Post-harvest continuity of consciousness

[βαθμιαίος]

Thanks for this Greek. I am always seeking further aspects of the Material for consideration.

Does your seeking extend to actually reading the sessions?

I think it is vital that we all bear in mind that the channeling effort is one of extreme intimacy which is affected by many dynamics which may affect the ability for accurate information and translation/interpretation to be had. Which as you and our brother Tenet,have noted.

My opinion is that the Ra contact was basically invulnerable to the type of corruption that is being posited about session 17. I think that, due to its trance nature, it was not subject to influence in the same way that conscious channeling can be.

[Shin'Ar]

Thanks for this Greek. I am always seeking further aspects of the Material for consideration.

Does your seeking extend to actually reading the sessions?

yes I do study the Material to some extent although it is not my only source of information and interest. Why do you ask?

I think it is vital that we all bear in mind that the channeling effort is one of extreme intimacy which is affected by many dynamics which may affect the ability for accurate information and translation/interpretation to be had. Which as you and our brother Tenet,have noted.

My opinion is that the Ra contact was basically invulnerable to the type of corruption that is being posited about session 17. I think that, due to its trance nature, it was not subject to influence in the same way that conscious channeling can be.

I would have to disagree here Greek. It is my understanding that no connection between fields in invulnerable to mistaken understanding. All are vulnerable to the limitations of their particular degree of evolved understanding, including those who call themselves Ra.

There may be some degree of difference between the trance channeling and conscious channeling with regard to accurate transfer, but that which is being transferred is still subject to the understanding and interpretation of both sides of the channeling process offering that which they understand based upon their limited understandings.

[βαθμιαίος]

Why do you ask?

Because of our exchange yesterday where you said (paraphrase) "that's a lot of reading."

[Shin'Ar]

Why do you ask?

Because of our exchange yesterday where you said (paraphrase) "that's a lot of reading."

Lol I was just speaking to the actual quantity of information offered at the time.

I require some managing of time spent studying the Material, as do we all.

[βαθμιαίος]

How much of the Ra material have you read?

[Tenet Nosce]

just to point out something which you must already understand (if you read the material) that Ra already read the "memes" of Don, Carla, and Jim. So with that obvious foreknowledge, the concept of concept introduction does not follow customary interaction.

Yes.

[zenmaster]

just to point out something which you must already understand (if you read the material) that Ra already read the "memes" of Don, Carla, and Jim. So with that obvious foreknowledge, the concept of concept introduction does not follow customary interaction.

Yes.

Yes. So do you think that when Ra "introduces" a concept, that the expressive vocabulary originated from Ra? No. It originated primarily from the group, and perhaps sometimes from the "planetary mind". For example, when Carla had read George Hunt Williamson, and Ra was searching for the closest concept match to "an entity with native vibration above 3D" they found the term "wanderer". And when Ra uses "time/space" and "space/time" they selected them from Don's reading of Dewey Larson. (and Larson from Alexander).

[Tenet Nosce]

Is that not what this forum is designed for? Discussion of the material?

Of course. But really it is no different than a discussion group in college. If a student hasn't read the material beforehand, what would be the value in them discussing it? They have nothing to add to the discussion but confusion, wrong ideas, misunderstanding of terms, etc. All they are doing is stealing valuable time and attention away from those students who did do their homework, and are prepared for class.

Or suppose we are sitting at the pub having a brew and you ask me what I thought about the football game last Sunday. I launch into a diatribe against the defensive line on the losing team. Yet from my words you discern that, not only did I never even see the game in the first place, but that I don't even understand the fundamental rules of football. What then is the point of my speaking to you? If you want to discuss the game- surely it would be better to go find somebody who actually watched it, and who is familiar with the rules.

At the very least- it would be considerate of me to first inform you that I didn't watch the game, and that I know almost nothing about football, before I launch into my diatribe.

Now when you say that I am in the same boat as all others that have not read the material, are you suggesting that it is not appropriate to discuss or challenge interpretations unless one has studied the Material in its complete fullness?

Basically, yes. The problem is that if one hasn't read the material, they don't even stand a chance at discerning between somebody's interpretation of it, and what it actually says. Even if we have read the material- it is still very difficult to extricate the "Confederation Philosophy" from our own distortions and biases. For example, it took me about fifteen years to disentangle certain distorted interpretations that I had unquestioningly accepted from others.

There are countless hours and endless energy available to spend arguing with other members in the forum, making points and theories, becoming irritated and offended with each other, then kissing and making up, but "not enough time" to read the very books for which this forum was created to discuss. I find that curious.

Put it this way- how would you feel if this were a forum about The Emerald Tablets, and I were bouncing around arguing with people about it, all the while it being clear to you that I never even read The Emerald Tablets, and that I am repeatedly attributing ideas to Thoth that were never theirs in the first place? How would you respond to such a scene?

I am a little confused there.

