(09-01-2010, 02:18 PM)Quantum Wrote: You state:
unity Wrote:remember that Ra says negatives are always 1/10 the number of the positive entities in the galaxy (so i remember it as galaxy), but, they are generally 10 times stronger in polarization due to polarization requirements, therefore, it ends up being balanced.You then cite the below Ra quote as evidence to your above logic that STS must as a result be 10 times stronger (see below):
Ra Wrote:Questioner: What is the density of the Orion group?
Ra: I am Ra. Like the Confederation, the densities of the mass consciousnesses which comprise that group are varied. There are a very few third density, a larger number of fourth density, a similarly large number of fifth density, and very few sixth-density entities comprising this organization. Their numbers are perhaps one-tenth ours at any point in the space/time continuum as the problem of spiritual entropy causes them to experience constant disintegration of their social memory complexes. Their power is the same as ours. The Law of One blinks neither at the light nor the darkness, but is available for service to others and service to self. However, service to others results in service to self, thus preserving and further harmonizing the distortions of those entities seeking intelligent infinity through these disciplines.
I would invite another interpretation into the game with respect to the above as an exercise in said bending of mind and the ability to invert ones thinking for positive outcomes. Let us as an exercise, as much as a dialogue, as though two exercises in one, view this Ra quote in another light. STS may require "not that they be 10 times stronger," but that as a necessary requirement to "negate or balance entropy" that they must exert 10 times more energy to maintain equilibrium. Imagine instead that STS must needs exert 10 times more energy in the effort of maintaining the balance that STO otherwise requires as 10 times less. STO requires 10 times less the effort as a result of not attempting to control. Agreement is less demanding than is control. Control in fact is an effort requiring 95% to be effective, whereas agreement requires only 51% to be effective. In this light it is the key words "Control vs Agreement" and not "Strength vs Weakness" that are paramount.
Example: Two or more drivers in an automobile need only agree at 51% to arrive at their agreed to destination; whereas two or more drivers in an automobile need be controlled 95% in order to arrive at the "controllers" destination. Although in the case of STO, 51% requires less effort, it is every bit as difficult for two or more to agree at 51%, this to the same extent that it is for STS to control at 95%. In this context 51% actually by induction equals 95%.This thus instead inverts the balance you otherwise rightfully seek through logically deducing as a means of reasoning that STS requires 10 times "more strength" versus "exertion" as a well thought out and perceptive find on your part. Their power (STS) is indeed the same as STO as you state, but not because they are 10 times stronger as a result of your assumption that they need be due to being 10 times less in numbers, but rather due to the spiritual entropy they encounter in the power they must expend to control in order to maintain overall homeostasis. Homeostasis is achieved wherein 51% = 95%. In other words, they have greater inertia to overcome as a result of their chosen path.
negative and positive polarization is the action of absorbing or emitting energy.
51% positive, and 95% negative polarization defines minimum negative, and positive. this, as Ra says, gives the potential to do work, in the ensuing densities to these focuses.
because everything is energy, and energy manipulates energy, and focusing and usage of energy in whatever way, happens with concentrating of that focus of infinite intelligence, the equation directly transforms into power of the manifesting entity.
............
if we move to Ra's quote about entropy ... ra says that entropy causes disintegration of negative complexes, therefore maintaining balance. even if you take the entropy as the thing maintaining this balance, it would still mean that the balance is kept at a point where the negative entities are 1/10 of positives, but equal in power, and therefore laws of balance blinking to neither side. that would mean, if, the number of negative entities compared to positives goes above 1/10 of positives in fraction, and the number of positive entities do not increase proportionally, entropy would cause the negatives lose enough of their numbers/power, to get to balance point.
the car driving analogy here is misplaced, it misses an important point :
negative is not about 'control'. it is one of its traits, but it is not something as simple as that. negative polarization is about absorbing light. it is an energy matter, the potential which is used for work.
an entity emits 51% light. this is its polarity, its power. another absorbs 95% light. this is its polarity and its power.
therefore, regardless of how we take the balance situation Ra speaks of, we have the following situation :
power of negative entities are equal to positives in totality, but they are always 1/10th the number of positives. and balance is maintained.
that means, if the power of entire negative population is divided into negative population, that means the average power available to the average negative is 10 times the power available to average positive.
there are considerations in regard to distribution of that power, it is possible that the ones higher in the pile in a negative hierarchy have more power, the average grunt has less power, and the resulting power ends up equal due to synergy of both sides inside themselves.
however, even if we just take the graduation requirements of the polarities, we see that a positive entity emits 51% of energy available, and negative absorbs 95%. considering that the entities are equal strength focuses (ie, one is not a giant sea creature living in a massive ocean planet, and the other is a dwarf entity on land), that would mean that one of them, energy wise, is stronger than the other, since there is 44% difference in their polarity.
