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.
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.