+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Here we go again (wikipedia) (/showthread.php?tid=6477)
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 06-29-2014
Why do we have an interest in polarity ?
The Law of One demands one either accept and love all things or only love the self to do work.
Why polarize at all ?
Above.
Why is such a thing required ?
Above.
Why do we have to experience the veiling ?
The Law of One demands prior creations are accepted in oneness and respect the continued desire of veiling in creations.
Why do we need to expose ourselves to the possibility of suffering ?
The Law of One demands acceptance of suffering in order to do work into the higher densities.
Why does evil even have a chance to exist in the first place ?
The Law of One allows one to serve only the self.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - anagogy - 06-29-2014
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Why do we have an interest in polarity ?
It is a natural consequence of being exposed to the level of vibration we are incarnate upon (yellow ray). This ray necessarily deals with other selves and how we relate to such other selves.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The Law of One demands one either accept and love all things or only love the self to do work.
The Law of One demands nothing. It just says all things are one. And what kind of work are we talking? There's a whole lot of work you can do that doesn't involve polarization. But if you seek the creator you'll want to polarize.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Why polarize at all ?
Above.
Why is such a thing required ?
We are intelligent infinity exploring the concept of separation. When we get done playing we stop playing pretend. To give up separation you have to let go of the tenacious hold on the thoughts of separation. And that process is polarization. Your question is kind of like asking, "Why do you dry off after taking a bath?" You dry off when you're done being wet.
It is a natural progression of the logical construct being explored.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Why do we have to experience the veiling ?
You can't truly experience being a separate individual without the veil. So the veil was simply to energize the desired experience.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The Law of One demands prior creations are accepted in oneness and respect the continued desire of veiling in creations.
Again, the Law of One demands nothing, it just says all things are one. The perspective of oneness is a state of absolute acceptance of All however.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Why do we need to expose ourselves to the possibility of suffering ?
The dichotomy between pain and pleasure is necessary for there to be any evolution of experience. Every time you experience the contrast of what you don't want, what you *DO* want then becomes more clearly defined. The evolution of consciousness throughout the densities is all about asking for new and improved conditions, and Source answering the call of those requests. Even one celled amoeba are experiencing things and asking for a new and improved conditions. There is no evolution in monochrome. There has be some kind of aversion/attraction.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: The Law of One demands acceptance of suffering in order to do work into the higher densities.
How so? You'll have to explain that one to me.
(06-29-2014, 04:40 PM)Adonai One Wrote: Why does evil even have a chance to exist in the first place ?
The Law of One allows one to serve only the self.
You would prefer there be no choice?
To answer your question: it is like the option of playing an MMO (massive multiplayer online) game on a player vs. player server vs. a non player vs. player server.
Freedom of consciousness. Can you believe you *chose* to be here?
edit: sorry Adonai, I didn't realize you were quoting Patrick with these questions. Not using the implemented quote functions threw me off.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Patrick - 06-29-2014
Adonai One, it would have been informative and interesting if you would have taken the same quote from the Ra material and given your own understanding of each parts, like I did.
This way I could have begun to understand your point of view better.
Instead you chose to answer the questions I wrote. Questions which were only my understanding of the questions that Don was actually asking of Ra.
It took me 2 hours to write my last post. If you would do the same exercise, it would demonstrate a real interest in exchanging information with more dept and application. Which would surely yield better results.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 06-29-2014
The Law of One demands oneness. I simply detail that demand's implications.
(06-29-2014, 06:33 PM)Patrick Wrote: It would have been informative and interesting if you would have taken the same quote from the Ra material and given your own understanding of each parts, like I did.
This way I could have begun to understand your point of view better.
Instead you chose to answer the questions I wrote. Questions which were only my understanding of the questions that Don was actually asking of Ra.
It took me 2 hours to write my last post. If you would do the same exercise, it would demonstrate a real interest in exchanging information with more dept and application. Which would surely yield better results.
Quote: 22.27 Ra: ...There is only one law. That is the Law of One. Other so-called laws are distortions of this law, some of them primal and most important for progress to be understood. However, it is well that each so-called law, which we also call “way,” be understood as a distortion rather than a law. There is no multiplicity to the Law of One.
Every statement only describes The Law of One. I feel there is no need for further explanation beyond the implications of The Law of One.