Quote:Now... to return to deductive reasoning, this would very nicely explain, like a silken hand fitted into a velvet glove, why STS at mid 6th must give up their chosen STS path and instead enfold themselves and merge with STO. Where their 95%, and/or presumably more after 3D, is herculean, they may logically encounter ever greater entropy up the ladder of sub-densities and then full densities, this more so after 3D(?) to the point that they "hit the wall of entropy" so much so, so to speak, that they can traverse no further, this due directly to said entropy in the Ra quote up to and presumably more than 95% (perhaps up to 98%-99% - who knows?) at mid 6th requiring merger as a result.
two entropies are not necessarily same. the entropy the negative 6 d entity experiences is, transplanting itself in the place of infinite energy as the entirety of infinite energy.
the other entropy is about energy balance.
Quote:Consider the axiom of inertia as the trigger for the amount of control exerted in order to "maintain" said control versus its opposite of "maintaining agreement" as key to the adductive/abductive reasoning invitation for you to consider. The STS gentleman attempting to move the Pink Elephant in the room all by his lonesome must do so by sheer exertion of force and will versus his counter parts in STO who may do so more elegantly with only 51% agreement. This is not to suggest that moving Pink Elephants requires 51% strength. It is only to suggest that 51% agreement is required in STO every bit as much to even effectuate a successful STO cookie sale in the church parking lot. It is thus important in this exercise to maintain focus in the example in that this in no way suggests that STO can not also move said elephants by himself. He can through his magical ability every bit as much and which may very well take the same 95%. But why should STO even consider moving said elephants by himself when it would be more efficient to do so with the assistance of his mates and comrades instead? But lets not get lost in Pink Elephants given we are not moving boulders as much as the more non-tangential primary concept of "Cooperation" versus "Control". The example of said elephant moving is only to non-tangentially point out that elephant moving by STO's in cooperation is as highly unlikely in unison given it is as difficult to get two together in agreement much less the many. Thus the words in Matthew 18:19 "If two of you agree on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you..."...notwithstanding that it may have been interpreted also as a nebbish "Oy-Vey" for the difficulty implied as much as its truth. The dude knew what he was talking about.
this approach is erroneous, since it assumes negative polarity is control of others, and self. that is just one of the aspects of it.
in pure form, negative polarity is absorbing light. it is directly relevant to energy. emitting or absorbing energy is potential, and it is power that does work.
Quote:Now if I may, to another point as an exercise and invitation into adductive/abductive reasoning versus your keen ability of inductive/deductive reasoning, as well as the overall objective of additionally shedding light on a very interesting topic as well, thus again serving two exercise in one. You state below and throughout your posts:
unity10 Wrote:: therefore, at any given moment, even if 8 octaves later than these, you are still not infinite.
βαθμιαίος offers as a wonderful counterpoint in Ra's own words:
βαθμιαίος Wrote:Ra:"Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation."
To this wonderful Ra quote that βαθμιαίος found as relates to your point that we are not infinite, I wonder again if you may bend your mind as much as you are able to hone it and focus it to see this also in a different light? Case in point: Ra states explicitly, not implicitly, that the Universe has yet to be proven or disproven to be infinite. However he goes on to state as explicitly that there is no end to ourselves. Here then is the exercise: rather than imagining or visualizing the Universe or Infinity to be something that "we are contained in", I invite you instead to adduce/abduce the fact of what Ra implicitly infers when stating explicitly that "WE ARE INDEED INFINITE". With that said, invert your thinking process and attempt to instead, like the same article of clothing, try this on for fun. It is "WE" that are Infinite. In other words, "INFINITE INFINITY" is contained within ourselves, not we in IT. The Universe is contained within ourselves, not we in the Universe. Try this on for fun for a moment before rejecting it too quickly and see how it fits. What if we as the Creator's prize are in fact the Creator. In other words, there never was a nothing before IT, given that clearly "Nothingness" never existed. There was always something. That "Something" was/is IT. IT was/is Infinite. IT, having nothing other than ITself as All, divided ITself into many selves. We are those many selves. WE by deductive reasoning therefore are IT. It is Infinite, ergo We are infinite = US as IT. Thus we are INFINITE.
