IUP or LOO? A philosophical debate.

[4Dsunrise]

I finally have time to read your post and respond -- you've got some interesting thoughts.

VanAlioSaldo said:

Youd be better off pronouncing it the Way of One.

Yes, I mentioned the Way approach and agree it's a better connotation and more attractive.

Law insists it is imposed or forced upon to human culture, its closer to a choice in our octave, a Way.

Yes,  Way would be a choice if there were other ways or paths to choose from -- but it's implied as the Way.

From a post in this thread of the grad students:

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.

---

My take is that at 3D we are relative/absolute beings with relative free will but deep down we are determined by an absolute/relative will which we finally realize -- as a William Wallace might do. The Ron Paul thread -- using a Platonic dialogue format which allowed me to explore metaphysical Libertarianism -- attempts to deal with this.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10890

I think you're trying to attach a metaphysics philosophical debate to a purely philosophical concept riddled with metaphysics examples.

As far as a debate goes -- I was hoping to hear from LOO supporters as to their idea of what type of monism and what type of theism they attribute to Ra's LOO. They should also be responding to the Ra's Fundamental Postulates thread.
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=10871

I've been studying up on academic level metaphysics and metaphysical examples can be quite well defined. I think a philosophical treatise is doable and also a curriculum that is both philosophical and esoteric is doable. My background is education so I'm drawn to making this education project work for the 4D Terran population.

If youd rather integrate together rather than define differences, you could just make a LOO Metaphysics Study starting at the basic golden spiral design to the incredibly complex fractal manner of intelligently spreading Love/Light to develop the holographic universe to the illogical/hard to understand Beingness of Consciousness, Infinity, and Unity.

The spiral and fractal models are definitely part of this treatise and hoping to go beyond another LOO metaphysics study group, ala Scott Mandelker's, to target the mainstream college students. Make the material of the highest level of philosophical treatment to pass every critique test.

I disagree unsurely about infinity not having unity at one point.  Infinity implies unity.  Infinity came first and Unity was with it.  They were simultaneous which is why I often wonder why no one views simultaneity as a prereq like infinity, unity, and beingness to our current place.

I used Ra's direct statement in session 1 about Infinity existing first and then realizing itself as Unity and becoming aware. There's perhaps a logical or logoic notion of infinity preceding unity implied in this statement.

Youd have to step back from the placing of the Law or Way of One as the Capstone.  It is the First Distortion, the second step down of you will.  The first being True thing derived the original Ways of Infinity discovering itself.

The Law of One is not a decree.  It is a Way of Beingness.

You can break it.  You can choose to disconnect and look away.  You can even deny it.  It won't force you to believe.  It wont make you miserable for disagreeing.

I have later in this thread pointed out that an absolute and decreed law ie LOO or IUP isn't so bad since we, at our absolute/relative level have decreed it. The All is I and I am All is something worth exploring and I'm working on a thesis to see where it leads. To be posted later.

It is more than a universal Way, it is a Conscious Way.  Seek the Law of One to know yourself.  Seek the Way of One to know yourself.  There is only one.  The Law of One is part of that.  It isn't the one true absolute way.  Its a part of a way.

I think of it as the Way of the Creator.  The path of reexperience starts at the Law of One.

I agree with the words in bold since, based on session 1, LoO means One is All. The other part, imo, is LoA or All is One.

So in an infinity/unity principle we have semantics if you were to combine the two.  We also have an inherent issue with compatibility.  One says first came Infinity then Unity.While another says both are simultaneous.

You can Only have both if you wish to heavily complicate that combined system with paradox which up that high is not properly applied for paradoxes unify and cease before that point.

My take is that the identity law produces a symmetric relation in that
Infinity = Unity and Unity = Infinity leading to a dialectical monism.

I appreciate what you're going for though.  I wish I could derive a reciprocal holofractal system to mirror the creation i find myself in.

Beyond that.  More metaphysics would be nice.  We have foundations, we just need to build.

I actually used this exact term several years ago in the Reciprocal Systems forums and still think it applies to the RS2 of Nehru and Peret in some fashion. I hadn't used it since then but think it has potential to be used towards the IUP research.

There is a foundation but it needs careful and rigorous definition because it is the crucial foundation which everything rests on -- it's dry and detailed work but pays off when you can get into holofractal-like derivations and such.

Thanks VanAlioSaldo for your thoughtful input and positive feedback.