+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Strictly Law of One Material (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. (/showthread.php?tid=10850)
Pages:
1
2
IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - 4Dsunrise - 05-10-2015
4dphilosophyproject (at) gmail.com
If you have a serious interest in developing the IUP and producing a philosophical treatise and curriculum for mainstrean university study send an email. Elaborate on what your goals are and what specific interests you may have related to this project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(quick edit to clarify IUP and to add my opening statement for LOO supporters to respond to -- remember that its a friendly philosophical debate)
Debate -- A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal -- reasons involve facts and examples and logical steps towards conclusions.
Philosophical debates are of a much higher standard than religious or political debates -- debates that degenerate into unfocused emotional and irrational attacks and use of logical fallacies. Check the debate section of the Philosophy Forums website to see how a friendly effective debate is conducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IUP means Infinity Unity Principle
IUP = IU + UI
IU means Infinity is Unity
UI means Unity is Infinity
The All One Principle or AOP is equivalent to IUP but has unique usage for descriptions and derivations.
AOP = AO + OA
AO means All is One (AO is equivalent to IU and the Law of All)
OA means One is All (OA is equivalent to UI and the Law of One)
IUP or AOP = LoA + LoO and is a dialectical monism.
There is actually a two-fold reciprocal nature to the IUP. There is the Infinity/Unity aspect and the Unity/Infinity aspect. Existentially, Infinity preceded Unity but found its essence through focus and formulation of Unity and became aware. Unity gains being and awareness through the breadth and dynamism of Infinity. Thus these two aspects are equally significant and form a Dyad.
Infinity/Unity means 'All is One' and is called the Law of All or LoA.
Colloquially, one can say 'All is I' which allows an inward focus from the All to oneself.
Unity/Infinity means 'One is All' and is called the Law of One or LOO.
Colloquially, one can say 'I am All' which allows an outward focus from oneself to the All.
A work in progress at:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for the debate is to spur interest in both the IUP and LOO towards creating a coherent philosophical system around either one or both these principles by way of philosophical analysis and critique and then developing a curriculum based on this system.
A. My position is that the IUP is fundamental and comprehensive as opposed to the LOO -- as explicitly defined in RM session 1, a definition that, imo, is somewhat muddled -- and my version of the IUP claims to be a dialectical monism which includes both the LOO and the LoA -- to then generate derivable principles and forms of existence.
B. The LOO position should be able to provide its own reasons for why the LOO -- with somewhat muddled and conflicting interpretations between RM sessions 1 & 4 -- is fundamental and comprehensive and therefore superior to the IUP. A clear description should be provided as to what type of monism LOO claims to be.
Monism -- The doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element -- the doctrine that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts. There are a wide variety of monisms which the LOO supporter will need to explore -- plus an 'All is One' philosophy by Parmenides from this link is worth a view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjTAWFNLjKc
The opening statement of this debate by both sides should address the following.
Provide reasons for why the IUP or LOO is the fundamental principle of creation from which all other principles and forms of existence are derived. Such a fundamental principle should be capable of being presented as a comprehensive philosophical treatise explaining in a logically consistent format how such principles and forms can be derived. Comprehensive, consistent and derivable qualities must be described.
By definition, a philosophical treatise is a systematic exposition written out in a way that includes an organized discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached. It has to be consistent, coherent and explain how and why physical and metaphysical phenomena are derived from it.
So, the hope is that a well thought out and focused debate between parties should be useful to provide an outline for a philosophical treatise and a curriculum of the IUP and/or LOO.
I made an opening statement for the IUP in the latest Xandria Material post and actually tried to argue for LOO, so it's important for the LOO supporter to read it through carefully and make reference to it in this thread.
Go to last post at:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10318
And since I already opened the debate and made the IUP case to a large extent, I'll give the floor to the LOO supporter to make your opening statement in the next post of this thread.
Btw, I'm pro-Confederation in that the Ra Material and some portions of the Quo material are invaluable for my research and development of a comprehensive philosophical treatise of the IUP and a descriptive/prescriptive curriculum for students of both academic and esoteric philosophy.
So it's very similar to the Nehru/Peret approach to reevaluating and advancing Dewey Larson's RS.
Another motivation is that we're now at the 3.8/4.1D overlap where we're exiting the Density of Choice and entering the Density of Understanding of 4D with a weak draw to a faintly activated 5D of Wisdom/Knowledge.
For the future 4D Terrans 'understanding is of this density' and should apply in terms of advanced philosophical and esoteric understanding and which a philosophical treatise and curriculum is dedicated to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to rephrase, the purpose of this philosophical debate is to find out how the 6D Terran's IUP compares to the 6D Venusian's LOO and which would make the best philosophical treatise. Which is more comprehensive, logically consistent and derivable?
One last note -- you might also want to address the questions below because the IUP, LoA and LOO will be scrutinized and critiqued by philosophy students in such a Q & A scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Law of One or Way of One?
This fundamental question will be asked by faculty and students who will want a clear and comprehensive answer.
I. Describe in the form of a definition.
Define 'law' or 'way' as it is used here. Is it a decree or governmental dictate? Or is it more like a discovered physical law ie the law of gravity which is considered a 'persistent regularity'. There is a need to disambiguate and clarify this notion of 'law'.
Finish this statement 'The term law in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Define 'one' as it is used here.
Define in terms of both its qualitative and quantitative referents.
How do the qualitative and quantitative referents combine to form a consistent and coherent definition?
Finish this statement 'The term one in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Finish this statement 'The LOO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'
II. Describe the key principles that the Law of One is based on.
From what primitive concepts are the LOO derived from?
How are these primitive concepts combined to create the LOO?
How are the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' used if they are applicable?
III. Describe the clauses and/or corollaries to the Law of One.
Are there sub-sections derived from the LOO in the form of clauses?
If so what are they? An all-encompassing 'decreed law' would have clauses to address all specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as clauses?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a clause derived from the LOO based on...'
Are there inferences or practical consequences to the LOO in the form of corollaries? If not a 'decreed law' then an all-encompassing 'natural law' would have corollaries that logically and naturally follow from the law to explain specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as corollaries?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'Intelligent Infinity is a condition or corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'The octaves and densities are conditions or corollaries derived from the LOO based on...'
IV. Compare the LOO to other Oneness philosophies.
Does the LOO assert the existence of one fundamental substance as does Substance Monism? If so what is this substance? Is it physical or metaphysical? What are its qualitative and quantitative properties? If not so, what does LOO assert to be fundamental?
Is the LOO, as it is defined, basically the same as Non-Duality which asserts no division and the Absolute? If so, are the clauses and/or corollaries of Non-Duality derived in a similar manner?
