"...spirit complex, though apparent rather than real...having existed potentially"

[Unbound]

This quote kind of changes things a bit in my mind though:

(27.5) Questioner: It is not necessary to divide it. The definition of intelligent infinity as one part is sufficient. Could you please now define intelligent infinity?

Ra: I am Ra. This is exponentially simpler and less confusing. There is unity. This unity is all that there is. This unity has a potential and kinetic. The potential is intelligent infinity. Tapping this potential will yield work. This work has been called by us, intelligent energy.

Here Intelligent Infinity and Intelligent Energy are apparently paralleled and instead unity is the ultimate singular noun. I suppose unity is the only thing in itself and everything else is in some way a distortion of that, so calling unity ANY one thing, whether that be mind, intelligent infinity, love, or anything else, is still incorrect, as unity can only be defined by its singleness.

---

(27.12) Questioner: I would like for you to define love in the sense— in its sense as the second distortion.

Ra: I am Ra. This must be defined against the background of intelligent infinity or unity or the One Creator with the primal distortion of free will. The term Love then may be seen as the focus, the choice of attack, the type of energy of an extremely, shall we say, high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in just such and such a way. This then may be seen to be an object rather than an activity by some of your peoples, and the principle of this extremely strong energy focus being worshiped as the Creator instead of unity or oneness from which all Loves emanate.

Although this quote first parallels intelligent infinity, unity and the One Creator, specifically with free will and then Love is the focus. So can we presume love to be the One Thought? If it is the One Thought held in an Infinite Mind, does that suppose that it is the perfect expression of the activity of intelligence? However, if we define Mind as the base of all reality, doesn't that thus limit the concept of intelligence to something which is finite and must need be based on a rational basis when in fact infinity must also account for completely irrational senses of experience, completely unfathomable and untouchable to those not in them. What exactly are we ascribing to be the fundamental property of infinity? Is it mind? Why equate infinity with mind? That is highly presumptuous.

---

Also, I would probably now put free will as a thing in itself prior to the logos, I guess presuming that free will as the first distortion is awareness and the logos/love is the focusing of that awareness.

/thinkingoutloudintext