2nd LOO Question: Creation

[Quantum]

Although the generality of 1D of the previous Octave is 8D of the next, how in the world may you deduce from this that one Octave is even remotely similar to another? It may be.

this octave, builds on the last octave's culmination. in last octave, mover/moved polarity was discovered and refined. this octave uses that polarity, and investigates positive/negative.
this means, the earlier octave, cant be impossibly different from our octave, even if phenomenonally different.
also, this : http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...7#pid20387

You use a previous thread of your own as reference to support your own notions rather the the LOO?

and then there's this as a follow up:

Allow me to demonstrate a better logic from the Ra quotes if I may. If Ra dared not plumb the depths of the next Octave, how then might we plumb the depths of the previous? You assume by your logic that everything may be piecemealed and stacked together very nicely in a hierarchical structure stretching logic to such an extent that it fast becomes illogical.

this is not logic that you are proposing. that is mysticism, and dogma. first, there is no 'dare' in this, if you think about it, you ponder about it. its not a courage challenge.

ra actually did dare 'plumb' the depths of the next octave, they just plumbed the depths of earlier octave.

This sentence is a contradiction. Which do you suggest Ra plumbed? The earlier, or the next Octave? That Ra would not dare plumb the next Octave as stated above is not meant to imply a state of courage versus fear compared to the grandeur of the mystery which is unfathomable. It simply means that Ra did not plumb the next Octave as a a result of same. It is neither dogma or mysticism I reference. It is a Ra quote? Well, I take it back. Ra stated it. Your right. It is mysticism. As regards the Ra's unwillingness to plumb on Ra's part, I dare not plumb the depths of Ra's dogmaticism.

Here is what Ra said:

7.17 Ra: This is true at all densities in our octave. We cannot speak for those above us, as you would say, in the next quantum or octave of beingness.

16.19 Questioner: Can you give me some kind of history of your social memory complex and how you became aware of the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra. The path of our learning is graven in the present moment. There is no history, as we understand your concept. Picture, if you will, a circle of being. We know the alpha and omega as infinite intelligence. The circle never ceases. It is present. The densities we have traversed at various points in the circle correspond to the characteristics of cycles: first, the cycle of awareness; second, the cycle of growth; third, the cycle of self-awareness; fourth, the cycle of love or understanding; fifth, the cycle of light or wisdom; sixth, the cycle of light/love, love/light or unity; seventh, the gateway cycle; eighth, the octave which moves into a mystery we do not plumb.

in Ra text, there are a few mentions about the earlier octave and its traits, and the next octave. and about entities which 'bring light' from the next octave. and, how going from octave to octave of this creation happens. that means, they have teachers, who in turn have their teachers, and the knowledge/understanding is passed on as much as situation allows.

Ra repeatedly stated they could not/would not plumb beyond 7D. I would be interested to learn where it is you say that Ra contradicted their previous statement of not plumbing into the next Octave? Ra may have teachers from the next Octave unity, but we do not in 3D? We know nothing of the next Octave much less anything of the previous. Ra stated that they do not plumb the mysteries of the next Octave. I submit again, how then may we dare plumb the mystery of the previous?

The next Octave may be constituted of an entire different array of wonder having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this wonder in any manner whatsoever.

cannot.

Interesting that you know this, So, once again Ra must be wrong by daring not to plumb the depths of the next Octave, a mere 1 and 1/2 densities away from them, but you may?

10 octaves earlier would probably be a lot more different than ours. 10 octaves later too.

This is presumably because one Octave for us in 3D (which we still know absolutely nothing of) is so much closer than 10 Octaves, and this in spite of the fact that Ra would not/could not even plumb a mere 1 and 1/2 densities later?

Creation must begin somewhere. Those creations may likewise end as gracefully. Perhaps it begins anew in each new Octave, rather than it necessarily perceived as an ever continuing continuum in a series of evolutions from one to the other? Were this supposition so, it would be an infinitely longer evolution stuck in the creation created simply by virtue of self imposed and rigid constraints simply for having created it, rather than as a more efficient one through the experiments by the Logoi as stated in the LOO by Ra that the Logoi experiment. It stands to reason that they do so in new Octaves. We mustn't with our finite minds constrain Infinity afterall?

creation doesnt need to begin anywhere. infinite creations already exist, as per infinity requirements.

Creation does not need to begin anywhere? This again completely, utterly, irretrievably, and totally contradicts Ra and the LOO unity. This is but yet again one of many many simple examples of many of your contradictions to the LOO. It is unity philosophy. It is not the LOO. Come on. You know this? Your pretty well read on the LOO. You know the exact steps that Ra outlines. Infinity was unaware etc. etc, then came creation. Yet you insist on this Infinity Concept as legitimate, while also in simultaneity quoting adamantly the LOO as source, but only when it fits your propositions, and yet able to outright reject the LOO when it doesn't.

the part of infinity which exists, also has to be infinite inside itself. therefore, with the part of infinity that 'doesnt exist', it can constitute infinity.

Infinity doesn't exist? And you take umbrage when Nihilism is utilized as a definition of what you propose? Your entire definition of Infinity is nowhere within the LOO as you describe it. It is unity philosophy. Again, what is suitable within the LOO to support what you propose is good, while what is not is ignored or outright refuted.

this, pretty much lays the blame on the archetypes employed by this logos, rather than 'inefficient use of catalyst' by 'lazy laggards'.

Its the Logos' fault for entities not efficiently utilizing catalyst, even though once again Ra specifically instructs that some entities simply utilize catalyst more effectively/efficiently than others and that by this subsequently and consequently progress at a more efficient rate. Interesting again.

there are basic core principles which you either extrapolate into new directions, or simply interpret in other ways. I am open to exploring more of what you see as a means of exercising and stretching my own constraints, but would ask always for specific references, given we are hopefully engaging in the study of the LOO exclusively. We are, aren't we?

searching for threads started by me, you will find my replies to a lot of what you ask above.

Yes indeed. And many are in direct contradiction to the LOO.

Unity, I will confess that at at first blush, several posts ago, that your concept on Infinity had some interesting merit. But it quickly begins unraveling. It feels as though it is a concept you are still evolving and working out, out loud no less, but as yet still needs much refinement. As regards working it out within the confines of LOO, it seems that the LOO restricts you much, and that your arguments outstretch it as much, as I'm sure you feel your concept on Infinity surpasses it given your repeated penchant and ability to refute it as often as you cite it to support it. It is a complex concept that can neither make its mind up on which side of the fence it stands on with respect to the LOO, or if it even does support it at other times. No harm is offered, nor is any foul intended. I offer this only as a critical analysis, and as one which you make more than self evident to even the most casual of readers of the LOO.

~ Q ~