail on the head as it gets.

Regarding the "different character of our attachments," I'd contend they're more similar than different. Both of us have had a deep and abiding love of this philosophy that, though more ebbing and flowing on your part over the years, nevertheless has remained true for both of us; neither of us becoming fanatics, but treating the material as a respected resource, and a beloved companion along the dusty road.

Also forgot to mention that on the point of a single-volume edition, Tobey and I were examining that prospect some time ago and due to the final page count, it might require onion paper (I think it's called) to fit all the pages into one book. It would clock in at around 1,000 pages or so.

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

1000 pages??

Is this on a normal sized print?

Could you possibly reduce the page count by enlarging the length and width of the book to add more page space?  Or is it that calculation at max size?

Then again, 106 sessions each ten pages long would do it.

Thank you though for the information

[Steppingfeet]

1000 pages??

Is this on a normal sized print?

Could you possibly reduce the page count by enlarging the length and width of the book to add more page space?  Or is it that calculation at max size?

Then again, 106 sessions each ten pages long would do it.

Thank you though for the information

I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "normal sized print."

The ballpark total page count given is for a 6 x 9 printing, the standard for all L/L publications. Total page count could certainly be reduced by creating a larger page size, but 6x9 is ideal for optimal reading width. The general upper limit recommended for characters per line (spaces included) is 75. Using our standard font at 12-point yields an average of 67 or so characters per line in a 6x9 page size.

Widen the book any further and columns may become necessary.

Also, the book will include more than just the 106 sessions. New intro, foreword, appendices, massive index, hopefully a photo gallery, etc. So it will probably exceed 1,000 pages.

When the time comes we'll print the book in parts. We don't know the divisions yet, but it won't be four books like the original. Probably three. The single-volume edition, if achievable, would just be a special, additional way to print the book.

Then again, 106 sessions each ten pages long would do it.

The sessions vary in length. They can't be made to fit into a uniform size.

Hope that information helps answer your questions.

[Eddie]

The definition of "optimal reading" varies from reader to reader.  I'd like to see the books in large-print, leather-bound, large format (atlas-sized), as my eyesight is in decline and I have a hard time reading small font even with my glasses.  Such a printing would necessarily be expensive.

If by some miracle I ever come into a fortune, I think this is the first task I'd tackle---funding such a venture.

[Diana]

There is "print on demand" self-publishing. It makes each book more expensive than a publisher-printed version. And there are start-up costs. But anyone wanting it could get one.

[Jade]

My husband was just looking into Createspace for hardcovers, and I think it was something like $100 just to start for one book, and that was @40 pages, and no ability to alter the dimensions of the cover... I'm sure there are other options, I'm just gonna bank on Eddie getting rich soon and giving us all awesome Christmas presents.

[Bring4th_Austin]

We currently utilize CreateSpace for our "in-house" publications. Being a large corporation print-on-demand service, it has its issues, but it has been a great solution for us for many reasons. But their system seems optimal for 6x9 paperbacks. Their options for interior paper are rather limited too, making a large-size single volume much less feasible (no "onion paper"). I would personally love a text book style Law of One book, all in one, but it is necessarily a backburner idea to the standard 6x9 multi-volume publication.

[rva_jeremy]

Gary, for what it's worth I don't care so much about the number of books as I do about the quality of the binding. I'm glad that we're thinking outside the box! It's nice to recognize that the 5 books were in many ways arbitrary divisions of the contact. We can divide them up any way we choose, and with 30+ years of experience to draw on I'd be surprised if we couldn't do better in some ways at least.