Ra's calling, Law of One Book 1, Law of Squares

[WalksN2Worlds]

it is very simple, squared, the Law of One, brings two, which is self, it starts with three to nine, squared.

Questioner: By squared, do you mean that if ten people call you can count that, when comparing it to the planetary ratio, as 100 people, squaring ten and getting 100?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The square is sequential-one, two, three, four, each squared by the next number.

Questioner: If only ten entities on earth required your services how would you compute their calling by using this square method?

Ra: I am Ra. We would square one ten sequential times, raising the number to the tenth square.

Questioner: What would be the result of this calculation?

Ra: I am Ra. The result is difficult to transmit. It is 1,012, approximately. The entities who call are sometimes not totally unified in their calling and, thus, the squaring slightly less. Thus, there is a statistical loss over a period of call. However, perhaps you may see by this statistically corrected
information the squaring mechanism.

When I first read this I was under the impression that Ra was stating 1 as effectively 2, such that 2^10 = 1024 and that the statistical loss dropped it by 12 to 1012.

However reading it more carefully I'm under the impression that the actual meaning is this:

2*\!\(\*UnderoverscriptBox[\(\[Sum]\), \(j = 0\), \(10\)]\(\((j + 1)\)^2\)\)

Or for those of you who aren't familiar with Mathematica:

2*sum (j + 1)^2, j = 0 to 10

This works out to be exactly 1012 and it fits the description of:

The square is sequential-one, two, three, four, each squared by the next number.

The only anomaly really is that it needs to be multiplied by 2. Then again the anomaly persists even in the first interpretation because 1^10 = 1 is obviously not 1012 nor is it 1024. So we have to make the mental leap to say that somehow Ra is implying the square of 1 is actually 2. One way to attempt to evaluate this is: Sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) = Sqrt(2). Thus the square of this unit in natural numbers starts with Sqrt(2)^2 = 2. Since Ra seems to be talking whole units it's understandable then that they very likely just took the first perfect square of the square-root of 2 and work from there.

It would be interesting if we could get one more example from Ra, to figure out which interpretation is the right one.

Any other particular takes on this?