12-01-2016, 01:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2016, 02:54 AM by APeacefulWarrior.)
This may not be a particularly helpful comment, but I'd be concerned about the introduction of bias/interpretation in a lot of those extra materials. Pure reference materials like a glossary and index aren't an issue, but things like diagrams and explanations of concepts can very easily start introducing new distortions that Ra didn't intend. The "telephone game" problem is basically unavoidable in these sorts of situations, since it's pure entropy in action. Not to mention that I'm fairly sure there were places where Ra was being deliberately ambiguous, to leave things to readers/listeners to work out.
The best suggestion I can think of to avoid such problems is this: Have multiple commentaries or even dialogues with several people who have different interpretations of the material. Make it clear that in a lot of cases, there is not one set interpretation, and that much of embracing the LOO is coming to one's own personal understanding of the material. Use multiple perspectives to illustrate the underlying "uncertainty" (in the quantum sense) behind not just Ra's words, but also behind the nature of our reality/illusion in general. Plus, of course, plenty of questions to the reader in the form of "What do YOU think?"
That would, I think, mostly avoid the "textbook effect" and imposing monolithic interpretations onto material that's meant to be more open to personal discovery.
The best suggestion I can think of to avoid such problems is this: Have multiple commentaries or even dialogues with several people who have different interpretations of the material. Make it clear that in a lot of cases, there is not one set interpretation, and that much of embracing the LOO is coming to one's own personal understanding of the material. Use multiple perspectives to illustrate the underlying "uncertainty" (in the quantum sense) behind not just Ra's words, but also behind the nature of our reality/illusion in general. Plus, of course, plenty of questions to the reader in the form of "What do YOU think?"
That would, I think, mostly avoid the "textbook effect" and imposing monolithic interpretations onto material that's meant to be more open to personal discovery.