Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[JustLikeYou]

As a whole, your objections have a very snarky language to them. It is clear to me that you are not actually interested in understanding why anyone would "actually believe this stuff." This is unfortunate, too, because I think your objections could have been raised with more force if you had taken the task seriously.

First, I'm going to object to your assertion that the Ra Material is unhealthy because people read it and think unhealthy things. Shall we, then, consider Nietzsche unhealthy because he inspired Nazis? Shall we bury Hegel because it begat Marx's ill-conceived ideology?

This is a dubious line of thinking. People will misunderstand no matter what you say or how you say it.

1. The system by which one achieves polarization (acceptance which has a corresponding affect on the violet ray vibration) which results in the product of a orientation of service (STO/STS) and a method attaining higher realms of existence is just put out there, by what mechanic does this actually function, "time/space" magic?

Ra is using concept of magnetism here. The idea is that the complex self has many elements in it which are oriented STS (south), STO (north) or in some other direction entirely, just like the magnetic orientation of particles in a body. These metaphysical particles (if you will) are nodes in the psyche, areas of specific (in a simple particle) or broad (in a complex particle) concern. So think of your individual relationships with others, the various traits you do or don't like about yourself and others, etc., etc.

Metaphysical particles in the self can be either intentionally or accidentally polarized. Accidental polarization is a state of consciousness reached without knowing how you got there. So some event happens, a crisis, say, and everything clarifies for you and you know exactly what to do without all the emotional baggage you'd usually have. This is like placing a body in the field of a strong magnet. The body will temporarily polarize, but once the strong magnet is removed, the body will rapidly lose its polarization.

Intentional polarization is the mechanism of consciously finding each metaphysical element (i.e. knowing yourself) and orienting it either North or South. The method of changing the polarity of a metaphysical particle of self differs depending on direction. The north direction requires acceptance of the particle in reference to both self and other; whereas the south direction requires authority over the particle in self and other.

You might keep in mind that Ra treats the non-physical reality as if it has a set of natural laws just like those studied by physicists in the physical reality. These laws are simply there. They do not explain themselves (though Ra does); they simply give reality the structure it has. We observe them and record their consistency. These natural laws of the metaphysical reality are the same laws that religions have been attempting to enunciate for as far back as history remembers. Just as Aristotle got lots of things wrong in his physical description, so we should expect that even the most prominent spiritual figures in history may not have gotten it all right.

2. Relying on Larson to be correct is a right laugh, of course it's easy to do when you don't understand science (but believe you do) or philosophy, his work is heavily philosophical and contains no evidence or mathematical proofs, it's not going to be proven *anytime* soon so hoping that it will is just sad.

Don was the one fascinated with Larson. He questioned Ra and Ra said that it "is a correct system as far as it is able to go" (20.7). Given these caveats, I don't see how it impacts Ra's philosophy: Ra didn't fully endorse it themselves.

3. The human history aspect is incredibly suss, especially how Ra is always messing up the numbers (sometimes contradicting more recently discovered evidence) but has a convenient "our number systems are different so we're allowed to be wrong here" cop out.

If you're not going to read charitably (i.e. by assuming that the author is speaking accurately and truthfully and then piecing the story together in the most coherent way possible), I suggest you don't read at all. Criticism encultures its medium, but cynicism only infects it.

4. The association with Uri Geller, a fraud, people will say "but the only reason Uri couldn't magic around Randi was because it would infringe free will as it would tear the popular narrative that magic isn't real asunder" give me a break lol. Andrijia Puharich's wife was quoted noting the gullibility of her husband in his parapsychological investigations.

I don't see how this is relevant to Ra's philosophy. It bespeaks another one of Don's fascinations.

5. The whole cosmology is childish and lacks sophistication.

On the contrary, it is the most sophisticated cosmology I have seen yet. In fact, studying this material has made fantasy almost impossible for me to enjoy: the incongruities and over-simplifications of most cosmologies invented by fantasy authors render their systems laughable in comparison to Ra's.

So tell me, what do you mean by "childish" and "lacks sophistication"? I can't respond especially well until you define these pejorative terms.

6. The "all is one" sentiment, wow what insight, every whole is a part of another greater whole, thank you kindergarten. If your frame of reference is the entire universe than yes, of course all must be regarded as one, but is a human the entire universe?

The Law of One (or the "all is one" sentiment as you call it) is not the principle that any plurality can be grouped into a whole. It is that the whole is One without differentiation, that these differentiations are illusory (illusory does not mean "non-existent"; it means "incorrectly perceived"). And, according to Ra's cosmogenesis, the creation begins with a mystery: the One became many through the mysterious onset of awareness. That is, the One discovered itself as Subject to itself as Object. This distinction is the basic premise on which the material world could be produced by something that is indivisibly one.

As you know, a subject contains its object in itself in a multitude of ways: we project our baises upon others, we construct phenomenological accounts of our experience; we seek meaning in a world that never told us it had meaning. Similarly, the object also contains the subject: there is no way to distinguish the perceiving self from the reality it observes. The two are inextricably linked.

If all existence is built around this one discovery, then it should not be surprising that the Law of One has the property of holography. The identity between human and universe, however, is not one which is meant to be perceived within this specific illusion: the whole point was to experience the many, not to remember the One without any effort.

7. Harvest= modern analogue of the idea of purification, past analogues have included Buddhist ascension and christian salvation. Also, many people get messiah like about it which is of course distasteful.

What is recognized by all of these perspectives is the existence of some kind of transition from this experience to another. All of these systems are attempting to articulate a natural metaphysical law (an archetype).

I don't understand how this is an objection.

8. Wanderers- just textbook hero journey stuff (this has been in the human mind since at least Gilgamesh), of course people love identifying as wanderers, makes 'em feel special. Of course such a ridiculous concept can fit into the model of reality that the Law of One provides since the model accounts for everything ever, which is the appeal and it's biggest flaw.

The hero is an archetype. It names a natural law embedded into the structure of the human mind. That it is expressed by many cultures is what one would expect.

"[I]t accounts for everything ever" is not something I can intelligently respond to.

9. Orion - Convenient faceless, all encompassing enemies to blame.

Straw man:
(a) Orion is only one group amony many STS grousp.
(b) Ra avoids all blame conversation. They are very careful about being seen as "judging" (by which Ra means moral condemnation).
© Don's questions, as always, lead the conversation where it goes. Ra simply answers.

10. preveil- Yeah, the idea of innocence lost (introduction of "evil" STS) is allegory for humans evolving from the animal psyche read the bible or any world mythology lol. Like I said these ideas have been around for forever and take new forms depending on context. You're pumping words out of an unconscious woman you're gonna see stuff like this, deep thoughts from the unconscious, taking it literally and thinking that an alien is at work is weird lol.

(a) Again, we're dealing with an archetype.
(b) I've met Carla. There is no way she invented this, conscious or unconscious. In fact, I gave the Ra Material the time of day because its philosophical undergirding is so sophisticated that I knew no one could have made it up on the spot. Perhaps after years of thinking, but even then you couldn't have a conversation with the inventor and still find complete internal coherence.