David Wilcock

[Quantum]

...The problem I am having at this point is that I cannot verify the facts.
... claims need to be backed up or we fall back to the level of blindly following popular opinions.

Your point is well taken and has been made in several posts, to which after deliberation I have already conceded in my previous message? I went so far as to state that were the tables turned I would request the same. Once again, you will have your proof.

I suggest we all act scholarly and reject gut feelings and other logical fallacies.

The intent as repeatedly suggested to the point of exasperation is that we only "academically" investigate certain assertions made, this as 3D rightly names "by a public figure of the LOO." This is a study of the LOO. A study infers we only act scholarly verses anything to the contrary?

If this turns into a lynch mob I'm going to leave the discussion and ask moderators on their own judgment to close it.

Lynch mob? I hope this is an over-reactive consideration/assumption? If it is "only" an academic inquiry and discussion, based on "authoritative scholarly claims" made, this by "a public figure of the LOO", and we see these assertions to be less than so, why would this turn into or be considered a lynch mob verses a study or discussion? You will forgive me for inferring that it seems somewhat as though in your repeated request for proof that there now seems a responsibility on your part that you will indeed receive it? One can not be responsible for others reactions, particularly in light of the fact that you have requested that all remain academic.

As far as I'm concerned I don't much care about the man's likability. So I'd suggest we treat that as a separate category.

Let us be clear. The invitation has repeatedly been made from the onset that we speak only in the academic, not the personal, and certainly not to personalities? This has been memorialized many times, and exasperatingly restated, over and over, as it is here again. It was rejected once by suggesting we speak to assertions only as though hypothetical as a thought exercise, twice as to a silly non-person named Ishkabibel, and three times rejected as an offer as to "what if Quantum (myself) made these assertions", with the offer only in all cases that we speak strictly to how these assertions stack up in light of the LOO as having been made by someone that claims authority. This being said, where has anyone's likability ever entered in, or been challenged? Lets us engage in study to material only. Period. It was for this very concern that I in fact attempted to keep it to a thought exercise only for academic discussion only. Proof has been requested repeatedly however by more than just yourself, and here again by yourself as seen above.

I have pondered the David Wilcock question for some time and I’d like to share my thoughts, especially in light of Quantum’s query, because it seems to have value in the abstract (i.e., independent of the specific person) as well as in the corporeal.

Thank you for acknowledging with an the intellectual response 3D, i.e. seeing the value in the abstract independent of a specific person. I wish I would have phrased it in these words.

So, given the statement: “If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?”
...It seems to me that the answer is yes, at least to some degree.

I also agreed to your question posed in this context. Yes, he has value.

...we can, and do, constantly reassess our “taste” for that person’s spiritual cuisine, as it were. And just as with any cuisine, we will, over time, experience varying appetites for the given variety. This is particularly true for me, of David Wilcock’s fare. I find his cuisine too “peppered”, if you will, with transitory statements and speculation which is distasteful to me, personally, right now.

We agree

I do see that he serves a significant purpose in regards the Law of One, however, in much the same way that a trawling net serves to catch fish. He is like a fairly large, public scoop, if you will, that attracts awakening souls and helps them find their place in this world. As such a lure, he has several aspects that may attract different interests. His purported relationship to Edgar Cayce being one, his purported association with whistleblowers trying to expose the various conspiracies that have occurred and continue, his scientific slant and attempts to bridge the gap between eastern and western scientific philosophies, his practice of channeling and involvement in many new age movements, and not least, his embracing of the Law of One as a foundational philosophy. I propose that one could not invision a more effective, multifaceted, “lure” for seekers of “truth” and awakening souls than our dear David Wilcock.

I agree in theory as much as perhaps disagree in practice. One could do it far more elegantly and efficiently and perhaps with a great deal more affect as much as effect by dispensing with claims of authority or to a scholarly mantle while in fact misinterpreting the very material one purports to represent as an authority. Its not kosher, if you'll allow the pun to your gastronomic analogy. It must be emphasized however that when one "trawls" with a large "scoop" as you say, one indeed catches everything, inferring as you suggest not just the gastronomic delights only. I agree. Even in this however, it has not been so much of a point as to if one trawls, as much as when a shrimp is called a bass, and moreover that the two swim in different waters. It is the assertions in the net that are being questioned, not if there is a net, or that there is a catch, or that a service is being provided.

Does he transgress and does he misinterpret the Law of One, on occasion, probably unconsciously, in ways that are manipulative and self-serving? I do believe so. But so what?

But this is the whole of the purpose for engaging in the discussion? "But so what kills" perhaps everything and anything in its entirety on anything if not everything.

I believe that in our culture, we try to hold public figures to too high a standard.

