Intelligent Infinity, has no polarization

[Ali Quadir]

i dont want to continue this discussion, because we discussed it many times, and it will become just a repetition of those discussions. however, i will state a few important points and leave this train of thought. there are many sub points in people's posts, and if i get into each, each of those have the potential of going towards full fledged topics itself, as far as i can see.

I would invite you to stick around, but in the end you must do what you must do. You solicited my answers with your suggestions... I will respond to your message, and any that you or anyone else cares to add.

infinity has to be infinite in every aspect. this needing to be infinite is not limited to physical or dimensional characteristics. i am never discussing infinity with ascribing it only such characteristics, when i say infinite, i mean infinite in every way. this also means that, there is only one infinity that is possible, and anything that is a differentiation out of it, has to be different from it.

Not precisely. There are an infinite forms of infinity.
Take for example a grid. If I tell you the grid is two dimensional and infinite in size. Then the grid is infinite, thats clear according to your logic right? But it's not.. An infinitely large grid could still be restricted on it's x axis, or on it's y axis, we do know for sure it's not restricted on both axes. This is the common usage of the word infinity. Used in science math and philosophy and it's usable in these philosophical and esoteric discussions.

The same goes with the philosophical concept of infinity. You can take a universe which is truly infinite. Take from it everything that relates to some object. (Assuming this is possible without removing all content) and your resulting universe is then still infinite in size... Repeat this trick an infinite amount of times, and your universe will STILL be infinite in size.

However, if you take all that is, which you may be talking about instead of infinity, and remove from it a single atom. Then you're no longer holding all that is. Infinity clearly is not equivalent to all that is. But from your objections I gather that you might be using 'totality' as a concept while you call it 'infinity'.

conclusively, nothing different from infinity itself, can express, contain (in every sense) or manifest or become in any way analogous with infinity. to be infinite, things need to be infinite, and when they are infinite, there is only one infinity, and it is, well, the infinity we name. all the conclusions that follow behind come as a result of this, like how a negative cant go on after 6th density. it cannot force infinity to merge into itself, it has to merge into infinite.

This is correct But different from how you expect it I believe. I said earlier that there is infinity in every object. Not just in the large. I also said that the seed of positive is inside of negative. (Remember "Yin yang"? Remember the occult saying "As above so below"?)

So for the negative to merge back with the positive, it indeed needs to merge with the infinite. However, the seed itself is infinite. Finiteness as I explained is an artifact of our conceptual mind. Infinity is much more common in this universe.

There is only one.

on holograms, fractals, fractal universes - universes are just the physical manifestation nodules, units we know. they are by no means the entirety of infinity

That is correct.. But they do by necessity contain the entirety of infinity as I explained above. Blake's poem comes to mind.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

at this point, i very much think, intelligent infinity having no polarization should be the thing we are concentrating at. it is quite important. when you add that Ra also says they are seeking without polarization, it becomes important as to understand the real nature of existence.

I agree. And Ra obviously didn't mean there are multiple variations of intelligent infinity. He refers to just one. I think we can conclude that we cannot deduce terribly much from Ra's choice of words. Clearly if we attempt to do that rigidly we come to conclusions that are invalid.