What is Ra's LOO?

[Steppingfeet]

4DSunrise, thanks for the . . . examination of my essay. I am always open to critique and feedback. I don't want to insulate my thoughts from that which might challenge them. In my hunger for truth, I want my understanding to be its highest and best, the blind spots filled in, the dull spots made sharp, and the bumpy parts smoothed out. That is made possible not only through introspection of the lone student, but also and importantly through a dialectic process. I've learned so much from others, including from those who post to the forums.

I must say, though, that our minds are vibrating at very different wavelengths. Likely due to my own limitations and humbleness of cognition, I didn't understand a great deal of what you were saying.

Like Ankh, however, I do look forward to seeing what if any sort of introduction to this philosophy you are able to produce.

I have tried to share this philosophy, which is one among others, with others, and discovered that people are not so much interested in cosmology or our journey through this Octave, i.e. spiritual evolution, but more about things like: is L/L Research a sect? And how did your God Ra contact you? Did *he* build the pyramids? etc.  But then who knows, maybe some gems of philosophy did stick with them without their immediate conscious awareness.

There is a certain category of readers who can dive right into the text and resonate gloriously with the wisdom inherent in Ra's message without needing to know much about its surrounding context and biographical details.

For others, though, there is interest in, or need to have satisfied, questions like the ones you mentioned.

I think they have a place.

Shame, though, when someone won't even consider the information on its own merits because they've dismissed out-of-hand the possibility of its transmission.

Nick, nice poem. : )

[Ankh]

There is a certain category of readers who can dive right into the text and resonate gloriously with the wisdom inherent in Ra's message without needing to know much about its surrounding context and biographical details.

I totally agree. Like it was for me when I just found Ra material. I was so tired of all the explanations and confused thoughts of others, that when I saw this philosophy I didn't want to read anything about what people thought about it, I just wanted to read the philosophy itself and decide for myself what I thought about it, and so I dived right into the sessions without reading anything about it. How was it for you, Gary?

Another question is - who exactly are we writing all these introductions and explanations for in that case? Aren't Ra's words alone enough and even more than enough?

For others, though, there is interest in, or need to have satisfied, questions like the ones you mentioned.

I think they have a place.

Shame, though, when someone won't even consider the information on its own merits because they've dismissed out-of-hand the possibility of its transmission.

Yeah, but I can understand them on the other hand. People are sceptical and have doubts. When you try to share any philosophy, they won't take a bait until they know the circumstances about it, and when you try to explain them, they become even more sceptical, cause the circumstances around this contact are... well more than weird! Although, in some cases like with my mother, she still finds the philosophy itself very beautiful and "good", despite the fact that she finds circumstances around it sounding like a hoax.

[4Dsunrise]

Gary says

I must say, though, that our minds are vibrating at very different wavelengths. Likely due to my own limitations and humbleness of cognition, I didn't understand a great deal of what you were saying.

Like Ankh, however, I do look forward to seeing what if any sort of introduction to this philosophy you are able to produce.

Gary, I do get where you're coming from. I've worked with a variety of Wanderers and students in general who have very different styles of thinking and belief systems. This enables flexible and adaptable thinking to take place -- as it will when I take on the 3 college grads in the Q&A script project.

Working with Wandereres and students came from doing numerous astrology consults and from high school teaching, and both are good training for understanding and relating to other's POV. 

If people here are Wanderers -- 4D, 5D, 6D -- then I don't get why they are so in awe of the Ra group's words and don't think they themselves (esp those of 6D) have anything useful to add. I think there are some very talented & philosophically creative Wanderers who have something to offer.

As I've said, the Ra group are like a very good college professor, but in Ra's Fundamental Postulates I've pointed out that they are not flawless and the channel transmission is not flawless. 

Ra's Fundamental Postulates
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

I don't see what is so hard to understand there and why LOO veterans can't respond. It's pretty cut and dry. Maybe there is some emotional block to not being able to critique a revered college professor's works. 

