Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[JustLikeYou]

Please forgive me and cease the wheel of karma from turning.

I'm not upset with you. I did, however, respond to your post as I read it (rather than read first, respond later), which left me somewhat disappointed because in the course of my reading, I began to feel more and more as if I was wasting my effort. I'll take responsibility for that. I know it is one of the drawbacks of my responding habits.

If you have legitimate concerns with the philosophy, I want to hear them. The criticism of others is the whetstone upon which I prefer to sharpen my own worldview.

I am a little curious as to your use of the concept of karma, despite your reservations about New Agey Stuff.

Also, "as far as the theory can go" is really quite far, Larsons theory is large in scope and accounts for a lot of what Ra says to be true in book II, you can't just dismiss it. Also Ra did say Geller was the real deal and the phenomenon is possible under Ra's model, so are you cherry picking or do you believe Geller can bend spoons with his mind?

I don't dismiss it entirely. I dismiss it as needing to be a robust condender for a practical scientific theory. If it is not, then that is "as far as the theory can go." Frankly, I also don't know enough about it to say much more. I'm interested, but only because Ra affirms it.

Also Ra did say Geller was the real deal and the phenomenon is possible under Ra's model, so are you cherry picking or do you believe Geller can bend spoons with his mind?

I know Carla and Jim. They tell stories of Geller's spoonbending and they even keep some of the spoons as a souvenir. I know them to be trustworthy, so I believe the story and anything else is simply irrelevant to my belief. Geller could have been stark raving mad for all I care. What I know is that Carla and Jim witnessed him spoonbending.

I just have one question JLY, would you have any qualm with this material being false? Do you want it to be true? I'm not trying to logically trap you here I'm just curious.

This is the rub.

None of the above conversation really matters. It genuinely has no bearing on my perspective whether Ra turns out to be a man behind the curtain. I make heavy use of the worldview Ra presents, but not because I hope it is true or because I desperately want a more fantastical picture of life to stave off the daily ho-hum of eat/sleep/sex/work.

The measure of a theory its is practical application. With a charitable mind, I brought this philosophy into my world. I acted as if it were true, testing claims on an individual basis to see which of Ra's claims actually had relevance to my experience.

I have no data to present to you because this was an entirely subjective experience. Ra talks about a choice between STS and STO. So I payed attention in my experience to see where I was choosing, how it impacted my experience, and whether the choice was actually necessary.

I haven't addressed every single one of Ra's metaphysical claims, but every claim I've found conclusive (personal) results concerning has been accurate. I have yet to prove Ra wrong, despite my efforts--especially when, as βαθμιαίος descibes, I sometimes want Ra to be wrong.

So I really don't know how to answer your question. I don't have any qualm with anything being false, but I don't think the question makes sense given my perspective.

Do you have any qualms with the law of gravity being false?

You have amassed data concerning this law which crystallizes a conviction in you that what the "law of gravity" names something real. The specific details of how it works and how it relates to other aspects of physical reality may not be exactly as contemporary scientific theories say, but the phenomenon is not going to go away and any explanation of it will still look roughly like F=(GMm)/(d^2).

And so it is with the Law of One. Ra's description of this system may not be relevant in 100 years, but it names many, many things which my experience has shown me to be real phenomena.

So it doesn't matter to me if Ra is replaced by something else (in fact, I'd like that. Ra is a pain in the ass sometimes), but I find it ludicrous to suggest that the entire philosophy has no bearing on the world we experience (not that you are suggesting this).