This might sound stupid but for me at least it is hard to gasp the difference between two capital words of the Law of One.

One CONTROL seems to be the enemy of spiritual evolution and of free will while the other "DISCIPLINE" seems to be the biggest friend of free will in achieving spiritual evolution.

Thinking about it I've realized that I cannot distinguish clearly between the two concepts. For me discipline can only be achieved using some form of control. Am I that wrong?

I would like to understand how can I discipline my personality without controlling it.

How does objectivity and subjectivity relate to polarity? In short, I think you can keep them separate at the level of definition, though both positive and negative dynamics have much to do with both objective and subjective reality.

This a big subject area, and touches on the history of metaphysics in terms of the Fourth Way, the Ra contact, and the Cassiopaean Experiment. The third of these tried to unify the metaphysics of the first two, introducing serious distortions in the process.

Don Elkins, Ra, and keeping it simple

In the original introduction to the Ra material, Don Elkins refers to a natural element of subjectivity in spiritual activities. He does not question its role in mystical affairs.

Ra recommends a balance between an intuitive and an analytical approach in spiritual matters. More generally, as an approach to life, neither is more positive or negative in itself.

My guess is that Don Elkins considered positivity and objectivity to be independent variables. That is, a two-dimensional picture could be given where they are separate axes.

In such a picture of the mind, a balanced and positive approach would lead to the positive half of the picture being filled along a continuum reaching from the most subjective to the most objective. That's not a simple matter, and people differ in their capacities in subjective and objective areas, so in practice, such a picture will always be much more uneven.

A key point is that suppressing exploration and activity, or inwardly distorting the attitude towards, subjective and/or objective experience and activity, means blockage or imbalance, and is ultimately something to move past in learning one's lessons.

People who reject objective reality scramble large areas of awareness, and end up projecting other things onto what exists, instead of accepting what exists. It also makes it much harder to respond to catalyst successfully, since viable means and actions are likely to be rejected in advance.

In the case of subjective parts of reality, rejection is likely to lead to a counter-productive fighting with the self, which may spill over outwards in various ways. When it gets bad, and increased control is the only way seen to resolve the problems perceived, it can spiral sharply into something strongly negative. Or, if the focus is more strictly one of self-control, then a self-suffocating approach may result, or a detrimental leap into an external source of help which does not correct the imbalance, but instead furthers it.

Gurdjieff's thinking

This will be sketchy, because Gurdjieff's thinking is a very tricky topic. Gurdjieff directly perceived reality in a multi-layered way, and accepted far more as "real" and existing "out there" than is dealt with by materialistic science. He was a superb systems thinker from a time before that label came of use, and developed models taking into account all the levels of reality he found real.

He didn't care much for materialistic science, except for its practical uses. What was objective to Gurdjieff was what had a "concrete" existence, whether the substances involved were material in materialistic terms, or something different. God itself was objective in Gurdjieff's terms, as a kind of atom with a role unique in the cosmos, indivisible, yet containing everything.

The main concern for Gurdjieff was that humanity was asleep, hypnotized by forces which keep it under control, and that humanity - or a sufficient number - needed to wake up in order to prevent disaster. What Gurdjieff called imagination can be translated roughly as "distortions in consciousness separating it from reality", and he saw it as the great evil to be eliminated. (In Gurdjieff's own terms, "consciousness" has several levels and meanings, not elaborated on here.)

Gurdjieff saw people as malfunctioning machines whose souls were either absent or not in charge, leading to a deranged circus on the collective level, and making things like World Wars I and II (during his time) not only possible but inevitable. Only by a sufficient number waking up, becoming truly conscious, and influencing the rest of humanity, could humanity prevent destroying itself and all its future possibilities.

He made many sharp distinctions running contrary to the mentalities of all the surrounding cultures, and the Work he instructed people in was anything but easy. All the difficulties, harshness, and control involved was organized in a complex and dynamically regulated way, intended to add up to the "harmonious development of man".

While Gurdjieff seems to have helped at least a few people greatly, on the whole the results of his teaching were very mixed, and for the most part, what was hoped for never happened. Entering the final years of his life, and following a serious car accident, Gurdjieff suddenly downscaled his teaching activities and wrote books for future generations. After the accident, he claimed that he had "died" in some sense, and his energy then went into elaborating a message out of a newly inspired hindsight.

The mental models Gurdjieff developed included layers and distinctions of both inner and outer reality which, in principle, do not leave anything out, and which honor what is conventionally referred to as objective and subjective. (Book-length material is needed for a decent overview.) But something seems to have been askew in how it was applied to the people he came in contact with. An imbalance, combined with the intensity of what he was doing, ruined the good intentions.

Oversimplification doesn't scale

The thinking at the core of what Montalk distinguishes as a second phase of the Cassiopaean Experiment, from the early 00's and on, is built on ideas and tendencies part of the picture from early on. The big shift in mentality he chronicled is a matter of how the dots are connected; they became connected more firmly, in a very simple pattern.