As an analogy, Dewey Larson was highly revered but his ideas were still somewhat flawed and incomplete and the Nehru & Peret duo respectfully critiqued and improved on Dewey's work.

That's where I'm coming from and I realize that certain types of Wanderers do not resonate and that's fine. This work is directed towards the intellectual 4D types ie the philosophy grad students who are versed in science and philosophy of a more academic nature.

I appreciate your participation and we all share the thought that "it's all a journey".

[AnthroHeart]

Can wisdom be found in a dream, or are they so random?

[Steppingfeet]

I totally agree. Like it was for me when I just found Ra material. I was so tired of all the explanations and confused thoughts of others, that when I saw this philosophy I didn't want to read anything about what people thought about it, I just wanted to read the philosophy itself and decide for myself what I thought about it, and so I dived right into the sessions without reading anything about it. How was it for you, Gary?

How was it for me? It was so good. It was the best I ever had.

I stumbled on Session 1 online. No introduction. No explanatory context. There was Ra talking in their Ra'ish way. And there were my tears. To this day I can recall that sensation of lightning running through me.

However, my discovery of the material was not preceded by many years of intensive searching as was true in your case. My own awakening and transition had begun a couple years prior, and I had already plunged into a new world of thought, but I hadn't made so systematic and thorough an exploration in search of the truth as you had.

Consequently I didn't have the same experience you describe above of wanting to get right to it.

Surely, though, after having consumed the source's actual words a thousand times over, you have been aided by other's analysis of Ra?

I think that, between the student who locks herself in a cave with the Law of One books and no other source material, and the student who synthesizes her Law of One study with other sources (including others' study of the material), one of the two will likely have a richer, more integrated and nuanced understanding.

Another question is - who exactly are we writing all these introductions and explanations for in that case? Aren't Ra's words alone enough and even more than enough?

"Enough"? Who says that introductions, explanations, explorations, analyses, derivative works, etc., exist because of some deficiency in, or insufficiency with, the material?

Perhaps associated work exists because the Creator never has "enough," and wants to continue playing, and creating new forms, and new experiences, and new dynamics.

Ra's is the most sufficient, "complete," whole, beautiful, perfect, inspiring, transformational, powerful, profound system of thought of which I'm aware, but whether they are "enough" or not . . .

I suppose that depends on who you're asking. To one who has penetrated the veil and more or less dissolved the illusion of separation, a flower is enough. A raindrop is enough. What more is needed to learn of infinity than infinity? What is there but self?

Myself, I have definitely needed to augment my Law of One study with other sources. I understand Ra more deeply, and thusly myself more deeply, with every new insight gained, whatever its source; especially, though, those inspired arrangements that flow from mystical writers, however simple or sophisticated their words may be.

Another question is - who exactly are we writing all these introductions and explanations for in that case? Aren't Ra's words alone enough and even more than enough?

4DSunrise has his own project, but earlier in this thread an Intro was mentioned for the new Ra Contact book. I'm not sure if it is that to which you refer in your question.

Presently, the rough rough rough draft of the new intro includes this bit:

The introduction is designed simply as an introduction; an orientation for any reader who picks up the book and doesn't want immediately to jump into Session 1. It is a way to ease the reader into the sometimes technically challenging material, helping them to establish the framework for understanding what they are about to read. It is, you might say, a map before entering foreign—but for some of you, mysteriously familiar—territory.

No one in our corner is saying that the seeker needs an intro, but for those who would be aided by one, why not be of service?

Admittedly the best way I can learn about Sweden is through immersion in its culture and geography - living in its cities, visiting its countryside, learning its customs, seeing its commerce, enjoying its arts, hearing and practicing its language, enjoying its universal healthcare and edenic conditions, eating its terrible-tasting fish products, etc.