'no end to yourselves' does not necessarily mean 'you are infinite'. it is not only possible, but logical that Ra meant that there is no end to your existence, that, the selves of entities will keep existing forever, in an infinite creation, morphing and changing and evolving.
in regard to universe, it is about universe. not existence, or infinity. existence, is infinity. not only that, but Ra talks about infinite octaves. since each octave is a creation, it means that there are infinite creations/octaves throughout eternity.
universe may, or may not be infinite. its not relevant in this context.
the possibility of an infinite inner world, is not impossible, but actually probable, because, there is no end to act of creating and expanding. therefore, any focus is capable of creating infinite amounts of concepts and manifestations towards eternity. one could be able to say that entities will be able to forever exist and create and expand, therefore they are infinite.
however, this still wouldnt make them the entirety of infinity existing outside them. having no end, and having infinite potential, does not mean that the entities are, in any given state of them at any given point, are infinity itself.
not to mention that, the concept of 'inner' world, and anything associated with it, are just mere concepts within infinity. the very concepts of 'inside' and 'containing' are just two of the infinite amount of concepts/entities within infinity in the first place. so, the 'i contain infinity in myself' is a very, very very limited and finite expression from the start.
Quote:What I note is that you must necessarily by deductive/inductive reasoning compartmentalize the Infinite as something other than ourselves, or perhaps that the Infinite is indeed something that WE are contained IN. But what if the Infinite is in fact contained in us? Now, one step further, neither statement is more true than the other as both are the same. We are in IT (infinity) as in we are in ourselves, as much as IT is in us. Thus are the two concepts, although never separated in fact, unified in mind (which almost necessarily divides everything in order to understand it, but often then is unable to reunify it once having done so...much like myself working on the car as a teenager and invariably always ending up with a bucket of nuts and bolts left over after the fact).
if infinity was contained in you, there would be no possibility of experiencing anything 'outside' of you, even if it was an 'illusory' experience.
the very concept of being able to experience something outside your own self is itself a concept within infinity. since it is a concept, and you are experiencing it, illusory or not, it means that you are not infinity. because, you are experiencing something, your state is changing, you are able to interact with something 'else'.
if you were infinity, you wouldnt be able to experience anything, because everything would have been experienced, being experienced, and is going to be experienced, and all of these would even be infinite levels below you, because the concept of 'experiencing' and all its counterparts and infinite variations would already be parts of your infinity.
in short ; you cannot be infinity, as long as you are aware of yourself as an entity that does anything. regardless of how you dub this.
the only way to be infinite, is to be infinity. there is no other than infinity that is infinity.
Quote:This is an invitation only. Were I betting man, I would wager that the deductive process, which by necessity and definition must dissect and compartmentalize as a means to and for comparative analysis, will by habit nonetheless dissect and compartmentalize to compare all offered, thus forcing you to the same conclusions. However, the exercise would be lost as a result. Were I a faithful man I would wager that your intuition and creativity alone, assisted by virtue of your intellect, might accept the offer....and first try it on.
infinity is not something that is particular to any kind of thinking or approach.
infinity, is infinite.
that means that, if you are in ANY state other than being fully infinite at all times, you are not infinity. it doesnt matter whether this is articulated and justified by calling the finiteness 'illusory', or dubbing infinity as 'contained inside', or anything else.
had you been in any way infinity, you would be infinite, and wouldnt even be able to interact with anything else, since all interactions and the interactors would be you, all interactions have been done, are going to be done, and are being done, and not only these, but all the counterparts of these, would be present within you in harmony.
however you are interacting with us. you are, therefore, finite.
i will sum up our situation here in a simple manner :
ra says all the densities in this octave are created by infinite intelligence to contain a certain aspect/meaning/feeling of creation. 4 is about love (4th density love), 5 about light/wisdom, 6th about unity/cocreation/oneness.
and therefore, it is possible that just like how a 4 d entity may see love in everything and therefore mistake the infinite intelligence, the creator of this concept, as 'love', (as Ra tells us), it is also possible that 5th density entity may see the infinite intelligence as communication or free will, and, identify with that feeling meaning.
and also, 6th density entity, may do the same by identifying itself with infinite intelligence and its infinity, through the same mechanic that causes the entities to identify creation and themselves with the relevant aspect pertaining to their density due to the feeling of that density.