What is everyone's gut feeling on 2012?

[Quantum]

[quote='Quantum' pid='1882' dateline='1237841122']
Actually, to be fair and in keeping with the lecture and teach/learning, there would be 6 or 12 octaves, or septaves vs dodecaves per density verses the 6-12 densities per octave...

This, I think, is the crux of our divergence. For to me, Ra's primary meaning of Octave is the sum of all of our densities. Beyond this Octave, exists another full Octave of densities. This is what I mean by the "Octave". The secondary meaning of octave used by Ra, is the division of Densities into sub-densities and sub-sub-densities. Thus all are octaves, and our seven densities gather together to form an Octave of which we are, appropriately, in the "Me" stage (i.e., 3rd Density).

Now this is a conversation, Dear 3D, that I must say I am thoroughly enjoying participating with you in, as it is keenly in keeping with the truer definition of teach/learning. Clearly you have indeed identified the crux of our discrepancy in definition as regards "Octave" vs "Density". I am beginning, on further reflection, to believe we may in a sense both be correct, in a manner(?), and as such it becomes all the more confusing as a result. Clear as mud as they say. Thus the discrepancy may lie in the manner in which the definition(s) and usage seems stated. Clearly you are in no uncertain terms stating that "within an Octave lay many Densities", whereas I am suggesting the converse, that "within a Density lay many Octaves." The confusion is that Ra seems to indeed, as you surmise, use the terms interchangeably. This is twice, my friend, that we have uncovered two terms that Ra utilizes interchangeably, the other being Density verses Dimension, as we posted earlier in this same thread (He/They/Ra sure be confusing sometimes).

Kudos to our exchanges. I have not had the mirror in anyone to date to reflect either of these two discrepancies as of yet, as I must suspect neither have you, but that I further suspect we may have stumbled with individually. Perhaps others might offer their input as being similar to see if it is indeed as common of a discrepancy as seems between us? I will once again refer you to my thread "Earth in 3D/7th Octave" / Strictly Law of One, wherein you will see several responders that would seem to share my understanding, if not at least my meaning. Two responses is of course a small indication only.

This conversation requires more typing and longer posts than mere telegraphed texts back and forth, but for me well worth the effort. If you will indulge me dear teacher, I am more than happy to indulge you in kind dear student (as in teach/learn). I unquestionably see your interpretation, and clearly so. But now, here comes the rub. If there are sub densities, and sub sub densities, and sub sub sub densities ad infinitum, as there are sub octaves, and sub sub octaves, and sub sub sub octaves, also ad infinitum, wherein lies the distinction between the two, and wherein does the line begin and end twixt either? Does an octave lie within a density, or a density lie within an octave under this definition of sub sub sub sub etc etc densities vs octaves? There are 8 Octaves. There are 8 Densities. But even in the quotes you offer it seems that the terms are in fact used as if one?

Example: Ra Book I, Session 16 Wrote:Questioner: Could you define the word density as we have been using it?

Ra: I am Ra. The term density is a, what you call, mathematical one. The closest analogy is that of music, whereby after seven notes on your western type of scale, if you will, the eighth note begins a new octave. Within your great octave of existence which we share with you, there are seven octaves or densities. Within each density there are seven sub-densities. Within each sub-density, are seven sub-sub-densities. Within each sub-sub-density, seven sub-sub-sub-densities and so on infinitely.

Clearly there is a Great Octave, which you have termed, I might add, as appropriately the "O"ctave , as in the "Big O".
(1) I am interpreting Great Octave as perhaps something different than you are I think? I interpret Great Octave in Ra's reference that they share to mean All of life/existence/experience/creation...the whole shooting match that the Creator created.
(2) But then Ra goes on to state that there are seven octaves "OR" densities? It is the tiny word "OR" that seems to be throwing me. And herein enters the conundrum of words. Words are laborious, but sadly our best effort. "OR" implies to me, one or the other, as if both (density or octave) as being the same? "There are seven octaves or densities?". Which is it? The terms are clearly mixed as if they were one and the same here? You go on to share that "So we share this Octave with Ra, and this octave is made up of 7 octaves, or densities". I interpret this to mean that yes, we share existence/creation with Ra, and this Creation is comprised and made up of 7 octaves and 7 densities. Unless Ra truly meant they were the same, as though subsets of one another, thus the word or

"Within your great octave of existence which we share with you, there are seven octaves or densities". It seems Ra is stating that within "Existence" there are seven octaves and seven densities. You go on to say "By this definition, those that are now ready to graduate to 4th density are in the highest sub-octave of the third density, which by the way is the same as the first sub-octave of 4th density".

Your last statement/quote is my entire thread "Earth in 3D/7th Octave" on 'Strictly Law of One'. Now watch this: If I say Earth is at it's highest Density of it's highest Octave (7th Octave), ready to transition to 4th Density by virtue of moving into 8th Octave (which is the equivalent of 4D in it's first Octave, as 8th is 1st of the next level), verses your statement of "Earth is at it's highest sub-octave in 3D ready to graduate into 4th density, which by the way is the same as the first sub-octave of 4th density", what have we said different?

My mind is beginning to meld, as Spock would say, or is that melt? The Vulcan Mind Melt. We clearly are on the same exact wave length my friend, but on a different "Octensity."

Now, try to bend your mind, if for no other reason than simply as an exercise at this point, as much as I am trying to do so as regards yours, and re-read Ra's quote that you offer in the different context I have offered (see if you see it in the above quote, or even now below?):

Ra, Book II, Session 28 Wrote: Questioner: I am assuming that there are eight densities created when this major galaxy was created. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is basically correct. However, it is well to perceive that the eighth density functions also as the beginning density or first density, in its latter stages, of the next octave of densities.

Here I get/interpret that Densities are the Major creation of the Galaxy, and that Octaves are the minor creation(?), if you will, much like the musical notes of a scale of majors and minors, whereas I see you see that you see that Octaves are majors and densities are minors. So, which come first, the chickinsity or the eggtave?

It is not only as fascinating that we are able to even share this dear friend, in as much as there are so few with who to share such understandings with, but that even in the sharing where we both see the same cloud, and even the same elephant in it's shape, I see white elephants where you see pink elephants, and this from the same Rorschach Ink blot we thought was a cloud. Fascinating.

Might this suggest that octaves and densities have the distinct ability to be both, as in bi-octivanal vs bi-densital?

In closing 3D, I am as curious to see if you could bend your mind as much as I attempted in kind, and now also see it as reading both ways, depending on which way? It gets curiouser and curiouser all the time. Thank you for allowing the play in words, thought, and fun.

Q