Oneness demands acceptance of all things, ergo positive polarization. The only choice is to accept something as within oneness or to reject it as being one with everything.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Patrick - 06-29-2014
(06-29-2014, 06:34 PM)Adonai One Wrote:(06-29-2014, 06:33 PM)Patrick Wrote: ...If you would do the same exercise, it would demonstrate a real interest in exchanging information with more dept and application...
...Every statement only describes The Law of One. I feel there is no need for further explanation beyond the implications of The Law of One...
I take it that you are not interested in discussing with me then ?
If I misunderstood you, could you then give me a quote from the Law of One that you would be interested in discussing and I'll start from there.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 06-29-2014
It's not that I don't understand. I just do not have any feasible resonance with the idea that there are specific reasons for these things beyond the inherent Law of One. These small things do not define my understanding of this material. Only The Law of One is my primary topic of concern in this material. All else has been extraneous to my understanding and growth.
I feel if we all agreed on applying The Law of One definitively under a united definition, these discussions would fall away.
I feel everything we discuss are minor in the face of The Law of One.
Ra came only with the intent of sharing The Law of One, did they not?
I just don't have any reasons or explanations to give you other than The Law of One.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Patrick - 06-29-2014
(06-29-2014, 06:53 PM)Adonai One Wrote: ...I feel if we all agreed on applying The Law of One definitively under a united definition, these discussions would fall away.
This is going to happen in 4th density. It cannot happen while incarnated in third density.
(06-29-2014, 06:53 PM)Adonai One Wrote: I feel everything we discuss are minor in the face of The Law of One.
Ra came only with the intent of sharing The Law of One, did they not?
I just don't have any reasons or explanations to give you other than The Law of One.
But you see, my understanding of the Law of One seems to be different than yours.
How do you propose we understand each other better ?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 06-29-2014
(06-29-2014, 07:00 PM)Patrick Wrote:(06-29-2014, 06:53 PM)Adonai One Wrote: ...I feel if we all agreed on applying The Law of One definitively under a united definition, these discussions would fall away.
This is going to happen in 4th density. It cannot happen while incarnated in third density.
You're free to cite the passage that says that directly.
(06-29-2014, 07:00 PM)Patrick Wrote: But you see, my understanding of the Law of One seems to be different than yours.I think we understand each other perfectly. We just have perspectives that are completely and indefinitely different.
How do you propose we understand each other better ?
I believe oneness exists right now. You don't. Until this is reconciled, we will always disagree. It is very binary.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Patrick - 06-29-2014
(06-29-2014, 07:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote:(06-29-2014, 07:00 PM)Patrick Wrote: This is going to happen in 4th density. It cannot happen while incarnated in third density.
You're free to cite the passage that says that directly.
Regarding: "This is going to happen in 4th density"
Ra 16.50 Wrote:Questioner: ...Is it possible for you to give a small description of the conditions in fourth density?
Ra: ...it is a plane wherein individual differences are pronounced although automatically harmonized by group consensus.
Regarding: "It cannot happen while incarnated in third density"
Quote:38.6 Questioner: Is it possible for a third-density planet to form a social memory complex which operates in third density?
Ra: I am Ra. It is possible only in the latter or seventh portion of such a density when entities are harmoniously readying for graduation.
I guess it could happen in our near future while still in 3d. But I would not say we are "harmoniously readying for graduation" on planet Earth.
Quote:38.7 Questioner: Could you give me an example of a planet of this nature, both a third-density service-to-others type and a third-density self-service type at this level of, of attainment conditions?
Ra: I am Ra. As far as we are aware there are no negatively oriented third-density social memory complexes. Positively oriented social memory complexes of third density are not unheard of but quite rare. However, an entity from the star Sirius’ planetary body has approached this planetary body twice. This entity is late third-density and is part of a third-density social memory complex. This has been referred to in the previous material. The social memory complex is properly a fourth-density phenomenon.
So ok yes it can happen. I stand corrected. But it is highly improbable that it can happen on this planet at this harvest.
Are you saying that you wish this would happen ? And that it is your desire to help with such a thing ?
(06-29-2014, 07:08 PM)Adonai One Wrote: ...I believe oneness exists right now. You don't...
I do actually !
It's just that I believe we are currently playing a game where we prevent ourselves from becoming fully aware of this.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 06-29-2014
What if I told you I believed I was fully aware of unity?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Patrick - 06-29-2014
(06-29-2014, 08:45 PM)Adonai One Wrote: What if I told you I believed I was fully aware of unity?
