David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

And now it is my turn to apologize to you dear Ali for my slow response, albeit that my excuse was perhaps somewhat more enjoyable than in-laws. But not that that's a more excusable excuse mind you...lol. Alas, as admitted before, I am a bit of a hedonist, and had hedonistic tasks to tend to.

What must be done must be done I'd much rather have you have enjoyable excuses than excuses filled with sorrow friend.

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.

Agreed, in a sense. But herein dear Ali I think lies the rub and the heart of the differences in agreement between your Universe and my UNIVERSE(S). You suggest that proof does not belong in an Empirical Universe, or at least one that you give credit to as being Empirical? Definition of empirical: provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. Where else but in an empirical universe does in fact proof then belong? It is the only portion of the universe in which proof may reside?

Perhaps this means there is no absolute proof positive of anything Empiricism also requires falsifiability. Anything that is potentially falsifiable can never be 100% established or proven truth. This is not a matter of debate. This is the philosophy of science. There is no way that truth can ever be known with 100% accuracy.

The word evidence is the word we should use whenever we are tempted to use the word proof.

You've understood and identified this precisely my friend. You reap the clear benefits of a classical education If I told my colleagues about Kant they'd call me a religious nutter Kant argued exactly the point I was trying to make. Because it is impossible to judge the greater infinite universe. It may very well be that the so called evidence we see with our eyes and that is so convincing that we call it proof positive is only a local effect and has nothing to do with the greater reality at all...

The world is causative, meaning that it has causative effects, however it is not defined by causality meaning that if you use only a causative understanding of it your understanding is necessarily incomplete.

So "proof positive" as Wilcock calls the evidence for his arguments is an overstatement that does not belong in the world. Proof positive cannot possibly exist.

However Kant does not argue for the discreet nature of the universe. So I won't follow you there. I remain firmly fixed in my assumption that the universe is a discrete phenomenon that our minds interpret as discreet. Just like the flow of time is a phenomenon created by us. Not by the universe itself.

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.

Your definition of the soul and reincarnation are well received. But respectfully Ali (as regards the bold above that you state) we are not discussing your definition of what reincarnation or the soul is. We are discussing what Wilock's is.

I agree, and since my definition is not his I find it pointless to argue this point on his behalf. I don't disagree with the man. I just think his understanding is needlessly linear. Just like those who would oppose him. If you wish to argue this I would suggest you find another who would take the role. I respectfully decline the invitation but if anyone here is willing and able to take up this role I will not stand in the way of a discussion that I consider myself incapable of partaking in.

.......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.

We can not, as rightly pointed out by you, say virtually anything as regards such an extremely subjective claim to the matter as you correctly state. But here is the beauty to my post # 134. We needn't. We needn't say a single word whatsoever as to these subjective claims the author makes. Wilcock does it for us.

Claims you interpret through your subjective perceptions. If I cannot and will not serve as his advocate and no one else will then effectively you have assigned yourself judge and jury and there will be no fairness or depth in your judgment. It will simply be the statement of your opinion. While it is very possible that you are correct. There is no counterbalance. In my opinion judgment should be restrained in these cases. But again I will not stand in your way in this. I am not Wilcock and while I love him as one of my own he has his own cross to bear.

I have said it before but there is no harm in saying it again. I owe David a great debt of understanding. His work showed me so much.

We all agree he has provided a valuable service. I have stated so. You have stated so. 3D has stated so. Monica has stated so. Perhaps all may state so. And perhaps it rightfully needs to be continually restated so that we may in respect use his literature and comments as a Study Mechanism towards the LOO given he has written so much which we may academically question and dissect, as much as we would any other so called scholarly treatise. This is unquestionably the definition of so called scholarly work. No?

Of course. This is not a lions pit. This is a forum for intelligent individuals who are both compassionate and seek the ways of wisdom.

The question posed herein is, what may we say rather "to the very obvious contradictions at his own hand", as opposed to the assertions he makes as regards Ra and Edgar Cayce? They go straight to the heart of the LOO. That has from the onset been my primary focus, i.e. the study of the LOO. I look forward to yours and all other responses to this intriguing Study Mechanism provided by such assertions by the author.

I do not think so. I think they go straight to the heart of your specific interpretation of the Law of One. Christians often make the mistake of speaking for God, and recreating him in their own name. We must be careful that we do not abuse Ra in the same manner.