But before I hop on the next plane and arrive in Stockholm, I think I would be helped by reading an, "Introduction to Sweden (for dumb Americans)." There are a ton of subjects for which I'd appreciate an Intro, actually. And as Ra's message was not arranged tutorially, or in any great sequence save for the evolution of Don's questioning; and as their message is replete with unfamiliar terminology and concepts, strange on both the tongue and the mind, why not offer the service of an intro?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've said, the Ra group are like a very good college professor, but in Ra's Fundamental Postulates I've pointed out that they are not flawless and the channel transmission is not flawless.

Ra's Fundamental Postulates
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

I don't see what is so hard to understand there and why LOO veterans can't respond. It's pretty cut and dry. Maybe there is some emotional block to not being able to critique a revered college professor's works.

With all due respect to the sincerity and goodness of your intentions, I could be mistaken but I think the absence of reply in that thread is less about Ra and more about the OP.

People who resonate with this work tend, on balance, to be independent-minded, non-conformist people who are happy to offer critique and disagreement, both of which have been brought to the Law of One material by the reverent and the unconvinced.

You seem however to enjoy a certain approach to this material, a certain type of play. One that has, as you indicate, an academic flavor, but which involves, I would add, what looks to my limited viewpoint like a lot of word play. I can speak only for myself in saying that it doesn't add clarity to my study of the Law of One, or deepen my understanding. But then again, I'm not an academic.

There are a multitude of educated, intelligent people on this board, but for someone who studies this material with a strong academic bent, and who is also incidentally currently working on his philosophy PhD, check out JustLikeYou, otherwise known as Sephira Vox.

I'm sorry that you can't find others on the forum to share in that manner of play. You seem to have an abiding love of Ra's philosophy as well.

Good luck in the quest to refine and improve upon the 2,600+ Q&As of the Ra Contact. You have set an ambitious goal for yourself.

PS: Also keep in mind that even the best of us get crickets in reply sometimes.

[Adonai One]

I think if Ra were to come back from the woodwork and see all this fluff about language there would be 1) a reminder that this forum seems to be centered on 4th-density, a density they claim to be "without words" and 2) there is pretty much nothing to fuss, fight about accepting any "opposing" thing as one with yourself and all.

You don't need a philosophical glossary ten pages thick to understand that there is nothing to oppose, or something to oppose...as all is one.

The only book that needs a glossary of terms and their sub-terms, etc. is the 4th book which Ra denounced, saying it was not central to the concept of unity (archetypes).

This whole forum is mystical buddhism all over again and explains why Zen (a philosophy without words) was created.

There is so much confusion in this thread that there are probably a 100 or so spirits crying over it... in utter laughter.

[Ankh]

Well said, Gary! I agree with you.

Surely, though, after having consumed the source's actual words a thousand times over, you have been aided by other's analysis of Ra?

Of course! It was through a dialog with members of this board, mostly.

"Enough"? Who says that introductions, explanations, explorations, analyses, derivative works, etc., exist because of some deficiency in, or insufficiency with, the material?

*looking around* You tell me! I didn't say that.

What I meant with "enough" is that no words that I have ever heard can come even close to that light energy which Ra have in theirs. And don't misunderstand me. What I mean is that they chose those words, they chose to speak as they did, so many times we stand there scratching our heads, and our thoughts go into different directions... But then we try to explain them to others, share their message or meaning, teach what they said, when we ourselves at some points don't understand completely what they've meant... But yet we try to simplify and make it "easier" for others... Does this make sense? What I mean?

Besides that, there is a certain "song" in Ra's message, which you mentioned in your post too. Some may hear it and some may not. And some people say that Ra was so wise. And perhaps they were wise, but it is not wisdom which makes me cry each time I read it; it is love. And it is this vibration which speaks for itself; and as you said - either you "hear" it or you don't.

Anyways, that's what I meant with "enough", if it makes any sense to you.

4DSunrise has his own project, but earlier in this thread an Intro was mentioned for the new Ra Contact book. I'm not sure if it is that to which you refer in your question.

