05-20-2009, 08:25 PM
Dear Monica and Quantum.
I guess I can cut through to the heart of the matter. By repeating that Wilcock may be wrong. Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.
The initial discussion to me was the status as a scholar for Wilcock, I've tried to stay around that central topic in the discussion. And to me scholar means that Wilcock makes a valid interpretation of the Ra material. "Valid" meaning that there is no error in interpretation each step is made without committing any fallacies. So I believe he does understand the material, and he made no errors in judgment of it. He uses modern scientific insights to interpret the material. Where as people here do not.
This does not mean his conclusion is correct and yours is wrong. There might be all kinds of ambiguity and I don't believe any one of us can know the exact flow of events before they unfold themselves.
It is however the nature of quanta that their movement across boundaries is also discrete. This is physics. Stating anything else would be physically incorrect. The quanta ARE their boundaries. While you are correct that Ra might not have been referring to physics I find it unlikely that he used the words without referring to actual physical events since his description of the densities is exactly a physical description of the universe. It's not symbolical. The attraction that the Ra material holds for me is that it's not a metaphor. It's stating things as they are. Without involving turtles standing on the backs of elephants or something similar.
Now I do not see the universe as a machine as was suggested. I see her as an infinite collection of discrete states. There is very clear boundaries between here and there. I am not you, you are not me. A discreet universe on all levels would be impossible in my opinion because there could be no polarity like there could be no position if there were not a point where the differences become discrete. Discreet is simply the word we use when the discrete changes are too minor for us to perceive. And this has been proven true in everything. Even a growing child grows in discrete steps. Every added cell is an added cell, the cell count for every individual is always a natural number, never a fraction. The universe simply is discrete. The discreet nature you see is illusory. It is not wrong to describe it as discreet. It is just never the whole picture. When you zoom in on any phenomenon at a certain point you cannot zoom in further. The universe becomes grainy and non discreet and acquires discrete behavior. This is the case in all things. This is a property physics has discovered. But this does not mean that I follow a purely scientific understanding. However, if physics and my understanding of the world are not in balance. I do not understand the world or I do not understand the physics.
I will respectfully not go into Wilcocks claims to being the reincarnation of Caycey, reason being that the only thing we can indicate is that there are clear similarities between the two and that Wilcock is influenced by Caycey. This to me is the only meaning of a past life. There is no actual soul connection as it is usually suggested. There is only one soul in this universe. So obviously Caycey and Wilcock share it. But so do you and me. The whole question is pointless in my mind and I've said before that it wasn't the best choice to make this claim public in the first place. It is Wilcocks understanding and I understand why he believes it.
Similarly for Wilcocks connection to Ra. And even Carla's connection to Ra. I do not believe that channeling works exactly as people here suggest it does. I have no problem with considering Wilcocks connection to Ra to be more distorted than Carla's initial connection. But neither are free from distortions. The fact that they come to us through language should make this abundantly clear even to the most ignorant observer. That this results in different versions of Ra is to be expected. As it is clearly impossible for either receiver to contain Ra "As he is"...
I thank you for a respectful and thought provoking discussion. I might jump in later on. But I am not mr Wilcock, I am merely influenced by him. I see no need therefore to defend the points he makes that I do not necessarily agree with, or that I find pointless to defend due to the extreme subjectivity of the matter.
I guess I can cut through to the heart of the matter. By repeating that Wilcock may be wrong. Like you I do not agree with his assertion that he has proven things beyond a doubt. In my opinion proof does not belong in an empirical universe. Ever.
The initial discussion to me was the status as a scholar for Wilcock, I've tried to stay around that central topic in the discussion. And to me scholar means that Wilcock makes a valid interpretation of the Ra material. "Valid" meaning that there is no error in interpretation each step is made without committing any fallacies. So I believe he does understand the material, and he made no errors in judgment of it. He uses modern scientific insights to interpret the material. Where as people here do not.
This does not mean his conclusion is correct and yours is wrong. There might be all kinds of ambiguity and I don't believe any one of us can know the exact flow of events before they unfold themselves.
It is however the nature of quanta that their movement across boundaries is also discrete. This is physics. Stating anything else would be physically incorrect. The quanta ARE their boundaries. While you are correct that Ra might not have been referring to physics I find it unlikely that he used the words without referring to actual physical events since his description of the densities is exactly a physical description of the universe. It's not symbolical. The attraction that the Ra material holds for me is that it's not a metaphor. It's stating things as they are. Without involving turtles standing on the backs of elephants or something similar.
Now I do not see the universe as a machine as was suggested. I see her as an infinite collection of discrete states. There is very clear boundaries between here and there. I am not you, you are not me. A discreet universe on all levels would be impossible in my opinion because there could be no polarity like there could be no position if there were not a point where the differences become discrete. Discreet is simply the word we use when the discrete changes are too minor for us to perceive. And this has been proven true in everything. Even a growing child grows in discrete steps. Every added cell is an added cell, the cell count for every individual is always a natural number, never a fraction. The universe simply is discrete. The discreet nature you see is illusory. It is not wrong to describe it as discreet. It is just never the whole picture. When you zoom in on any phenomenon at a certain point you cannot zoom in further. The universe becomes grainy and non discreet and acquires discrete behavior. This is the case in all things. This is a property physics has discovered. But this does not mean that I follow a purely scientific understanding. However, if physics and my understanding of the world are not in balance. I do not understand the world or I do not understand the physics.
I will respectfully not go into Wilcocks claims to being the reincarnation of Caycey, reason being that the only thing we can indicate is that there are clear similarities between the two and that Wilcock is influenced by Caycey. This to me is the only meaning of a past life. There is no actual soul connection as it is usually suggested. There is only one soul in this universe. So obviously Caycey and Wilcock share it. But so do you and me. The whole question is pointless in my mind and I've said before that it wasn't the best choice to make this claim public in the first place. It is Wilcocks understanding and I understand why he believes it.
Similarly for Wilcocks connection to Ra. And even Carla's connection to Ra. I do not believe that channeling works exactly as people here suggest it does. I have no problem with considering Wilcocks connection to Ra to be more distorted than Carla's initial connection. But neither are free from distortions. The fact that they come to us through language should make this abundantly clear even to the most ignorant observer. That this results in different versions of Ra is to be expected. As it is clearly impossible for either receiver to contain Ra "As he is"...
I thank you for a respectful and thought provoking discussion. I might jump in later on. But I am not mr Wilcock, I am merely influenced by him. I see no need therefore to defend the points he makes that I do not necessarily agree with, or that I find pointless to defend due to the extreme subjectivity of the matter.