I respectfully disagree. In fact I couldn't disagree more. If a person actively seeks public attention, and actively seeks the public spotlight, and actively seeks a position, or a mantle, he must all times be far more responsible and far more accountable as that public figure, and to a far higher standard than is my next door neighbor Bubba requested to be, especially if to be taken seriously in arenas such as academia and/or public office. Many parents and social advocates would even go so far as to say this includes showbiz. If your position of "so what" is so, then "so what" to public office as a public figure, "so what" to science as regards what a scientist may have "speculated" or argued for as regards swine flu and the inoculations you don't really need that he said you did, and "so what" to the economists who may cause a run on banks or allow a paltry 700 billion dollars to go missing, or "so what" as to what any academic may claim as an interpretation to a material, particularly and especially if he holds himself out as an authority on the material. It was an over statement I know, and I get your point, but "so what" is the antithesis of and to everything, and is the polar opposite of passion, life, growth, study, and concern, whether it is to social conscience, or to political, environmental, or spiritual pursuits. "So what" is in fact as lethargic as it is dangerous for being so.

As to his public persona, I find it entertaining, and perhaps necessary (even adding to his cachet of "lures", that of rock star and movie writer/producer), but also potentially dangerous to him and his work. It is certainly easy for the ego to take over and allow one to be totally misdirected and taken off path, and thus publicly discredited. This is certainly the preferred modus operandi of the opposing forces, and one which I hope to which David is superior. I fear, however, that he has forgotten that fame and success are by far the more seductive and damaging of “negative greetings” than is any amount of criticism and disagreement that he may have with the guests he has invited to his banquet.

Extremely well spoken dear friend. Your gastronomic analogy was as poetic, as it was piercing. It even made me hungry for more.

I will close with two questions:
1. It is all good and well that one cast a net for a banquet for the public, all for catching the many things of the ocean. But would it not be better to also be discerning, particularly if one claims one is a gourmet, and place only the fruits of the bounty on the table verses also not just so much pepper on the food, but also "all the things of the ocean" caught in the net without it being separated, filtered, or thrown back before placing it on the table? If one claims to be a gourmet, we may expect this, if not demand it.
2. I have brought this point up before but have yet to hear a response as regards what our responsibility is to the LOO as a community? Perhaps the answer is that "it is a rhetorical question"? Perhaps the answer is "we're just students, and there is no community, and that the LOO is a selfish pleasure for our own intellectual curiosity and entertainment only"? Or perhaps the answer is "I never thought about it in that way?" And continuing..."Maybe we all have a responsibility to keep the information on track?" Maybe it matters very much for those who have yet to encounter it, even if we as students understand it. Maybe we have a responsibility to at least be cognizant of where the misrepresentations are, even if from the very public figure that is casting the net sprinkled with mis-interpretations to the uninitiated? It is all well and good that we speak to "so what" within our very small community of students within the LOO. We as students have presumably read the LOO. We may say it is our responsibility to be familiar and to know better certain knowledge as regards the LOO, and as such given we know whats what we needn't hold a public figure in either such high regard, or to such high scrutiny. But what about those that are the totally uninitiated? And what about the newbies here asking questions as regards "interpretations" they may have read without even expressing they have read them, allowing us to assume they've read the material instead? Sure the easy and flip answer is to tell them to get a life and take responsibility as spiritual seekers (like us), and that until they do (like us) they'll always be less than harvestable (like us), and blah-blah-blah spiritual authority/superiority. But....we could say something else. We could as a community discuss these certain interpretations, not just for their benefit, but for our our own as well. Are we only interested in narcissistically projecting our own?

Say it ain't so.

To extend the point, what if such meticulous notes and efforts had not been made by Carla, Jim, Don, and the entire L/L group to preserve and precisely get the information right. What if only slight misstatements or notes had slipped in here and there, innocuous, innocent, sloppy, or otherwise. Might this have changed profoundly the entire context of the LOO, even if only slightly? Aren't we all as true students honor-bound and obligated to "recuse" ourselves as authority, or as scholars, as if though one holds more knowledge than another on something one can not hold more on than the other (especially when interpreting). Aren't we all but simple students and pilgrims learning? As such, are we not also honor bound to protect the public from our own misinterpretations as much as we are from those claiming any certain authority or scholarly knowledge as if "more than" when in fact sometimes perhaps more off than most for it?

If it is our honor to be students of this wonderful material, and it may be our self imposed obligation to be honor bound to discuss and learn and challenge and grow together, then we're in it together. This would in effect perhaps be the beginning of a Social Memory Complex in 3D, with all of it's inherent flaws and shortcomings expressed in 3D. But it is a start? If we can not even do so as an academic exercise to the information, then where do we begin? So as to the "so what", it matters very much in this light. Perhaps we've stepped into this responsibility for the benefit of the unintiated by simply picking the book up?

L/L and Peace...and a "Very Happy Mothers Day" to all of you wonderful mothers out there.

Q