I would say that we are not using the same semantics.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - dreamliner - 07-04-2014
When it is considered that, "the transition from 3rd to 4th will take 100 to 700 years", writings or discussions about the Law of One material, like wikipedia article and all the fuss around it, may somehow become "the remnants of the past" and the focus of attraction in far future; quite similar to the "Sonmi religion" depicted in "cloud atlas". I haven't read the novel but the depiction of "sonmi wisdom" was not sufficient enough in the film; I mean, "sonmi material" could have been created more wisely, her words/sentences could be more wise.
Another source that I found as interesting & mind boggling as the Law of One material was "Varo edition - the case for the ufo" book ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment#Office_of_Naval_Research_and_the_Varo_annotation ) ( http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/Varo-Jessup.pdf ). Annotations throughout the book looks quite genuine, as if 3 negatively oriented extraterrestrials had written them. Many information given by the annotations seem as manipulative, aiming to frighten and false, but some of them gives the impression of being correct (such as the ones about the advanced manufacturing method/machinery), which I imagine were for drawing some attention from "military complex of various of our peoples’ societal divisions or structures".
Below are some annotations:
1- This one seemed to me as an attribution to nuclear war in mars:
Russia FINALLY admits atomic Warfare would
obliterate Civilization from the Earth, No Winner
& etc. Would they admitt such if they knew of
Nothing better?
2-
L-M SHIPS ON UNDER SEA EXPLORATION, STAYED TOO
LONG, GATHERED A "COAT" ON SHIELD EDGE. BURNED
IT OFF AT SURFACE. ICE GATHERED ON VENUSIAN
VOYAGE & BURNED OFF WHEN COMING OUT OF "SHIELD"
SAME FOR OTHER MATERIALS BUT THESE "CAUGHT" ON
OTHER PLANETS
3-
No Not pals but the French are such of an general
Pholosophic attitude Even in that Day that they
were chosen to be contacted. Now, some L-M's live
in france out of preference in field of Philosophical
Study. They like it.
4-
The possibility of the Ruskies have FOUND
an old "Dead-Ship" is Not without the realm of
probability. His admittance to other forms of
Humanoid Life is near-revealatory to what I sur-
mise; He is being Lead by his short-Wave Telepathic
nose, so to speak; too "SEE" these things. He says,
"WE" and that could imply anything from one friendly
L-M to a fellow scientist or his Wife or Some Member
of U.S. Government.
If What I, now, surmise, is true, then the L-Ms
are in trouble or the S-Ms Wish to War upon the
L-Ms & are USING this Man, telepathically, to "get
help." Whether this consideration is of import to
him only remains to be seen. İf is isn't, then, He
will be Left out on a Emotional Limb, trying to say
"See, I am right, "They" are Wrong" & will forget
what IS important here.
5-
Had Farraday concerned Himself With The Mag.
FIELD SURROUNDING HIS Elec. current, Man to-
day would already Have reached the outermost
Parts of our Galaxy.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Ankh - 07-12-2014
Wow! I've been on vacation and then moved to a new apartment, so I've been away from here for a while. And I just read what happened with the wiki page. Wow!
I had no idea that Adonai edited that the Law of One wiki page that yossarian worked so hard with, and then nominated it for deletion which one wiki admin then did, deleting all that hard work that yossarian did! Wow!
Yossarian, no matter what happened and happens - *thank you* for your hard work!
(Maybe Immanuel Thoughtmaker on wikipedia should change his name there to Immanuel Troublemaker?
)
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Unbound - 07-12-2014
(06-27-2014, 03:35 AM)Adonai One Wrote: Show me who I am battling and falsifying? Show me who I want to defeat? I have no sense of certainty, xise. I feel there is nothing to conquer. In fact, I know for a fact the article most likely won't be deleted anytime I soon. I still voice myself seeing if a consensus using my suggestion has potential to exist. And my opinion will be cited in the future and used as a tool if this article ever falls apart.
This is collaborative, it would just take a long time for us to reach an understanding in discussion. I would be dishonest if I pretended to agree with people and say I want this article existing as it is, so all I can do is voice my opinion and see if people agree.
I'm certainly respecting the Wikipedia community by seeing if optimal consensus has been reached and if all the possible voices have been heard.