What type of theism is the LOO Creator based on? Pantheism, pandeism, monotheism? What are the specific characteristics of the LOO's OIC? Is the OIC an omni-God?
===================================================
Opening Statement
I first critique some Ra statements and then move to the channel session where LOO supporters challenge the IUP. I try to play their role to give you an idea of how to make challenges and to support your claims as would happen in a friendly philosophical debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Book 1: Session 1
Thus, we are speaking to you and accepting both our distortions and your own in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the Law of One.
What are the Venusians distortions relative to enunciating the laws of creation? Can we assume that they may be at 6.6.6 density which has a strong LOO bias? From this statement why don't they make explicit that the LOO is the fundamental law of creation?
That which is infinite (ie the set of natural numbers) cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept.
The set of natural numbers is a countable infinity and contains more than one number which means that it is an infinite plurality. A set or collective is considered a unity or a complete whole, so let's call the set of natural numbers a complete plurality.
You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.
In short form this statement means 'You are All'. The converse of this statement in short form is 'All is you' or the Law of All.
The term 'converse' means 'reversed in order, relation or action' so the LoA and LOO have a bipolar reciprocal relationship. They have equal significance which is why IUP = LoA + LOO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to the channel session.
Q. We mean no disrespect but we remain skeptical of some of the claims of the IUP.
You claim that, in theoretical terms, that IUP = LoA + LOO. We have heard from other channel sources, including your Venusian mentors, that theoretically, Oneness or LOO is sufficient to derive all the principles of knowledge and experience.
We find the LOO as both attractive and compelling as we seek the oneness and harmony of positively polarized 4th density whereby each individual seeks to identify with all others in order to create a robust Social Memory Complex.
We do acknowledge that this involves a mutually outward and projective focus and CCO/STO which you have stated is the essential nature of LOO or, according to you, that 'One is All'.
We claim that LOO asserts that Oneness encompasses Allness so therefore LOO encompasses LoA and that the notions of inward and injective focus and CCS/STS are aspects of Oneness and 'All is One' is not distinct from 'One is All', as you would claim.
We therefore claim that your assumption that IUP = LoA + LOO is extraneous and erroneous unless proven otherwise.
We would like as proof the following conditions.
1. Addressing our claim that LOO asserts that Oneness encompasses Allness so therefore LOO encompasses LoA.
2. More clarity and detail of your definitions of LoA and LOO especially as to how 'One is All' is distinct from 'All is One' -- a distinction which we presently refute.
3. Provide one or more specific examples of where the IUP supercedes the LOO as necessary in deriving aspects or principles of the Creation. We suggest explaining how the octaves and densities are derived and how they function according to the IUP as opposed to the LOO.
A. We thank you for being honest and forthcoming regarding your disagreement with our theoretical notion of the IUP.
We also mean no disrespect to you, to other channels and especially to our beloved Venusian friends who were functioning at a sub-sub-density of 6.6.6D at the time of their transmission of the LOO in our 3rd density. The density of 6.6.6 is an evolutional interval that is particularly focused on LOO principles.
In addition, their message of the LOO is essential for those entering 4th density and is, as you stated, attractive and compelling and rightfully so because both positive and negative 4D is a LOO motivated density due to outward focus and identification between individuals in order to form a Social Memory Complex.
We have opened the door to elaborate further on the densities and will do so in the order of your enumerated questions.
Regarding your first question of -- Addressing our claim that LOO asserts that Oneness encompasses Allness so therefore LOO encompasses LoA.
In a previous session we stated:
Unity/Infinity means 'One is All' and is called the Law of One or LOO.
Colloquially, one can say 'I am All' which allows an outward focus from Oneself to the All.
For LOO, projection or outward focus is emphasized by stating 'You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation...you are...All.'
From these statements we consider that LOO asserts that Oneness identifies with Allness but does not encompass Allness and, as a result, LOO does not encompass LoA.
There was a quote from our Venusian bretheren stating 'Unity contains all and so therefore it cannot abhor any' which we totally agree but there is a distinction between the quantitative 'all' and the qualitative 'Allness' which is subtle but significant and where the application of philosophical analysis is essential to understand such distinctions.
We would restate that 'Unity is Infinity and therefore contains all'. This makes clear that the qualitative notion of identification entails the quantitative notion of containing.
Let us refer back to this same session regarding LoA.
Infinity/Unity means 'All is One' and is called the Law of All or LoA.
Colloquially, one can say 'All is I' which allows an inward focus from the All to Oneself.
For LoA, injection or inward focus is emphasized by stating 'Every thing is you, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation...All is...you.'
From these statements we consider that LoA asserts that Allness identifies with Oneness but does not encompass Oneness and, as a result, LoA does not encompass LOO.
Let us state that 'Infinity is Unity and therefore contains one' whereby the phrase 'contains one' means 'contains one and only one of itself' and so again the qualitative notion of identification entails the quantitative notion of containing.
Let us again refer back to the session where we stated:
There is actually a two-fold reciprocal nature to the IUP. There is the Infinity/Unity aspect and the Unity/Infinity aspect. Existentially, Infinity preceded Unity but found its essence through Unity through focus and formulation and became aware. Unity gains being and awareness through the dynamism and activity of Infinity. Thus these two aspects are equally significant and form a Dyad.
In this case we do not use the algrebraic notion of Dyad due to the absolute nature of the terms Infinity and Unity and thus express in theoretical terms as IUP = LoA + LOO or colloquially 'All is One and One is All'
We hope this has sufficiently addressed your 1st question.
Q. Ah -- we'll get back to you after we do our own philosophical analysis. We appreciate your efforts and look forward to question #2.
A. We appreciate your healthy skepticism and shall now address your second question of -- More clarity and detail of your definitions of LoA and LOO especially as to how 'One is All' is distinct from 'All is One' -- a distinction which we presently refute.
We shall now introduce the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' which further clarifies and distinguishes LoA and LOO. The term 'absolute' refers to 'one and only one' as there cannot be more than one absolute Infinity or absolute Unity. The term 'relative' refers to 'more than one' as there can be more than one relative infinity ie countable and uncountable, and more than one relative unity ie unit intervals of a number line.
LoA -- 'All is One' means 'Absolute All is a relative One-exclusive complete Plurality' where 'relative One-exclusive' translates to 'excludes all but one, and so there is one and only one absolute Infinity'.
LoO -- 'One is All' means 'Absolute One is a relative All-inclusive complete Singularity' where 'relative All-inclusive' translates to 'includes all to form one and only one absolute Unity'.