No, I didn't refer to his or yours intro specifically. I was just throwing a rhetorical/philosofical question out in the blue, *and* I got a really good answer from you, my friend! Intros are good to read, I guess, even if you don't agree with everything that is said there. And also, since we all are different, some may *need* to read them before they jump into the material itself, as you said.

As to "Introduction to Sweden" - all you need to know is that *Santa* lives here and you can pet reindeers and polar bears in the streets. The rest are just details, which I will fill you in when you get here!

[4Dsunrise]

Gary says

You seem however to enjoy a certain approach to this material, a certain type of play. One that has, as you indicate, an academic flavor, but which involves, I would add, what looks to my limited viewpoint like a lot of word play. I can speak only for myself in saying that it doesn't add clarity to my study of the Law of One, or deepen my understanding. But then again, I'm not an academic.

It's good to know that, as they say, "we can disagree w/o being disagreeable" and there's no hard feelings. I'm not a pure academic and had about a 15 year honeymoon with the Ra Material that you guys speak of by delving into everything New Age. 

But I've gone into a combination of esoteric & academic research since I think it may benefit the early 4D period here. I think that various types of 3D/4D people with academic University backgrounds may also benefit. 

That's covered somewhat in New Age Research and New Era Development
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=12268

The ideal from that thread is to have a University style of education which welcomes diverse viewpoints -- the purpose and meaning of "University" -- and something the Confederation would encourage since they are a diverse coalition of 53 planetary societies. 

I do disagree with Gary's word play perspective which, as he says, is coming from a limited viewpoint which I do agree. We all have limited viewpoints and styles of thinking and believing and Gary is right to admit this.

I definitely don't think there is word play going on in Ra's Fundamental Postulates. It's about conceptual clarification and consistency and I'm open to questions and critique from those who want to post in that thread.

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

But if there's no responses that's fine. New visitors who relate to the diversity of the Confederation may someday take interest and participate. 

This is still great place to share ideas ie the new thread:

A Person's Ethical Focus, Range and Volatility
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=12390

This came to me partly as I was thinking of what the OP student Julie is going to ask and contribute from her background in Psychology and her focus of Ethics in Philosophy. It also came b/c it is what I see as an overdue re-evaluation of the STS/STO dynamic esp in light of what the Ra group state in session 17.

[4Dsunrise]

Ankh says

Another question is - who exactly are we writing all these introductions and explanations for in that case? Aren't Ra's words alone enough and even more than enough?

Since the Ra group is not, to me, flawless in their communication of the LOO, I have to say no to this question. Maybe there can be a grant towards LLResearch to have a group of philosophy majors from the Univ of Lville to read the Ra Material and give their feedback.

Gary's comment about academic play and word play is certainly valid b/c there is a lot of extraneous and verbose BS coming from academia and I noted that a year ago in the Xandria thread.

That's why I think in terms of both esoteric and academic research where I'm actually reevaluating both the Ra Material and the academics involved. The IUP/AOP and Metamonism Model is a result of fusing esoteric and academic, along with the Creator/Explorer dynamics with its use of AstroPsychology and archetypes in general.

In the following I address the word play and academic issue to some extent. It makes the case for a balance of both esoteric and academic research and it seems that Gary, Austin and Jim are not averse to this. They just don't resonate to it. I do know of Dan D, the PhD. He PM'd me once and was supportive of this academic approach. I've see him on Facebook in the LOO Study Group discussions a few times.

Here's my case for a balance of academics and esoterics.
---------------------
To determine "what is Ra's LOO" I approach the reevaluation of the Ra Material using the disciplines of critical thinking, logic and scientific reasoning which I think Don Elkins would appreciate. He was an academic and scientist who used a combination of esoteric and academic research.

A page called "about the authors" at the end of the hard copy of Book 1 has the academic backgrounds of Don, Jim and Carla.

Don holds four university degrees, has taught mechanical engineering at the University of Alaska, and has taught physics and engineering at the University of Louisville.