Well, of course you are! Because you have taken certain people's words for Ra's words from the very beginning. You have railed on and on against this STS/STO meme, not realizing that it wasn't Ra's idea in the first place. Yes- they talked about it. But that's only because they were repeatedly asked about it.

So, in the end, you are continuing to make the same sort of error that all these other people discussing the material are making by failing to discern between which ideas in the material originated from L/L, and which originated from Ra.

But you are right that it is possible, because of the fact that I have not read ALL of the material, that I may yet come to realize something different.

I imagine that you would. But we will never know unless you actually do it.

I actually hope that turns out to be the case, because from the beginning I have hoped that the Ra Material would further support The teachings of Thoth. The similar offering of congruent information is one of the things which I am always in search of to add credence to my own understanding and the effort to build the puzzle.

I think that they do go together, but need to be taken at different levels.

But I do not understand why you would think I do that in the first place, when you know how often I deliberately delve into the dynamics and intricacies of the material in my discussions. I, of all people, am extremely wary of personal interpretations, and rely heavily on my own discernment and connection with the Material..

Only because I have seen you do it, and furthermore because I believe you are sincere which means you are not doing it on purpose simply to be contradictory, or as some immature form of attention-seeking behavior. I have seen you attribute certain ideas to Ra which are not really their ideas, but somebody else's distorted version of their ideas. Since I observe that you cannot tell the difference between these in your responses, I have been led to the conclusion that you haven't read the material in its entirety, else you wouldn't become confused in this way.

But I cannot expect you to take my word for it, I can only suggest that you give the material a close read for yourself, and then see if I am right or not.

---

Yes. So do you think that when Ra "introduces" a concept, that the expressive vocabulary originated from Ra? No. It originated primarily from the group, and perhaps sometimes from the "planetary mind". For example, when Carla had read George Hunt Williamson, and Ra was searching for the closest concept match to "an entity with native vibration above 3D" they found the term "wanderer". And when Ra uses "time/space" and "space/time" they selected them from Don's reading of Dewey Larson. (and Larson from Alexander).

Yes. All I was attempting to point out was that the STO/STS meme was first introduced in Session 7, not Session 17. And where it was spoken of was in a reply, not a query. It was just a technical point, which is why I said your remark wasn't entirely true. But it wasn't entirely false, either. The overarching idea behind your point is still valid.

What I think is more relevant:

A. The STS/STO meme originated in a reply to a query about the Orion group
B. Ra unambiguously said that "service to others results in service to self"
C. People continue to act as if they never said this

[zenmaster]

Yes. So do you think that when Ra "introduces" a concept, that the expressive vocabulary originated from Ra? No. It originated primarily from the group, and perhaps sometimes from the "planetary mind". For example, when Carla had read George Hunt Williamson, and Ra was searching for the closest concept match to "an entity with native vibration above 3D" they found the term "wanderer". And when Ra uses "time/space" and "space/time" they selected them from Don's reading of Dewey Larson. (and Larson from Alexander).

Yes. All I was attempting to point out was that the STO/STS meme was first introduced in Session 7, not Session 17. And where it was spoken of was in a reply, not a query. It was just a technical point, which is why I said your remark wasn't entirely true. But it wasn't entirely false, either. The overarching idea behind your point is still valid.

Not to belabor this, but "time/space" is also spoken of in a reply, not a query. My point was that the concepts originated from Don, Carla, Jim and to them, from their readings. Do you understand that where Ra introduced a particular terminology is therefore is irrelevant?

What I think is more relevant:

A. The STS/STO meme originated in a reply to a query about the Orion group

probably because it is rather meaningless in unpolarized entities.

B. Ra unambiguously said that "service to others results in service to self"

And "service to self results in service to others". That's why they are "polarities".

C. People continue to act as if they never said this

why does that matter?

[Tenet Nosce]

Not to belabor this, but "time/space" is also spoken of in a reply, not a query. My point was that the concepts originated from Don, Carla, Jim and to them, from their readings. Do you understand that where Ra introduced a particular terminology is therefore is irrelevant?

Yes. I get it. Ra couldn't have spoken much about the Internet back in 1981, when it hadn't yet been invented, and therefore wasn't present in the group mind.

probably because it is rather meaningless in unpolarized entities.

It's also rather meaningless in polarized entities. Which is why the Law of One does not blink at it.

STS and STO: The difference between these two terms are the words "self" and "other" which are interchangeable, according to the Law of One. Doesn't matter if we are polarized or not. The terms are still interchangeable.

And "service to self results in service to others". That's why they are "polarities".

Yes. Polarities- not opposites. It is entirely possible for me to serve both you and myself simultaneously. In fact- it would be impossible for that not to be the case. Just like there is no such thing as a unipolar magnet. Again- that's why the whole concept is rather meaningless. We could edit out all the references to STS/STO in the material, and we wouldn't lose much of anything important. We might actually be better off.

why does that matter?

It matters because application of the wrong principle yields wrong results.