An important point is that in both these definitions the notion of finity is a natural consequence of the absolute/relative dynamic and of terms ie singularity and plurality -- so thus there is a logical and natural emergence of finity and form in Creation.
In a past session we stated:
The distinction between LoA and LOO may seem subtle but it is significant for allowing the emergence of polarity and evolution.
Let us briefly state that 'Oneness is static without Allness and Allness is unfocussed without Oneness' so together they form a dynamic duo and dynamism entails polarity and evolution.
So, in conclusion, there is a distinction in the manner of complementarity. This complementarity implies a dynamic inseparable duality or unified bipolarity -- a notion that the philosophical system of Non-Duality requires.
We hope this has sufficiently addressed your 2nd question.
Q. We will again suspend judgement until we undergo our own philosophical analysis.
Perhaps the pull of 4D has us in an emotionally biased LOO mode and is clouding our perception of Allness and of LoA. We'll keep an open mind.
A. We again applaud you for maintaining a healthy discernment while leaving your minds and hearts open.
We now would like to show where both LoA and LOO as defined by our IUP are clearly necessary to produce polarity and evolution and which we will address in your 3rd question -- Provide one or more specific examples of where the IUP supercedes the LOO as necessary in deriving aspects or principles of the Creation. We suggest explaining how the octaves and densities are derived and how they function according to the IUP as opposed to the LOO.
We shall now attempt a sufficient explanation.
The natural bipolar relationship of LoA and LOO allows the bipolar relationship of number as odd/even, prime/composite, predecessor/successor to form 2x2x2 structures called octaves which are based on a natural vibrational or tonal progression which uses doubling effects to distinguish between successive octaves.
The IUP asserts the initial notion that 'Infinity is Unity' -- it is the 1st assertion so therefore LoA is assigned #1. 'Unity is Infinity' is the successive 2nd assertion so therefore LOO is assigned #2. These assertions then alternate so that LoA is 1, 3, 5, 7 whereas LOO is 2, 4, 6, 8.
As previously mentioned, these numbers have vibrational being and, in this case, have beingness as the 8 densities of an octave. So LoA relates to 1D, 3D, 5D and 7D while LOO relates to 2D, 4D, 6D and 8D.
In other words, the densities of an octave take on the character and motivation of either LoA or LOO with further modification made by the sub-densities within each density which, in turn, has further modification made by the sub-sub-densities, and so on.
For all practical purposes the sub-sub-density level is sufficient for general evolutional understanding. For example, a density of 3.6.5 has the character and motivation of LoA/LoO/LoA in 3D with a natural evolutional draw to LOO motivated 4D.
So at this particular stage of 3.6.5D the self-aware 'All is I' character of 3D is modified by the 'I am All' character of a 3D-filtered 6D which, in turn, is modified by the 'All is I' character of a 3D/6D-filtered 5D. As you can see it has a hierarchal and complex interactive structure.
In addition, this hierarchal density complex in 3D is modified by the ethical bipolar draw of 4D and its 'I am All' character.
This rich interplay of LoA and LOO through the filterings of number and density is that of a tone poem or chromatic composition -- expressive, dynamic and alive with polarized tension and action.
We sense a query. Do you wish to respond?
Q. No, we were just caught off guard with your notion of a density filtering process and of tone poems and chromatic compositions. These are new concepts to consider and to put into perspective.
A. We suggest opening one's heart and one's intuitive and artistic senses as you consider these concepts. Musical and color arts training is most beneficial in this regard. Let us provide an example that is relevant to your 3D condition..
To evolve to 3D the need for individuality and self-awareness is motivated by 'All is I' consciousness and inner focus which provides a level of cognition/affection for integrating 1D and 2D consciousness. Once in 3D the 4D consciousness is activated but only faintly until one reaches 3.4D and clear ethical awareness emerges and one evolves beyond a clan or tribal ethic. Notice that 3.4D has LoA/LoO motivation.
When in LoA/LoA motivated 3.5D one most likely feels as an outcast of the clan or tribe and inner focus and integration takes place in accord with the 'All is I' sub-density. One becomes more open and aware of a global or universal ethic and strives to understand its principles.
The STS principles are towards understandings and methods of manipulation of clans and tribes for personal power of a CCS nature, whereas STO principles are towards understandings and methods of peaceful coalescing of clans and tribes for personal power of a CCO nature.
When in LoA/LoO motivated 3.6D one becomes socially involved with others of like mind and ideals which reflects outer focus in accord with the 'I am All' sub-density. Political, military and corporate power structures appeal to the social focus of STS while charity and grassroots movements appeal to the social focus of STO.
Finally, when an individual is at 3.7D she is experiencing LoA/LoA consciousness and an acute integration of LOO sub-densities 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 with also a strong awareness and draw to LOO motivated 4D. She has also been integrating LoA sub-densities 3.1, 3.3, 3.5 and their lessons and is deciding her ethical 4D fate with much inner reflection and perhaps inner conflict and turmoil. The tone poetic and chromatic drama is being played out on both inner and outer planes of her soul/chakra system and her daily life.
We wish her well in her efforts to progress to 4D.
As we mentioned our Venusian friends were at 6.6.6D which reflects LOO/LoO/LoO when offering the LOO to us as we were entering the LOO motivated 4D. That LOO bias tends to overstate LOO and understate LoA and our notion of the IUP.
We presently exist at 6.7.3D which reflects LOO/LoA/LoA and are motivated by both LOO and LoA as we are drawn to LoA motivated 7D.
We again sense a query. Do you wish to respond?
Q. I don't know where to begin. I can relate to that person in 3.7D since that is where we are personally and as a planet. The elaborate interplay of LoA and LOO within myself is such a new concept to consider, but I must admit it has an intellectual elegance.
A. We understand and offer a few examples. Your breathing in and out is a LoA/LoO process. Your heart beats by contracting and expanding and is a LoA/LoO process. Your inner/outer focus and CCS/CCO is LoA/LoO.
Also, to understand the dynamic interaction of LoA and LOO throughout 3D we suggest that you consider the idealized developmental evolution of a person from infancy to old age recognizing that at 3.1 an infant experiences itself as the center of the universe while at 3.7 an octogenarian is self-reflecting and inward seeking in preparation for rebirth. As you can see both 3.1 and 3.7 express LoA /LoA or 'All is I' consciousness but with much different levels of maturity.
Do you have a query?
Q. Yes, we have a question regarding densities and octaves particularly the discrepancy of 7 densities in an octave which, by definition, should be 8 densities. We noticed that you explicitly enumerated 8 densities per octave. Are we to assume the 8th density of one octave coincides with the 1st density of the next octave and does this directly correspond to the musical diatonic octave?
