05-13-2015, 03:20 AM
(05-10-2015, 01:26 PM)4Dsunrise Wrote: (quick edit to clarify IUP)
Debate -- A discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal -- reasons involve facts and examples and logical steps towards conclusions.
Philosophical debates are of a much higher standard than religious or political debates -- debates that degenerate into unfocused emotional and irrational attacks and use of logical fallacies. Check the debate section of the Philosophy Forums website to see how a friendly effective debate is conducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IUP means Infinity/Unity Principle
IUP = LoA + LOO and is a dialectical monism.
There is actually a two-fold reciprocal nature to the IUP. There is the Infinity/Unity aspect and the Unity/Infinity aspect. Existentially, Infinity preceded Unity but found its essence through Unity through focus and formulation and became aware. Unity gains being and awareness through the dynamism and activity of Infinity. Thus these two aspects are equally significant and form a Dyad.
Infinity/Unity means 'All is One' and is called the Law of All or LoA.
Colloquially, one can say 'All is I' which allows an inward focus from the All to oneself.
Unity/Infinity means 'One is All' and is called the Law of One or LOO.
Colloquially, one can say 'I am All' which allows an outward focus from oneself to the All.
A work in progress at:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for the debate is to spur interest in both the IUP and LOO towards creating a coherent philosophical system around either one or both these principles by way of philosophical analysis and critique and then developing a curriculum based on this system.
A. My position is that the IUP is fundamental and comprehensive as opposed to the LOO -- as explicitly defined in RM session 1, a definition that, imo, is somewhat muddled -- and my version of the IUP claims to be a dialectical monism which includes both the LOO and the LoA -- to then generate derivable principles and forms of existence.
B. The LOO position should be able to provide its own reasons for why the LOO -- with somewhat muddled and conflicting interpretations between RM sessions 1 & 4 -- is fundamental and comprehensive and therefore superior to the IUP. A clear description should be provided as to what type of monism LOO claims to be.
Monism -- The doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element -- the doctrine that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts. There are a wide variety of monisms which the LOO supporter will need to explore -- plus an 'All is One' philosophy by Parmenides from this link is worth a view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjTAWFNLjKc
The opening statement of this debate by both sides should address the following.
Provide reasons for why the IUP or LOO is the fundamental principle of creation from which all other principles and forms of existence are derived. Such a fundamental principle should be capable of being presented as a comprehensive philosophical treatise explaining in a logically consistent format how such principles and forms can be derived. Comprehensive, consistent and derivable qualities must be described.
By definition, a philosophical treatise is a systematic exposition written out in a way that includes an organized discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached. It has to be consistent, coherent and explain how and why physical and metaphysical phenomena are derived from it.
So, the hope is that a well thought out and focused debate between parties should be useful to provide an outline for a philosophical treatise and a curriculum of the IUP and/or LOO.
I made an opening statement for the IUP in the latest Xandria Material post and actually tried to argue for LOO, so it's important for the LOO supporter to read it through carefully and make reference to it in this thread.
Go to last post at:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10318
And since I already opened the debate and made the IUP case to a large extent, I'll give the floor to the LOO supporter to make your opening statement in the next post of this thread.
Btw, I'm pro-Confederation in that the Ra Material and some portions of the Quo material are invaluable for my research and development of a comprehensive philosophical treatise of the IUP and a descriptive/prescriptive curriculum for students of both academic and esoteric philosophy.
So it's very similar to the Nehru/Peret approach to reevaluating and advancing Dewey Larson's RS.
Another motivation is that we're now at the 3.8/4.1D overlap where we're exiting the Density of Choice and entering the Density of Understanding of 4D with a weak draw to a faintly activated 5D of Wisdom/Knowledge.
For the future 4D Terrans 'understanding is of this density' and should apply in terms of advanced philosophical and esoteric understanding and which a philosophical treatise and curriculum is dedicated to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to rephrase, the purpose of this philosophical debate is to find out how the 6D Terran's IUP compares to the 6D Venusian's LOO and which would make the best philosophical treatise. Which is more comprehensive, logically consistent and derivable?
One last note -- you might also want to address the questions below because the IUP, LoA and LOO will be scrutinized and critiqued by philosophy students in such a Q & A scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the Law of One or Way of One?
This fundamental question will be asked by faculty and students who will want a clear and comprehensive answer.
I. Describe in the form of a definition.
Define 'law' or 'way' as it is used here. Is it a decree or governmental dictate? Or is it more like a discovered physical law ie the law of gravity which is considered a 'persistent regularity'. There is a need to disambiguate and clarify this notion of 'law'.
Finish this statement 'The term law in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Define 'one' as it is used here.
Define in terms of both its qualitative and quantitative referents.
How do the qualitative and quantitative referents combine to form a consistent and coherent definition?
Finish this statement 'The term one in the LOO denotes...and connotes...'
Finish this statement 'The LOO is the law that states....and from this it implies...'
II. Describe the key principles that the Law of One is based on.
From what primitive concepts are the LOO derived from?
How are these primitive concepts combined to create the LOO?
How are the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' used if they are applicable?
III. Describe the clauses and/or corollaries to the Law of One.
Are there sub-sections derived from the LOO in the form of clauses?
If so what are they? An all-encompassing 'decreed law' would have clauses to address all specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as clauses?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a clause derived from the LOO based on...'
Are there inferences or practical consequences to the LOO in the form of corollaries? If not a 'decreed law' then an all-encompassing 'natural law' would have corollaries that logically and naturally follow from the law to explain specific circumstances and conditions. Law of Love? Law of Confusion? How are they derived as corollaries?
Finish this statement 'The Law of Love is a corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'Intelligent Infinity is a condition or corollary derived from the LOO based on...'
Finish this statement 'The octaves and densities are conditions or corollaries derived from the LOO based on...'
IV. Compare the LOO to other Oneness philosophies.
Does the LOO assert the existence of one fundamental substance as does Substance Monism? If so what is this substance? Is it physical or metaphysical? What are its qualitative and quantitative properties? If not so, what does LOO assert to be fundamental?
Is the LOO, as it is defined, basically the same as Non-Duality which asserts no division and the Absolute? If so, are the clauses and/or corollaries of Non-Duality derived in a similar manner?
What type of theism is the LOO Creator based on? Pantheism, pandeism, monotheism? What are the specific characteristics of the LOO's OIC? Is the OIC an omni-God?
Throw this whole debate system in the trash. It has no validation other then why to everything. Logic will never see what is discussed in the LOO. To try to understand the LOO through this perception is to always end in why. The creator is.