The QFS philosophy centered around the unification of the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity, in a Gurdjieffian sense, with the positive and negative polarities, respectively. Subjectivity became a defining characteristic of STS consciousness, and its elimination seen as the key in striving towards STO consciousness.

Over the years, the boundary between what's seen as subjective and objective has changed. The earlier "Cassiopaean spirituality" is now seen as New Age nonsense which has been moved past through a long and difficult learning process. Gurdjieff's thinking is not the basis of how objective and subjective is defined, as most of the intricate structure of Gurdjieff's ideas has been stripped away and replaced by much simpler thought.

From the beginning of the mentioned phase of the Cassiopaean Experiment, Gurdjieff was a major inspiration, but his ideas not at the center, but rather draped around the actual core mentality, and fuel for its development. In the era of the online forum, a metaphor of the online community as a "house" made clear that Gurdjieff's ideas were part of the furniture and decor rather than the architecture.

A problem with the very wide-ranging use of two words, objective and subjective, when given an increasingly nuanced and fuzzy range of meaning, is that the semantics become slippery. The flow of words will look good, but on examination, the meaning may subtly shift from thought to thought, without the thinker noticing. Ironically, this core feature of the teaching furthers subjectivity. The result is what Gurdjieff observed regarding thought and language, where people think they agree or disagree based on words rather than actual meaning, the two at odds.

Then enters a sense of urgency, and hyperbolic expressions of what is positive, negative, important, and dangerous. Over time, the idea that only those who "pay strict attention to objective reality" (C's) become part of the future, others reduced to dreams in the past, has morphed into an extremely imbalanced psychology. Inner burdens are unresolved, and in response to catalyst, people look outwards and harden their resolve to be "objective" at all costs. A barrier grows between an increasingly stormy world of the soul and the outer world, while signs related to the 4D activity of the community intensify.

If the core of a "system" is made too simple, it may be possible to build around that core for a time, and maybe more quickly and efficiently than possible on a more complex foundation. But eventually, the oversimplification at the core leads to confusion and overcomplication when the "system" is extended, dysfunction increasing over time. For a clean design and a sane implementation to be possible as a "system" scales up in size and scope, oversimplification of basic components must be avoided (though it is optimal for them to be as simple as they can without being oversimplified).

General thoughts

There's several kinds of "simple". The teaching of the Ra contact has a simplicity at the core which "scales" well, and seems to be carefully constructed to avoid leading people to leave any major part of the big picture out.

What are the pitfalls of wisdom teachings? They go wrong when they magnify some areas of reality out of proportion while blinding people to other areas. Too many hard and fast guidelines, overgeneralizations, hyperbolic maxims, etc., and "wisdom" will lead to mixed-up mental and emotional patterns.

The Law of One books do not lead people particularly strongly in choosing how to approach reality. The teaching on the polarities goes the farthest in so doing, but is at the same time full of subtleties often missed or selectively ignored by readers. As part of a positive path, a balanced approach is, in general, recommended. (There seems to be major overlap with Jungian insights regarding that.)

The subjective reaches of consciousness are part of life, and as part of a balanced approach, not something to be avoided. A positive orientation will only manifest fully when the personal subjective world becomes part of a positive psychic landscape. And I think subjectivity may be inseparable from individuality; consciousness perhaps extends in that direction whenever there is separation from unity with all in the structure of the consciousness. If so, subjectivity is always part of existence in density 4 as well, and probably 5.

There's also several kinds of "quixotic". Ironically, trying to destroy subjectivity in oneself as an individual being may be a "quixotic" striving on a scale similar to that of trying to fully become "one with all" without going through the journey of the densities in-between in the octave.

In order to choose one's personal brand of "quixotic" quest wisely, it may help to, basically, be wise about wisdom. A good maxim when not wise enough to be wise enough may be the classic "keep it simple, stupid". If in doubt as to which kind of simple, then something which basically makes sense in relation to experience, instead of being disconnected from it, intuitively seems the best bet.

Returning to Gurdjieff for a final thought, there's a point to exploring the structure and "things" of non-materialistic realities in a serious way. If "objective" is to be redefined to include things belonging to more levels of reality, as investigators in paranormal areas may want to do, then it is however best to keep the dictionary as clear and unambiguous as possible, avoiding mixing too much into the most basic words used.

What would be a sub-logos to us? Sometimes I like to shine love/light to all my sub-logoi.

Quote:59.17 ▶ Questioner: Are there any other effects of the pyramid shape beside the spirals that we have just discussed?

Ra: I am Ra. There are several. However, their uses are limited. The use of the resonating chamber position is one which challenges the ability of an adept to face the self. This is one type of mental test which may be used. It is powerful and quite dangerous.

The outer shell of the pyramid shape contains small vortices of light energy which, in the hands of capable crystallized beings, are useful for various subtle workings upon the healing of invisible bodies affecting the physical body.

Other of these places are those wherein perfect sleep may be obtained and age reversed. These characteristics are not important.