A. Yes this is quite true. There is an overlap of 8th density and 1st density from one octave to the next and this indicates further elaboration of the term density and of 8th and 1st density principles.
In the pure sense, a density is a sub-octave or a minor octave and a sub-density is a sub-sub-octave or sub-minor octave and so on. Octaves within octaves within octaves.
The term density is used because it is a measure of the degree of intensity of will, love and light and so it is equivalent to a measure of vibrational beingness. Density is likened to a degree of temperature and is convenient and descriptive for determining the evolutional stage of being. Drastic changes take place at a melting point and boiling point degree and similarly at a successive density or stage of evolution.
Let us now consider the overlap of densities 3.8 and 4.1 which is most relevant for you.
They both represent the same quantitative degree of intensity but have different qualitative modes and motivations in that 3.8 is LoA/LoO and 4.1 is LOO/LoA. These modes have a complementary and reciprocal relationship and provide the necessary linkage and transition between densities -- in this case between 3D and 4D. These complementary modes also allow for bipolar ethical expression whereby either 4D+ or 4D- is chosen.
To further elaborate, recall the example of the octogenarian at 3.7D preparing for rebirth. The transition from LoA/LoA of 3.7D to LoA/LoO of 3.8D is the final rebirth phase as one projects out of their physical body using the 'I am All' or LOO state of being to end the LoA mode of 3D. It is a releasing and exiting phase.
To continue with this example, at rebirth one is now injected into 4.1D which, at LOO/LoA provides the 'All is I' or LoA mode that properly plants or seats the distillations of 3.8D into 4D. It is a collecting and entering phase.
The blending of 3.8D and 4.1D is likened to a saxaphone and clarinet playing the same note of the same octave. They are of different timber but of the same tonal vibration and therefore this duet is essential for providing the foundation for the rich tone poetic and multi-instrumental ensemble of 4D.
We sense a conclusion to this rather lengthy exposition is appropriate.
Q. Yes, we notice that our channel's voice is getting raspy so we agree that it's time to sign off. Thank you for taking the time to address our conditions. We will digest it carefully and get back to you.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - AnthroHeart - 05-10-2015
What's IUP?
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - ShawnnaConnolly - 05-10-2015
I see little value in debating spiritual philosophies.
I take what resonates from all and create my own, unique path.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-10-2015
What is IUP? Also I wouldn't say the LOO is so much monotheistic, rather pantheistic.
I had answered every question and did hit the "back" button on my mouse... I'll rewrite it later.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - AnthroHeart - 05-10-2015
Actually I think the LOO is panentheism.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Parsons - 05-10-2015
I think that is Indiana University of Pennsylvania, according to Google.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - sunnysideup - 05-10-2015
Quote:Infinity/Unity Principle or IUP
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 01:26 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: I. Describe in the form of a definition.
Define 'law' or 'way' as it is used here. Is it a decree or governmental dictate? Or is it more like a discovered physical law ie the law of gravity which is considered a 'persistent regularity'. There is a need to disambiguate and clarify this notion of 'law'.
Finish this statement 'The term law in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Define 'one' as it is used here.
Define in terms of both its qualitative and quantitative referents.
How do the qualitative and quantitative referents combine to form a consistent and coherent definition?
Finish this statement 'The term one in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Finish this statement 'The LOO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'
The term law in the LOO denotes that it cannot be violated. This law that all is One is ever present and is presented as a law that stands above all sub-laws or distortions. It is like the laws of physics but yet higher than the laws of physics as these sub-laws could be different whereas the Law of One could not be any different in any octave or density. All things are always working as One even in separateness because everything that seems not under this law is but a paradoxal illusion that exists only in limited awareness of the whole.
The term one in the LOO denotes that all things are ever One and are always working as One. All things emerge from the same source or essence and work through many paths toward the One same thing. Even that which seem to be working against each other is in fact working together as the One. It connotes that there is never disharmony and that unity is ever present always. That even if we are systems within systems, there is ultimately One sytem englobing all and that this system is the source of all sub-systems.
Quote:II. Describe the key principles that the Law of One is based on.
From what primitive concepts are the LOO derived from?
How are these primitive concepts combined to create the LOO?
How are the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' used if they are applicable?
From my perspective, the LOO is based upon these principles : The systemic approach, the nature of reality, religion and evolution.
The systemic approach is to understand the nature of order which is composed of systems within systems. The highest system is Infinity without which there could be no sub-systems. The nature of reality is indirectly explained in the LOO through the role of consciousness in existence, it goes with quantum mechanics about the role of the observer in what generates reality. It is that this Universe could be any other way yet is generated by what resides within it to exist as it does. That is why the first distortion is Free Will, everything is a consequence of only Free Will. Religion is about higher form of consciousness and ultimately the question of what is the source of all things. Evolution is about what we are doing or moving foward through all that was mentionned before.
If you combine all of the above, you have an Infinity which is ever evolving within Itself and that is the source of Itself.
The only thing that is absolute is existence of this One Infinity. Everything within it is realtive yet absolute from the relative point of view. Emotions are a good exemple of something relative which at the same time is also absolute. These terms are two faces of the same coin because time is what make things relative yet in the present when they are lived, everything also is absolute.
Quote:III. Describe the clauses and/or corollaries to the Law of One.
Are there sub-sections derived from the LOO in the form of clauses?
If so what are they? An all-encompassing 'decreed law' would have clauses to address all specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as clauses?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a clause derived from the LOO based on...'
Are there inferences or practical consequences to the LOO in the form of corollaries? If not a 'decreed law' then an all-encompassing 'natural law' would have corollaries that logically and naturally follow from the law to explain specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as corollaries?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'Intelligent Infinity is a condition or corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'The octaves and densities are conditions or corollaries derived from the LOO based on...'
The Law of Love is a corollary derived from the LOO based on what was observed and experienced. It was known that all things in this Octave do come to grow toward Love whatever the path that is taken or the time that it takes. This Love would be above the sub-love of self and other-selves present in the duality that is present in this Octave. Both are conditionnal love that grows in their own way toward Unconditional Love. The highest Love is that which let others be in an unconditional manner. To become a Logos or higher Logos, one needs to transcend individual love toward universal unconditional Love. It is the Love that makes no distinction between a STO entity and a STS entity whereas both entities would give more value to their kind of love than the other.
Intelligent Infinity is a condition of the LOO based on that there could be no things without an Intelligent Infinity.
Quote:IV. Compare the LOO to other Oneness philosophies.
Does the LOO assert the existence of one fundamental substance as does Substance Monism? If so what is this substance? Is it physical or metaphysical? What are its qualitative and quantitative properties? If not so, what does LOO assert to be fundamental?
