Comparing Ra and the Cassiopaeans

[Asolsutsesvyl]

In the Cassiopaean version, STO and STS exist as universal abstractions, as cosmic "thought centers", considered very real, and which beings are aligned with in differing proportions. STO pulls towards full consciousness and non-materiality, while STS pulls towards consciousness ultimately collapsing and "falling asleep" as matter. LKJ moralizes it in terms of "ignorance is bliss" being the core of materialism and in some way all STS mentality. The idea of STS-ness at the core of what turns consciousness into sleeping matter is very gnostic.

By contrast, Ra's version describes the cosmos as something much more organically evolving, in which good and evil are not handed down from the top-down. Instead, STO and STS emerged from the bottom-up as a result of logoses experimenting with tweaking the parameters of sub-creations. The fundamental division -- or creation of the illusion of non-unity -- is not the same division as the STS-STO division, unlike in LKJ's cosmology.

I feel like this is a matter of relative (contextual) perspective, where the two views aren't necessarily exclusive of each other. The former view feels like it lends itself to a more practical perspective, the latter more philosophical. But like anything, both may have their pitfalls if misapplied.

I have no problem with the labels good/evil, because I can apply it in a contextual manner (there is a basic 3d morality, not necessarily a popular viewpoint here but I'm not going to debate it ). But I can also understand the 'usefulness' of said polarities from a higher viewpoint at the same time. So while I don't want to get overly invested in morality plays, I also don't want to become so detached that I become a 'benign sociopath', because that wouldn't be useful to my function.

There's a point to it being possible to interpret and apply in several ways. The Cassiopaean formulation is easy to apply in many ways, and a basic question is, what is the purpose of the communication? Is it mainly meant for LKJ's purposes or whatever "mission" she is performing, or is it largely more general? If genuinely more general, it would be unfair to reject it based on how LKJ has brutalized the basic ideas in several stages over a range of years. I admit my description was too fast and loose for a good overview, I can do better.

I mentioned Montalk, and how I see that he makes something more healthy out of it. I'll sketch out how I myself see basic sense in some Cassiopaean concepts, in a way compatible with the Law of One ideas.

Thought centers of Being vs. Non-being -- not exactly the same as STO vs. STS, rather STO and STS are viewed as each aligned with a thought center. But more generally, the point about Being is that it's the essence of All, whereas Non-being is, well, Nothing (the opposite of All), "a mere thought". And the core of illusion -- Non-being -- is a central ingredient, mixed with Being -- and in turn consciousness -- to form the fabric of everything.

And since STO turns towards Unity, it strives for Being, whereas STS as path of Separation has an illusory goal, a goal thus centered in Non-being.

It doesn't add any additional moralizing and seems fully compatible with Ra's message.

Also, my use of good/evil alongside STO/STS may or may not be sloppy, depending on perspective, and depending on context. I understand why some want a more detached or even naturalistic flavor and so avoid good/evil. I don't mind when people use the more moral labels, I don't want to overgeneralize my criticism of righteous crusading on a bogus foundation (thus possibly falling into the same pattern, even if milder). There's also the old altruism/egoism, but cultural associations form a muddy diverse range.