Thoughts on will, love, light of Creator

[Ooo]

By "Will" are you referring to "Free Will" or some more general Will with both free and deterministic modalities?

I believe this has already been answered in this recent thread: Willpower - What Is It?
So I'll simply copy/paste some of my responses from there...

There is no difference between will, freewill and willpower. The much stigmatized word power derives from the Old French povoir ("the ability to act or do"), which, as with most French words, derives in turn from the Latin potens/potentialis ("powerful, capable of doing or acting").
Etymology 101

Thus, the ability to act or do precedes the doing or action itself. As such, this power or Will precedes the Love or the action. Intelligent Infinity equals infinite potential, and is therefore infinitely powerful ("full" of Will) to act or do (Love), and because It is infinite, It must also be infinitely free in Its choice of action or creative exploration (Love). Hence the plurality of Loves or kinetic focuses of Creativity.

So once again, there is no difference between will, freewill and willpower, save in semantic nuances.

By "precipitate" are you implying that Love or creative power is derived from Will? So that if there was no Will, then Love and Light could not exist? It sounds as though you are making that implication.

If a painter didn't wish (will) to paint the painting, the painting wouldn't "exist," wouldn't you say? If an architect didn't intend (will) to architect an architecture in the first place, how would the architecture come into "existence"? If a dreamer didn't desire (will) to dream a dream, there wouldn't be a dream to begin with. Yet there is a dream, and we are part of this dream.

In each and every case, it was the impulse of (free)Will that preceded the action/creativity to bring forth or manifest said creation.

The Painter > wish to paint > Painting (verb, action) > Painting (noun)
The Architect > intention to architect > Architecting (verb, action) > Architecture (noun)
The Dreamer > desire to dream > Dreaming (verb, action) > Dream (noun)

The Creator > (fee)Will to act or create > Love, original Thought (verb, action) > Light, material that manifests Creation (noun)

In other words, one cannot do anything unless one wills s/himself into action. Once one gets to work (doing, action), then the manifestation of said work occurs. This should be plainly obvious. At the highest level of Creation, undistorted, pure, clear, white, undiffracted Light is the first and purest manifestation of the pure Love or the original Thought of the One Infinite Creator. Light is always the first and purest creative manifestation.

As a side question -- if Will is so foundational why do you think Ra only greets in "the love and light of the OIC" and not "the will, love and light of the OIC"?

I've asked that question myself many, many times. I honestly don't know. I suppose the terms "love and light" evoke a much more emotional response from the audience (and more emotional is always more engaging). "Will" may be too abstract of a concept. I suppose other 3rd-density planets would be greeted otherwise, according to their own societal and philosophical biases/distortions.

Are you taking a Platonist position with Will, Love and Light as universal Forms that precede and transcend space and time and from which are precipitated the particular and concrete manifestations ie warm fuzzy feeling love?

No, for as much as I like and respect Greek philosophy/metaphysics, I have nothing to do whatsoever (save by accident) with Plato, Socrates, et al. But yes, the Will, Love and Light do indeed transcend and precede space/time. I wouldn't call them "forms," however. I reserve that term for that which has distinguishable characteristics (shape, volume, color, dimension, etc), and is therefore limited and illusory (not real—infinite, absolute, unchangeable). Will, Love and Light are rather principles via which Creation is brought about.

I would also differentiate between "warm n' fuzzy" love with Love, the Creative Principle. The former is a distorted experience of the latter which can only be experienced by entities experiencing the illusion (in its 7-density spectrum). To feel that "warm n' fuzzy" love is, however, a positive sign of evolutionary development in 3rd density (and some of the higher levels of 2nd, no doubt). As one evolves further up the densities, one becomes more and more closely aligned with Love as a Creative Principle rather than an emotion of affection felt for one another.

In truth, the original Thought of Creation is equated with Love because, in human language, that word is the strongest and closest approximation to describing euphoria or ecstasy, which is the highest, most pure and undistorted state of creative activity or Thought. Hence, Love. Furthermore, whenever one engages in sexual intercourse and experiences an orgasm one has momentarily tasted, in distorted fashion, what the Logos is/feels. Hence the saying, "making love."

What about primal Infinity before it became Intelligent Infinity which is mentioned in session 1? Intelligent Infinity is also called the OIC in various parts of the material.

As far as I'm aware, there is no difference between "Infinity," "Intelligent Infinity," "Oneness," "Infinite Potential," "The Primordial Void," "Nothingness," "Plenum," "Khaos," "Apeiron" or the "One Infinite Creator." The only noticeable distinctions I can distinguish from said undistorted, unpotentiated Infinity are the 3 principles or "distortions" known as (free)Will, Love/Thought and Light.

I believe Ra's statement about Infinity becoming aware refers to Infinity's application of freedom of will of awareness to create a particular creation/means of exploration (if I recall correctly, this is stated in the following question/answer of that same session).

What I've learned from this Socratic approach is that it's important to define terms and apply these terms in an appropriate and restricted usage so as not to cause conflation and confusion.

Absolutely. Which is why I place such emphasis on etymology. I've been observing the world from the vantage point of social interactions and lingual communications for many, many years now. What I've discovered is that one of the principal reasons for disagreement/discrepancies between parties is due to semantic misunderstandings (ie. everything is "open to interpretation"). I am the furthest from a "Grammar Nazi," but clarity and communication have always been both my bane/burden and honor/duty, as Ra would say. And until we do away with this lingual means of (mis)communication by developing pure telepathy, etymology brings us back to the original, intended meaning of each word we so haphazardly spit at each other (especially when discussing the more abstract concepts).

---

I am aware you had posed various other questions. However, I believe most have been answered one way or another by all of the above. If you haven't already, I suggest reading this (rather lengthy) thread which basically reiterates everything I've said thus far: Will, Love & Light — A Collection of Q'uotes (& Other Tidbits)