Is the LOO, as it is defined, basically the same as Non-Duality which asserts no division and the Absolute? If so, are the clauses and/or corollaries of Non-Duality derived in a similar manner?
What type of theism is the LOO Creator based on? Pantheism, pandeism, monotheism? What are the specific characteristics of the LOO's OIC? Is the OIC an omni-God?
About the substance I don't remember if it is explained in the Ra material so I'll give my personnal opinion. There is a single wave and this wave has infinite states.
The corolarries of Non-Duality is everything in existence or every paradoxal duality. As there can be no paradoxes, through solving them there can exist only Non-Duality.
The LOO Creator is based on pantheism, that the Creator is all things without exception in every single moment.
My answers are based upon my perspective of the LOO. Feel free to debate things I've said or have me go deeper in my thinking.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Raz - 05-10-2015
Very good post Minyatur! Am I the only aspect here that feels joysorrow (for the lack of a better word) when meditating with "all is one" as a center?
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - AnthroHeart - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Raz Wrote: Very good post Minyatur! Am I the only aspect here that feels joysorrow (for the lack of a better word) when meditating with "all is one" as a center?
I thought the purpose of meditation was to face our shadow, and integrate it.
Never meditated with All is One before. But I have felt joysorrow before.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - AnthroHeart - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 04:59 PM)Minyatur Wrote: The LOO Creator is based on pantheism, that the Creator is all things without exception in every single moment.
Look into panentheism. It differs from pantheism, in that the Creator is more than the manifest Universe.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Raz Wrote: Very good post Minyatur! Am I the only aspect here that feels joysorrow (for the lack of a better word) when meditating with "all is one" as a center?
I do get what you mean, joy and sorrow are two facets of the same coin which is caring or loving. Joy comes when things are well from our perspective while sorrow comes when we feel betrayed for exemple. Sorrow is somewhat beautiful in itself and pure at it's core, it is an energy that could have been manifested as joy through different circumstances.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 06:34 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote:(05-10-2015, 04:59 PM)Minyatur Wrote: The LOO Creator is based on pantheism, that the Creator is all things without exception in every single moment.
Look into panentheism. It differs from pantheism, in that the Creator is more than the manifest Universe.
I didn't know that word nor that pantheism was limited to the manifest Universe, you are right that the concept of panentheism resonate more with the LOO.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 06:32 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote:(05-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Raz Wrote: Very good post Minyatur! Am I the only aspect here that feels joysorrow (for the lack of a better word) when meditating with "all is one" as a center?
I thought the purpose of meditation was to face our shadow, and integrate it.
Never meditated with All is One before. But I have felt joysorrow before.
Meditation has many purposes and many ways of being used. Ra said that there is no better way to meditate as they probably are all useful in their own manner.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - AnthroHeart - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 06:50 PM)Minyatur Wrote:(05-10-2015, 06:32 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote:(05-10-2015, 06:26 PM)Raz Wrote: Very good post Minyatur! Am I the only aspect here that feels joysorrow (for the lack of a better word) when meditating with "all is one" as a center?
I thought the purpose of meditation was to face our shadow, and integrate it.
Never meditated with All is One before. But I have felt joysorrow before.
Meditation has many purposes and many ways of being used. Ra said that there is no better way to meditate as they probably are all useful in their own manner.
My mom likes to watch tv in the living room a lot so it's hard to find time to meditate, and I can't find a comfortable spot outdoors.
If I can meditate and tune it out, is that a sign of progress or adeptness?
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-10-2015
(05-10-2015, 07:27 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: My mom likes to watch tv in the living room a lot so it's hard to find time to meditate, and I can't find a comfortable spot outdoors.
If I can meditate and tune it out, is that a sign of progress or adeptness?
It is easier to meditate without distractions but overcoming distractions could aslo be a good meditation exercise I guess.
I'm no meditation expert, I seem to be avoiding doing it and when I do I usually fall unconscious without seeing it coming. I've been trying more to lucid dream but I'm having a hard time to go beyond something else than timeless nothingness. Succeeded twice in 3 years, it's something.
I think we're going off-topic though.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - 4Dsunrise - 05-11-2015
I made some edits to OP to clarify what IUP stands for. Thanks to all for feedback. The paragraph in bold letters is the focus, but Minyatur -- your efforts are appreciated and will respond later.
As said in my OP:
The reason for the debate is to spur interest in both the IUP and LOO towards creating a coherent philosophical system -- a philosophical treatise -- around either one or both these principles by way of philosophical analysis and critique and then developing a curriculum based on this system.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-11-2015
I'm not sure I do see the difference between IUP and the LOO. As for why all other principles and forms of existence are derived from them, well that would be because we are part of a whole and as such we cannot identify ourselves to something else thant the whole through time.
Reply to Minyatur - 4Dsunrise - 05-12-2015
I'm not sure I do see the difference between IUP and the LOO.
Differences are subtle but significant in that IUP clarifies what type of monism it is and how to go about deriving principles and phenomena. IUP is to LOO as RS2 is to the RS of Dewey Larson.
I'm proposing that the IUP is a dialectical monism where LoA and LOO interact and can be shown to derive the other principles and forms of existence ie bipolarity, octaves, the wheel of karma, etc. This is the goal of a philosophical treatise.
I use the definition LOO from RM session 1 because it is an explicit statement.
What type of monism is LOO? That's a key question and where LOO researchers need to do some study. That's what will be asked by philosophy students.
As for why all other principles and forms of existence are derived from them, well that would be because we are part of a whole and as such we cannot identify ourselves to something else thant the whole through time.
The study of part-whole relationships is called mereology which is used in physics and metaphysics. Deriving principles and phenomena is doable in the IUP system and I want to get the 4D Terrans interested in R&D of this system.
The IUP is basically LOO version 2.0 so I think the LOO is very relevant -- it just needs a philosophical treatment. We could attract a whole new population to the LOO and L/L Research with a philosophical treatise and curriculum.
People would want to know the original material just like they do the original works of Plato, Aristotle and other luminaries. Book sales and traffic to L/L, B4 and Tobey's site would increase significantly. It's a win-win situation to develop this project which is to target mainstream academia with spinoffs to the general public. The 3.8/4.1D overlap is calling for this imo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll cover a part of Minyatur's response -- covering the the law questions.
Minyatur's words are in blue, the grad students in black and mine are in green in the following scenario. I like this dialogue approach which allows more creative and free thinking -- philosophers use this technique ie Plato.
===================================================
Imagine preparing for a seminar on the LOO philosophy in front of a group of philosophy grad students who want to understand all aspects of the LOO.
The term law in the context of the LOO denotes that it cannot be violated.
