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"
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"