59.18 ▶ Questioner: What position would be the age reversal position?

Ra: I am Ra. Approximately 5 to 10° above and below the Queen’s Chamber position in ovoid shapes on each face of the four-sided pyramid extending into the solid shape approximately one-quarter of the way to the Queen’s Chamber position.

59.19 ▶ Questioner: In other words, if I went just inside the wall of the pyramid a quarter of the way but still remained three-quarters of the way from the center at approximately the level above the base of the Queen’s Chamber, I would find that position?

Ra: I am Ra. This is approximately so. You must picture the double teardrop extending in both the plane of the pyramid face and in half towards the Queen’s Chamber extending above and below it. You may see this as the position where the light has been scooped into the spiral and then is expanding again. This position is what you may call a prana vacuum.

I'm aware that the negative being begins to experience more and more amounts of "spiritual entropy" while trying to ascend in the sixth density, but I'm wondering why that is exactly. One assumption that I have is that, in order to value the Self over the Other, one must be able to distinguish between the Self and the Other, and that this perceived separation requires a veil of sorts and, in order to spiritually ascend higher and higher, all veils must eventually be abandoned.

If anyone knows a particular session in the LOO specifically concerning this, I don't, and would very much appreciate being guided to one. Thank you.

1) Was ever a time after creation started when higher self did not exist yet? (I mean after creation I assume the mind/body/spirit complex existed first and needed to have an initial evolution through densities before higher self appeared and started his pre-incarnation programming) (or maybe the higher self was created first as a sub-sub-sub-logos and he started the evolutionary process of the mind/body/spirit complex)

2) Do second density complexes have higher selves? Every mind/body/spirit complex must have many 2D incarnations before graduating to 3D but I am not sure if higher self do any programming in the time/space of a second density complex. I know the time/space of 2D is very short may higher self do not care much about that phase of evolution.

3) Are there multiple space/time time/spaces lines of the third density of the same mind/body/spirit complex which are all supervised by same higher self. is it possible for two of those line to be existing at the same time on the same planet. (I mean the same higher self having two or more mind/body/spirit complexes in the same time on earth and two complexes if they ever meet they will believe they are two different people. is it possible now on earth to exist some 2D entity which is a version of my complex?

4) The time/space space/time seems to be independent for each densities, when a Wanderer dies is he going to the time/space of the density he serves in or in the time/space of the density he is from?

5) after a new incarnation happens does the higher self evolves based on the experiences the mind/body/spirit complex?

6) After previous incarnation is reviewed in time/space is the new incarnation happening in the same time line or each incarnation has an independent time line and the entity can actually have a second incarnation starting in the same chronological year with the previous one?

7) Is there an entity in creation which does not have a higher self?

We know that the first distortion is Free Will. Free will then creates polarity, also known as Love or Logos. The Logos is manifested as light and darkness. Light as we know, is made up of seven vibrations, or densities. This is the third distortion. But what about the fourth distortion? Any ideas? What comes after the distortion of light?

I posted this in Facebook's Ra Material Study Group and a nice comment by Kirill and our exchange. Using this as a discussion starter, feel free to add your views.

Quote:Karma - Pivotal - Dharma

Ra mentions the inertial and past life nature of karma, but what about preincarnational programming of new challenges and goals in one's life as dharma? And the pivotal free will choices involved to either revert to old patterns or progress to new patterns? Or to STS or STO in regards to karma and dharma?

I think the above three themes are involved in any life experience and dharma is as important as karma. What do you think?

Studying the Law of One I couldn't find a definitive answer related to human character and physical appearance. Are they part of initial creation of an entity or they are changing from incarnation to incarnation to help polarization?

For instance athletic ability, is this something which is a default feature of an entity and, let's say, a person like Lebron James will always be an athletic stud along his way through densities or is one time deal he could use the way he finds fit for his evolution in this incarnation?

How about intelligence like Stephen Hawking? Is it part of his entity from the beginning and he was the smartest cat in 2D, or is just a temporary gift he could accelerate polarization in the incarnation which just ended?

Another example is a big nose, is this big nose part of the physical vessel or is more part of the astral body so that someone can ware it proudly all the way back to Creator?

How about violence? Is this part of an entity since he was 2D or is only related to one physical vessel? Someone can be violent and compassionate another can be calm and cruel or the other way around the question is if those traits are what we are forever or just represent our personality as part of one incarnation and the next incarnation we could be something else. One life NBA start the next rocket scientist.

Do you have an opinion or maybe a definitive answer to this questions?

It seems to me that the attraction that happens between magnetic positive and negative could be extended to metaphysical level.
For instance:

Positive
- The Positive is in service to others
- The negative is others from Positive point of view
- The Positive services the negative
- As result the positive gain positive polarity

Negative
- The negative is in service to self
- The Positive is others from Negative point of view
- The Negative demands the Positive help.
- The Positive helps the Negative
- As result the negative gain negative polarity

In other words Negative needs to control which he does by receiving Positive help, and Positive needs to help which he does by working for Negative.