The grads chime in...
So we can never, under all conditions, break the law or violate the law. Therefore it is inviolable and absolute. Why is it inviolable and absolute? Because it is decreed or imposed by some absolute authority? What authority?
If this inviolable and absolute law is not decreed or imposed by some absolute authority then how does it emerge as a non-decreed or non-imposed law? Does the term way in the context of the Way of One allow for a non-decreed law?
Put in this context, "It's the way it has always been and will always be. It's just the way. It will never change. It is an absolutely determined and constant rule of existence." Determined by what or by whose authority? We're back to the authority theme.
Way can be defined as path so the Way of One or Path of One is the one and only path.
There are no other paths to choose from. You have no choice but to take this path. You are therefore completely determined by this path. You don't have free will in this case. There is no universal free will or anarchy. William Wallace can yell 'Freeeedommm!' until he's blue in the face. He's totally bound by the Way or Law of One. He must appeal to an absolute authority.
I might respond and ask "Might he be appealing to himself? Perhaps deep down Wallace knows that "All is I and I am All" which the IUP presupposes as LoA and LOO. He therefore realizes that he is absolute and realizes that to be determined means to be chosen -- and to be chosen means to be loved -- which ain't a bad thing.
Back to the grads....
Does non-decreed or non-imposed law imply a natural law or law of nature? By definition a law of nature is a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature -- a persistent regularity -- a kind of habit brought about by morphogenesis according to Rupert Sheldrake, an iconoclast among scientists.
In this case, morphogenesis or 'the coming into forms of being' implies mutability and evolution of laws. Mutable laws may then be non-decreed and come into being in some free will fashioned way. But since the LOO is claimed to be an unmutable law it therefore does not come into being in some free will fashioned way. Is it therefore deterrmined as a decreed and imposed rule?
This law that all is One is ever present and is presented as a law that stands above all sub-laws or distortions.
Taking a break from the grads...
The ubiquity issue was addressed by exploring the Way of One interpretation but the notion of 'stands above all sub-laws or distortions' most definitely suggests it as an absolute law.
It is like the laws of physics but yet higher than the laws of physics as these sub-laws could be different whereas the Law of One could not be any different in any octave or density.
Again, unchanging absolute law for LOO here. Morphogenesis supports mutability of sub-laws which are therefore changeable relative laws. A philosophical study and interpretation of absolute and relative laws would be important in the creation of a philosophical treatise of either the IUP or the LOO.
All things are always working as One even in separateness because everything that seems not under this law is but a paradoxical illusion that exists only in limited awareness of the whole.
Back to the grads...
'All things are always working as One' -- as one what? One dynamic ever changing pluralistic system ala Heraclitus, or one static never changing monistic system ala Parmenides -- What is, is, and what is not, is not -- no motion no evolution.
'working as One even in separateness' -- so the LOO still implies separation and plurality at some ontological level -- why does it allow this?
Expanding on paradoxical illusion, consider the following paradox -- we are sitting in this room and not sitting in this room at the same time. How does an unlimited awareness of the whole resolve this?
After that smart-ass question I set off the fire alarm and like petrified lemmings they rush out the door.
"I guess we'll never know will we? -- hahaha"
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-12-2015
I don't know if this is relevent but by reading the text, it came to my mind that the LOO is more about existence itself than what is to be done with this existence.
ie. The law does not dictate anything, it is what permits existence to be within a whole or rather the whole to exist as something. The rest is pure driven chaos through time.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - VanAlioSaldo - 05-12-2015
Youd be better off pronouncing it the Way of One.
Law insists it is imposed or forced upon to human culture, its closer to a choice in our octave, a Way.
I think you're trying to attach a metaphysics philosophical debate to a purely philosophical concept riddled with metaphysics examples. If youd rather integrate together rather than define differences, you could just make a LOO Metaphysics Study starting at the basic golden spiral design to the incredibly complex fractal manner of intelligently spreading Love/Light to develop the holographic universe to the illogical/hard to understand Beingness of Consciousness, Infinity, and Unity.
I disagree unsurely about infinity not having unity at one point. Infinity implies unity. Infinity came first and Unity was with it. They were simultaneous which is why I often wonder why no one views simultaneity as a prereq like infinity, unity, and beingness to our current place.
Youd have to step back from the placing of the Law or Way of One as the Capstone. It is the First Distortion, the second step down of you will. The first being True thing derived the original Ways of Infinity discovering itself.
The Law of One is not a decree. It is a Way of Beingness.
You can break it. You can choose to disconnect and look away. You can even deny it. It won't force you to believe. It wont make you miserable for disagreeing.
It is more than a universal Way, it is a Conscious Way. Seek the Law of One to know yourself. Seek the Way of One to know yourself. There is only one. The Law of One is part of that. It isn't the one true absolute way. Its a partof a way.
I think of it as the Way of the Creator. The path of reexperience starts at the Law of One.
So in an infinity/unity principle we have semantics if you were to combine the two. We also have an inherent issue with compatibility. One says first came Infinity then Unity.While another says both are simultaneous.
You can Only have both if you wish to heavily complicate that combined system with pparadox which upthat high is not properly applied for paradoxes unify and cease before that point.
I appreciatewhat you're going for though. I wish I could derive a reciprocal holofractal system to mirror the creation i find myself in.
Beyond that. More metaphysics would be nice. We have foundations, we just need to build.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - VanAlioSaldo - 05-13-2015
"we are sitting in this room and not sitting in this room at the same time. How does an unlimited awareness of the whole resolve this"
Its closer to both. One aspect, yellow ray beingness, IS at the room sitting. Your Indigo Ray beingness may also be, but it can also be in Time/Space. Samecould apply astrally, with the yellow ray body in a room, green ray body in a different location. Or the literal concept of the Higher Self almost alone answers the question.
If i could use my indigo body to manifest a better way, I'd shut off that logical fallacy of a fire alarm you just set off
(Or maybe I'll just move my yellow ray body and shut it off physically~)
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Indigo Light - 05-13-2015
(05-10-2015, 01:26 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: (quick edit to clarify IUP)
Debate -- A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal -- reasons involve facts and examples and logical steps towards conclusions.
Philosophical debates are of a much higher standard than religious or political debates -- debates that degenerate into unfocused emotional and irrational attacks and use of logical fallacies. Check the debate section of the Philosophy Forums website to see how a friendly effective debate is conducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IUP means Infinity/Unity Principle
IUP = LoA + LOO and is a dialectical monism.
There is actually a two-fold reciprocal nature to the IUP. There is the Infinity/Unity aspect and the Unity/Infinity aspect. Existentially, Infinity preceded Unity but found its essence through Unity through focus and formulation and became aware. Unity gains being and awareness through the dynamism and activity of Infinity. Thus these two aspects are equally significant and form a Dyad.