I want my way and the way of others as well in a perfect consensus without suppressing my own view. There is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed.
So, how do you deal with 'ways' that are a counter-current to your own way? Do you seek victory for your own way, step away and allow their way, or strike a compromise?
You are very correct that there is no true consensus if one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed and do you realize that others also feel suppressed besides yourself? Do you have any consideration that your own words may cause another to be artificially suppressed even if that is not your intention? Why does it seem like you are only ever focused on the fact that you feel you can be suppressed but never seem to consider that other people feel suppressed as well. I am sure you will say that there is no right or wrong, that all is one, that you cannot suppress others but then I would say that it is impossible for others to suppress you so your whole argument and idea of "one part of the consensus has their opinion artificially suppressed" because based on your own continuous assertion that all is One, there is no right or wrong it is completely impossible for anyone to suppress your opinion.
So, which is it? Why when you disagree with something do you have to seek to change it? That is what you do, you disagree, then seek to change things based on what you say is a desire for consensus, including yourself, so what you are literally saying is that until you and everyone else agree, there needs to be more change. This confuses me, because once again it contradicts your own continuous assertion that nothing need be done and nothing is inherently important except our unity, so why are you so bent on consensus?
I just don't get it, you jump back and forth between these two total extremes and it just makes it look like you are constantly contradicting yourself. Perhaps that is my own inability to understand you, or perhaps it is just the nature of language to separate, but I don't see any reconciliation in your two extremes. I understand conceptually the nature of the paradox, but I am confused by the way it manifests through you, I suppose. You say you do not believe in effort, but it seems to me you really put a lot, in fact all, of your effort (of course, the effort is inherent as you would say, please don't start that circle again) towards the fulfillment of your desires even if you say you don't prioritize any of them (although your desire for consensus on this forum seems to be a high priority for you in the context of this forum, but maybe I am crazy).
So, all in all, I have no idea what you are actually trying to get at. Either your message is that we are all absolutely one, free, sovereign and infinite, or that we must change ourselves until we are "absolutely accepting" so we can polarize. Which one is it?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 07-12-2014
As the laws of the universe force a consensus within space and time, the laws of Wikipedia force a consensus within secondary reliable sources.
Acceptance entails accepting what we reject until it falls away as we face it more and more.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - ChickenInSpace - 07-13-2014
And how will you apply this to the LOO on Wikipedia? Build a new Wikipedia?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Cyclops - 11-25-2014
I'm reading the wiki page and it seems to be so far as neutral and informative but something is missing for me. I never edited before and do not know all of the laws and rules and sources/secondary source needs for wiki articles so excuse me on that.
What's missing for me in my opinion is... what is exactly the "Law of One"? when reading the wiki page there is no hint to it or even any kind of description to potential readers.
On top of explaining that this is a channeled material, which claims Ra supposedly is an extraterrestrial civilization who offers views on spiritual evolution I think there should be a section explaining what the Law of One actually means and how it is even relevant to anything.
If possible that section would connect to concepts such as monism, pantheism, pandeism, transcendence(religion), immanence, panenthiesm somehow since Ra's description of oneness has some degrees of all of these concepts I listed from wikipedia.
If I am making any sense I welcome some input because I think describing the main concept of the Law of One would really open up what the books/material is actually about to anyone who stumbles onto the article.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - AnthroHeart - 11-25-2014
Thanks for teaching me about immanence.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - βαθμιαίος - 11-25-2014
(11-25-2014, 03:43 PM)Cyclops Wrote: I'm reading the wiki page and it seems to be so far as neutral and informative but something is missing for me. I never edited before and do not know all of the laws and rules and sources/secondary source needs for wiki articles so excuse me on that.
What's missing for me in my opinion is... what is exactly the "Law of One"? when reading the wiki page there is no hint to it or even any kind of description to potential readers.
On top of explaining that this is a channeled material, which claims Ra supposedly is an extraterrestrial civilization who offers views on spiritual evolution I think there should be a section explaining what the Law of One actually means and how it is even relevant to anything.
If possible that section would connect to concepts such as monism, pantheism, pandeism, transcendence(religion), immanence, panenthiesm somehow since Ra's description of oneness has some degrees of all of these concepts I listed from wikipedia.
