05-15-2009, 01:59 PM
When I pointed out the homonyms discrete and discreet, it was a valid point, since there was no way to really know, by the sound of the word, which word Ra intended. However, I didn't know that discrete was also a physics term. I just did a search and, sure enough, several physics sites came up, using the term in applications relevant to quantum physics, so it appears that Ali is correct that the term discrete has specific meaning as relates to quantum physics.
Therefore, I concede Ali's point that, taking the context into consideration, it now seems obvious to me that discrete is the term Ra intended.
However, this new revelation only alters my point slightly, and does not alter my stance at all.
My original point was that it was very shaky to base an entire doctrine (for this is beginning to read like a doctrine, imo) on a guess as to which definition was correct...ie putting so much weight on a single statement, much less a single word!
But, even if DW's interpretation of that single word is correct, as I now believe it is, that does not necessarily mean that his conclusions are correct or even plausible.
I now acknowledge that discrete was the correct term in referring to the behavior of quanta.
What does this really mean?
It just means that there is a definite distinction between 3D and 4D.
We already knew that!!
We also already knew that 4D already exists! (As quoted by Ra earlier in this thread.)
So, is the transition of Earth to 4D really the issue?
It seems to me that the real question is: how do we transition? Not how does Gaia transition...Gaia already has a multi-layered existence of 7 densities...the question is how do we start living in Gaia's 4D layer instead of her 3D layer. I personally choose to accept as being far more logical/reasonable Q'uo's assertion that the 100-700 year range is intended for already harvested souls to assist in healing the Earth. Perhaps 3D will no longer be inhabitable, but it seems reasonable to me that, even though it might no longer be used for habitation, a toxic 3D layer might still affect the 4D layer; hence, the need for volunteers to hang around for awhile to clean up the mess and help the planet heal from all the abuse.
The idea that we would ALL be ready to transition at the same time (on Solstice 2012) could happen only if we succeeded in attaining that one grand moment of inspiration, which Ra said was highly improbable (though ever possible).
It seems irresponsible to create a doctrine, which serves to both frighten people (ie. the world as we know it will end in 3 years) or give them a definite but possibly false ascension date seemingly set in stone (I will escape this reality in 3 years and all will be peachy...we'll have a big party and tell everyone "I told you so" and gloat).
Either way, it still goes back to doing something Ra themselves would never do: predict a specific outcome on a specific date, with no regard to multiple possibilities within the possibility/probability vortex.
I ask all of you: Is there a precedent for this? When has Ra ever made so bold a pronouncement?
Therefore, I concede Ali's point that, taking the context into consideration, it now seems obvious to me that discrete is the term Ra intended.
However, this new revelation only alters my point slightly, and does not alter my stance at all.
My original point was that it was very shaky to base an entire doctrine (for this is beginning to read like a doctrine, imo) on a guess as to which definition was correct...ie putting so much weight on a single statement, much less a single word!
But, even if DW's interpretation of that single word is correct, as I now believe it is, that does not necessarily mean that his conclusions are correct or even plausible.
I now acknowledge that discrete was the correct term in referring to the behavior of quanta.
What does this really mean?
It just means that there is a definite distinction between 3D and 4D.
We already knew that!!
We also already knew that 4D already exists! (As quoted by Ra earlier in this thread.)
So, is the transition of Earth to 4D really the issue?
It seems to me that the real question is: how do we transition? Not how does Gaia transition...Gaia already has a multi-layered existence of 7 densities...the question is how do we start living in Gaia's 4D layer instead of her 3D layer. I personally choose to accept as being far more logical/reasonable Q'uo's assertion that the 100-700 year range is intended for already harvested souls to assist in healing the Earth. Perhaps 3D will no longer be inhabitable, but it seems reasonable to me that, even though it might no longer be used for habitation, a toxic 3D layer might still affect the 4D layer; hence, the need for volunteers to hang around for awhile to clean up the mess and help the planet heal from all the abuse.
The idea that we would ALL be ready to transition at the same time (on Solstice 2012) could happen only if we succeeded in attaining that one grand moment of inspiration, which Ra said was highly improbable (though ever possible).
It seems irresponsible to create a doctrine, which serves to both frighten people (ie. the world as we know it will end in 3 years) or give them a definite but possibly false ascension date seemingly set in stone (I will escape this reality in 3 years and all will be peachy...we'll have a big party and tell everyone "I told you so" and gloat).
Either way, it still goes back to doing something Ra themselves would never do: predict a specific outcome on a specific date, with no regard to multiple possibilities within the possibility/probability vortex.
I ask all of you: Is there a precedent for this? When has Ra ever made so bold a pronouncement?