Infinity/Unity means 'All is One' and is called the Law of All or LoA.
Colloquially, one can say 'All is I' which allows an inward focus from the All to oneself.
Unity/Infinity means 'One is All' and is called the Law of One or LOO.
Colloquially, one can say 'I am All' which allows an outward focus from oneself to the All.
A work in progress at:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for the debate is to spur interest in both the IUP and LOO towards creating a coherent philosophical system around either one or both these principles by way of philosophical analysis and critique and then developing a curriculum based on this system.
A. My position is that the IUP is fundamental and comprehensive as opposed to the LOO -- as explicitly defined in RM session 1, a definition that, imo, is somewhat muddled -- and my version of the IUP claims to be a dialectical monism which includes both the LOO and the LoA -- to then generate derivable principles and forms of existence.
B. The LOO position should be able to provide its own reasons for why the LOO -- with somewhat muddled and conflicting interpretations between RM sessions 1 & 4 -- is fundamental and comprehensive and therefore superior to the IUP. A clear description should be provided as to what type of monism LOO claims to be.
Monism -- The doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element -- the doctrine that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts. There are a wide variety of monisms which the LOO supporter will need to explore -- plus an 'All is One' philosophy by Parmenides from this link is worth a view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjTAWFNLjKc
The opening statement of this debate by both sides should address the following.
Provide reasons for why the IUP or LOO is the fundamental principle of creation from which all other principles and forms of existence are derived. Such a fundamental principle should be capable of being presented as a comprehensive philosophical treatise explaining in a logically consistent format how such principles and forms can be derived. Comprehensive, consistent and derivable qualities must be described.
By definition, a philosophical treatise is a systematic exposition written out in a way that includes an organized discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached. It has to be consistent, coherent and explain how and why physical and metaphysical phenomena are derived from it.
So, the hope is that a well thought out and focused debate between parties should be useful to provide an outline for a philosophical treatise and a curriculum of the IUP and/or LOO.
I made an opening statement for the IUP in the latest Xandria Material post and actually tried to argue for LOO, so it's important for the LOO supporter to read it through carefully and make reference to it in this thread.
Go to last post at:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10318
And since I already opened the debate and made the IUP case to a large extent, I'll give the floor to the LOO supporter to make your opening statement in the next post of this thread.
Btw, I'm pro-Confederation in that the Ra Material and some portions of the Quo material are invaluable for my research and development of a comprehensive philosophical treatise of the IUP and a descriptive/prescriptive curriculum for students of both academic and esoteric philosophy.
So it's very similar to the Nehru/Peret approach to reevaluating and advancing Dewey Larson's RS.
Another motivation is that we're now at the 3.8/4.1D overlap where we're exiting the Density of Choice and entering the Density of Understanding of 4D with a weak draw to a faintly activated 5D of Wisdom/Knowledge.
For the future 4D Terrans 'understanding is of this density' and should apply in terms of advanced philosophical and esoteric understanding and which a philosophical treatise and curriculum is dedicated to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to rephrase, the purpose of this philosophical debate is to find out how the 6D Terran's IUP compares to the 6D Venusian's LOO and which would make the best philosophical treatise. Which is more comprehensive, logically consistent and derivable?
One last note -- you might also want to address the questions below because the IUP, LoA and LOO will be scrutinized and critiqued by philosophy students in such a Q & A scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Law of One or Way of One?
This fundamental question will be asked by faculty and students who will want a clear and comprehensive answer.
I. Describe in the form of a definition.
Define 'law' or 'way' as it is used here. Is it a decree or governmental dictate? Or is it more like a discovered physical law ie the law of gravity which is considered a 'persistent regularity'. There is a need to disambiguate and clarify this notion of 'law'.
Finish this statement 'The term law in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Define 'one' as it is used here.
Define in terms of both its qualitative and quantitative referents.
How do the qualitative and quantitative referents combine to form a consistent and coherent definition?
Finish this statement 'The term one in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Finish this statement 'The LOO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'
II. Describe the key principles that the Law of One is based on.
From what primitive concepts are the LOO derived from?
How are these primitive concepts combined to create the LOO?
How are the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' used if they are applicable?
III. Describe the clauses and/or corollaries to the Law of One.
Are there sub-sections derived from the LOO in the form of clauses?
If so what are they? An all-encompassing 'decreed law' would have clauses to address all specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as clauses?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a clause derived from the LOO based on...'
Are there inferences or practical consequences to the LOO in the form of corollaries? If not a 'decreed law' then an all-encompassing 'natural law' would have corollaries that logically and naturally follow from the law to explain specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as corollaries?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'Intelligent Infinity is a condition or corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'The octaves and densities are conditions or corollaries derived from the LOO based on...'
IV. Compare the LOO to other Oneness philosophies.
Does the LOO assert the existence of one fundamental substance as does Substance Monism? If so what is this substance? Is it physical or metaphysical? What are its qualitative and quantitative properties? If not so, what does LOO assert to be fundamental?
Is the LOO, as it is defined, basically the same as Non-Duality which asserts no division and the Absolute? If so, are the clauses and/or corollaries of Non-Duality derived in a similar manner?
What type of theism is the LOO Creator based on? Pantheism, pandeism, monotheism? What are the specific characteristics of the LOO's OIC? Is the OIC an omni-God?
Throw this whole debate system in the trash. It has no validation other then why to everything. Logic will never see what is discussed in the LOO. To try to understand the LOO through this perception is to always end in why. The creator is.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - VanAlioSaldo - 05-13-2015
To leave it at 'as is' is to exist without seeking.
The creator desires to know itself.
To deny a way is not wrong, just not the way I like to operate. Pursue truth however you can if you desire to do so.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - 4Dsunrise - 05-13-2015
(05-12-2015, 08:22 PM)Minyatur Wrote: I don't know if this is relevent but by reading the text, it came to my mind that the LOO is more about existence itself than what is to be done with this existence.
ie. The law does not dictate anything, it is what permits existence to be within a whole or rather the whole to exist as something. The rest is pure driven chaos through time.
The LOO 4 book series is a masterful transcript of Q&A sessions and was never meant to be a philosophical treatise. There are a lot of great parts that can be used to make a philosophical treatise and clues as to how to make principles and forms of existence derivable.
Looking up the word dictate -- as a verb, to dictate means to prescribe or order and a decreed law most likely does this. As a noun, a dictate is an authoritative rule or a guiding principle which many metaphysical laws claim.