If I am making any sense I welcome some input because I think describing the main concept of the Law of One would really open up what the books/material is actually about to anyone who stumbles onto the article.
You are making sense. The wikipedia protocol is to summarize what published sources say about a topic, rather than to write one's own opinions. However, since this is a page about a series of books, it's appropriate that there be some indication of what the books are about.
You will meet opposition, though, in part from people that don't think wikipedia should cover anything "woo-woo". I recommend creating an account so that your edits won't be anonymous and discussing your proposed changes on the talk page before you make them. Be prepared to articulate your ideas and to defend them.
I also recommend reading through the tortuous history of the wikipedia Law of One pages and nominations for deletions so that you're prepared for the kind of responses that you'll get.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - dreamliner - 11-25-2014
Before any extensive/radical editing, apart from βαθμιαίος's advice about reading the "history" of the Law of One article in wikipedia from the article's talk page, I would recommend anyone to internalize the key wikipedia policies and guidelines. Especially the ones WP:OR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) and WP:SYNTH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material).
Anything unpublished by "reliable secondary sources" falls under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and likely to be removed. As one can see from the article talk page, there have been previous attempts of expanding the content with clear OR/SYNTH pieces, and the consensus was to remove/exclude.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - The_Tired_Philosopher - 10-13-2015
Is this still going on by chance? Dealing with the wiki page?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Jade - 10-13-2015
It's still pretty contested and a skeleton of what it used to be. It looks like someone has been tinkering with it a bit here recently. I don't think Adonai's horse is in this race anymore though.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 10-13-2015
Seems an economics buff was pissed about The Law of One sharing the same name as the economic Law of One... price...
"For the economic Law of One, stating a good sells for one price in all places & related concepts, see Law of One price and Purchasing power parity."
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - The_Tired_Philosopher - 10-13-2015
Not surprising. So uh. What needs to be done with it? What's the goal here?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Parsons - 10-13-2015
Lol:
Quote:See Also -
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - The_Tired_Philosopher - 10-13-2015
Don't laugh, it technically is to them since they don't recognize channeled information as anything beyond 'self subject contemplations'.
So, just let it be that way. In the mean time we'll let people decide if it is just self subject contemplations or if its something more on their own time by giving them resources and trying to not have it completely stripped down to the skeleton too badly.
Maybe?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Jade - 10-13-2015
Well, the pseudo-encyclopedia run by pseudo-intellectuals knows what it knows.
I have no problem with it, as it is.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - The_Tired_Philosopher - 10-13-2015
Basically my point, so what'sa shalls we do about this wikipedia page??
Or attempt to bother doing?
There's issues with the wiki page specifically how now exactly?
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Parsons - 10-14-2015
I was just laughing sardonically at whoever wrote that.
I get this feeling of a need for atheists to 'defeat' or 'debunk' anything spiritual or religious. I think they have a tendency to prey on anything outside the mainstream because the major religions have so much support. So they label anything they (superficially) view as illogical or 'pseudo'.
It used to bother me when that attitude was directed towards the Ra Material or any other channeling I hold in high regard. But at this point, I would prefer the wiki page to represent the material accurately without any biased name-calling, but I honestly don't mind if it doesn't. The primary reason being I think it's extremely important to preserve the free will of those who choose not to believe.
RE: Here we go again (wikipedia) - Adonai One - 10-16-2015
I believe it is relevant to say that the material at hand claims there is no "right or wrong," which can be thusly and intuitively interpreted as it claiming there being no proper "true or false."
The fact of the matter is, although probably not the intent of this Wikipedia editor, that The Ra Material is illogical and pseudoscience (scientia = knowledge) as Ra directly claims there is no knowledge to be had in this dimension "without understanding."
The Ra Material is philosophically opposed to any sense of facts especially when it claims that our confusion has a right to remain and be respected.
The Ra Material is a heavy set of logical nihilism preaching the ways of unseen worlds. There is no knowledge to be had here. The most scientific word you can ascribe to this book is science-fiction, although without the proper respect of the field, at most you have just fantasy with a dash of scientific-sounding lore. Neutrally speaking, this is the nature of pseudo-science, no shame intended nor necessary.
Simply, THEY CLAIM EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT: THE Ra MATERIAL CLAIMS THIS IS A DREAM LAND, EVEN THE BOOK IMPLICITLY BEING FANTASY OF "THE CREATOR."
/2 cents