Jim received a master's degree in education from the University of Florida.
Carla received a master's degree in library science at the University of Louisville.

This is Marketing 101 to give the book more credibility. It's not the end-all be-all, but with a book like the Ra Material, it's good to know that it had some academic credibility.

So a combination of esoteric and academic research is, I think, right up Don's alley and he would welcome an intellectually honest critique and exploration of the Ra's LOO which is provided in:

Ra's Fundamental Postulates (or Axioms)
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

To begin the talk with the three philosophy grads, I would definitely start here and mention Don Elkins and his precise scientific approach and his high regard for Dewey Larson and the axiom system of the RS. This axiom system goes well beyond word play by using logic (the reasoning aspect of logos) and, in academic terms, precise unambiguous metaphysical and metamathematical terminology.

This is necessary to emphasize b/c I'm talking to students versed in logic and metaphysics and who value critical thinking and logical consistency. They have had their term papers critiqued and reevaluated to gain this skill. If you've been to college you know of this and it's a blow to the ego to some degree. You get questioned and critiqued and therefore humbled, and this is probably what they also do in inner/outer plane classrooms ie on Saturn.

The three students here also value the intuitive wholeness of abstract thinking and feeling. What Carla calls a balance of rational and intuitive when channeling. See her Channeling Handbook. So they're not pure academic snobs, thank God.
--------------
We begin by going over the OP of Ra's Fundamental Postulates and so now I'll start a script and dialogue with the students Julie, Dave and Danielle.

I say: There is somewhat of a disclaimer by the Ra group in this session 1 quote:
"we are speaking to you ...in order to enunciate the laws of creation, more especially the LOO" --they don't claim a fundamental law, do you agree?

They say:  Clearly the phrases, "laws of creation" and "more especially the LOO" implies that the LOO is one of several laws of creation, or at least it is implied here.

I say: I would agree. It appears that the STO-biased Ra group is addressing the question "what is One" with the answer "One is All" based on the logic of "you are every thing".  This is LoO and ultimately, Julie is All, Dave is All, Danielle is All in each one's unique way of projecting out to others and feeling the STO bias. So Ra's LOO is the STO version.

They say:  We can logically conclude, that it is true that Ra's LOO is only one of several laws of creation b/c the reciprocal and complementary STS version of the LoA must needs be addressed. Briefly, "what is All?" is answered by "All is One" based on the logic of "every thing is you" by which All is Julie, All is Dave, All is Danielle with each one's unique way of injecting in to self and feeling the STS bias.

I ask: Do you think this is word play?

They say: Not at all, it is a logical dialectic of complementary opposites. It is logic of the Logos as far as Heraclitus and Aristotle were concerned.

They add: In OA or LoO, One has being as All and identifies and feels the yang nature of projecting outward, while with AO or LoA, All has being as One and identifies and feels the yin nature of injecting inward. OA radiating out and AO absorbing in -- a clear logoic duality.

I ask: Since you use the notions of yang and yin would you consider this a dialectic monism like the Tao defined as a symmetric AO + OA?

They all smirk: Of course! How else can dualities and bipolarities exist? STO/STS, Male/Female, Space/Time and Time/Space, Infinite/Finite, etc. This is NOT word play. This is conceptual dynamics at play. Who would think this is word play?

My response: I ask the same thing. Maybe a non-dualist who thinks words and concepts are extraneous as they strive for a nonverbal and nonconceptual state of Nirvana? Someone who strives for pure subjective mystical experience?  

They respond: That's all well and good but why can't we do both like a John Lilly or a Franklin Merrell-Wolf, or even a Don Elkins who all value the dynamic fusion of rational and intuitive? You do know that some people become very imbalanced when they have these mystical breakthroughs?

I look up from my empty coffee cup: You three are blowing me away! I underestimated your knowledge of the so-called New Age movement. I'm going to need another Moca Joe.
----------------------
I'll end here for now, but that's the kind of discussion that some here could have with astute minded students at your local cafe. Plus free Coffee!