How about the Principle of One instead of Law of One? LOO researchers still need to determine what type of monism it is. Read about it on Wikipedia.
==================================================
Summarizing from the last LOO seminar:
Define 'law' or 'way' as it is used here. Is it a decree or governmental dictate? Or is it more like a discovered physical law ie the law of gravity which is considered a 'persistent regularity'.
There is a need to disambiguate and clarify this notion of 'law'.
The term law may no longer be ambiguous.
It appears that the term law as used by the LOO is an absolute law decreed or imposed by an absolute authority. This may imply that appealing to this authority is the same as appealing to ourselves on some deep level. At some level of determinism we and all entities have been determined or chosen which translates to being loved which introduces the logos theme.
Since LOO is immutable it is not a mutable natural law or law of nature which comes into being as a persistent regularity and not decreed or imposed.
So to be clear and precise its the Absolute Law of One or ALOO to distinguish from the relative and mutable natural laws ie the Relative Law of Gravity.
The term principle can also be described as absolute and relative and has a less dictatorial connotation than the term law. So the IUP is an absolute principle and its LoA and LOO are absolute laws in a dialectical monism.
LOO supporters should also make the point to call it the ALOO to distinguish from all the many other kinds of monisms. A monism is a oneness theory -- a Law of One. So, to someone who claims that their monism is the only true monism it is elevated to being the Absolute Law of One. Spinoza's ALOO, Plato's ALOO, Ra's ALOO, etc.
So that's why is it so important that the LOO researchers describe in detail the type and characteristics of Ra's monism since that is what Ra is asserting.
My version of the IUP asserts dialectical monism or DM and so, is more fully expressed as the IUP/DM.
===================================================
Now to cover what the term one means in the LOO. Still in dialogue mode with the seminar presenting the LOO philosophy. This dialogue is like LOO teacher bootcamp and is good preparation. It's a bit unfair to Minyatur who doesn't have the chance to respond to the grads but this is strictly fictional and a good exercise toward developing material for a curriculum.
The term one in the LOO denotes that all things are ever One and are always working as One.
The grads are back in the room after the false alarm and are riled up...
What is your notion of One? Is it the Parmenidean One or the Heraclitan One or the Platonic One or some Zen Buddhist One? Please clarify and specify your notion of One.
Oneness is a monistic theory so what is your specific type of monism? What are it's characteristics? A static monism or a dynamic monism? Of one unique substance/reality ie Existence Monism or of a unified duality of substance/reality ie Dialectical Monism or of a unified triality of substance/reality ie the Holy Trinity?
Is your monism of a theistic or atheistic kind? If theistic then of what kind of theism or deism?
All things emerge from the same source or essence and work through many paths toward the One same thing.
There appears a distinction between source and essence.
We refer to the definition in Wikipedia:
There are two sorts of definitions for monism:
1. The wide definition: a philosophy is monistic if it postulates unity of origin of all things; all existing things go back to a source which is distinct from them.
2. The restricted definition: this requires not only unity of origin but also unity of substance and essence.
You assert many paths but is not the Way of One or Path of One a single path? Are you now asserting sub-paths of some undefined kind, or is it now the Ways of One or the Paths of One? This would then imply the Laws of One.
My take: Philosophy students and professors, especially the logical and analytic type, are notorious for critiquing our language and its usage. There is a value to this because they do keep us honest with how we convey our thoughts. I would assume that even if conveyed telepathically there would be mental distortions that would cause miscommunication -- so the clear verbalization of thought leads to clear telepathic communication.
Even that which seem to be working against each other is in fact working together as the One. It connotes that there is never disharmony and that unity is ever present always.
The grads react emotionally but then collect themselves...
We ask the following -- is the torturer and the tortured working together as the One? If so, how does the LOO specifically explain this 'working together' process? We don't want to hear generalities or platitudes. Please explain in concrete detail the principles and conditions of the LOO and their application in a step by step manner, to how a torturer and tortured scenario reflects harmony and oneness.
This is where the IUP claims a will/love/light of the Creator rather than just the love/light of the Creator. It makes no sense to leave out the 1st distortion of free will. A complete will/love/light dynamic can better elucidate the intricacies of karma.
That even if we are systems within systems, there is ultimately One system englobing all and that this system is the source of all sub-systems.
Are there an infinity or finity of sub-systems within this ultimate system? A finity allows for a clearly defined origin and boundary of the ultimate system. An infinity has no definable source or boundary of this ultimate system -- in other words, it is unknown whether there is a clearly defined origin or boundary. How do you really know it is infinite?
This is similar to not knowing if there is a boundary to the physical universe since our Hubble telescope can only reach out approx 40 billion light years.
The Cantor Set and Mandelbrot Set are systems with a seed and a generator to express the set. So the seed-generator dynamic may be a good analogy of an ultimate system.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - AnthroHeart - 05-13-2015
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/neuron-galaxy.jpg
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-13-2015
I think you convinced me of not speaking with philosophy grad students, I do get why Ra said this planet has a thing for naming and putting number on things.
About the torturer/totured. If they were not working together, how could the experience be? Take one of them away and the experience is not, existence in itself is nothing but experiences. As to what is preferred as an experience, it needs to be experienced for it to be known.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Indigo Light - 05-13-2015
(05-13-2015, 06:46 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: To leave it at 'as is' is to exist without seeking.
The creator desires to know itself.
To deny a way is not wrong, just not the way I like to operate. Pursue truth however you can if you desire to do so.
I speak of a concept of the one infinite creator who is whole and perfect. You are right seek your own path.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - Minyatur - 05-13-2015
(05-13-2015, 06:46 AM)VanAlioSaldo Wrote: To leave it at 'as is' is to exist without seeking.
The creator desires to know itself.
To deny a way is not wrong, just not the way I like to operate. Pursue truth however you can if you desire to do so.
The end of the path seems to leave it as is though.
RE: IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate. - VanAlioSaldo - 05-14-2015
We don't know the end of the path.
I need to actually read and devise something for this thread since its apparent the OP is serious...
Maybe I'll figure how to properly label the top. You shouldn't refer to them with our words, Law, Way, Path, Principle, its to the extent of our words, The Law or Way of One. At this level there is no manifestation, no time, no space. Them came Free Will, still no time or space. Then came Love. Still no time or space, then came light, then came time and space aided by Love/Light.
Philosophically its a fallacious name in that it only implies simply All Is One. You'd be better off calling it The Philosophy of One if you want to avoid incorrectly labeling it. Ra says it in the first session I think that to the extent of our language allows wed call their philosophy the Law of One.
Since at those levels they're less Law and more nonunderstood mechanics, I can't say itd be proper to debate the literal wording of the named philosophy.